Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty

McGentrix wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
No liberties lost yet though. As far as this "if one loses rights, we all lose rights" battle cry of the left... BullShyte.

Translation: None of McGentrix's liberties have been lost. Apparently, this is all that matters.

They've been lost...whether he realizes it or not...whether he acknowledges it or not.

But conservatives are eroding the rights...and we all know that McG has lots of trouble seeing any faults in conservative initiatives.

How about instead of the constant chain of insults you provide some evidence of the erosion and loss of rights.

It has been asked for by many, answered by none.

Honestly Frank, if this is the extent of your participation here, perhaps the philosophy threads are better suited for you...

I find the last remark in that post unfair....one could just as easily say that if the extent of your participation here is to classify every argument that runs contrary to your opinion as stupid..or bullshit... then perhaps a right wing support group style forum is better suited for you than one where an exchange of opinion is the order of the day....but that wouldn't be fair....we are all welcome to express our opinion here right?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
No liberties lost yet though. As far as this "if one loses rights, we all lose rights" battle cry of the left... BullShyte.

Translation: None of McGentrix's liberties have been lost. Apparently, this is all that matters.

They've been lost...whether he realizes it or not...whether he acknowledges it or not.

But conservatives are eroding the rights...and we all know that McG has lots of trouble seeing any faults in conservative initiatives.

How about instead of the constant chain of insults you provide some evidence of the erosion and loss of rights.

It has been asked for by many, answered by none.

Honestly Frank, if this is the extent of your participation here, perhaps the philosophy threads are better suited for you...

We have provided examples; that you do not find them persuasive is your right. But at least be honest enough to admit it.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
No liberties lost yet though. As far as this "if one loses rights, we all lose rights" battle cry of the left... BullShyte.

Translation: None of McGentrix's liberties have been lost. Apparently, this is all that matters.

They've been lost...whether he realizes it or not...whether he acknowledges it or not.

But conservatives are eroding the rights...and we all know that McG has lots of trouble seeing any faults in conservative initiatives.

How about instead of the constant chain of insults you provide some evidence of the erosion and loss of rights.

I've come to the conclusion that the only way to get a conservative's attention...is through "insults"...which I prefer to think of as "mentioning some truths about conservatism that are sometimes obscured."

Quote:

It [the request for evidence about the erosion of rights] has been asked for by many, answered by none.

Huh???

Have you been away???

Look the thread over, McG!

Quote:

Honestly Frank, if this is the extent of your participation here, perhaps the philosophy threads are better suited for you...

C'mon now, McG...you know I can handle both areas with no trouble.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
No liberties lost yet though. As far as this "if one loses rights, we all lose rights" battle cry of the left... BullShyte.

Translation: None of McGentrix's liberties have been lost. Apparently, this is all that matters.

I have lost plenty of liberties. I have lost the liberty of free travel because Islamic terrorists threaten too many of the locations I'd like to travel to. I have lost the sense of security I once had because Islamic terrorists have taken it away. I have lost the liberty to not pre-judge young Islamic males because they may be Islamic terrorists.

Forgive me, but where is your safety guaranteed in the Constitution? Or your sense of security?

On the other hand, the right to a trial is guaranteed in the Constitution; and the branch of government entrusted with carrying out the law of the land is blatantly disregarding said guarantee.

Edit: Edited last word in last sentence from "law."

How about reading my entire post before hitting the reply button?

0 Replies

'I've come to the conclusion that the only way to get a conservative's attention...is through "insults"...which I prefer to think of as "mentioning some truths about conservatism that are sometimes obscured."

Ann Coulter makes a living doing the same thing with liberals. All a matter of perspective, I imagine.

ps: you get my attention with 'insults' but, unfortunately, your credibility is the casualty for doing so.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Debra, you have been asked several times now whether you personally have lost any liberties. I didn't see that you answered any of those questions.

Maybe you could "educate" those of us you consider "blind," rather than merely (and conveniently) stating that we ought to educate ourselves concerning "liberty and government action that chips away at liberty."

I consider myself fairly educated. That being said, I am still interested to hear what liberties you yourself have lost since Bush has been elected, if any.

I personally have experienced MANY violations of my civil rights in retaliation for my efforts to gain access the courts, petition the government for redress of grievances, and to speak out against injustice on behalf of clients. I could write a book -- several inches thick on what I have personally experienced.

What YOU fail to grasp is that freedom for one is freedom for all. Even if YOU personally (to your knowledge, anyway) have not been subjected to governmental intrusion into your private life or subjected to violations of your constitutionally protected rights -- if YOUR NEIGHBOR or a stranger down the street or a citizen who lives across the country has his/her rights violated -- you should be outraged. YOU OUGHT TO EDUCATE YOURSELF. But you don't care enough to educate yourself -- you demand that I educate you.

I can post thousands of links telling countless stories about ordinary people who have had their civil rights trampled upon. I can post thousands of links to violations of civil rights related to the enforcement of the Patriot Act.

Surely you understand the questions posed of you were asking you to identify the rights you have lost. You have yet to be specific. Your description of the "MANY violations of my civil rights in retaliation for my efforts to gain access the courts, petition the government for redress of grievances, and to speak out against injustice on behalf of clients," was surprising to me. What civil rights of YOURS were violated in "retaliation" for your efforts on behalf of your clients?

Many of us on this board have been told by many other posters that we ought to "educate" ourselves. Our friend Rafick, for example, is convinced of the validity of certain "conspiracy theories" he is fond of promoting. He believes that we, the doubters on A2K, must educate ourselves to the "truth." It should come as no surprise that you are asked to provide those of us unwilling to swallow your argument at face value, with a persuasive argument, not posts to "thousands of links," and given what I've observed of your nature I'm surprised to see you apparently trying to shirk from doing so.

0 Replies

duplicate

0 Replies

neue--

You know they can't approve us using the same rules as they do.

The same people who prefer for our country to lose the war (or more appropriately--the ones who want us to back out of a promise and leave Iraqis to exist in a hellified, warlord-run No Man's Land) are the ones who want our law enforcement to be stripped down to impotent social worker status.

One of Debra's "complaints of her rights being taken away" was the case of the asshole who didn't want to give a police officer his name. There had been a crime--the officer was actively trying to find a man and a young woman answering these people's description--and the officer was unnecessarily detained--and prevented from finding the altercation in progress because Mr Asshole refused to simply give his name to the officer.

If you want to be on the side of terrorists, or just your average lawbreaker--or just for kicks make work harder, and more dangerous for the men and women you call when you're in trouble--rail against the Patriot Act.

There are more Americans who understand these changes and support them--because we see who they hinder and who they help.

We're not cheering the terrorists--hoping for chaos in the ME--or wanting our law enforcement to be hindered in their work. We're not afraid to tell the cops our names. And, I don't have any sympathy for those who are.

I've read on another thread, those who say they hope the US loses or immediately retreats from Iraq--Very boldly make that statement, but try to hedge their real meaning by also saying--But, I'm not on the side of terrorists.

This is why so many conservatives hold so many liberals in contempt. Talk about closed eyes.

The struggle between the US and terrorists IS a zero sum. A void left by one is filled by the other.

Our withdrawal would without a doubt be a boon to terrorists.

Hope for a US failure if you will--but you won't do it without tacit solidarity with terrorists--who would cut your head off in a minute.

You always have more hatred and distrust of your own country than for those who want you dead.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
No liberties lost yet though. As far as this "if one loses rights, we all lose rights" battle cry of the left... BullShyte.

Translation: None of McGentrix's liberties have been lost. Apparently, this is all that matters.

I have lost plenty of liberties. I have lost the liberty of free travel because Islamic terrorists threaten too many of the locations I'd like to travel to. I have lost the sense of security I once had because Islamic terrorists have taken it away. I have lost the liberty to not pre-judge young Islamic males because they may be Islamic terrorists.

Forgive me, but where is your safety guaranteed in the Constitution? Or your sense of security?

On the other hand, the right to a trial is guaranteed in the Constitution; and the branch of government entrusted with carrying out the law of the land is blatantly disregarding said guarantee.

Edit: Edited last word in last sentence from "law."

How about reading my entire post before hitting the reply button?

Beg pardon.

Forgive me, but why are these supposed "liberties" of any import to the discussion at hand?

...and...

The right to a trial is guaranteed in the Constitution; and the branch of government entrusted with carrying out the law of the land is blatantly disregarding said guarantee.

Apparently when Padilla breaks the law we lock him up and throw away the key (without a trial; without a hearing). When Bush breaks the law we should let him get away with it? (His sordid history of interaction with the law notwithstanding.)

Edit: Edited first sentence in final paragraph.

0 Replies

"The right to a trial is guaranteed in the Constitution; and the branch of government entrusted with carrying out the law of the land is blatantly disregarding said guarantee. "

Since when does the US Constitution provide rights for suspected enemy combatants?

So far, only 2 people have been released from Gitmo.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=589&u=/ap/20041228/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_hearings_1&printer=1

"The Combatant Status Review Tribunals are intended to decide whether the approximately 550 prisoners from more than 40 countries at Guantanamo are properly held as "enemy combatants" or should be released.

The tribunals have reviewed at least 522 cases so far. They have ordered two prisoners released and another 226 to remain in custody. "

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

"The right to a trial is guaranteed in the Constitution; and the branch of government entrusted with carrying out the law of the land is blatantly disregarding said guarantee. "

Since when does the US Constitution provide rights for suspected enemy combatants?

So far, only 2 people have been released from Gitmo.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=589&u=/ap/20041228/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_hearings_1&printer=1

"The Combatant Status Review Tribunals are intended to decide whether the approximately 550 prisoners from more than 40 countries at Guantanamo are properly held as "enemy combatants" or should be released.

The tribunals have reviewed at least 522 cases so far. They have ordered two prisoners released and another 226 to remain in custody. "

I'm not discussing the "enemy combatants" collected at Gitmo. I'm discussing an American citizen arrested at (if I recall correctly) O'Hare International Airport.

The concentration camp at Gitmo is a separate conversation in and of itself.

0 Replies

neue regel wrote:

'I've come to the conclusion that the only way to get a conservative's attention...is through "insults"...which I prefer to think of as "mentioning some truths about conservatism that are sometimes obscured."

Ann Coulter makes a living doing the same thing with liberals. All a matter of perspective, I imagine.

ps: you get my attention with 'insults' but, unfortunately, your credibility is the casualty for doing so.

Yeah...sure!

You guys like to suppose hearing the truth about yourselves amounts to insults..and you like to suppose further that because of the "insults"...credibility suffers.

Neue...you people on the right are blind. BLIND!

You folks see no credibility in anything outside your own kneejerk reactions to whatever your true conservative owners demand of you.

I know...I know...you can cite many opposition contributors whose credibility does not suffer in your opinion.

Gimme a break.

What you conservatives want are the liberal types who pussyfoot around...and pay more attention to being courteous and inoffensive than to fighting you people the way you've been fighting right along. You want to deal with people who think "not stooping down to your level" is a virture rather than stupidity.

In one of the religion thread the other day, I mentioned that doing what one particular guy was doing was like coming to a gun fight armed with a knife.

Dealing with you people the way those liberals want to do is more like coming to a gun fight armed with a petition!

Shove your lack of credibility.

0 Replies

http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,262269,00.html

I believe the 5th Amendment covered this scumbag.

"Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.
"

0 Replies

'you people on the right are blind'

'You folks see no credibility in anything outside your own kneejerk reactions'

'What you conservatives want are the liberal types who pussyfoot around'

'Dealing with you people'

You ain't talking to a 'you people, you folks or you conservatives', you're talking to me. Your insults have no effect on me because you don't know me so you're left trying to put me in a box, and then call that box names. I find it entertaining, though.

Made more so by your frustrations as you continue to fail to convice the majority of the electorate that your point of view for this country is the correct one. Your shrill tone has been your undoing in recent elections but you are somehow convinced that it's been a matter of not getting our message out....or, as you might say, too much 'pussyfooting around.'

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,262269,00.html

I believe the 5th Amendment covered this scumbag.

"Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.
"

Not quite making the connection there. Which part are you saying covers Padilla?

0 Replies

neue regel wrote:

'you people on the right are blind'

You are correct on that! Thank you for repeating it!

Quote:

'You folks see no credibility in anything outside your own kneejerk reactions'

You are correct on that! Thank you for repeating it!

Quote:

'What you conservatives want are the liberal types who pussyfoot around'

You are correct on that! Thank you for repeating it!

Quote:

'Dealing with you people'

Oops...incomplete sentence.

Quote:

You ain't talking to a 'you people, you folks or you conservatives', you're talking to me.

Yes I am...but I want to include others like you. Are you suggesting I cannot do that? If so...why?

Quote:

Your insults have no effect on me because you don't know me so you're left trying to put me in a box, and then call that box names. I find it entertaining, though.

Good. My friends know how much I like entertaining people. I thank you for mentioning that.

Quote:

Made more so by your frustrations...

Nah...not me. I never get frustrated. I've got too many ways to work out that kind of thing.

Quote:

...as you continue to fail to convice the majority of the electorate that your point of view for this country is the correct one.

Well...the liberals certainly have failed to convince the majority of the electorate that their point of view is the correct one.

Bad for them.

Quote:

Your shrill tone has been your undoing in recent elections but you are somehow convinced that it's been a matter of not getting our message out....or, as you might say, too much 'pussyfooting around.'

Do you really think so???

I don't!

Matter of fact...there are a few people in this world who think you conservatives are the shrill ones...and that the liberals are too self-righteous to take off the gloves.

But the fact is, if "shrill tones" lost elections...you people would never win any office above dog-catcher...because you are the shrillest, most whining group of deluded fools ever to pose as a political philosophy.

But...hey...the old year is almost out...and the new one is on the way in...

...so, Happy New Year.

I hope 2005 is a great one for you personally, Neue...but I hope it is marked by history as the beginning of the end for the pollution known as American conservatism.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

woiyo wrote:
http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,262269,00.html

I believe the 5th Amendment covered this scumbag.

"Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.
"

Not quite making the connection there. Which part are you saying covers Padilla?

This part of the 5th Amendment was the basis for the Govt holding Padilla...

"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"

Stress the PUBLIC DANGER aspect.

0 Replies

Hmmm. Maybe I'm not so good at interpreting. I took that to mean 'when in service in time of public danger'. As in, military courts are different from civilian.

But assuming you are right, doesn't that then apply to everyone? And since we have been at war, with a few breaks, for the last 50 or so years, why start restricting the right to due process now?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Hmmm. Maybe I'm not so good at interpreting. I took that to mean 'when in service in time of public danger'. As in, military courts are different from civilian.

But assuming you are right, doesn't that then apply to everyone? And since we have been at war, with a few breaks, for the last 50 or so years, why start restricting the right to due process now?

I think the "OR Public Danger" modifies the statement.

It sure would apply to everyone. However, threshold of proving what defines PUBLIC DANGER is rather high. IMO Padilla would fit that high threshold.

I do not believe the Padilla case demonstrates the Govt "starting to restrict due process". It seems to me this life long criminal was known yet due to the unique circumstances of the times, they elected to "be safe" and get him off the streets before he actually did blow something up.

I can not recall any other case involving a US citizen similiar to Padilla since 9-11.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

I think the "OR Public Danger" modifies the statement.

I took it be modifying 'time', as in a 'time of war' or a 'time of danger' and not a modifier of the person in question. But what do I know...

Quote:

It sure would apply to everyone. However, threshold of proving what defines PUBLIC DANGER is rather high. IMO Padilla would fit that high threshold.

Actually, it's quite low as they don't actually have to prove it at all.

Quote:

I do not believe the Padilla case demonstrates the Govt "starting to restrict due process". It seems to me this life long criminal was known yet due to the unique circumstances of the times, they elected to "be safe" and get him off the streets before he actually did blow something up.

I can not recall any other case involving a US citizen similiar to Padilla since 9-11.

<edited to remove my misinterpretation> While I can agree that Padilla is an odd duck, I can't agree that since he is the only one that has lost his right to due process, we shouldn't be concerned. Precedent, precedent, precedent. That's all I can say. I can't imagine that he is the only hardcore lifelong American criminal who is a danger to the public safety.

0 Replies

Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know