Fear of a Black President

icon is long on rhetoric, and short on action. He just doesn't want to challenge what the congress or president does, but cries bloody-murder that they are breaking the laws. Funny - like most of his other posts on a2k.

It's called "nonsense."

0 Replies

The Congress and the President have given away government tax revenue to individuals who have not legally earned it by means of their labor or their production. The Congress and the President are not delegated the power to do this by the USA Constitution as currently amended.

The Congress and the President have not taxed all income dollars uniformly. All taxes are explicitly required to be uniform by Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph of the USA Constitution, which has not been amended by any of the Constitution's 27 amendments.

Both actions by the Congress and the President are violations of the USA Constitution, and therefore are unlawful and illegal.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Bush is not weakening the Constitution by his permitting wiretaps of foreign calls between foreigners and between USA residents and foreigners "in time of war or public danger." Bush is not weakening the Constitution by permitting water-boarding (or equivalent) captured mass murderers of non-murderers to learn "in time of war or public danger" the mass murdering plans of their uncaptured associates.

What in the 5th Amendment and Article I.Section 9., 1st paragraph, is it you cannot accept to be part of the Constitution?

By the above statement, are you saying that those waterboarded were found guilty of the crimes you listed?

...

NO, I am not saying they were found guilty of mass murdering non-murderers. But I am saying they were prisoners of war captured by our military in the act of mass murdering non-murderers, or captured by our military attempting to do so, or captured by our military threatening to do so, or captured by our military among those planning to do so. As such they are not entitled to habeas corpus. They are entitled only to be treated as prisoners of war for the duration of the war: incarceration; interrogation; shelter; food; and clothing.

You need to address the rest of my post before making this claim. You're trying to talk out of both sides of the mouth on this issue. If you are talking about the rules in which prisoners of war are to be handled, then you can't just choose to ignore that we have not followed by the rules of conduct for prisoner questioning.

What do you have to say to the fact that the supreme court has rejected the White house's claim that the constitution does not apply at Gitmo? What do you hav to say to the fact that in spite of this, the WH continues to proceed as they wish?

Whose rules are they following?

Lastly, How in the hell is Hamden, a driver with a 4th grade education, guilty of murdering thousands?

It doesn't make any sense. We prosecute the guy who gives information (because he doesn't have loyalty to Al Queda) but we let go OBL's Chief of Security in 2004? Further, the only evidence we have on Hamden is circumstantial, and was provided by him under circumstances that would be thrown out in any other courtroom in our country.

The whole thing is bogus.
K
O

0 Replies

As a matter of fact, we would all like to see a tape on the "interrogation" method used on Hamden - without the government's editing.

But, ofcuarse, that is top secret, and for "security" reasons cannot be shown.

Any government who does things in secret are usually guilty of over-stepping their mandates as allowed by domestic and international laws.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Any government who does things in secret are usually guilty of over-stepping their mandates as allowed by domestic and international laws.

Every govt does things in secret, and it isnt violating any international laws.
Are you advocating that everything the govt does be out in the open for everyone to see and know about?

0 Replies

I could think of four or five black people who I could actually vote for (for president) off the top of my head.

The question mark with Barrack Obama is fear of a SLAMMUNIST president, and fear of the one political machine left over from the age of Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall taking over America.

0 Replies

MM
You have a unhealthy trust of government. Remember governments are run by politicians and the rich both of whom are crooked by nature.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

...
If you are talking about the rules in which prisoners of war are to be handled, then you can't just choose to ignore that we have not followed by the rules of conduct for prisoner questioning.

I think it must be the USA's rules that govern Gitmo prisoner interrogations; not the Geneva Convention rules, since the Gitmo prisoners were combatants not wearing uniforms when captured. What do YOU think are the USA's rules of conduct for questioning prisoners of war that were combatants not wearing uniforms when captured?

What do you have to say to the fact that the supreme court has rejected the White house's claim that the constitution does not apply at Gitmo?

I go by what the USA Constitution explicitly states, and not by what present or past Supreme Courts decided to legislate it says. For example from the USA Constitution:

Quote:
Article I.Section 9. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. ...

Quote:
Amendment V. 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 ...

Quote:
Article VI ... This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

What do you hav to say to the fact that in spite of this, the WH continues to proceed as they wish? Whose rules are they following?

In this case, the WH appears to me to be following the rules of the USA Constitution and those previously legislated by Congress and a President..

Lastly, How in the hell is Hamden, a driver with a 4th grade education, guilty of murdering thousands?

I don't know whether or not Hamden murdered anyone.

It doesn't make any sense. We prosecute the guy who gives information (because he doesn't have loyalty to Al Queda) but we let go OBL's Chief of Security in 2004? Further, the only evidence we have on Hamden is circumstantial, and was provided by him under circumstances that would be thrown out in any other courtroom in our country.

The whole thing is bogus.

Only this last part of the whole thing appears to me to be bogus.

K
O

0 Replies

Congress and the current as well as past Presidents have given away government tax revenue to individuals who have not legally earned it by means of their labor or their production. The Congress and Presidents are not delegated the power to do this by the USA Constitution as currently amended.

The Congress and Presidents have not taxed all income dollars uniformly. All taxes are explicitly required to be uniform by Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph of the USA Constitution, which has not been amended by any of the Constitution's 27 amendments. To be uniform, taxes on dollars of income shall not be dependent on who, how, when, or why dollars of income were earned

Both actions by the Congress and Presidents are violations of the USA Constitution, and therefore are unlawful and illegal.

The above statements in this post are true regardless of what you or I have done or not done about it, are doing or not doing about it, and will do or not do about it.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Congress and the current as well as past Presidents have given away government tax revenue to individuals who have not legally earned it by means of their labor or their production. The Congress and Presidents are not delegated the power to do this by the USA Constitution as currently amended.

The Congress and Presidents have not taxed all income dollars uniformly. All taxes are explicitly required to be uniform by Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph of the USA Constitution, which has not been amended by any of the Constitution's 27 amendments. To be uniform, taxes on dollars of income shall not be dependent on who, how, when, or why dollars of income were earned

Both actions by the Congress and Presidents are violations of the USA Constitution, and therefore are unlawful and illegal.

The above statements in this post are true regardless of what you or I have done or not done about it, are doing or not doing about it, and will do or not do about it.

In other words, we are powerless to do anything about it. If that's the case, why are you even making it an issue? It doesn't matter one iota whether our government is following the constitution or not - when the three branches of government isn't working as its supposed to.

0 Replies

"The supreme law of the land" ican?

The judge has said in trial "This is not America." What land, what rules? You're talking yourself in circles.

T
K
O

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Congress and the current as well as past Presidents have given away government tax revenue to individuals who have not legally earned it by means of their labor or their production. The Congress and Presidents are not delegated the power to do this by the USA Constitution as currently amended.

The Congress and Presidents have not taxed all income dollars uniformly. All taxes are explicitly required to be uniform by Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph of the USA Constitution, which has not been amended by any of the Constitution's 27 amendments. To be uniform, taxes on dollars of income shall not be dependent on who, how, when, or why dollars of income were earned

Both actions by the Congress and Presidents are violations of the USA Constitution, and therefore are unlawful and illegal.

The above statements in this post are true regardless of what you or I have done or not done about it, are doing or not doing about it, and will do or not do about it.

In other words, we are powerless to do anything about it. If that's the case, why are you even making it an issue? It doesn't matter one iota whether our government is following the constitution or not - when the three branches of government isn't working as its supposed to.

Wrong!

What is true now is true regardless of what was, is, or will be done or not done. What will be true in future does depend on what we do in the future.

In other words, we are not powerless to correct these two problems unless we think we are powerless and decide to do nothing to change the way things are. Since we are not actually powerless to correct these two problems in the future, this is exactly why I am making them an issue now.

0 Replies

The congress don't know what they're talking about. They're not connected to the rest of the world!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Any government who does things in secret are usually guilty of over-stepping their mandates as allowed by domestic and international laws.

Some people think they deserve a straight answer when a reporterette from CNN asks:

So Mr President, what is your military strategy to defeat the insurgents?

If I were Bush, I would either deliberately give false information, or politely say that I didn't wish to broadcast our plans to our enemies, thank you very much.

It is the duty of the President to keep some things secret, CI.

hello?

0 Replies

The president certainly does have to keep things secret. But this president thinks that he can do what he wants as long as it's secret. There is a difference.

There is a difference protecting valuable intelligence by secrecy and protecting your own ass in the ways you get intelligence. How he does it IS important, and relevant.

This whole torture thing is really bad for our troops.

Say a convoy gets hit, and a soldier gets captured. That soldier has intel the enemy wants. Because of the choices of the Bush administration, the enemy can freely use the torture techniques we are using. Further, let's say we capture that enemy soldier. How can we prosecute him in any court for doing what we have done? Put him on trial, and all he'd need to say is "it's effective."

Of course we'd rather bomb the enemy than put them on trial. We'd never want this to go as far as having to put ourselves on trial.

T
K
O

Post Script - Hamden's jury is out. Verdict to come this week. This is history. Defense closed after testimony from K S Muhammed (9/11 orchestrator) told the court that Hamden was simply an employee and wasn't privileged to Al Queda plans. Pay attention USA. We're on trial too.

0 Replies

So , your concern is that people who have shown a willingness to behead innocent people and blow them up in buildings might feel free to torture based on what we do?

Let me tell you. They aren't waiting for justification from us to commit torture or anything else.

0 Replies

You're right they won't wait for our justification. I'm saying that we can't persecute them for things we do as well, and that it doesn't matter who throws the first punch.

If we are going to call their acts evil, we need to be conscious of our own.

T
K
O

0 Replies

It does matter who throws the first punch.

Have you never heard of self defense? It's not evil.

0 Replies

So anything goes? Is that what you are saying? And who is "they?" We've done a lot of hard to people who aren't "them." Since we've thrown those punches at all sorts of people (outside of "them"), do they have the right to self defense? Or do you call it something else whenever someone else does it?

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

It does matter who throws the first punch.

Have you never heard of self defense? It's not evil.

that's some pretty relativist morality coming from such a sanctimonious 'Christian'.

0 Replies

Fear of a Black President

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know