Reply With Quote
If your nuts was a small hill.. Bush climbed it with his saudi juice burning 4x4 F350 and crushed your barbie doll collecting nuts like a redneck sucking down a half warm can of Natual Light....
Sarcasm (Mr Peabody is good at it)
If your nuts was a small hill.. Bush climbed it with his saudi juice burning 4x4 F350 and crushed your barbie doll collecting nuts like a redneck sucking down a half warm can of Natual Light....
Don't you think we should be in North Korea, RIGHT NOW, proliferatin' some good ol' American kick-ass?
[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]I find it terribly ironic that a President who justifies fighting terrorists on the basis that "they hate our freedoms" (an original justification for fighting terrorism in the immediate aftermath of September 11) is perfectly willing to cir scribe the freedoms and civil liberties of his own "subjects" -- indeed, demands that no cons utional concern exists, despite well-established principles of law to the contrary -- in justifying his actions in prosecuting that fight. [/QOUTE]
You see this is the part where everyone left to having a mechanized Michael Moore figured vibrator say, "WTF". That's not only Bush's consensus, but the whole populace. ANd as a general rule, one has to awnser the question of why the terrorist attacked us. Is it becuase we are a giant capatilist pig stye of a nation that promotes haliburton over sharia law? Is it solely because we support Israel, is it because George Bush is der leader?
Then in all honesty, what makes alqueda different from you? Oh,.. "that i didn't kill those innocent civillians nor am i making any justifiications for it", is that the only difference. That even though many innocent people fell that day, you in your hateful blinded soul wish to extract all reasonable doubt of your own biases and not take for granted that the real reason was for our freedoms? But it is as plain as day. The fact that osama issued many warnings in the early 90's of how he wanted to end western democracy because of our lifestyle, our rampant sexual component in our societies, our materialism, and moral decay, religion, etc, still escapes your feeble brain. And i for being a very nice man myself will let you slide on your own stupidity and assume you did what any sheep liberal would do, selectively read the major news media, and stick only with the Nation magazine, and anit war/anti fill in the blank/ boho fest of a pro palestinian march flyers to feed your malnourished diet of political issues.
You're really a joke are you? WTf, did you think alqueda flew the planes in for? Because of pat robertsons insistence that we adopt intelligent design in our schools, or that bush ins uted tax cuts for the wealthy?
But i guess i can see where you gonna head with this....straight to ass land, or drum up a diatribe of how we have pilllaged the muslim world through capitalism. What's ironic is the phrase muslim world and pillage. The fact that anyone would suggest that its the muslim world who has been pillaged through out history would get laughed at knowing the case that Islamic history has been all about them pillaging.
So no, you wont convince anyone outside of a dairy queen shift leader that osama simply attacked us because of capitalism or anyother Noam Chomsky brain queef.
Essentially, it's the american people who give a damn and want those acts to be enforced. That's why president bush was re elected, and that's why 85% of repugs and 60 percent of democrats agree that we should adopt strict measures and allow wiretapping.Essentially, the White House takes the position that the American people should be willing to concede certain freedoms in an effort to defeat terrorists who hate us for those freedoms.
No, but essentially all you have left is "Well, good point but.... i'm gonna play an ass for the rest of this conversation and try to criminalize bush as if he was the only one agreeing on this issue and not more than half of my countrymen,... dissent is patriotism,...blah blah blah....... we must uphold the cons ution as David Corn of the Nation sees it,....even if we were to get nuked."
Oh like that one time he suggested we attend sports events, and spend money in the economy even after the 911 shock? Cuz other than that, your point's mute.Indeed, the President, on more than one occasion, has suggested that relenting in our freedoms aids the terrorists in their campaign.
Yes, because although we will now not rely on our gathering methods anymore, we will have to sit around and hope AQ s up somehow and then we go after them. Ofcourse, till then we will still have to file a search warrant, have senate hearings and give al saddar mahatma tamale a chance to Kangaroo Airline his ass out of the country to come again..... makes for a good law and order series, but in the real world, you don't have liberal pansies in goat tees and manpurses narrarating the ending. It's real life, and if we're gonna go after AQ the same way we go after the Zodiac killer, then expect more republican presidents and electoral victories, because NY,LA and SAN FRAN, will be the first cities to be dirty bombed by OBL.If we should now be willing to have our freedoms limited in the name of prosecuting a war on terror, doesn't that make the terrorists winners?
But you see, You, OH Gee-Spot, and RG will sit on the proverbial high horse and claim that you're supreme interest is not that we survive to practice the cons ution, but that we go down in flames as a country and civilization because the cons ution is a supreme benevolent suicide pact, and even though when it suits liberals to say that it was a white man's tool to accept slavery and oppress minorities, for the sake of looking like real concerned patriots of dissent, lets uphold the cons uion shall we?
No, we shouldn't nor should we be up in the middle of the night upping one another on who can do the best Mo Rocca impersonation, and not contribute a damn dime to the discussion.
BUt you are the SUltan of blue balls, the King of Crud, the Prince of pussyfooting, Emperor of Emptiness, Captain of Caca, Admiral of Assinine, or Queen of Quagmire,,etc.
So nobody expected anything less.
Not necessesarily, but I do know that if Clinton had done something,
besides getting a blow job and covering up the incompetency
of his administration, and the Carter had kept his nose out of things,
we may not be in such bad shape there. I think Bush has done an
exceptional job in handling the job about North Korea.
I suspect that there will be enough "good ol' American kick-ass" to satisfy
everyone before this is all over. The sad part is that some folks have a
short memory and let their absolute hate interfere with reasonable thinking
and common sense. I have said it again and will repeat it again here.
We are in a world war now. There may not be shooting and bombings by
our military but we are fighting all over the world with resources unbeknown est to everyone. I suspect that we are, right now, winning
to a degree, since there has been no more hits in this country. But
if some, as witnessed on this board, have their way will tie the hands
of our government to the point where we cant protect ourselves.
gtown -- your rant is so incoherent that I won't even try to address you point by point. I'll make this sweet and simple.
I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with fighting a war against terrorists. I wholeheartedly support the efforts taking place in Afghanistan and I think our intelligence and security agencies have done remarkable work in redoubling their efforts to keep us safe. I know you cannot reconcile the notions that someone who does not support the President could actually love his country and support the war on terror, but you can trust me that I do.
The problem here isn't the President's prosecution of a war on terror -- it's his willful (indeed, blithe) ignorance of Cons utional principles during the war on terror. I have no problem with the President wiretapping in the United States, provided that he takes his requests for wiretaps to a proper authority and receives the warrants that are required by federal law and the United States Cons ution. I have no problem with detention of those suspected of terrorists links, so long as those who are detained are given hearings and afforded the same protections of the law that are afforded to every other incarcerated person -- if the government can prove they are guilty of engaging in terrorism or aiding terrorists, then it would be wonderful to obtain convictions. In short, I have no problem with the President doing anything associated with this "war" so long as the Cons utional principles that are the foundation for our nation are respected and protected. When the President believes, however, that he is above the Cons ution -- when he demands that the American people cede their cons utional rights in the name of his amorphous war, he defeats the very purpose of fighting that war.
Would you really want to live in an America that is completely safe from terrorism, but in which there are only limited civil rights and civil liberties? If so, I would argue that you've missed the whole point of America's existence. If we're willing to give up our Cons utionally-guaranteed liberties for a bit of peace of mind, then why are we even fighting to maintain liberty?
The President himself, on September 20, 2001, in an address to a joint session of Congress said: "Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." Surely, you can't read that and believe that he meant that terrorists hate only those freedoms. The President's argument, at the outset, was that this was a war of ideas -- a contest between those who value freedom and those who oppose freedom. Some of his actions, since that war began, however, have run contrary to that initial position. That's the point of the opinion piece that began this thread. Do you really not see that as a problem?
Again, I wonder: if we're engaged in a battle to protect the freedoms we value, doesn't it defeat that purpose for the President to trample all over those liberties in the name of fighting that war? I think it does. If you disagree with me, well then, I guess that's among the few freedoms that you believe the President meant to protect.
In short, if you believe that we should give up our freedoms (our civil liberties) in an effort to win a war aimed at protecting freedom, you've taken a position that strikes me as an hetical to everything American.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 01-19-2006 at 10:50 AM.
Do you really think monitoring international calls are wrong? Because
that is what this is all about. Bush is not the first President to
have calls monitored. He has not, as a recent President allowed, have
someones home entered and searched, without a warrant.
I do not consider any of my freedoms being infringed on. None.
During wartime somethings have to be done that are normal during
peacetime. Myself, along with a vast majority of Americans support
President Bush in is monitoring efforts.
I seriously doubt that a "vast majority" of American support extra-Cons utional monitoring.
You've also missed my point -- I have no problem with the President monitoring calls, so long as he proceeds through the proper channels and obtains the warrants that are Cons utionally required to undertake wiretaps. If there is justification for the wiretapping, there should be no difficulty in obtaining the warrant -- and the FISC provides the President with a means to obtain the warrant without public disclosure that might alert the subject of the wiretapping, while ensuring that the Cons ution (and the will of Congress) is upheld.
I also think the question of protecting freedoms sometimes becomes a personal matter. I doubt that I'm the subject of any sort of wiretapping, so the concern for that -- or for the limitless detention of people, or for the violations of the Geneva Convention, among other things -- don't affect me directly. But the Cons ution is intended to protect more than me. The Cons ution is basically worthless -- its purpose is defeated -- if the rights of the lowest among us aren't protected. That means, to me and to many commentators, that it must protect those we dislike the most if it is to protect any of us. So it is important to me that the President uphold the Cons utional obligation to obtain a warrant if he is to engage in wiretaps on anyone; it is important to me that those who are incarcerated be charged with crimes and be afforded due process of law and protected by the rule of law.
Again, it's a troubling turn of events if the President can ignore those aspects of Cons utional freedom on a willy-nilly basis. It's not a long step from ignoring those protections to ignoring other Cons utional mandates; after all, the justifications would be the same, even though the provision in question would be different.
Assuming that the President has the right to limit Cons utional rights in a time of war -- something I don't think is within the contemplation of the do ent -- how far does that right go? Can the President declare that it would make prosecution of the war difficult if he had to give up his office after two terms? Can the President decide that First Amendment rights can be curtailed -- the right to peacably assemble? the right to pe ion government? the freedom of the press?
Basically, that's the problem in my mind. If the President can disregard the Fourth Amendment, why does he have to obey any other Amendment or Cons utional provision if he believes ignorance will make it easier to prosecute the war? I'm actually interested to hear an intelligent response to those questions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions