tvashtarkatena Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 ankle-biting.... kinky! I'm more of a brain eater, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I think he feels like he doing the right thing for the saftey of this country. Shredding the constitution, admitting to illegal wiretapping, torture, starting wars with countries that did not attack us…….throwing habeas corpus out the window…..this is doing the right thing? Grow up friend…..were does it end? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) It has little to do with the Constitution--that document doesn't outline the activities not allowed during war. Nor does it have anything to do with the Bill of Rights--those apply to Americans, not to what we do to foreigners whom we are at war with. A little clarification: the Bill of Rights and Constitution apply to any PERSON on American soil, not just Americans. And torture has everthing to do with the Bill of Rights, because they enumerate and codify our basic values for ourselves and the rest of the world. They are our shared, official definition of the 'freedom' we speak about so much. Edited October 19, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Thank you for that clarification--I didn't think about that. I need to chew that over a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Okay, this is the only amendment I see that mentions war-related action (except for the one about quarter, and I don't think that applies here) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. And it doesn't apply to anyone on our soil--it applies to citizens, residents, and visitors. I don't think people we are at war with qualify for any of those catagories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I think he feels like he doing the right thing for the saftey of this country. Shredding the constitution, admitting to illegal wiretapping, torture, starting wars with countries that did not attack us…….throwing habeas corpus out the window…..this is doing the right thing? Grow up friend…..were does it end? Shredding the constitution- how??? Admitting to legal wire tapping - When did he admit??? and a democratic congress passed the patriot act. Torture? where the proof??? Attacting other countries - must I refere you back to Hilliary Speach about her doing the same exact thing. (pssst kevbone this is your choice for president) Habeas corpus - Are you referring to Gitmo people?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 ankle-biting.... kinky! I'm more of a brain eater, actually. monkey brains, perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 By the way Congress just passed the Protect America Act of 2007, which allows the government to monitor, without a warrant, "communications concerning persons reasonably believed to be abroad". That is the standard, word for word. Talk to your brother in Cleveland about Osama bin Laden? You can be monitored. Text message your aunt who has a home in France and may be abroad? You can be monitored. Email your grandma in Ireland? You can be monitored. The law outlines no safeguards for what it does with this very private information, either. Fortunately, the law has a sunset clause, up in Feb 2008, but there are debates in Congress going on right now to make it permanent. Might be a good time to drop your Congressman a line. None of our's voted for this bill, BTW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Okay, this is the only amendment I see that mentions war-related action (except for the one about quarter, and I don't think that applies here) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. And it doesn't apply to anyone on our soil--it applies to citizens, residents, and visitors. I don't think people we are at war with qualify for any of those catagories. My latter point was not a legal argument, it was a moral one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 Those documents are expressions to the world of what we hold it means to live life as human beings. This isn't about where these documents are binding, it's about what they mean relative to our beliefs about how people should be respected and governed regardless of where they live. The following are but a few phrases from the Declaration of Independence and the words of the first two were chosen with exceptional care not to refer to England, but to apply to all people and all governments of the world (the third is from the indictments section of the DoI). "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." "He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 ankle-biting.... kinky! I'm more of a brain eater, actually. monkey brains, perhaps? KKK's not a monkey, although I call him my sweet little monkey, sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I completely agree with both of you on this issue from a moral standpoint. I don't even think it is necessary to refer to any documentation. It is simply wrong to hurt other people. But the argument on a larger scale will always come down to what is legal and what is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 Shredding the constitution- how??? Admitting to legal wire tapping - When did he admit??? and a democratic congress passed the patriot act. Torture? where the proof??? Attacting other countries - must I refere you back to Hilliary Speach about her doing the same exact thing. (pssst kevbone this is your choice for president) Habeas corpus - Are you referring to Gitmo people?? Right - and he did not have sex with that woman... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I completely agree with both of you on this issue from a moral standpoint. I don't even think it is necessary to refer to any documentation. It is simply wrong to hurt other people. But the argument on a larger scale will always come down to what is legal and what is not. Oh, my little naive mooshy kooshy. I just wanna squeeze yer innocent lil' cheek for that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I'm sitting on it right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 and quit pretending Bush is the worsest, evilist president ever, Who is pretending? I know I am not…..nor is his approval rating….. I suppose you can pretend that he is a good president…… Kevbone...IMO, rejecting the demonization of a president and calling BS on claims that he's chiefly to blame for all the worlds problems is very different from pretending he's a good president. I'm not a huge fan to be honest, but I think it's not only unproductive but downright dangerous to blame him for everything that he's being blamed for. In doing so, we fail to ask honest questions that get to the root causes, and basically delay any real action for 2 to 3 years when we see that the problems persist despite who's in the oval office. It's the same issue I have with Gun Control. I have no desire to have a handgun, and I see the danger in dipshits owning one, but I also don't think that they are to blame for the upsurge of violence in this country. Perhaps we can spend another 10 year working on legislation to ban handguns....I don't think we'd see a big impact on violent crime....and then we'd realized that we've wasted 20 years failing to address the real root cause....poverty, absent fathers, glorification of violence in movies/TV/video games, etc..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 and quit pretending Bush is the worsest, evilist president ever, Who is pretending? I know I am not…..nor is his approval rating….. I suppose you can pretend that he is a good president…… Kevbone...IMO, rejecting the demonization of a president and calling BS on claims that he's chiefly to blame for all the worlds problems is very different from pretending he's a good president. I'm not a huge fan to be honest, but I think it's not only unproductive but downright dangerous to blame him for everything that he's being blamed for. In doing so, we fail to ask honest questions that get to the root causes, and basically delay any real action for 2 to 3 years when we see that the problems persist despite who's in the oval office. It's the same issue I have with Gun Control. I have no desire to have a handgun, and I see the danger in dipshits owning one, but I also don't think that they are to blame for the upsurge of violence in this country. Perhaps we can spend another 10 year working on legislation to ban handguns....I don't think we'd see a big impact on violent crime....and then we'd realized that we've wasted 20 years failing to address the real root cause....poverty, absent fathers, glorification of violence in movies/TV/video games, etc..... Another clarification: There's been a drop in violent crime in this country over the past decade or more, which has only very recently turned around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 And is strangely inversely related to the economic well-being of the country. Hmmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I completely agree with both of you on this issue from a moral standpoint. I don't even think it is necessary to refer to any documentation. It is simply wrong to hurt other people. But the argument on a larger scale will always come down to what is legal and what is not. Hurt other people - i.e. fly planes into highrises???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 and quit pretending Bush is the worsest, evilist president ever, Who is pretending? I know I am not…..nor is his approval rating….. I suppose you can pretend that he is a good president…… Kevbone...IMO, rejecting the demonization of a president and calling BS on claims that he's chiefly to blame for all the worlds problems is very different from pretending he's a good president. I'm not a huge fan to be honest, but I think it's not only unproductive but downright dangerous to blame him for everything that he's being blamed for. In doing so, we fail to ask honest questions that get to the root causes, and basically delay any real action for 2 to 3 years when we see that the problems persist despite who's in the oval office. It's the same issue I have with Gun Control. I have no desire to have a handgun, and I see the danger in dipshits owning one, but I also don't think that they are to blame for the upsurge of violence in this country. Perhaps we can spend another 10 year working on legislation to ban handguns....I don't think we'd see a big impact on violent crime....and then we'd realized that we've wasted 20 years failing to address the real root cause....poverty, absent fathers, glorification of violence in movies/TV/video games, etc..... well said, he won't understand, too logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Ummm yes that's right, some consider it immoral to fly, intentionally, airplanes into tall human inhabited buildings. Yes, that is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Ummm yes that's right, some consider it immoral to fly, intentionally, airplanes into tall human inhabited buildings. Yes, that is correct. And since this is probably a war, a war on terror, has there ever been a war in all of history fought fair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 that's funny, I never thought of you as an "everbody's doing it" type. it doesn't become your high-horse morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 Principles, legalities, and things like the Constitution are hard no doubt, but sometimes, for some of you, I get the impression they are even harder. As for blaming Bush - yes, many of the things which have transpired over the past six years which represent a gross failure to protect our country, wield our military might effectively, and improve versus worsen our internal and external security can be laid directly at his feet. He has failed our nation and it has been a failure of epic proportions whose consequences will be felt for decades. This makes Johnson and Nixon's missteps in Vietnam seem inconsequential by comparison. And Carter's lapse in Iran pales to insignificance besides W's lapses in any quarter of the globe. Hell, Reagan was a Titan of far less felonious intent in any such matchup - even as he was slipping into darkness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 um, this is post 999 for me. everybody look while I hit a huge milestone with my next post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.