Why do you still support Bush?

Oh! They want to let gays marry and adopt children.!!!
(Rights they already have under the Fourteenth Amendment should anyone ask.)

Amendment XIV - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Quote:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Emphasis mine.

It's my favorite Amendment after the First. Why do you think the boys in the GOP are trying so hard to pass that Marriage Amendment? Because, under this Constitution should anyone ask, States cannot abridge the privileges of citizens. For example, for a long time women could not vote in the this nation. Why? Because the States said so, but if anyone had asked the Supreme Court to rule on the matter, which no one did, the Supremes would have looked at the Fourteenth Amendment and said "There cannot be a clearer privilege under the law than the opportunity to vote." You know who said that about the Fourteenth Amendment? Justice Scalia, he knows.

So suppose two men are denied a license to marry. That's what you get in most States, a license. Is there, other than denying someone the right to vote, a greater intrusion into the privileges and immunities of the citizens of these United States than to deny them the right to marry the person they love the most in the world? No. But no one has asked.

So what am I saying? That there was no for passage of the Amendment giving the right to vote to women? Yup, and so does Scalia. He has other motives than mine, but we both agree.

Can the States regulate the process of either marriage or adoption? Of course, they can, they can set up any set of rules they want until they reach the point where a person reasonably believes his or her privileges and immunities have been abridged.

Joe(Is this a great country or what?)Nation

Can the States regulate the process of either marriage or adoption? Of course, they can, they can set up any set of rules they want until they reach the point where a person reasonably believes his or her privileges and immunities have been abridged.

Montana wrote:

My most pressing question has still yet to be answered, so I'll ask one more time.

Why are conservatives not at all worried and angry that Osama is still out there? It's a simple question, really!

As an Originalist Conservative,
I offer the following response:

Our guys r looking for Laden as well as thay can.
The Moslems in Pakistan r helping him hide
in the nooks n crannys of their mountains.

Presumably,
if we conquer and occupy Pakistan
and extort information out of the locals
we might well come up with Laden,
unless he successfully hi tails it out of there
on his favorite camel,
to some other Moslem area.

Do u recommend declaring war upon Pakistan
and taking it over
the better to find Laden ?

David

mysteryman wrote:

Candidone said...

Quote:

I think that since 9/11 was the first attack on the American territory by a foreign enemy since, what, the British?....the odds of another strike were diminished more likely by other factors other than Bush's policies.
9/11 just allowed his PNAC agenda forward.

You apparently failed history,didnt you?

Does Pearl Harbor ring a bell with you?

Pearl Harbor was an act of war. 9/11 was an terrorist act.
You of all people should have been able to make this elementary distinction.

mysterman wrote:

Do the names Guam,Wake Island,Attu,Kiska,Midway Island,.....

Apparently you failed at Geography.
These regions have never been considered "The American Terrority" proper, otherwise they would be internationally recognized as states.
You're attempting to peddle these as "terrorist attacks on America?"
I'll come back to this at the bottom.

mysterman wrote:

the oil refinery near Santa Barbara that was shelled by a Japanese sub,doesnt any of that ring a bell with you?

These are al evidence of a coordinated offensive launched by the Japanese as an act of war. Any scholar can distinguish the difference between the two.

mysterman wrote:

Of course,there was the attack by Pancho Villa on a border town in New Mexico...

Quote:

On March 9, 1916, Villa led 1,500 (disputed, one official US Army report stated "500 to 700") Mexican raiders in a cross-border attack against Columbus, New Mexico, in response to the U.S. government's official recognition of the Carranza regime [3]. They attacked a detachment of the [13th US Cavalry], seized 100 horses and mules, burned the town, killed 10 soldiers and 8 of its residents, and took much ammunition and weaponry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa

This, again, bore more similarities to a war, and ironically, more similarities to America's support for the Contras.
There are simply no parallels between what I have said and what you assert......but I didn't begin this thread to dispute something of tangential significance to the thread topic.

mysteryman wrote:

Of course,you are correct,9/11 was the first attack on US Territory since the British.
Lets not let facts get in your way.

Just for the sake of entertainment, let's take your claims that the above attacks by the Japanese were in fact "terrorist attacks", or that the retribution sought by Villa was in fact an act of "terror"....
What make of you the invasion of Panama in Operation Just Cause?
...or perhaps the invasion of Vietnam, where ~17% of the S. Vietnamese population was decimated by chemicals and other means?
...or the bombing of Iran Air 655?
....or the bombing of al Shifa in the Sudan?
...or that supporting the Contras was explicit support for terrorism?
...or that supporting the mujhideen in Afghanistan was explicit support for terrorism?
....or that the preemptive strike against a sovereign nation like Iraq was an acto of terrorist.

If what you have provided above constitutes acts of terror, then you must also acknowledge what I have offered as the same.

I repeat:

Quote:

Can the States regulate the process of either marriage or adoption? Of course, they can, they can set up any set of rules they want until they reach the point where a person reasonably believes his or her privileges and immunities have been abridged.

Do think your known pedophile is going to sue? No.

You want to try to define the difference between "privileges and immunities" and "rights."? Go ahead.

Joe(I have the right to bare arms)Nation

mm sees everything with a one-way lens. He wrote:
Are you suggesting that a known pedophile be allowed to adout a child?

Either he doesn't see the real world, or he's suggesting the most stupid, illogical, controverted arguments posted on a2k.

Sure, we should let pedophiles adopt a child; you fxxk'n ingorant bastard.

I always agree with Joe(on the mark)Nation. Whereas, your posts are below reprehensible 100 percent of the time.

OH, they are going to take GOD off your television!
(All while trying to subvert the First Amendment by the GOP becoming America's first religious party.)

Oh! They want to let gays marry and adopt children.!!!
(Rights they already have under the Fourteenth Amendment should anyone ask.)

Oh! They want to do experiments with unborn babies.
(What the rest of the world calls stem cell research, but why should we lead the world in science, science is not godly, right?)

We agree that the right to marry is one that can not nor should it be prohibited,within reason.

But,there is nothing that gives you the right to adopt.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So to return to the actual topic of the thread, why the heck would anyone want to continue supporting the GOP and George W. Bush, the fear mongers?

Today Alberto Gonzales declared that the 1st amendment 'isn't absolute' and that they will continue to spy upon reporters. They no longer have the rights they used to have, according to Bush.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment is clear:

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It isn't a reporter's fault that information which is given to him was classified. He is still allowed to publish it under the first amendment.

I don't believe that 'national security' is being harmed here in the slightest. What is being harmed is Bush's administration. I don't believe that 'national security' is a reason to restrict speech; if the government can't keep something secret, it is not the responsibility of the press to do so.

Unlike you, I don't believe 'national security' means that any of our rights must be abridged in the slightest. It is nothing but a false canard, a scare tactic by those who wish to remove rights; it has nothing to do with reality at all. National security hasn't been harmed in the slightest by anything which has been reported on at all.

Cycloptichorn