100,000 Americans murdered since 9/11 (and not by terr'ists)
-
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:
From Wikipedia:
Jason Henderson wrote:
Hardly seems like domestic spying as most liberals and democrats have described.
Jason Henderson wrote:
Care to divulge your sources?
HAhahahahahaha.... .wiki... a bona fide trustworthy source... hahahahahaha. Oooh, that was good. Thanks, I needed to laugh today. Too bad Chris is a bit whacked. I think his concern is valid, but his conclusions are wrong. I agree with most of your summation with regard to state and federal powers. But, Bush has abused his power. Just wish people could discuss this as citizens instead of partisans. But then again, we aren't a democracy. We're a republic.
This statement was never false.
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
The president doesn't have the type of power you imagine him to have.
Well that's just spoilt it for me. I thought Georgie wore his underwear on the oputside, tied his bedsheet around his neck and flew around the US saving the day.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
Michael Martin wrote:
I thought Georgie wore his underwear on the oputside, tied his bedsheet around his neck and flew around the US saving the day.
You wouldn't be speaking from experience would you? :laugh:
This statement was never false.
-
Sorry I am not going to get dragged into another retarded discussion about how they never had the right to marry where the (D)espeir logic prism is used to render conclusions *bored now*. It's just as boring as talking about abortion with someone that refuses to consider, as part of the issue, THE FACT, that the life that is being "murdered" is INSIDE THE WOMB OF ANOTHER LIVING PERSON.
Why not? His point is perfectly valid. And logical. I support the right for gay people to marry. I don't like it, but I don't have to. I support them having the right. But, Mike's point in this case is very valid.
This statement was never false.
-
OK, abortion? How much more off-topic are you planning on getting here. The topic, by the way is a 10% increase in violent crime over the last few years. Meanwhile, we're supposed to be afraid of terrorists.
Dude, you may have started the thread, but you have no right to dictate its discussion. You might as well get over whatever trip your on and just let it go. Threads have always wandered, and been hijacked. Welcome to public forums. Start a private forum if you want to dictate.
This statement was never false.
-
Michael Martin wrote:
I thought Georgie wore his underwear on the oputside, tied his bedsheet around his neck and flew around the US saving the day.
You wouldn't be speaking from experience would you? :laugh:
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
You wouldn't be speaking from experience would you? :laugh:
Yes, but I do it for truth, justice and the beer drinking way.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
-
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.
How does that relate. Those are two wholly different subjects. Pedophilia isn't consensual. And it isn't necessarily gay. It is sick. Love between two adults is completely different.
This statement was never false.
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
From Wikipedia:
Jason Henderson wrote:
Hardly seems like domestic spying as most liberals and democrats have described.
Jason Henderson wrote:
Care to divulge your sources?
HAhahahahahaha.... .wiki... a bona fide trustworthy source... hahahahahaha. Oooh, that was good. Thanks, I needed to laugh today. Too bad Chris is a bit whacked. I think his concern is valid, but his conclusions are wrong. I agree with most of your summation with regard to state and federal powers. But, Bush has abused his power. Just wish people could discuss this as citizens instead of partisans. But then again, we aren't a democracy. We're a republic.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Bush has abused his power
According to who? Citizens or partisans?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Just wish people could discuss this as citizens instead of partisans.
And what would that sound like?
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
Why should I? The tone of your messages don't give me any reason to clarify. I've tried to explain, maybe I'm the dense one. But it seems to me that you don't understand the roles of the state and federal governments and I don't have the time to give you a civics/history lesson.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
Stan Shannon wrote:
I mean, with Chris, we have a perfect example of the final product of a modern liberal education. He has absolutely no concern for what Americans have fought and died for over 230 years. Rather, he sees that politcal power exists only to solve problems regardless of how much power and authority that becomes concentrated into the hands of a centralized ruling elite as a consequence.
We still do have a separation of powers, although not like it used to be. The federals have taken more and more and the states seem to give it up freely. And we see people, like IamChrisMcCall, expecting more and more out of the feds, expecting even more responsibility than they currently have. This misunderstanding feeds the federal government and it thinks it should take even more power.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
Why should I? The tone of your messages don't give me any reason to clarify. I've tried to explain, maybe I'm the dense one. But it seems to me that you don't understand the roles of the state and federal governments and I don't have the time to give you a civics/history lesson.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
And the ironic part is that the very people who want the central government to have so much power seem so authentically surprised when such power is 'abused', as if it were something anyone could actually control. Such an incredible combination of arrogance and ignorance. But apparently, as long as we are all free to have anal sex, everything is just fine. Who could ask for more? :sigh:
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
Why should I? The tone of your messages don't give me any reason to clarify. I've tried to explain, maybe I'm the dense one. But it seems to me that you don't understand the roles of the state and federal governments and I don't have the time to give you a civics/history lesson.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
Stan Shannon wrote:
And the ironic part is that the very people who want the central government to have so much power seem so authentically surprised when such power is 'abused', as if it were something anyone could actually control.
Its as if they don't realize that behind every office there are corruptible people.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But apparently, as long as we are all free to have anal sex, everything is just fine. Who could ask for more?
Yeah, kind of said. They're selective about which rights they want to defend and they add new ones that aren't rights at all.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
-
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.
I'm still curious what you think qualifies as such. Specific citations too please.. Does defending the nation excuse unlawful acts? Does that trump the rule of law?
This statement was never false.
-
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.
Speak for yourself. That was pretty funny.
This statement was never false.
-
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.
I'm still curious what you think qualifies as such. Specific citations too please.. Does defending the nation excuse unlawful acts? Does that trump the rule of law?
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I'm still curious what you think qualifies as such. Specific citations too please..
If you can't feel it in your soul what the hell difference does a citation make? The commander in chief asked permission to use force, the congress granted it. That is the end of all debate on the subject. Nothing else matters. After that, you win. During the American Civil War Abraham Lincoln bansihed a seating congressman (from Ohio, I beleive) from the US for saying things far less inflamatory than Bush has had to endure. He denounced "King Lincoln," calling for Abraham Lincoln's removal from the presidency. On May 5 he was arrested as a violator of General Order No. 38. Vallandigham's enraged supporters burned the offices of the Dayton Journal, the Republican rival to the Empire. Vallandigham was tried by a military court 6-7 May, denied a writ of "habeas corpus", convicted by a military tribunal of "uttering disloyal sentiments" and attempting to hinder the prosecution of the war, and sentenced to 2 years' confinement in a military prison. [^] Lincoln had this [^] to say on the subject. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensabale means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. IOW, defending the nation gave him the authority to break what ever laws he felt necessary.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Does defending the nation excuse unlawful acts? Does that trump the rule of law?
It always has - or at least it
-
Why not? His point is perfectly valid. And logical. I support the right for gay people to marry. I don't like it, but I don't have to. I support them having the right. But, Mike's point in this case is very valid.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Why not?
Chris, the thread is so large now I can't see the post you are replying to?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But, Mike's point in this case is very valid.
That is highly doubtful. All I can remember about his statements on this subject is he wanted to have that same tired argument claiming that gays never had the right to marry and therefore the new laws do not restrict their freedom. That is just not true, they can't prove it, so he doesn't have a point. He and those like him will post all sorts of word smithing to support their claim, not proof mind you, just twisted words that hide the truth, that they never had the right, but logically it does not hold up. But as I stated I have no idea if that is what you are talking about. :)
-
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.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
Why should I? The tone of your messages don't give me any reason to clarify. I've tried to explain, maybe I'm the dense one. But it seems to me that you don't understand the roles of the state and federal governments and I don't have the time to give you a civics/history lesson.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
It was complete four posts ago. I don't expect to see many replies to my posts in the future, either. If you want, you can tell yourself it's because you're too good for it.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
Why should I? The tone of your messages don't give me any reason to clarify. I've tried to explain, maybe I'm the dense one. But it seems to me that you don't understand the roles of the state and federal governments and I don't have the time to give you a civics/history lesson.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
Jason Henderson wrote:
And we see people, like IamChrisMcCall, expecting more and more out of the feds, expecting even more responsibility than they currently have.
You mean the DEA, TSA and FBI? Oh, no, of course not, those agencies are important to our safety, right?
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How about refining or clarifying your statement? You know I'm not dense, and your refusal to clarify just means you don't know what you're arguing about, either. Thanks, and have a great day.
Why should I? The tone of your messages don't give me any reason to clarify. I've tried to explain, maybe I'm the dense one. But it seems to me that you don't understand the roles of the state and federal governments and I don't have the time to give you a civics/history lesson.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
Stan Shannon wrote:
But apparently, as long as we are all free to have anal sex, everything is just fine. Who could ask for more?
You are so obsessed with anal sex! Just ask, I'm sure your wife would be willing to stick it up your ass.
-
Dude, you may have started the thread, but you have no right to dictate its discussion. You might as well get over whatever trip your on and just let it go. Threads have always wandered, and been hijacked. Welcome to public forums. Start a private forum if you want to dictate.
This statement was never false.
Dividing threads into topics is an important way of keeping the discussion useful. It is common for someone who began a discussion topic to ask that it stay on-topic. Welcome to public forums yourself.
-
I got nutten. I just figured you had admitted defeat.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.