Post by: helpless on August 15, 2007, 04:51:27 PM
Does it even matter to Americans who will uphold the constitution or are most people treating this like American Idol?
Post by: grampster on August 15, 2007, 05:28:28 PM
Post by: m1911owner on August 15, 2007, 05:43:23 PM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on August 15, 2007, 06:13:34 PM
Post by: HankB on August 15, 2007, 06:23:08 PM
Post by: Paddy on August 15, 2007, 06:25:21 PM
Post by: HankB on August 15, 2007, 06:33:37 PM
. . . Lincoln had a noble cause; the preservation of the Union.
Damnyankee. 
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 15, 2007, 06:36:17 PM
Post by: SomeKid on August 15, 2007, 06:38:40 PM
Post by: Paddy on August 15, 2007, 06:47:14 PM
Quote
As if preventing future terrorist attacks wouldn't be just as noble a cause.
Really? Then why have everybody in gubmint, including Cheney and Skeletor, said future attacks are inevitable, it's just a matter of time?
Post by: Paddy on August 15, 2007, 06:48:32 PM
Quote
Damnyankee.
Quote
Preservation of the Union was a good cause in the 1860s? Coulda fooled me...
It's over. You lost. Get over it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 15, 2007, 07:14:35 PM
Quote
As if preventing future terrorist attacks wouldn't be just as noble a cause.
Really? Then why have everybody in gubmint, including Cheney and Skeletor, said future attacks are inevitable, it's just a matter of time? Oh my stars and garters.
The supposed inevitability of terrorism has no bearing on whether fighting it is a noble cause. Sort of like how crime is inevitable, yet stopping crime is still a noble cause. Sort of like how stupid is inevitable, yet there is a certain nobility to curing it. Or at least trying. 
Post by: The Rabbi on August 16, 2007, 05:51:20 AM
Of course he ended his career with that remark.
Post by: RevDisk on August 16, 2007, 06:36:41 AM
GWB and the Congress have pretty much shredded the BOR. And don't tell me Lincoln did the same thing. Lincoln had a noble cause; the preservation of the Union.
Irregardless of Lincoln's intentions, and I'm not a big fan of his, he set the stage for future shreddings. He may or may not have intended for his shreddings to be temporary, but instead they've become the status quo. Same with GWB, irregardless of his intentions, his infringements will remain for some time.
Governments are not in the habit of relinquishing power. It's been that way since the Roman Empire.
Basically all of the likely candidates are typical politicians. They will not give up any government powers, they will not return too many civil liberties, nor make significant cuts to government spending.
Post by: Fly320s on August 16, 2007, 07:16:21 AM
Does it even matter to Americans who will uphold the constitution or are most people treating this like American Idol?
No. All that matters is that people have their entertainment, goodies, and entitlements. People will always vote for more of those instead of liberty.It sure is a good thing that we are a republic, although I don't see how that helps us much these days. Voting politicians out of office doesn't seem to have much of a deterrent effect. I don't see much of a roll-back of laws and entitlements, either.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 16, 2007, 01:37:28 PM
Except that I'm withholding judgment on whether Bush has shredded any rights not already shredded. Well, he did sign "Campaign Finance Reform."
Did I just spell "withholding" with a hyphen?
Post by: RevDisk on August 16, 2007, 03:04:34 PM
I like what RevDisk said.
Except that I'm withholding judgment on whether Bush has shredded any rights not already shredded. Well, he did sign "Campaign Finance Reform."
Except that I'm withholding judgment on whether Bush has shredded any rights not already shredded. Well, he did sign "Campaign Finance Reform."
I can see your argument. Technically, Congress approved after the fact many of his blatantly un-Constitutional actions. So blame should be split?
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 16, 2007, 06:17:03 PM
I just like the fact that your view of history doesn't start in 2001. Personal remark removed by fistful.
Post by: Paddy on August 17, 2007, 06:21:49 AM
Quote
I just like the fact that your view of history doesn't start in 2001. Like some people we know.
Uh-huh. Well, when you have to reach back 150 years and vilify Lincoln in some attempt to defend Bush, you've got a problem. You'll understand that better when the next president(s) use Bush's excesses as a basis to take actions you won't like at all. Quote
Governments are not in the habit of relinquishing power. It's been that way since the Roman Empire.
Basically all of the likely candidates are typical politicians. They will not give up any government powers, they will not return too many civil liberties, nor make significant cuts to government spending.
Basically all of the likely candidates are typical politicians. They will not give up any government powers, they will not return too many civil liberties, nor make significant cuts to government spending.
So wait until it's Hillary/Obama/Edwards/Kerry in the Whitehouse, then come talk to me.
Post by: Len Budney on August 17, 2007, 07:04:01 AM
Uh-huh. Well, when you have to reach back 150 years and vilify Lincoln in some attempt to defend Bush, you've got a problem.
I must have missed something: how can you use Lincoln to defend Bush? Both suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned American citizens without charges or trial, etc. Lincoln was worse than Bush in that Bush hasn't shut down any newspapers yet. But as far as I can see they're peas in a pod--and both bad.
Quote
So wait until it's Hillary/Obama/Edwards/Kerry in the Whitehouse, then come talk to me.
I look forward to seeing the fun when Hillary gets her hands on the MCA and USA PATRIOT. All the right-wingers saying, "Dayum! I thought them laws only took away rights from furriners and ay-rabs! Where the hay does she get off wiretapping, arresting and taking away rights from armed white rednecks borned and bred in the you ess of AY?"
The libertarian types will be saying, "I told you so!" From the next cell over, probably.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 17, 2007, 07:28:26 AM
I must have missed something: how can you use Lincoln to defend Bush? Both suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned American citizens without charges or trial, etc. Lincoln was worse than Bush in that Bush hasn't shut down any newspapers yet. But as far as I can see they're peas in a pod--and both bad.
I must have missed where Bush suspended habeas corpus. As for imprisoning American citizens, maybe you'd want to refer to the German saboteurs case, brought to the USSC in the 1940s.
Post by: Werewolf on August 17, 2007, 07:35:16 AM
Presidential Candidates and The Constitution / Bill of Rights.
Does it even matter to Americans who will uphold the constitution or are most people treating this like American Idol?
American Idol.Does it even matter to Americans who will uphold the constitution or are most people treating this like American Idol?
I lost faith in the electorate when not a few of the women I know told me they voted for Clinton because he was just sooooo good looking...
Makes me wonder if some hot babe ran if she could win the presidency because your average male voter would vote for her just because she was hot.
I'm tellin ya...
The American electorate is just getting...
Dumber and dumber and dumber as time goes on.
Post by: RevDisk on August 17, 2007, 06:30:08 PM
It's not an argument, Rev. I just haven't really looked into the PATRIOT Act or other supposed infringements to see what's really going on there. I've heard arguments on both sides, and I figure I really should have more of a grounding in law and in fourth amendment issues and such before judging. So, I'm not going there yet.
I just like the fact that your view of history doesn't start in 2001. Like some people we know.
I just like the fact that your view of history doesn't start in 2001. Like some people we know.
I sincerely recommend you do. While I acknowledge every President has likely signed away bits and pieces of our liberty, since 2001 the pace has been higher than normal. Granted, this isn't WWII. We're not opening concentration camps for people of the wrong ethnic group who did nothing wrong. (Which I personally believe was more legal than the current 'ghost detainee' programs.) Spend an afternoon reading highlights on the the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (which applies to US citizens), Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, etc. I attended a seminar at Defcon just on the computer security related aspects of the PATRIOT Act, and it was rather staggering. Due to its lengthy nature, it'd take about a week to read and properly understand. Let alone research its implimentations and such. The whole NSA domestic wiretapping issue is amusing because a lot of its 'legality' is classified. Most investigations were dropped due to the classified nature. Even DOJ OPR lawyers couldn't get clearances.
You don't have to be a lawyer to read the Constitution and understand it. Sure, the volumes of case law is such that no living person could possibly be familiar with it, but you'd be surprised that generally our laws are not in foreign languages and can actually be read by a native English speaker.
You are correct that my view of history does not start nor end with 2000 to present. FISA always has been more or less a joke. The only upside was a paper trail, even if the majority is classified. The DMCA is just as great of an infringement on civil liberties as the Patriot Act. etc etc. However, past evils do not justify current evils.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 17, 2007, 08:43:32 PM
Well, when you have to reach back 150 years and vilify Lincoln in some attempt to defend Bush, you've got a problem. You'll understand that better when the next president(s) use Bush's excesses as a basis to take actions you won't like at all.
Riley, it was not my purpose to defend Bush. All I've done here is say that, if he is a villain, he is probably a lesser one. And I don't know what good it does the nation to heap so much criticism on the man, when that can only lead to a Democratic administration.
Please forgive me, but I have been taking out some frustrations on you, which was not fair. You see, I've had my fill of personal remark removed by fistful. Maybe I expect too much of people.
But I can, with clear conscience, correct you on this point. It is simply not reasonable to claim that rights can be infringed to "preserve the union," while saying that combating terrorism is not a "noble cause." Think about this. Many people, right or wrong, trace the loss of liberty in America directly to Lincoln's heavy-handed methods. If they are right, Bush is really just a piker in the whole mess. In any case, you can hardly excoriate Bush while giving Lincoln a pass.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 17, 2007, 08:52:05 PM
It's not an argument, Rev. I just haven't really looked into the PATRIOT Act or other supposed infringements to see what's really going on there. I've heard arguments on both sides, and I figure I really should have more of a grounding in law and in fourth amendment issues and such before judging. So, I'm not going there yet.
I sincerely recommend you do.
Believe me, I will. I'm not afraid to read the Constitution or have an opinion. But just this forum is enough to teach a person that blabbing without a good grasp of the subject matter is stupid. I've done it myself, and I've seen other people do it. I've also seen smart folks make good arguments on both sides of the Patriot Act and related issues. If you feel your grasp of the law is good enough to help you understand USA PATRIOT, good for you. I just don't think I've gotten there yet. There are other things for me to bone up on first.
Post by: Tallpine on August 18, 2007, 05:18:57 AM
Quote
And I don't know what good it does the nation to heap so much criticism on the man, when that can only lead to a Democratic administration.
Then what should one do ... praise him for awful decisions just to keep the Democrats at bay
And looking at the current crop of "Republican" hopefuls, if Rudy is the front runner then we are in a "heap of trouble"
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 18, 2007, 06:55:04 AM
On the other hand, I do want the Republican party to understand that moderates like Bush, Bush and Dole are no longer acceptable candidates. Maybe all the conservative Bush-bashing will get that point across. But, given that Romney and Guliani seem to be the front-runners, maybe not.
Post by: Paddy on August 20, 2007, 05:28:44 AM
Quote
Please forgive me, but I have been taking out some frustrations on you, which was not fair. You see, I've had my fill of folks twice my age, whose view of history is shorter and shallower than my own. Maybe I expect too much of people.
Translation: "If you don't agree with me, your view of history is short and shallow".
If you're half my age, you've been voting for about 12 years, two presidential election cycles. Possibly GWB is the only POTUS you've ever voted for? Maybe that explains why you seem to be so invested in him.
I've been voting since 1968 (would have voted Goldwater in 1964, but the voting age was 21 back then). Voted straight Republican until 1992, Republican again to the present day. During that time, I've seen the Republican party morph into big spending liberty grabbing money filching whores. Democrats have become wild eyed spittle flying America hating statists. I want nothing to do with either of them.
Quote
But I can, with clear conscience, correct you on this point. It is simply not reasonable to claim that rights can be infringed to "preserve the union," while saying that combating terrorism is not a "noble cause."
I invite you, once again, to explain how the U.S. military adventure in Iraq 'combats terrorism'.
Post by: Bogie on August 20, 2007, 06:16:20 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 20, 2007, 12:57:40 PM
Quote
But I can, with clear conscience, correct you on this point. It is simply not reasonable to claim that rights can be infringed to "preserve the union," while saying that combating terrorism is not a "noble cause."
I invite you, once again, to explain how the U.S. military adventure in Iraq 'combats terrorism'.
I thought we were talking about the PATRIOT Act, the so-called domestic wire-tapping, etc. I wasn't talking about Iraq. I invite you, once again, to explain why Lincoln gets a pass, but Bush does not. Why are you so invested in Lincoln?
Post by: Paddy on August 20, 2007, 01:22:33 PM
Quote
I thought we were talking about the PATRIOT Act, the so-called domestic wire-tapping, etc. I wasn't talking about Iraq.
Translation: "I can come up with some semi plausible BS for the PA's and illegal surveillance, but (like Bush and the admin) I got nothin' when it comes to Iraq."
Quote
I invite you, once again, to explain why Lincoln gets a pass, but Bush does not
Lincoln's been dead for 142 years; Bush is currently POTUS. Lincoln accomplished his goal. Bush has not. Now answer my question.
Thanks.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 20, 2007, 01:39:09 PM
Quote
I thought we were talking about the PATRIOT Act, the so-called domestic wire-tapping, etc. I wasn't talking about Iraq.
Translation: "I can come up with some semi plausible BS for the PA's and illegal surveillance, but (like Bush and the admin) I got nothin' when it comes to Iraq."
Quote
I invite you, once again, to explain why Lincoln gets a pass, but Bush does not
Lincoln's been dead for 142 years; Bush is currently POTUS. Lincoln accomplished his goal. Bush has not. Now answer my question.
Thanks.
Translation: I can't comprehend what fistful is actually saying, so I'll just assume he is defending Bush and the war again, and blather about that.
Riley, I have already said that Bush infringed civil liberties by signing McCain-Feingold. I did not say it was acceptable for him to infringe rights via the Patriot Act and other means. I said that I haven't been convinced that that is happening.
If you want to have a real debate with me on civil liberties or Iraq, you will have to learn to separate one issue from another, and deal with one thing at a time. When I ask a question, just answer it. Or if I answer a question, just take it as an answer for that question. Don't assume that everything I say is some attempt to defend Bush or the war. I am not in lockstep with either, I just find your criticism to be unwarranted.
Quote
Translation: "If you don't agree with me, your view of history is short and shallow".
Did you catch any of the back and forth between Revdisk and me?
Post by: Paddy on August 20, 2007, 02:09:33 PM
Quote
Did you catch any of the back and forth between Revdisk and me?
Yes. Revdisk used the work 'irregardless' twice. There is no such word and I subsequently lost interest in anything else he had to say. You then admitted you don't know much about Bush's usurpations of power.
Quote
Don't assume that everything I say is some attempt to defend Bush or the war. I am not in lockstep with either, I just find your criticism to be unwarranted.
The Bush Administration has presided over the single largest increase in federal power and single largest infringement of individual liberty in history, yet my criticism is unwarranted?
OK
The bloom is off the rose of the GWB Admin; it's clear to anyone who's paying attention that Iraq is nothing more than a pump 'n dump scheme. And we (suckers) are falling for it.
Post by: RevDisk on August 20, 2007, 02:31:12 PM
Quote
Did you catch any of the back and forth between Revdisk and me?
Yes. Revdisk used the work 'irregardless' twice. There is no such word and I subsequently lost interest in anything else he had to say. You then admitted you don't know much about Bush's usurpations of power.
Not that I wish to interrupt you two, but I'd like to point out that 'irregardless' is indeed a word. Just a nonstandard one that does not conform to proper structure. My last CO added more than one piece of paper to my personnel jacket with almost exactly the same phrase. Anywho. I happen to like it, so I use it. I'm known to use "ain't" on occassion too. Though not near any English teacher. They seem to have a pathological hatred of that word.
Quote
ir·re·gard·less –adverb Nonstandard. regardless.
[Origin: 1910–15; ir-2 (prob. after irrespective) + regardless]
—Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
[Origin: 1910–15; ir-2 (prob. after irrespective) + regardless]
—Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Please continue, I am finding much entertainment with this thread thus far.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 20, 2007, 03:14:50 PM
Oh, and the point about RevDisk was that he disagrees with me, yet I noted that he does not seem to have a shallow view of history.
Post by: Paddy on August 20, 2007, 03:19:25 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 20, 2007, 03:20:59 PM
And look up the term "non sequitir" while you're at it. Use it correctly next time.
Post by: Paddy on August 20, 2007, 03:25:25 PM
"non-sequitir? BWAHAHHAAHAAA!
Post by: LadySmith on August 21, 2007, 01:47:08 AM
Quote
I've seen the Republican party morph into big spending liberty grabbing money filching whores. Democrats have become wild eyed spittle flying America hating statists. I want nothing to do with either of them.
That about sums up my thoughts and feelings on current politicians. Wake me up when there's a "We'll leave you the heck alone" party.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 21, 2007, 02:10:13 AM
Quote
I invite you, once again, to explain why Lincoln gets a pass, but Bush does not. Why are you so invested in Lincoln?
And did you think there was only one Ron Paul thread?
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=8164.msg134345#msg134345
And please point out the non sequitur in my above post. You can spell it correctly, but do you know what it means?
Post by: helpless on August 21, 2007, 03:29:05 AM
Quote
If you're half my age, you've been voting for about 12 years, two presidential election cycles. Possibly GWB is the only POTUS you've ever voted for? Maybe that explains why you seem to be so invested in him.
I've been voting since 1968 (would have voted Goldwater in 1964, but the voting age was 21 back then). Voted straight Republican until 1992, Republican again to the present day. During that time, I've seen the Republican party morph into big spending liberty grabbing money filching whores. Democrats have become wild eyed spittle flying America hating statists. I want nothing to do with either of them.
I've been voting since 1968 (would have voted Goldwater in 1964, but the voting age was 21 back then). Voted straight Republican until 1992, Republican again to the present day. During that time, I've seen the Republican party morph into big spending liberty grabbing money filching whores. Democrats have become wild eyed spittle flying America hating statists. I want nothing to do with either of them.
I am 28 years old and I think about this often when learning and forming opinions on politics. A few friends are a few years younger then myself and then there is my father and father in law who have very different views.
It helps me to keep in mind that even though I might think I have it all figured out I am basically a noob and lack experience when it comes to understanding government.
One thing I do know is my father and father inlaw both seem to have a better grasp on things then my younger friends who have voted maybe once or twice.