Ok, So many of you may recognize me from other posts as "the guy who supports GW Bush". So here it is. I am putting myself on the chopping block for those with intelligent comentary. I am not a genious on the topic of politics in the nationalized or worldly sence, and there are certain people on this board who have a little more "debate time" if that is the right word for it. GAM is one who I respect to the upmost on this type of topic because he is more willing to discuss than insult like many on here. But as far some of the politics go on this board I think it is an absolute joke how some just relate politics to one single political figure. Let me explain myself....

My political view stems from the Democratic upbringing that I had. Yeah, that right, I was supposed to be a Democrat from upbringing. But all that changed one day when I realized that world was such a @!#$ty place. Why so? Liberals, from anti war to supporting abortion... they have changed me to opose that lifestyle altogether in any way possible. Anyway, my political birth means nothing to you..

For the parts many of you love to debate...

The Iraq war. What? Iraq had WMD's? Yes they did. Remember the whole scandle just before the 2004 elections about the missing weapons? Yeah, that was true, missing mustard gas. A WMD that was later found in allied hands. Saddam used them in his own nation and in Kuwait. Besides the fact that Saddam's rise to power was supported by Nazi Germanies leftovers who where not captured in WWII. Here is some info on the topic. and here is some media proof. If you dont think that WMD's were a perfect reason for us to take over then I sure hope the Nazi ties are enough to at least make you feel a little better about going to Iraq. Now should we have hit up another nation instead of Iraq.... IDK, when you factor in the other nations harboring terrorist are allies to other dangerous parts of the world, then you have a problem. I would much rather take out the most tyranical dictartor in the world and then set up a base for covert operations.

On to more. Why is the partriot act bad? Yes it invades liberties that we have had for so long. But hasnt the world changed dramaticaly since the early days of our founding fathers? Hasnt communcation made it easier for Islamic radicals to coordinate attacks on our country? So why not intercept those communications? Isnt that just wishing death upon your fellow country-men? There is no reason besides selfishens to not give up some liberty to gain complete freedom. Freedom is not knowing that terrorists could kill anyone of your fellow country-men at any given time. Freedom is having liberties, but safety from idiocy is a much greater liberty IMO. Some of you may dissagree but I find it hard to believe you ideology behind it. How can you not give up an intangable liberty for a tangable libery of life? It is just insane IMO. Again this is my opinion and you more than willing to disagree but think about whether or not you want you own liberties vs. the possible safety of you grandchildred or their children first.

Now if you want to make some absolutely absurd remarks go right on ahead. This is an internet forum and I cant stop you from posting but lets try to leave this to those with a civil remark. I put this out there for people to disagree if they wish, because it seems like I am one of the only people who actually follow the conservative form without supporting certain names in politics, so to speak.

The Patriot Act, in it entirety, is unconstitutional in my opinion.

One portion of it was already deemed so. It allows for unlawful search and seizure against the US citizens.

From:

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/tip/1,289483,sid14_gci784713,00.html

Quote:


Under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI's powers have been greatly expanded. First, warrants can be obtained under FISA if intelligence gathering is only a "significant purpose," rather than the "primary purpose." Because of this change, as long as intelligence gathering is a "significant purpose" of the warrant, evidence gathered by what could otherwise be unconstitutional methods might be used for a criminal investigation. Second, the PATRIOT Act specifically lowers the threshold for obtaining a full collection warrant for Internet traffic. Instead of needing probable cause as required by Title III, the FBI now only needs to show that the information to be gathered is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." That is a much lower standard than showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. The third major change is that when a wiretap warrant is issued, the person whose communications are being captured is notified, though sometimes this notification is allowed to be after the fact. The PATRIOT Act now allows nearly any search to be made in secret. Finally, these changes made by the Patriot Act are not limited to surveillance of suspected terrorists, but apply to all surveillance cases.

On top of that, Martial law could be triggered even in the case of a bogus terror alert based on fabricated intelligence. Even in the case where it is known and documented to senior military officials that the "outside enemy" is fabricated, a martial law situation, characterized by detailed command military/ security provisions, would become operational almost immediately.

I can continue, but I'm sleepy and my brain hurts.

I agree with you so no chopping here.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Rollinredcavi wrote:How can you not give up an intangable liberty for a tangable libery of life?

How? I'm not a coward - that's how. Those rights have been defended by much veteran blood and are sacred. Our forefathers gave us those rights. Over 100,000 men have given their gives to defend those rights. I'll be dammed if I let terrorist take our sacred rights away - be they terrorist with long beards and turbans or terrorist in Washington DC. If our forefathers thought like you - we'd still be under England's thumb. Why did we need freedom when England had our security covered?

You think that not giving up my freedom is selfish?! What a load of crap. And you don't think that taking my freedoms for your so-called "security" isn't selfish?! Like I said - if you want to give up your freedom for "security" - move to @!#$ China.

Bush's policies do NOT make you safer from terrorism - no matter how many freedoms you surrender. Ever heard of Israel? They have all the security you could want - and yet they still might have several successful terrorist attacks a day. Do they huddle in fear?! NO THEY DON'T. They keep living their lives. You could learn a thing from them.

As far as for intercepting terrorist communications - they could already do that long before Bush's wiretapping program. They could tap on demand, and get a warrant within 72 hours (IIRC on how many hours) after the fact. What if the court even denyed the warrant? They already heard what they heard. Effectively it just means a (special) court is supervising what they are doing. It really only acts to make sure that no one is abusing the power - as in to spy on political opponents etc. They need to show a court what they've done and why. It can never stop them from intercepting terrorist communications - since they ask for permission after having already done so - they can still tap on the spot. All of that is before Bush's program.

With Bush's program - Lets pretend that Bush would never abuse those powers. Now fast forward to 2008 - and you'd better trust President Hillary Clinton not to use those powers to spy on all prominent Republicans etc etc. Because without court supervision - you'd never know if she did... Why would Bush & Co. pass something like that? Who really has something to hide?




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Rollinredcavi wrote:Ok, So many of you may recognize me from other posts as "the guy who supports GW Bush". So here it is. I am putting myself on the chopping block for those with intelligent comentary. I am not a genious on the topic of politics in the nationalized or worldly sence, and there are certain people on this board who have a little more "debate time" if that is the right word for it. GAM is one who I respect to the upmost on this type of topic because he is more willing to discuss than insult like many on here. But as far some of the politics go on this board I think it is an absolute joke how some just relate politics to one single political figure. Let me explain myself....

Most people won't go into insults. I don't because it doesn't prove the point, and says more about the insulter than the insultee. That being said, I have to say the best thing in the world is to not post pissed off (say that 5 times without tripping up). There's no serious ramifications to our discussion, 90% of the time, I realise that the only function I'm going have in discussing/arguing things is that there will not be one sided debate to things, to wit, watch the Jail scene in My Cousin Vinny... you'll get why sooo many people are getting the wool pulled over their eyes. Talk is cheap, reading and learning is gold... but above all, thinking with your own grey matter and figuring things out for yourself with it (and those you trust) is paramount.

Quote:


My political view stems from the Democratic upbringing that I had. Yeah, that right, I was supposed to be a Democrat from upbringing. But all that changed one day when I realized that world was such a @!#$ty place. Why so? Liberals, from anti war to supporting abortion... they have changed me to opose that lifestyle altogether in any way possible. Anyway, my political birth means nothing to you..

Actually it does. Sometimes both sides get it wrong. Understanding that the way that the current 2 party system is working now (ie, one pulls farther one way as the other pulls farther the other way), and that the current focus (at least since Nixon was impeached) is not so much doing the RIGHT thing but doing the politically expedient thing, will help you figure it out a little more.

I'll put it this way: I usually vote Liberal (I'm Canadian, our parties wear their leanings on their sleeves for the most part). However, I can see that sometimes the Conservatives have good ideas, and sometimes others have good ideas for the whole country. The problem, I know, is that most of them don't give a damn about the rest of the country, and want to do for their PARTY, then their electorate riding. There's that political expedience thing again... They get more money from the party than they do from anywhere else, ergo they owe the party favour first. The same thing happens in the USA, party takes precedence over precinct, and therefore the roles get turned 180 degrees: instead of representing your people in Washington, you're representing the ideas of Washington to your people. This is not how Government is supposed to work, and one of the reasons I feel that the original architects of the US Government had the idea that there were to be NO political parties, because that was part of the problem in England.

Quote:


For the parts many of you love to debate...

The Iraq war. What? Iraq had WMD's? Yes they did. Remember the whole scandle just before the 2004 elections about the missing weapons? Yeah, that was true, missing mustard gas. A WMD that was later found in allied hands. Saddam used them in his own nation and in Kuwait. Besides the fact that Saddam's rise to power was supported by Nazi Germanies leftovers who where not captured in WWII. Here is some info on the topic. and here is some media proof. If you dont think that WMD's were a perfect reason for us to take over then I sure hope the Nazi ties are enough to at least make you feel a little better about going to Iraq. Now should we have hit up another nation instead of Iraq.... IDK, when you factor in the other nations harboring terrorist are allies to other dangerous parts of the world, then you have a problem. I would much rather take out the most tyranical dictartor in the world and then set up a base for covert operations.

You mean like:
- Pakistan
- Uzbekistan
- Saudi Arabia
- Afghanistan
- Oman
- Sudan
- etc ad nauseum?

If the sum total of Iraq's WMD is Mustard Gas (which you can't really call it that... Mustard gas requires arosolisers, and they were found rather expediently in 1993), where is the Yellow Cake? Where are the vast stores of VX gas? The Sarin Gas?

This makes for really good reading: The Duelfer Report, or the ISG report in full. [CIA.gov originating link, however, the Encrypted links have NOT propagated into the full body of the text, all links are now https:// instead of http:// ]

Basically, if mustard gas is the very best that can be found, then it's not justification for going in front of the UN and stating categorically that Iraq had the means to mount a credible CBRN [Chemical/Biological/Radiological/Nuclear] programme. These are leftovers from before the Iraq/Iran war, and mustard gas potency diminishes year by year. It's nothing to ignore, but it's also not nearly as deadly as the other chem/bio weapons, and in the same hand, it's also not nearly the threat that a Radiological or a full on Nuclear weapon is.

Quote:


On to more. Why is the partriot act bad? Yes it invades liberties that we have had for so long. But hasnt the world changed dramaticaly since the early days of our founding fathers?

Certainly, have the founding father's values become so out-moded that you can seriously justify giving up (without a fight) something that so many have fought and died for over 230 years?

Quote:

Hasnt communcation made it easier for Islamic radicals to coordinate attacks on our country? So why not intercept those communications? Isnt that just wishing death upon your fellow country-men?

The definition of terrorist is absurdly vague. Do you realise that the only difference between civil disobedience (which you have every right to undertake as long as you are willing to accept due prescribed punishment) and discussion, and sedition rests in the minds of those who are in power?

I'm not defending what an anti-American terrorist does (baring in mind that there are a LOT of American anti-American terrorists like Timothy McVeigh). However, when one group of people in power have the ability to re-write laws that make anti-government discussion illegal, then I worry. Part of this involves communication with others of like mind.

Patriot act supplanted the FISA requirements (which are legal and fully constitutional, and required burden of proof and ascent from 11 judges) for wire taps, and allowed Roving Wire taps without a warrant. Basically, they were legalized snooping. If you happened to be talking about a murder, and were being monitored, it didn't matter that you were talking about a Dinner theatre or murder mystery party, you were then subject to broader infiltration by the government. The fact of the matter is a two-word legal term: Slippery Slope. You do one thing to lessen a person's individual liberties, then that justifies another, and another....you get the picture. There is due process, and checks and balances in order to prevent this from happening, and PATRIOT act wipes out a LOT of those protections. You can't tell me that you can read the 4th Amendment and believe for a minute that it allows the tapping of communications without probable cause, and not supported by oath or affirmation.

I'll address that after this next blurb.

Quote:

There is no reason besides selfishens to not give up some liberty to gain complete freedom. Freedom is not knowing that terrorists could kill anyone of your fellow country-men at any given time. Freedom is having liberties, but safety from idiocy is a much greater liberty IMO. Some of you may dissagree but I find it hard to believe you ideology behind it. How can you not give up an intangable liberty for a tangable libery of life? It is just insane IMO. Again this is my opinion and you more than willing to disagree but think about whether or not you want you own liberties vs. the possible safety of you grandchildred or their children first.

There is no justification other than cowardice in the face of the unknown that you would willingly hand over your rights as guaranteed you by the constitution. In WWII, you had all your rights, and none were infringed upon for any reason unless you were indeed guilty of a crime. Those that were herded up and put in relocation camps (ie Japanese Americans) were paid a reparation after Japan capitulated, as they were deprived of liberty and property without their constitutional due process.

Safety from idiocy? I seriously have to ask: do you honestly believe that anyone is fit to pick and choose who is, and who is not an idiot? I think the very discussion of mass-deprivation of rights is a fool-hardy and lunatic discussion, best left to Nazi-esque sycophants.

I'm going to point you to some texts, and ask you why it is that you deserve less than this:
US Constitution: Amendment V
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
Domestic Security Enhancement Act Of 2003 [Draft, defeated]

and a final word:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - Richard Jackson.

Quote:

Now if you want to make some absolutely absurd remarks go right on ahead. This is an internet forum and I cant stop you from posting but lets try to leave this to those with a civil remark. I put this out there for people to disagree if they wish, because it seems like I am one of the only people who actually follow the conservative form without supporting certain names in politics, so to speak.

Following any form without questioning it and being satisfied at the results probably means you should question your own ideas a little more and find out where YOU are really at.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Also - the Nazi's stop being a threat long before I was born. Yes they are still @ssholes - but the world is full of @ss-holes. What are you gonna do?



I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Since I can't edit my post (waited too long, oops) I'll post this:

I goofed.

Yes, I did.

Quote:

These are leftovers from before the Iraq/Iran war, and mustard gas potency diminishes year by year. It's nothing to ignore, but it's also not nearly as deadly as the other chem/bio weapons, and in the same hand, it's also not nearly the threat that a Radiological or a full on Nuclear weapon is.

I was wrong here... I was thinking of a site that was found near Tikrit that had trace-elements of several agents, but that was not what was being referred to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

Quote:

Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found.

Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Ok, first off I am not going to try and break off a quote on someone elses post. In other words no one as really said anything that warrants direct quoting. So I guess I will start from the begining since most cant get past that part.

The partriot act. Is it unconstitutional? Yes, as our constitution stands. But it needs severe modification. So many of you go back to the founding fathers who never comprehended what our nation has come to. Which is the attacks we have seen from those who we never did anything to provoke from. Ok sorry, we did. We gave Israel their land. So obvoiously that warrants killing our 3000 innocent? If you think so, you are truely anti-american. The constitution as our founding father wrote it was made to be changed as times changed. Seriously prove to me where our founding fathers said that it was NOT meant to be changed if necessary.

We have entered an age where we are being attacked for the liberties that you all say the patriot act is infringing. Thats right, the simple liberties that you are unwilling to sacrifice, very slighty, is casuing the attacks we see. Prove me wrong please. Liberal America is supporting gays, single mothers, welfare, anti-hunting, and the such. This is the exact thing that terrorist LOVE TO HATE. Did our founding fathers ever thing homosexuality would be an issue. @!#$ no, that was a personal problem that people shouldnt bring in public. But it seems like everyone is accepting giving up the heterosexual america. Why shoudnt we also give up the less scandelous libeties of our phones? Doest not make sence to anyone with sence.

I cant PROVE to anyone that the patriot act would make us safer, but can anyone prove that it wouldnt? If you say you can your an absolute idiot. But I thing that anyone that wants to respond to this is smart enoug to understand that either way is no more proven than the other. Except for the fact that the way our constitution is now, does very little to protect us from terrorism, which our founding fathers could not even comprehend. So why not change the constitution ( which our founding fathers made changeable for reasons such as this)?

It is just plain selfishnes to not give up some of your own abilities to talk about blowing up the world trade center, or some other national landmark. Thats all your giving up. And if your talking about blowing up a building you belong in a prison and you phones should be taped. Everyone makes it sound like the government would tap every phone line in america if the patriot act passed, when this is no further from the truth.

Quote:

Ok, first off I am not going to try and break off a quote on someone elses post. In other words no one as really said anything that warrants direct quoting. So I guess I will start from the begining since most cant get past that part.

GAM and Bastardking pretty much counterpointed your initial remarks... I touched on the Patriot Act, looks like all the bases are covered there....

Quote:


The partriot act. Is it unconstitutional? Yes, as our constitution stands. But it needs severe modification.

A trash can more like it. The Act violates at least 2 of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, which at this time cannot be changed. It would take a civil uprising and overthrowing of the government to do so.

Quote:

And if your talking about blowing up a building you belong in a prison and you phones should be taped.

Hey, there's this abandoned house down the street from where I live....

Rollinredcavi wrote:Ok, first off I am not going to try and break off a quote on someone elses post. In other words no one as really said anything that warrants direct quoting. So I guess I will start from the begining since most cant get past that part.

Did you read what was posted? Just so you don't get your head too inflated, I quote so I don't get things mixed up, and it makes it easier for me follow your line of thought without scrolling up & down. Sometimes, it's just about me

Quote:

The partriot act. Is it unconstitutional? Yes, as our constitution stands. But it needs severe modification. So many of you go back to the founding fathers who never comprehended what our nation has come to.

Apart from the detritus of the years, values haven't changed so radically. The Constitution and it's amendments are written in pretty broad terms that set out enduring ideas of freedom. That's the one document that basically spells out in the broadest terms what legal protections you have, and what your responsibilities to the Government, and theirs to you.

Quote:

Which is the attacks we have seen from those who we never did anything to provoke from. Ok sorry, we did. We gave Israel their land. So obvoiously that warrants killing our 3000 innocent? If you think so, you are truely anti-american.

No, and stop acting as though the matter is as simple as black and white. It's not, it never has been, and to think so denies the blood on American hands.

Seriously, I've quoted a BUNCH of books on the subject (LINK LINK LINK), and simply put, they acknowledge that US has bought cheap oil in mass quantities from Mid-eastern countries and made a small number of people very very rich on the backs of the rest that are extremely poor. Look at Saudi Arabia (where 18 of the 19 9/11/01 hijackers came from), built in the 40's & 50's from a bronze age nomadic culture into a major urban culture in 20 years, people got money as a pay-out from the oil contracts (typically $30,000 per household per year), but since the 70's the lion's share of that money has been going to pay out multi-million dollar stipends to the Royal Family (which is about 1000 men). Think you might be a little put out? You live in near poverty in a shack while they're buying personal yachts and airplanes?

Anyhow... Poverty is a great motivator, and most of the people involved in terrorism are DIRT POOR or at very best lower middle-class. Inequity is a fertile field for terrorism, but then again, look at:
- North Ireland
- Palestine
- Spain
- etc.

Oh, btw: Israel wasn't "Given" to Jews by America... It was created by the UK. Give those history books you're so fond of a dusting off for me.

Quote:

The constitution as our founding father wrote it was made to be changed as times changed. Seriously prove to me where our founding fathers said that it was NOT meant to be changed if necessary.

Tell me how it is that times have changed so radically you deserve less than what they had.

You have terrorism by Radicals?? They had terrorism by rogue Native tribes... who's fault was that again? Terrorism by British Loyalists? Hey, if your President Jackson hadn't declared war, you would have still had the GREY HOUSE. Values haven't changed so much that you should willingly give up protections offered you by Constitutional amendment. Doing so is cowardice.

Quote:

We have entered an age where we are being attacked for the liberties that you all say the patriot act is infringing. Thats right, the simple liberties that you are unwilling to sacrifice, very slighty, is casuing the attacks we see. Prove me wrong please.

Before you ask someone to prove you wrong, prove yourself right. I want to see case law and overwhelming proof that everyone who uses the phone is indeed planning more attacks on the USA. I want to see written and attested proof that congregating with individuals who ever is de jure proof of conspiracy.

When you manage that, I'll believe it. You want gun rights? I'd like my privacy rights as well, thanks. Thankfully, Canada has SANE laws that don't infringe on personal freedoms yet still allows police and the RCMP to carry out the business of policing. We had the same problem with terrorism as you guys have, there wasn't a knee-jerk response.

Quote:

Liberal America is supporting gays, single mothers, welfare, anti-hunting, and the such. This is the exact thing that terrorist LOVE TO HATE. Did our founding fathers ever thing homosexuality would be an issue. @!#$ no, that was a personal problem that people shouldnt bring in public.

I SEEM to recall the "all men are created equal" portion of the Preamble. Am I missing something? When does all men exclude anyone?

Gays: No different than anyone else. “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” - Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Depriving them of rights makes you weaker.
Single-Mothers: Why not support them? Seems the father's aren't owning up to their responsibilities.
Welfare: Every dollar of welfare saves at least that much in crime prevention. Yes, it does.
Anti-hunting: If you mean humans, this makes sense. If you mean endangered species, again, this makes sense.

Quote:

But it seems like everyone is accepting giving up the heterosexual america.

No, straights don't lose a damned thing by giving gays civil union rights. It's about bringing one group's rights up to par with everyone else's rights. This same exact argument can be applied to blacks, Jews, and atheists.

Quote:

Why shoudnt we also give up the less scandelous libeties of our phones? Doest not make sence to anyone with sence.

I'm just going to point back to the oft-mis credited line about giving up essential liberty for temporary security.

Quote:

I cant PROVE to anyone that the patriot act would make us safer, but can anyone prove that it wouldnt? If you say you can your an absolute idiot.

Well, I must be an absolute idiot:
Allowing infringements on the first and fourth amendment would be due justification for infringement on the 5th amendment, because you would not have the right to speak freely, nor would you be protected against unreasonable search and seizure... ergo at trial, you would be guilty of something and in order to receive penalty commensurate to the crime, would have to allocute, and that is self incrimination. To get you to allocute, you would probably be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.

If this sounds familiar, it's because this happened in 1936-1944 in Germany, it's happening now in Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea... Generally places you really wouldn't call a vacation spot.

Quote:

But I thing that anyone that wants to respond to this is smart enoug to understand that either way is no more proven than the other. Except for the fact that the way our constitution is now, does very little to protect us from terrorism, which our founding fathers could not even comprehend. So why not change the constitution ( which our founding fathers made changeable for reasons such as this)?

A change in foreign, domestic and energy policy would do far more to fix things than altering the bill of rights.

Quote:

It is just plain selfishnes to not give up some of your own abilities to talk about blowing up the world trade center, or some other national landmark. Thats all your giving up. And if your talking about blowing up a building you belong in a prison and you phones should be taped. Everyone makes it sound like the government would tap every phone line in america if the patriot act passed, when this is no further from the truth.

They would have the power to, and that is not acceptable.

Basically, you're advocating the creation of an American Gestapo or KGB. It may seem like a small step, but its the first step down the slippery slope.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

There was some sort of military study or other government study done (that was in the paper a week or three ago) where they concluded in their investigation that we are actually more at risk of terror with Bush in the office now than we were before. I've been saying that for a while. Generally speaking, the world stood behind us when we went into Afganistan. We had every right to go there after September 11th. Oddly, no sooner than we were in Afganistan all the sudden we're in Iraq. As far as Iraq goes, the smarter thing to have been done would have been to gather more evidence and get UN blessings to go. We didn't, now there's tons of people ticked off at the US. (If someone knows the study that was done that the US is at more risk of a terror attack than pre-9/11 it would be greatly appreciated).

Secondly, the "war on terror" is stupid. The "war on terror" is like the "war on drugs". How you say? No matter how much money you spend, no matter how many people are killed, someone is always going to find a way to bring it in. People are always going to find ways to bring drugs into the country, and no matter how to slice it, there will always be terrorism as long as there are those in existance who are hateful/jealous/different than others. One reason for terrorism is closemindedness. People who are unaccepting of things/beliefs/etc that are different than their own. Envy, greed... cause terrorism. If people in general were able to open up their eyes and minds and accept things that are different to them, the whole world would be a better place. If people could look and say "Hey, you're different, you have different beliefs than I do, but you're still cool" there would be a lot less problems.

This country was founded on the basis of seeking freedom. Freedom to speak your mind, freedom to chose your religion without fear of persecution, freedom to be yourself without fearing being punished because you are different. Example: Does it hurt you personally if gays want the same rights as straight couples? Does it "destroy" the "sancitiy of marriage"? No. Why not? Straight couples have destroyed that if you want to think about it that way. Look at the divorce rate! This country, was founded on equal rights for all citizens without predjudice. How can you tell me that forbiding gays to have equal rights as any other couple in love is not discrimination? It is... right there... staring everyone in the face. Abortion. Some have moral or religious objections, ok fine. But again, that is taking away the right for a woman to choose what she does with her own body. Should it be looked at? Sure. Should it be totally abolished? No. Why not? Because that takes away our given rights.

A lot of the "decisions" comming up in politics as of late (ex: gay marriage, abortion, etc)... are being made by people using their religious beliefs... even those in congress who are trying ot take those rights away. What happened to separation of church and state?

You know what another problem is? People, in the shadow of greed, are WAY too quick to say "oh this offends me, that offends me, blah blah blah". You know what? Life sucks get a helmet. No matter what, there is ALWAYS going to be something that offends someone. People are people. Get over yourself.

Greed, corruption, power... all things wrong with the world today, especially here. What happened to "of the people, by the people, for the people"? It went down the freaking toilet with career politicians, and politicians in office ages ago who decided they had the power to vote their own raises, perks, and benefits, irregardless of whether or not they were doing the job they were elected for. Can you vote yourself a raise, give yourself a company car, have the company pay for your insurance, food, and other luxuries not offered to the general public? Most cannot, unless they own their own business. Why shoudl they be able to have these perks no one else does? Why is there corruption? Well gee... there's money in politics. They'll tell you anything you want to hear to get in there, then do whatever the heck they want. I agree the party system needs to go. I don't care if you're Republican, Democratic, Green Party, Independant, or a space alien... if you're in the job because you want to keep and make this country a wonderful place, get your arse in office! Tuesday when I vote, I'll be voting for some Dem candidates, 1 or 2 Republicans, and a few Independants. I don't care what party you're with, if you have a head on your shoulder and want to do your part to make this plot of land a better place... I'm with you.

Thousands and thousands of our citizens have died to protect OUR freedoms... where's the respect for them? We need to stop policing the world and worry about things more on the homefront and getting things in order here. How long have they been saying they were going to do something about healthcare costs? Where is the results of this effort? Taxes, etc... etc. Right now there's no cap on PA Public School spending, so every year property taxes go up and up and up... with no end in sight as some schools are competing to see who can build the bigger most expensive school, while education is hurting. There's so many things that NEED to be done, but arn't because they're getting lost in people deciding whether or not gays should be discriminated against, or whether or not a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body, or politicians wanting more perks, more staff, more money.

Lemme ask you something. The Republican Party was SUPPOSED to stand for smaller government. Ummm... the government is friggin huge. There's PLENTY of people that are in office we don't need.

Party system needs to go, and politicians need a term limit. Granted, that would mean that some of the few politicians who have their head on straight would be limited in term, but it would sort out a lot of the bs too.

I could continue on, but i'm going to stop there for now.

H.R. 6166
Militarry commissions act


that ALONE is enough to get nixon, err i mean bush out of office right effing now.




Creative Draft Art Media Forums

Quote:

The "war on terror" is like the "war on drugs".

Pure cash cows.
GAM - I don't think I have ever agreed with anyone more.
I don't believe you fight terorism by giving yiour own government the right to use the same tools on its own people. I do believe our forefathers had enough forsight to see events like this (not excact events but the idealoligy) and thus wrote the Constitution in a wording to prevent it.

oh and presidential signing statements

if you dont know what they are look them up.

signing statements are when the president ataches a note to a bill after he signs it for it to pass. this note typically says in the presidents words, what he thinks the bill means and how it is going to be carried out. which is then not checked with the house or senate to make sure thats what was meant by the bill in the first place.

signing statements are not a power givin by the constitution and is barely even recognized as an implied power. no other president since bush has used the ability to attach signing statements as much as he has.




Creative Draft Art Media Forums

twistedtiger wrote:GAM - I don't think I have ever agreed with anyone more.

You're on my Christmas card list

Quote:

I do believe our forefathers had enough forsight to see events like this (not excact events but the idealoligy) and thus wrote the Constitution in a wording to prevent it.

The Constitution & Bill of Rights were worded broadly enough to be able to change with the times, but not so radically that the nature of your essential rights and freedoms are jeopardised. As it stands, this seating of Congress and the Senate is the only one ever that has universally decreased all American's Constitutional protections.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Quote:

We have entered an age where we are being attacked for the liberties that you all say the patriot act is infringing. Thats right, the simple liberties that you are unwilling to sacrifice, very slighty, is casuing the attacks we see. Prove me wrong please. Liberal America is supporting gays, single mothers, welfare, anti-hunting, and the such. This is the exact thing that terrorist LOVE TO HATE. Did our founding fathers ever thing homosexuality would be an issue. @!#$ no, that was a personal problem that people shouldnt bring in public. But it seems like everyone is accepting giving up the heterosexual america. Why shoudnt we also give up the less scandelous libeties of our phones? Doest not make sence to anyone with sence.

I wanted to make a comment on this:

I would much rather fight the "terrorists" on my doorstep for trying to take away my rights than have the government userp them for the illusion of safety and security. As such, call me selfish (like it's a bad thing), but i would much rather risk my life fighting someone that is trying to take away my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness than be a coward and lazy and expect some autocratic government to proterct me and mollycoddle me from the terrorist boogeyman.

And if that makes me unamerican, then Das Vedana, Tovarish


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

That's the first time I've seen mollycoddle and boogeyman in the same sentence.

Well said, sir

<takes a bow>


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

I have a rock that keeps terrorists away...its been working since 2001.

Rollinredcavy: nothing to say?




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Rollinredcavy: nothing to say?

Sorry, currently have 2 LONG ass papers that I need to do. And cant use the computer at work that often. But this post wont die. I'll be back.

"Most people won't go into insults. I don't because it doesn't prove the point, and says more about the insulter than the insultee. That being said, I have to say the best thing in the world is to not post pissed off (say that 5 times without tripping up). There's no serious ramifications to our discussion, 90% of the time, I realise that the only function I'm going have in discussing/arguing things is that there will not be one sided debate to things, to wit, watch the Jail scene in My Cousin Vinny... you'll get why sooo many people are getting the wool pulled over their eyes. Talk is cheap, reading and learning is gold... but above all, thinking with your own grey matter and figuring things out for yourself with it (and those you trust) is paramount. "




very well said. ive always felt the first person who starts throwing out insults is generally out of something inteligent to say.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

[quote=Keeper of the Light™]

Quote:



I would much rather fight the "terrorists" on my doorstep for trying to take away my rights than have the government userp them for the illusion of safety and security. As such, call me selfish (like it's a bad thing), but i would much rather risk my life fighting someone that is trying to take away my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness than be a coward and lazy and expect some autocratic government to proterct me and mollycoddle me from the terrorist boogeyman.

And if that makes me unamerican, then Das Vedana, Tovarish

How do you fight a terrorist that blows you up before you even know he is there? Maybe your not affraid of death and dont care if you do die, I dont care if I die by the hand of a terrorist either, but that in itself is a selfish statement. And then you say, "selfish (like its a bad thing). Sometimes, Keeper, you make me laugh. If there is one time you admit somthing, this may be the time to do it. I have seen you MANY MANY times complain or put down politicians for how selfish they are. So which is it? Is selfishnes good or bad? Wait in your words can I answere it for you "It's ok to be selfish if you are KOTL but not anyone else." Seriously man. I know you are the "Anti-everything" on this sight but there are times where it seems like you are just playing an act. If you are really being yourself, please dont be hypocritical about certain things. nuff said..

anyway I have to go work on my other car. But this discusion will continue.....

[quote=Keeper of the Light™]

I would much rather fight the "terrorists" on my doorstep for trying to take away my rights than have the government userp them for the illusion of safety and security. As such, call me selfish (like it's a bad thing), but i would much rather risk my life fighting someone that is trying to take away my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness than be a coward and lazy and expect some autocratic government to proterct me and mollycoddle me from the terrorist boogeyman.

And if that makes me unamerican, then Das Vedana, Tovarish

How do you fight a terrorist that blows you up before you even know he is there? Maybe your not affraid of death and dont care if you do die, I dont care if I die by the hand of a terrorist either, but that in itself is a selfish statement. And then you say, "selfish (like its a bad thing). Sometimes, Keeper, you make me laugh. If there is one time you admit somthing, this may be the time to do it. I have seen you MANY MANY times complain or put down politicians for how selfish they are. So which is it? Is selfishnes good or bad? Wait in your words can I answere it for you "It's ok to be selfish if you are KOTL but not anyone else." Seriously man. I know you are the "Anti-everything" on this sight but there are times where it seems like you are just playing an act. If you are really being yourself, please dont be hypocritical about certain things. nuff said..

anyway I have to go work on my other car. But this discusion will continue...

Edited 3 time(s). Last edited Friday, November 10, 2006 8:24 PM

Nathaniel O'Flaherty wrote:oh and presidential signing statements

if you dont know what they are look them up.

signing statements are when the president ataches a note to a bill after he signs it for it to pass. this note typically says in the presidents words, what he thinks the bill means and how it is going to be carried out. which is then not checked with the house or senate to make sure thats what was meant by the bill in the first place.

signing statements are not a power givin by the constitution and is barely even recognized as an implied power. no other president since bush has used the ability to attach signing statements as much as he has.

This is correct; however, these statements in fact are sent back to be checked. I dont know where you got this info, but if the Pres. thouches a bill, he either signs it, vetoes it, or sends it back to be described, which in your case is noted as a signing statement. It is true that a Pres. has the ability to do this and was abused by one Pres. at some time, dont remember who to be honest. At that point signing statements became different. You are now no longer able to use them to change a law, you can only use them to question and define a law. So in other words, it could do nothing to benifit GWB, it could only clarify and be sent back to congress to verify the direction of the bill. Just a question, for you, how many of these has GWB vetoed? I think that will put in perspective the fact that what you are metioning, though worth mentioning, really means nothing.

So someone said the "war on terror" is like the "war on drugs". Your damn right. Except for the fact that the war on drugs doesnt blow up a building. If that is not enough to make you want to seek out every terrorist, then your not worth the time of day for anyone to protect you, it is unamerican to protect someone who does not believe in the goal of freedom. Take it or leave it. Our fouding fathers did not know about nuclear weapons (which saddam could have made in like 5 years, yes they found tons of Uranium in Iraq) that could destroy a city the size of the country at their time.



Now lets get this whole post straight, the point we are at is nothing but opinion. GAM, as much as I respect you, I havnt ever seen you argue with much more than opinion, even when you quote sources (that are well entrenched in the liberal society, opinion not fact). So seriously, no one is going to agree.

I just cant understand why people are so oblivious to the fact that whether you think so or not, the world NEEDED a leader like GWB to take out the current world Nazi.