In article <1glmsmgfam45x$.qzs9adxl47ru.dlg@40tude.net>,
Chrissy Cruiser wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:03:34 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> >>>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:36:58 GMT, mrtravel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Assuming your not going to need it to travel interstate.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not without a constitutional amendment.
> >>>>
> >>>>Like the Patriot Act which supersedes half of our constitutional rights?
> >>>>
> >>>>Wake up, the real world is flying by.
> >>>
> >>>Actually, I'd like to see where freedom of travel is listed in the
> >>>Constitution. Congress can regulate interstate commerce however they
> >>>want. And, short of actually getting off of our asses and electing
> >>>some new people, it's going to be us over the barrel.
> >>
> >> I thought I did that during the last prez election. The rest of the
> >> country didn't agree with me enough to have anything change.
> >>
> >> Karen
> >>
> > Hear, Hear!!
> >
> > Maybe now that gas is through the roof (regardless of reason) and we're
> > in a very unpopular war, the voters might, just might figure out a
> > change is needed.
>
> Will it make a true difference? Will the newly elected roll back the
> troops, rewrite privacy back into our lives, overturn the REAL ID act, drop
> biometrics for the sake of corralled databases?
>
> I don't think so, I hope so, but don't think so.
Unfortunately it probably won't unless the voters are really ready for a
massive shift, which I don't think they will are.
As long as we keep sending the same 'ol crap to congress and the white
house, we will keep getting the shaft as they, both Dems and Reps, keep
selling us off to the large corporate world which is the source of all
their money.
The only thing that has a chance of changing that is to keep changing
them at every election until they get the message. Voting not the
incumbent is the smartest thing we could do, imo. |