No support for idiots supporting terrorists

Alias said:
I'll follow the wretched refuse American citizens that wrote the bill. I disagree with you that the two are not compatible. If they were "wretched refuse" then you might have a point. That's just your opinion. It would really be a tragedy for you to act with violence against the American authorities who enforce our laws. You might want to talk to someone before you do that.
Click to expand...
this is what makes you the enemy of our free country. the mere fact that you support ignoring the constitution so you can feel safe makes you as unamerican as the 19 terrorists that flew planes in to the buildings.
 
bravo said:
You don't have to choose now and didn't before.....its always been a balancing act between the two....

I'm surprised your sight is so narrow that you've failed to see that fact......

Every law on the books limits our freedoms to a degree, in some fashion....and these things will change as

the world changes ......
Click to expand...
are you that blind that you do not see the inevitable loss of all freedom as more laws are made?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this is what makes you the enemy of our free country. the mere fact that you support ignoring the constitution so you can feel safe makes you as unamerican as the 19 terrorists that flew planes in to the buildings.
Click to expand...

I think you should seek out professional help as soon as possible.
 
bravo said:
Seems you have no clear concept of rights....especially the rights of others, and where yours end........

There was no government or Supreme Court before to write a Constitution...

A course in Civics would do you good......you need to understand facts and not 'truth' as only you perceive it.....


Its ok that we disagree, not problem at all......
Click to expand...
i have a crystal clear concept of rights and responsibilities. your viewpoint happens to be one that sees people without responsibility, so rights can be limited. that is not the view of the founding fathers.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this is a dangerously naive view point on your part. very dangerous.
Click to expand...


I'm just stating facts.....those terrorists could not be stopped, legally, from boarding those plane on the morning of 9/11......there was no cause....no legal cause....they would have sued everyone .....

Thats just the way it is .....

They could be stopped easily now, today.....and legally detained on a Caribbean Island I know.....indefinitely .....
 
Alias said:
Tell that to Abraham Lincoln. Do you know your history? I doubt it. I bet you've been to college too.
Click to expand...

Indeed I do know my history. But we are not discussing history. We are discussing a bill that would put the Bill of Rights in the trashcan at the whim of a gov't bureaucrat.

What part of the following do you think is optional to a free people?

"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 offence 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."

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
 
Alias said:
I respect the Constitution as much as Abraham Lincoln did in the Civil War. He saved the Union.
Click to expand...
by ignoring the constitution. in other words, your a government statist that gives unlimited power to the government as long as the cause is good. that's why Soc said you're a good german.
 
bravo said:
I'm just stating facts.....those terrorists could not be stopped, legally, from boarding those plane on the morning of 9/11......there was no cause....no legal cause....they would have sued everyone .....

Thats just the way it is .....

They could be stopped easily now, today.....and legally detained on a Caribbean Island I know.....indefinitely .....
Click to expand...
the fact that you still don't see the danger to the constitution with the above statements is terrifying. you are an enemy to the constitution as well it seems.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i have a crystal clear concept of rights and responsibilities. your viewpoint happens to be one that sees people without responsibility, so rights can be limited. that is not the view of the founding fathers.
Click to expand...


Thats the point sonny.....everyone is NOT responsible....or don't you get out much.....
the guys in 1776 know that fact and acted accordingly....

Thats the reason rights are not without limits....because there are irresponsible people....the jails are fulled to overflowing with them....
 
Alias said:
I respect the Constitution as much as Abraham Lincoln did in the Civil War. He saved the Union.
Click to expand...
i weep for you. truly. do you not understand how bad that viewpoint is to freedom? you actually have no problem that lincoln voided the constitution, but it's ok because it all turned out well that time?
 
bravo said:


I think your confusing the Constitution with the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence....
Click to expand...

The US Constitution provides the framework by which our freedoms are guaranteed, our rights are spelled out, and the limitations of the government are enumerated.
 
bravo said:
Thats the point sonny.....everyone is NOT responsible....or don't you get out much.....
the guys in 1776 know that fact and acted accordingly....
Click to expand...
first off, i'm probably older than you, so don't call me sonny anymore. secondly, show me where in the constitution it gives the government the authority or power to put 'reasonable restrictions' on our rights.

bravo said:
Thats the reason rights are not without limits....because there are irresponsible people....the jails are fulled to overflowing with them....
Click to expand...
your daft, plain daft.
 
WinterBorn said:
Indeed I do know my history. But we are not discussing history. We are discussing a bill that would put the Bill of Rights in the trashcan at the whim of a gov't bureaucrat.

What part of the following do you think is optional to a free people?

"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 offence 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."

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Click to expand...

We are discussing what is legal. You need to take some time and read about Abe Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus among other rights during the Civil War to save the Union.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/habeuscorpus.htm
 
bravo said:
Thats the point sonny.....everyone is NOT responsible....or don't you get out much.....
the guys in 1776 know that fact and acted accordingly....

Thats the reason rights are not without limits....because there are irresponsible people....the jails are fulled to overflowing with them....
Click to expand...

And they were put there by trials, as the US Constitution demands. This bill that you favor would be able to skip that step and imprison anyone that they CLAIMED was guilty.
 
Alias said:
We are discussing what is legal. You need to take some time and read about Abe Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus among other rights during the Civil War to save the Union.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/habeuscorpus.htm
Click to expand...

I am aware of what Lincoln did. I do not agree with what he did. And the fact that you think the end justifies the means shows you have no regard for either the US Constitution or the freedoms it guarantees us.

We are not discussing what is legal. We are discussing what is unconstitutional. There is a difference.
 
WinterBorn said:
I am aware of what Lincoln did. I do not agree with what he did. And the fact that you think the end justifies the means shows you have no regard for either the US Constitution or the freedoms it guarantees us.

We are not discussing what is legal. We are discussing what is unconstitutional. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

Was it unconstitutional to suspend heabeus corpus?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top