100,000 Americans murdered since 9/11 (and not by terr'ists)
-
led mike wrote:
Excuse me if I refuse to accept your philosophical interpretations.
You can refuse anything you like, but your views are clearly libertarian, not Jeffersonian.
led mike wrote:
You are the guy who simultaneously claims to support Jeffersonian principles and that critics of the Bush administration should be considered traitors.
When you overtly attempt to subvert the president's execution of his constitutional responsibilities to defend the nation, yes, you are a traitor. Sorry.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When you overtly attempt to subvert the president's execution of his constitutional responsibilities to defend the nation, yes, you are a traitor. Sorry.
Not according to Jefferson
The Alien and Sedition Acts were four laws passed by the Federalists in the United States Congress in 1798 during the administration of President John Adams, which was waging an undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War. Proponents claimed they were designed to protect the United States from alien citizens of enemy powers and to stop seditious attacks from weakening the government. The Democratic-Republicans, like later historians, attacked them as being both unconstitutional and designed to stifle criticism of the administration, and as infringing on the right of the states to act in these areas. They became a major political issue in the elections of 1798 and 1800. One act (the Alien Enemies Act) is still the law in 2007, and has frequently been enforced in wartime. The others expired or were repealed by 1802. Thomas Jefferson held them all to be unconstitutional and void, and pardoned and ordered the release of all who had been convicted of violating them.Stan Shannon wrote:
but your views are clearly libertarian, not Jeffersonian.
Sorry, it's your views that are clearly NOT Jeffersonian Jeffersonian democracy
In its core ideals it is characterized by the following elements, which the Jeffersonians expressed in their speeches and legislation:
....
Republicanism, also known as representative Democracy, is the best form of government and representative democracy is needed to prevent the tyranny by the majority
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
One of the purposes of the Department of Homeland Security is to guard our nation's infrastructure. How can they do that if it falls apart on its own?
Guarding != Fixing/Maintaining George W. Bush does not decide where and how federal money is spent. That is the responsibility of the Congress and of the many States. The federal gas tax is supposed to fund infrastructure improvements, but it seems that Congress can't keep their hands out of the money. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-ex-bush9aug10,1,4026812.story?track=rss[^] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm451.cfm[^] Executive powers have not expanded that much in the past 8 years. Somebody is feeding you a line of bull.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
Jason Henderson wrote:
Guarding != Fixing/Maintaining
Guarding is predicated on the continued existence of those structures, no? If your job is to keep things safe, isn't part of that responsibility, you know, keeping them safe?
Jason Henderson wrote:
George W. Bush does not decide where and how federal money is spent. That is the responsibility of the Congress and of the many States.
George Bush architected the War on Terror, including the War in Iraq. He created the DHS with his own pen. The fact that he did not vote on funding is irrelevant. Every penny spent through agencies and efforts Bush himself was responsible for creating is his responsibility. Through direct executive orders, the US has spent half a trillion dollars on war.
Jason Henderson wrote:
The federal gas tax is supposed to fund infrastructure improvements, but it seems that Congress can't keep their hands out of the money.
Why would you post that article to defend your point? The only way Bush can affect infrastructure is by granting more money to the states (40% of states' spending on highways and bridges is federal money, thanks for the source), which he refused to do. He doesn't want to raise the federal gas tax in order to support infrastructure repairs because it would "slow economic growth" (in other words, hurt energy companies). So, the only thing he could do to help, he has refused to do. Yet, somehow, he is not responsible.
Jason Henderson wrote:
Executive powers have not expanded that much in the past 8 years. Somebody is feeding you a line of bull.
The National Defense Authorization Act had a section inserted that amends the Posse Comitatus Act to allow for the domestic use of the military in case of "other conditions in which the president determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order." President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without obtaining a court order on calls and e-mail messages sent from the United States to other countries. He has issued a steady stream of signing statements, signaling his intent not to comply with more than 750 provisions of laws concerning national security and disclosure, most notably one that questioned Congress’s authority to limit coer
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Meanwhile, we're supposed to be afraid of terrorists.
nope - we should be araid of autos[^] However, with 12,000,000 to 20,000,00 million illegals in the country neither statistic is a surprise.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Actually, I have argued that point for years, but the fact is, we've been distracted by constant cries of "TERRORISTS" from the current administration. The country is falling apart and I'm basically supposed to be worried about being struck by lightning, speaking statistically.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Post your own thread if you want to talk about something different.
no
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Ha ha, what a cranky little loser you are. Did little Mikey forget his nap today?
-
Ha ha, what a cranky little loser you are. Did little Mikey forget his nap today?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Did little Mikey forget his nap today?
no
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
See there's a great reason for you to support gay marriage, at least for males, you can be sure they would never have an abortion.
led mike wrote:
for you to support gay marriage
sure. then on to pedophilia.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When you overtly attempt to subvert the president's execution of his constitutional responsibilities to defend the nation, yes, you are a traitor. Sorry.
Not according to Jefferson
The Alien and Sedition Acts were four laws passed by the Federalists in the United States Congress in 1798 during the administration of President John Adams, which was waging an undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War. Proponents claimed they were designed to protect the United States from alien citizens of enemy powers and to stop seditious attacks from weakening the government. The Democratic-Republicans, like later historians, attacked them as being both unconstitutional and designed to stifle criticism of the administration, and as infringing on the right of the states to act in these areas. They became a major political issue in the elections of 1798 and 1800. One act (the Alien Enemies Act) is still the law in 2007, and has frequently been enforced in wartime. The others expired or were repealed by 1802. Thomas Jefferson held them all to be unconstitutional and void, and pardoned and ordered the release of all who had been convicted of violating them.Stan Shannon wrote:
but your views are clearly libertarian, not Jeffersonian.
Sorry, it's your views that are clearly NOT Jeffersonian Jeffersonian democracy
In its core ideals it is characterized by the following elements, which the Jeffersonians expressed in their speeches and legislation:
....
Republicanism, also known as representative Democracy, is the best form of government and representative democracy is needed to prevent the tyranny by the majority
Wow, way to hand Stan Shannon his ass! That's what happens when you are not honest about your motivations, Stan, you get called out. Listen, man, if you are not prepared to defend the fact that guys fucking each other grosses you out, maybe you should consider why that is, and learn to put your feelings aside. So that no one embarrasses you on the internet.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Did little Mikey forget his nap today?
no
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Nice online temper tantrum! Don't worry, buddy, I'll make a thread for you!
-
Nice online temper tantrum! Don't worry, buddy, I'll make a thread for you!
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Nice online temper tantrum! Don't worry, buddy, I'll make a thread for you!
thanks man.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When you overtly attempt to subvert the president's execution of his constitutional responsibilities to defend the nation, yes, you are a traitor. Sorry.
Not according to Jefferson
The Alien and Sedition Acts were four laws passed by the Federalists in the United States Congress in 1798 during the administration of President John Adams, which was waging an undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War. Proponents claimed they were designed to protect the United States from alien citizens of enemy powers and to stop seditious attacks from weakening the government. The Democratic-Republicans, like later historians, attacked them as being both unconstitutional and designed to stifle criticism of the administration, and as infringing on the right of the states to act in these areas. They became a major political issue in the elections of 1798 and 1800. One act (the Alien Enemies Act) is still the law in 2007, and has frequently been enforced in wartime. The others expired or were repealed by 1802. Thomas Jefferson held them all to be unconstitutional and void, and pardoned and ordered the release of all who had been convicted of violating them.Stan Shannon wrote:
but your views are clearly libertarian, not Jeffersonian.
Sorry, it's your views that are clearly NOT Jeffersonian Jeffersonian democracy
In its core ideals it is characterized by the following elements, which the Jeffersonians expressed in their speeches and legislation:
....
Republicanism, also known as representative Democracy, is the best form of government and representative democracy is needed to prevent the tyranny by the majority
led mike wrote:
Thomas Jefferson held them all to be unconstitutional and void, and pardoned and ordered the release of all who had been convicted of violating them.
Which, as president, he had every constitutional right to do. But, pray tell, given your interpretation of Jeffersonian democracy, how can any president declare anything to be unconstitutional? Isn't that the power you want reserved for the courts? Would you be ok if Bush decided preventing him from wire tapping was unconstitutional? For my part, I think its perfectly appropriate for the president, and the courts, and the congress, to be allowed to interpret the constitution. So, again, I side with Jefferson. You don't. Sorry, I still win.
led mike wrote:
and representative democracy is needed to prevent the tyranny by the majority
Which I agree with completely, and have never said otherwise. Try this [^] on for size, constitution boy. The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51 Indeed...
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Wow, way to hand Stan Shannon his ass! That's what happens when you are not honest about your motivations, Stan, you get called out. Listen, man, if you are not prepared to defend the fact that guys fucking each other grosses you out, maybe you should consider why that is, and learn to put your feelings aside. So that no one embarrasses you on the internet.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
So that no one embarrasses you on the internet.
If you (or Mike) had any brains you would appreciate that I'm not the one being embarrassed here. But, I will have to admit that you are pretty fly (for a white guy). [^] :laugh:
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
Guarding != Fixing/Maintaining
Guarding is predicated on the continued existence of those structures, no? If your job is to keep things safe, isn't part of that responsibility, you know, keeping them safe?
Jason Henderson wrote:
George W. Bush does not decide where and how federal money is spent. That is the responsibility of the Congress and of the many States.
George Bush architected the War on Terror, including the War in Iraq. He created the DHS with his own pen. The fact that he did not vote on funding is irrelevant. Every penny spent through agencies and efforts Bush himself was responsible for creating is his responsibility. Through direct executive orders, the US has spent half a trillion dollars on war.
Jason Henderson wrote:
The federal gas tax is supposed to fund infrastructure improvements, but it seems that Congress can't keep their hands out of the money.
Why would you post that article to defend your point? The only way Bush can affect infrastructure is by granting more money to the states (40% of states' spending on highways and bridges is federal money, thanks for the source), which he refused to do. He doesn't want to raise the federal gas tax in order to support infrastructure repairs because it would "slow economic growth" (in other words, hurt energy companies). So, the only thing he could do to help, he has refused to do. Yet, somehow, he is not responsible.
Jason Henderson wrote:
Executive powers have not expanded that much in the past 8 years. Somebody is feeding you a line of bull.
The National Defense Authorization Act had a section inserted that amends the Posse Comitatus Act to allow for the domestic use of the military in case of "other conditions in which the president determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order." President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without obtaining a court order on calls and e-mail messages sent from the United States to other countries. He has issued a steady stream of signing statements, signaling his intent not to comply with more than 750 provisions of laws concerning national security and disclosure, most notably one that questioned Congress’s authority to limit coer
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Guarding is predicated on the continued existence of those structures, no? If your job is to keep things safe, isn't part of that responsibility, you know, keeping them safe?
Guarding from interior or exterior threats, which would not include deterioration due to natural causes.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
George Bush architected the War on Terror, including the War in Iraq. He created the DHS with his own pen. The fact that he did not vote on funding is irrelevant. Every penny spent through agencies and efforts Bush himself was responsible for creating is his responsibility. Through direct executive orders, the US has spent half a trillion dollars on war.
It seems to me that you are wanting to give Bush more power. Saying he is responsible for all domestic spending just because a federal agency oversees security on infrastructure is absurd. Congress appropriates funds and in order to get any federal money to the states Bush has to sign it, he doesn't have a line-item veto.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Why would you post that article to defend your point? The only way Bush can affect infrastructure is by granting more money to the states (40% of states' spending on highways and bridges is federal money, thanks for the source), which he refused to do. He doesn't want to raise the federal gas tax in order to support infrastructure repairs because it would "slow economic growth" (in other words, hurt energy companies). So, the only thing he could do to help, he has refused to do. Yet, somehow, he is not responsible.
Think about it a minute. Congress appropriates the money and they say where it can be spent. Some of the money that should go to bridges instead gets spent on museums, monuments, and other PORK projects. Instead of raising taxes, which would doubtless hurt the economy, why not spend more responsibly? Let the money go to infrastructure and not PORK.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Somebody has been feeding you a line of bull, or likely, a line of truth you don't like the taste of.
In war there is doubtless going to be an extension of executive power. See Lincoln in the Civil War, Roosevelt in WWII, etc. I would venture to guess that your source is a radical left leaning blog or "news" site. The Patriot Act was approved by Congress. We have che
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
valid but not in the context of the question, which was, "what rights have been eroded?" Gays have never had these rights
Ah you're right. Thanks.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
If anything, hetrosexuals are losing rights through an adversion to marriage, which then puts them on a par with homosexuals.
Good point. Hmm that's actually an interesting point.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Good point. Hmm that's actually an interesting point.
I would beg to differ. How exactly do heterosexual people lose rights? Pure propaganda...
-- Secreted by the Comedy Bee
-
led mike wrote:
for you to support gay marriage
sure. then on to pedophilia.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
led mike wrote:
there's controversy about that?
if you're a pedophile
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
So that no one embarrasses you on the internet.
If you (or Mike) had any brains you would appreciate that I'm not the one being embarrassed here. But, I will have to admit that you are pretty fly (for a white guy). [^] :laugh:
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
That's a pretty sweet 1990s alternative music reference, I am so embarrassed by your iron-fisted hold on pop culture! What's next, a Chumbawumba-based slam? You are making us all laugh, but I don't think it's in the way you want.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Guarding is predicated on the continued existence of those structures, no? If your job is to keep things safe, isn't part of that responsibility, you know, keeping them safe?
Guarding from interior or exterior threats, which would not include deterioration due to natural causes.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
George Bush architected the War on Terror, including the War in Iraq. He created the DHS with his own pen. The fact that he did not vote on funding is irrelevant. Every penny spent through agencies and efforts Bush himself was responsible for creating is his responsibility. Through direct executive orders, the US has spent half a trillion dollars on war.
It seems to me that you are wanting to give Bush more power. Saying he is responsible for all domestic spending just because a federal agency oversees security on infrastructure is absurd. Congress appropriates funds and in order to get any federal money to the states Bush has to sign it, he doesn't have a line-item veto.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Why would you post that article to defend your point? The only way Bush can affect infrastructure is by granting more money to the states (40% of states' spending on highways and bridges is federal money, thanks for the source), which he refused to do. He doesn't want to raise the federal gas tax in order to support infrastructure repairs because it would "slow economic growth" (in other words, hurt energy companies). So, the only thing he could do to help, he has refused to do. Yet, somehow, he is not responsible.
Think about it a minute. Congress appropriates the money and they say where it can be spent. Some of the money that should go to bridges instead gets spent on museums, monuments, and other PORK projects. Instead of raising taxes, which would doubtless hurt the economy, why not spend more responsibly? Let the money go to infrastructure and not PORK.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Somebody has been feeding you a line of bull, or likely, a line of truth you don't like the taste of.
In war there is doubtless going to be an extension of executive power. See Lincoln in the Civil War, Roosevelt in WWII, etc. I would venture to guess that your source is a radical left leaning blog or "news" site. The Patriot Act was approved by Congress. We have che
Jason Henderson wrote:
Guarding from interior or exterior threats, which would not include deterioration due to natural causes.
How convenient. Maybe if we wait for all of our infrastructure to fall apart, the terrorists won't have to use bombs to blow it up, they can just jump up and down on it!
Jason Henderson wrote:
It seems to me that you are wanting to give Bush more power. Saying he is responsible for all domestic spending just because a federal agency oversees security on infrastructure is absurd. Congress appropriates funds and in order to get any federal money to the states Bush has to sign it, he doesn't have a line-item veto.
You're confusing power with responsibility. He already has the power, I am just holding him responsible. Listening to you, it sounds like the poor guy just can't get anything done! There's a difference between power and accountability.
Jason Henderson wrote:
In war there is doubtless going to be an extension of executive power.
Thanks, that's where I stopped reading. I hope I have been of educational use to you today. Remember, learning is a lifelong process (my invoice is in the mail)!
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
Guarding from interior or exterior threats, which would not include deterioration due to natural causes.
How convenient. Maybe if we wait for all of our infrastructure to fall apart, the terrorists won't have to use bombs to blow it up, they can just jump up and down on it!
Jason Henderson wrote:
It seems to me that you are wanting to give Bush more power. Saying he is responsible for all domestic spending just because a federal agency oversees security on infrastructure is absurd. Congress appropriates funds and in order to get any federal money to the states Bush has to sign it, he doesn't have a line-item veto.
You're confusing power with responsibility. He already has the power, I am just holding him responsible. Listening to you, it sounds like the poor guy just can't get anything done! There's a difference between power and accountability.
Jason Henderson wrote:
In war there is doubtless going to be an extension of executive power.
Thanks, that's where I stopped reading. I hope I have been of educational use to you today. Remember, learning is a lifelong process (my invoice is in the mail)!
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How convenient. Maybe if we wait for all of our infrastructure to fall apart, the terrorists won't have to use bombs to blow it up, they can just jump up and down on it!
What part are you failing to understand? DHS is responsible for SECURITY, not maintenance. Congress and the states are responsible for appropriating and spending on infrastructure. Do you want DHS, which we didn't really need in the first place, to balloon into an all encompassing mega bureaucracy?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You're confusing power with responsibility. He already has the power, I am just holding him responsible. Listening to you, it sounds like the poor guy just can't get anything done! There's a difference between power and accountability.
I'm sorry but your the one confused about federal and state powers. If you haven't noticed, nobody in politics wants accountability. See Katrina and now the Minnesota bridge collapse for examples. There are distinct lines between the power of states and the feds, try not to blur them.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Jason Henderson wrote: In war there is doubtless going to be an extension of executive power. Thanks, that's where I stopped reading. I hope I have been of educational use to you today. Remember, learning is a lifelong process (my invoice is in the mail)!
:wtf: :sigh:
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
-
That's a pretty sweet 1990s alternative music reference, I am so embarrassed by your iron-fisted hold on pop culture! What's next, a Chumbawumba-based slam? You are making us all laugh, but I don't think it's in the way you want.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
I am so embarrassed by your iron-fisted hold on pop culture!
Well, I have been exposed to it for a very long time after all.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You are making us all laugh, but I don't think it's in the way you want.
OK, so whats funny about the president's authority as commander in chief being subverted by the other branches of government being refuted by Mike's example of a president expressing his authority as command in chief under the constitution? Mike's reply supported my argument, not his. Please frame your answer in a Jeffersonian context.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
led mike wrote:
there's controversy about that?
if you're a pedophile
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.