Reply With Quote
its the ing CONS UTION?
i dont know what else to say, if we dont honor that , this is a different country, we're not going to all of a sudden ignore it because theres a "war" on "terror"
The cons ution must be strictly enforced word for word!
Sincerely,
The minority party
its the ing CONS UTION?
i dont know what else to say, if we dont honor that , this is a different country, we're not going to all of a sudden ignore it because theres a "war" on "terror"
well, when you say it is in the cons ution...the cons ution alone was never meant for everyone..not even the bill of rights did that.. it was for white land owning males... only 50 years ago my mother wasn't even allowed to go to school with white children...
you suck man
"Cons ution? We don't need no stinkin' Cons ution!!"
-- Your friendly neighborhood Bush Administration.
"What's that? You mean that if there's no Cons ution, we can't move towards mandating that States prohibit immoral practices by proposing willy-nilly amendments to limit individual rights?
Okay, we take it back, we LOVE the Cons ution. But we think it should only be a tool to increase the power of government -- individual rights of the People, particularly foreigners and Muslims, are insignificant, because this government needs more power!!"
Ibid.
the rights i had.
i want them back clan
you know me!!!!! a crazy liberal
So are you suggesting that we just tear it up? Nice patriotism!
If it wasn't intended to extend to all, it certainly has been extended (by Congress -- you might read the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause) to all. So, if you're right, the Bush Administration's efforts to ignore Cons utional guarantees of due process, freedom from warrantless arrests and searches, and freedom from unlawful imprisonment, are based on an 18th century view of the Cons ution -- one that Congress has expressly overridden!!
Damned Executive Activism!!
some of the provisions in the patriot act i don't agree with.. however, many are needed for us to catch BEFORE it happens and not after...
so, because we're afraid of terrorists (allegedly) we're willing to vitiate the civil rights of our people?
It seems to me that the premise of the War of Terrorism was that terrorists hate our lifestyle and freedoms. I thought part of the reason that we're fighting the war is to protect our way of life. I heard that if we give up our freedoms, the terrorists win. Did I miss any part of that?
If its true that the terrorists win if we give up our freedoms, doesn't the Patriot Act mean that the terrorists have actually won, at least a little bit?
The very existence of a government is an affront to your personal freedoms.
^^The very stupidity of a post can be seen, even when one attempts to be smart, however, people, even hairless gorillas can see through such nonsense.
we're talking about the USA, ive accepted theyre my government, its like talking about how duncan and manu didnt come through and then someone saying basketball sucks, wow
not afraid, but trying to catch them... you would rather wait for them to kill or injure someone, then arrest them.. these laws help to stop them BEFORE they kill or injure...
the government is not looking into your ..unless, of course, you are doing something wrong... if not, don't worry... the gov doesn't have enough intel people to spy on everyone..they concentrate on the big dogs...
1. thought police
2. yes they are, and companies too, so they can reach me with "advertising"
OnStar*
It's an argument demonstrating that rights have already been given up. You've given up some of your rights to get some semblance of law and order in return. The bill of rights was put forth to limit the amount that induviduals were willing to concede. The wording and "spirit" of the BOR has been pushed to the limit ever since. This is nothing new. The party in power will always push their power to the max, and the party out of power will fight them with all they've got. It's a good system.
^“order out of chaos“? are you directly reading from the Illuminati handbook?
anyway, its sad that one party has to be pro cons ution and the other is ignore the cons ution because it will keep us safer
dam i HAD to read 1984 three times before college, you figure people would remember some of the main themes
The republicans kept the US from becoming a Socialist Republic back in the 1930's.
Perhaps I should have said "Its a balanced cycle". Eventually, everybody gets fed up with who's in power and cleans house.
An ultra conservative will not be elected next presidential cycle. It's McCain's last best chance.
mccains a prick
the dude will sit there and scoff the the adminsration, criticize bush, then say he absolutley supports bush for president, what a chode
this country would be very foolish to elect another republican president, which theres a very good chance will happen, ultraconneocon or not
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
