The only thing that offends me about your link is your own disregard for it's true meaning, purpose and for those that have sacrificed and continue to do so for it.
Remember, freedom is not free, free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Another fave;
A man who would trade security for liberty, deserves neither.
Before you begin banging on your keyboard, why don't you think about those a bit.
And finally, why on earth would myself or any other "righty" be offended by something we hold so dear to our souls such as the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? I think that you are either confused or so eager in any attempt to vilify your opposition, that you are grasping in thin air for anything. It's sad and I feel sorry for you.
The conservatives have gotten tired of Cheney's act, but there's not a whole lot they can do about it. The GOP lost the libertarians quite some time ago.
The big problem is whether we have sold our Constitution down the river for a perceived threat of shortage of oil. As we end the Age of Oil, things are going to get a lot more interesting, and a lot more violent, before this is over. Unfortunately, Iraq and $3 gas are just the beginning.
Our freedoms that we enjoy today have come because of courageous men and women such as: Washington, Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as countless others.
Remember, as recently as the 1950s, a 15 year old black teenager was tortured and then murdered for whistling at a white woman.
Hey, stamina4hours, you are free to leave this country if you don't like it.
I posted the constitution with hopes that some of yu would read it since it seems you have no idea what it says.
Oh, and incase you were not aware, it is you righties who have given up freedoms for supposed security -- hello? Anybody ever heard of the Patriot Act?
I am FOR the constitution, apparently the right is not -- the Terri Schaivo law for one person only and does not apply to anyone else is not constitutional. So if you rightees hate the constitution so much, why don't they leave?
You can make up your own Constitution based on the Bible somewhere else.
The fact of the matter is, it was a preponderance of Conservative, Republican nominated strict constructionist judges that handed down the majority of the rulings in the Schiavo/Schindler legal issues. As much as I tend to agree with stamina4hours on political issues in general, I have to say this time, you need to focus; not on all the righties here and elsewhere, but on the specific niche of the Extreme Far Right Wing, consisting mostly of the Fundamentalist Christian organizations, which many of our own TER right wingers have acknowledged as being too far over the top. This is not to say I agree with their perceptions about Terry Schiavo, I was very much on the side of letting her go. But letting her go in a manner befitting a human being with dignity. It was only because of the oddly contradictory laws concerning assisted suicide that the starvation modality was the one used with Schiavo. Lord knows that regardless of your position on the issue of keeping her alive or letting her go, the means finally employed was reprehensible. But as these conservative constructionist judges interpreted the Constitution, there was no recourse for them to order a Doctor Kevorkian to assist with Schiavo's passing, and thus we were left with a no-win scenario. And for what its worth, I do not think the "right" or the "left" have a monopoly in thier belief of and in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I believe all of us as Americans feel we support both. We have different views of how those magnificent documents should be interpreted. If anyone is to blame for the troubles and conflicts of Constitutional law, it is the self-servfing politicians on both sides of the aisle who can't see past the checkbooks of their special interest supporters except to get re-elected. And despite the sniping and acrimony so common in this and other political forums on the Net, the occasional sincere dialog between opposing viewpoints does make for fabulous and informative reading. I get a much more rounded perspective of the conservative and right-wing POV from this forum than I ever could from either FOX OR the Washington Times. Forget the Big 3 Broadcast networks, they are too concerned with ratings to give us any meat in their news broadcasts. The best pair of tits on TV right now belongs to the "news" anchor for UPN. I've digressed far off the topic, and I hope I've made my point. Now, if you want to read something REALLY radical, try our Declaration of Independence. Now THATS radical thinking! Thanks for reading. - Doctor G
Something about the "nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind?"
You are the one who has no clue. You have swallowed the extremist left hype about the supposed civil rights violations from the Patriot Act, yet you have no proof to substantiate your allegation.
While I disagree with Dr. Gonzo, I do accept his post and the spirit he posted it with.
You, on the other hand, are posting drivel just to create controversy where none exists and you are trying to fulfull some internal need for self-importance.
For your information, there is nothing in the Constitution about laws having to pertain to more than one person. Congress passes laws that relate to individuals and select groups often. Normally, the laws are minor, inoffensive acts, such as granting recognition and citizenship or special funding. What about the law that created a national holiday for Martin Luthor King? Why aren't you screeching bloody murder about national holidays being dedicated to a minister?!?!
Oh my god, we MUST stop that. A national holiday honoring a RELIGIOUS figure......Quick, call the Supreme Court.....exercise that seperation of church and state.....
Using your warped Patriot Act slippery slope logic, by honoring MLK, we'll soon have national holidays comemorating the life of John Paul II.
And, don't try that lame logic on me about Martin Luther King -- you know that is NOT what was done in the Schiavo case. The law creating the holiday for Martin Luther King was a holiday for all of us not just for one person. Terri's law only applied to her and nobody else. I believe it is called a Bill of Attainder which the constitution prohibits.
The Patrioc Act says that it is okay to search your person, propert and effects without a warrant. Did you know that? Didn't think so.
Did you know that the Patriot Act allows American Citizens to be taken by the government without being charged of a crime, without having any legal representation, without ANY judicial oversight whatsoever. They do not even have to notify your family of where you are. Ever hear of due process? Probably not. You are an idiot.
You have stated: "The Patrioc Act says that it is okay to search your person, propert and effects without a warrant."
You also stated: "Did you know that the Patriot Act allows American Citizens to be taken by the government without being charged of a crime, without having any legal representation, without ANY judicial oversight whatsoever. They do not even have to notify your family of where you are. Ever hear of due process?"
CITE the sections of the Patriot act that support your claims.
To quote you AGAIN: "Didn't think so." "Probably not. You are an idiot."
With your last post, you have PROVEN that you are one of the liberal Kool-Aid drinkers who cannot think independantly and you are obviously incapable of legitimate research.
Not only are you "an idiot" you are a misguided, ill-informed sheep who is so self absorbed that you are incapable of critical thought or analysis.
In other words, YOU are the perfect extremist liberal.
In fact there is a whole lot more that the Patriot Act does to undermine our rights and freedoms that are likely unconstitutional than just those two things I mentioned. These are just a few links that not only PROVE my "accusation" but offer up many more:
Don't post links to Chicken Little-They Sky Is Falling bullshit opinions.
I said cite the specfic Sections of the Patriot Act.
You have done what you accuse others of, diverted away from the challenge with drivel.
Copy & paste the specific sections of the Patriot Act that confirm YOUR accusations (albeit your PARROTED accusations) that the governemnt can detain you as a US citizen without judicial overview and in violation of civil rights.
Since the text of the Patriot Act is lengthly and in "politician language" it is hard to understand what they are talking about in many areas. So, below is a parahrase on just a few issues which you can refer to the text of the law at the link provided and tell me if they are innacurate. How does that sound?
Oh, and BTW, to my knowledge nobody has even DISPUTED this stuff -- not even in the right-wing press:
The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas:
1. Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by a third parties. (Section 215)
2) Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
3) Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
4) "Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).
Also,
Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:
1) Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
2) Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
3) Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
4) Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
>>>>>There is a whole lot more where this stuff came from if you would actually READ what I posted you would know what I am talking about.
First, I went to the actual document, not some bullshit interpretation from the ACLU.
Perhaps YOU do not understand the english language, and I realize that you never matriculated beyond the third grade, however it's time for you leftist sheeplike fools to READ the act and stop relying on the anti-American ACLU pigs for legal aid.
SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT. Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:
`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS. `(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and `(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. `(b) Each application under this section--
`(1) shall be made to-- `(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or `(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and `(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. `(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context. "
Now PAY FUCKING ATTENTION:
To reiterate: `(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and `(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. `(b) Each application under this section--
`(1) shall be made to-- `(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or `(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and `(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. "
It SPECIFICALLY requires a JUDGE or MAGISTRATE to AUTHORIZE action. It lowers the evidentiary standards you nitwit, it DOES NOT bypass the judiciary-hence it DOES NOT violate the Constitution.
Also NOTE-it RECOGNIZES and ACKNOWLEDGES the First Ammendment and PROHIBITS action based upon pure First Ammendment exercise.
I'm tired of telling you this, BUT GET A CLUE!
Your precious ACLU is a collection of America hating asshole attorneys who are ripping off the taxpayers with frivolous lawsuits that ulitmately violate the civil rights of society. These jerkoffs are more concerned about petty trivialities and would prefer to see the Republic transitioned into an EU style world government.
Your blind, slavish devotion to thier propaganda has gone beyond your normal insane ramblings into a full-blown baseless paranoia.
I suggest you seek professional counseling for your mentally abherrent behavior. You quite clearly are insane.
It is clear that after 9/11 we had to re-evaluate our investigations of potential terrorists. The problem is that the Patriot Act was drawn up to push the constitutional freedoms that we enjoy as far as they dared to go (too far in my opinion).
The Patriot Act is ripe for abuse by those who feel that, while acting "in the public good", they can bend our rights and we won't complain.
History will ultimately judge the Patriot Act, and our response to 9/11. And I dare say it will compare our right wing as chicken little, seeing a terrorist under every tree.
In one sense, the entire Constitution is fairly broadly worded. If it were not open to interpretation, I suspect this board would not be very active.
One point that a lot of the conservative talkers always point to is the absence of attacks since 9/11, as if that validates actions taken. The argument that since nothing has happened, the actions of the admin are correct is a falacious argument. However, the secrecy provisions of the Patriot Act, combined with the common sense logic of not revealing your confidential sources and information during ongoing investigations makes you wonder if the Patriot Act has helped prevent anything from happening. When you're playing poker, you don't show all your cards to the rest of the players.
To clip one little section of that bill is hugely misleading and is NOT the proof you say it is.
Just an FYI, when you click on the link I gave you it takes you to the actual text of the Patriot Act. And, if you read my posts you would see that I have said that I do NOT agree with the ACLU on everything.
The fact that you summarily dismiss the ACLU shows that you are the one who is guilty of blindly following -- not me. Just because you are biased against them does not mean what they say is not accurate and true.
How about if the conservative CATO Institute were to agree with the ACLU? Guess what? They do! See my links below.
You are saying that The Patriot Act does not undermine our civil liberties. Okay, whatever.
The reason your "challenge" is bullshit is because to try to clip and paste in a way that you have determined constitutes "proof" is impossible. To try to do so is misleading -- just like what you posted. The Patriot Act never says: "we can take U.S. citizens and hold them without due process". Instead it changes designations of status to "enemy combatant" and waters down "probable cause" and privacy laws.
I noticed you left out all of the text about the designation about "enemy combatant" which allows for U.S. citizens to be held indefinately, in secret on the presidents decision only.
You are saying all of what I posted is simply not true and that it is "chickenlittle the sky is falling" and that I am just PARROTING all this stuff. You are right, I AM just PARROTING this stuff:
You probably won't read it, but I have to try...
You never heard of Jose Padilla? He may be a thug and a criminal. But the Constitution says that he should be afforded due process. http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html
I challenged you to point out the SPECIFIC sections that substantiate your ridiculous allegations.
Instead, you parrot the writingfs of others as "proof", yet you have refused (or are unable) to supply SPECIFIC sections where civil rights are violated.
I refuted your liberal BS by citing THE ACTUAL TEXT from the Patriot Act, including SPECFIC SECTIONS where the Patriot Act REFUTES your claims.
Quit dodging the challenge and CITE THE EXACT SECTIONS where civil rights are deliberately compromised. You can't, because it doesn't do that.
Only one poster has provided anything that has the REMOTEST chance of supporting you, where he pointed out taht the potential exists, if the laws are misapplied. AND, since you obviously cannot comprehend basic logic, I agreed with him that the potential does exist. However, I also think that no matter what the laws are, the potential for abuse exists-that is why there are three branches of the government.
Bottom line to this discussion is you are blowing smoke out your ass because you have swallowed the anti-America spin of the extremists who want nothing more than to destroy the Republic.
Essentially, YOU are guilty of the same crap you accuse conservatives of. You are a hypocrit and a fool.
This is another of your insane, nonsensical rants that measn nothing.
Trying to create division by claiming that people with religious beliefs are against the Constitution. THAT is total bullshit. Statements like that are borderline hate speech and show that extremist liberals such as you are in fact, bigoted, intolerant jerks. The so-called "bible-thumpers" and "religious right" are actually following the Constitution and exercising THIER protected rights to free expression and relgious expression.
It's people like you, who attack them for exercising that freedom-denying them THER civil rights, who are the fascists and the dangers to the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Since you can't refute the challenge, you tried to twist it around.
Your hypocrisy is showing and people can now see you for waht you really are-a weak minded kliberal parrot, incapable of creative thought or analysis.
I guess, since you can only try and joke about how I "crack you up", and you have consistantly refused to CITE the specific sections of the Patriot Act that validate your idiotic claims, that just means you acknowledge that the Patriot Act does not, in fact, trample on civil liberties.
Quit trying to divert the the point away from the issue by posting references that are meaningless-either cite the specific sections or give it up.
Which is what this thread was suppose to be about -- YOU changed the subject. That is YOUR tactic. I wonder how many names you have called me just on this thread alone?
You are pathetic.
Now that I put you on ignor in my email you are really going nuts, eh, birdman? Like I said, maybe you should up the dosage.
Which is what this thread was suppose to be about -- YOU changed the subject. That is YOUR tactic. I wonder how many names you have called me just on this thread alone?
You are pathetic.
Now that I put you on ignor in my email you are really going nuts, eh, birdman? Like I said, maybe you should up the dosage.
However, your "ignoring" (actually your ignorance) and your continued replies to my posts are evidence that you are getting riled up. Primarily becasue you are consistantly proven wrong.
Your skinny little head would never believe this, but...
I actually like toying with you. You get so wigged out when I point out how hypocritical you are....
Just remember, you are the one who supports the people who would shut down this website and arrest all of us if they could -- all based on their "moral values". That is what makes you the ultimate hypocrite on this board.
Stamina, you might be correct about JBird's moral position on prostitution, but then again, you might be confusing him with me. I would gladly give up this hobby if someone could use a magic wand and eliminate the world's oldest profession. I have known many ladies that are completely comfortable with what they do, but I believe they are but a few in the whole scheme of things that do this by choice. Think globally and historically. Is your or my phucking around really that important or vital? There you go nutcase, flame away about my hypocracy!
That is just one reason I take issue with the rapture-right. We have so many more important things that are of live and death consequence to people. Yet they are worrying about "decency" (which means stuff like this website)? I don't get it.
I'm imagining Ben Franklin saying "This Number 6 guy is an absolute nutjob!" Thomas Jefferson would opine about risking his life and all assets for the pro-choicers and gay activists and General and POTUS George Washington would probably shoot the first S.O.B. he saw burn the American flag. Honestly, I think they would cry if they saw the state of the country today.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
