100,000 Americans murdered since 9/11 (and not by terr'ists)
-
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
I don't want them to, but if they steal it, as this administration has, I expect them to use it to benefit the American people. Silly me.
-
Speak for yourself. That was pretty funny.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Speak for yourself. That was pretty funny.
Really? Well I'm not white. So, I guess the jokes on you, moron.
-
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
how can any president declare anything to be unconstitutional?
He didn't, he "held" it to be and did what he is empowered to do and pardoned them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, again, I side with Jefferson.
Garbage and your discussion prior to that statement is completely off topic. My point, and you well know it, is that your claim that people protesting Bushes war should be dealt with as traitors is completely NOT Jeffersonian. You absolutely ignored that because you can't support your own freaking claims.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Which I agree with completely, and have never said otherwise.
More of your bullshit, just the other day you accusingly asked me if I thought "the people" were to be feared.
Stan Shannon wrote:
would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
Try on Marshal's opinion - contradiction boy
In the distribution of this power it is declared that "the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction. . . . "
If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power, and the tribunals in which it should be vested.. . . If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdi
-
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.
-
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.
Here's a funny thing. Hillary Clinton has been railing Bush about his level of secrecy and invoking executive privelage everywhere, yet she just did the same by sealing her docs from when in the White House with her husband til after the elections. Hypocrisy. About as bad as Edwards having 16 million invested in a SubPrime investor while railing against the SubPrime market for their aggressive tactics. Shameful. Abuse. I don't have to spell it out. Both Republicans and Democrats have cited abuse. I'm disgusted with the Democrats. I'm disgusted with the Republicans. I would like to see the mutant clone of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich run for president. Too bad I don't really like either of them enough to vote for one. Citizens... the discussion is bullcrap when you just tote the party line.
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.
Whatever.. your words will fall on deaf ears here, or rather you'll just be heckled. And if you note, I've been a member here for 7 years.
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. :)
Well, it is true that they never had the right to marry under US law. So, if anything they have gained in that it is now acceptable under law. No word smithing there. That's the truth. Which truth is that covering up?
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Speak for yourself. That was pretty funny.
Really? Well I'm not white. So, I guess the jokes on you, moron.
Call me some more names. You're exposing your wonderfully creative personality with these inane attempts. I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny. It appears that you have a stick up your butt. Attempting to look smart clever by insulting other people. Interesting.
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
It didn't give him authority. He took it and stood by it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.
I'll say it again. The president is not a King. He is a public servant. We have all the right in the world to criticize him. But I want to know what you define as undermining. That's the topic. You didn't answer that. Instead your reply is basically: "Lincoln did it, so its right." Whatever.
This statement was never false.
-
Well, it is true that they never had the right to marry under US law. So, if anything they have gained in that it is now acceptable under law. No word smithing there. That's the truth. Which truth is that covering up?
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
No word smithing there.
led mike wrote:
not proof mind you
Not word smithing? really? Maybe something is something wrong with my browser but your post is not displaying any citations to support your claim. That is exactly what I was talking about.
-
It didn't give him authority. He took it and stood by it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.
I'll say it again. The president is not a King. He is a public servant. We have all the right in the world to criticize him. But I want to know what you define as undermining. That's the topic. You didn't answer that. Instead your reply is basically: "Lincoln did it, so its right." Whatever.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
It didn't give him authority. He took it and stood by it.
And I never indicated otherwise. But Lincoln's actions fly in the face of the use of the freedom vs. security appeal. Clearly, Lincoln put security before freedom. Was he un-American? You simply cannot treat that question as merely an artifact of historic curiosity. It has a direct bearing on the issues we confront today. Either you are wrong or Lincoln was. Which is it?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
The president is not a King. He is a public servant.
He is a public servant who's primary consitutional responsibility is not safe quarding phone calls but safe quarding the physical security of the nation. To do the former at the expense of the latter would be the grossest possible violation of the constitution any president could possibly commit.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
We have all the right in the world to criticize him.
And I never said otherwise. But saying "I disagree with the presidents actions" is criticism. While saying "Bush is guilty of murder and profiteering and ... [add your delusional paranoia here]..." goes far beyond criticism. It challanges the very motives for the actions of the president in a way, which if not true, are, at least, bordering on treason.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But I want to know what you define as undermining. That's the topic. You didn't answer that.
I define undermining as the organized expression of sentiments which essentially make the enemies arguments for him at the expense of our president's stated goals. If Bush is, in fact, what his harshest critics say of him, than organized resistance to his actions are entirely justified. The enemy should be killing our troops in order to defend themselves against an unjust military action. In fact, the enemy should be admired for such resistance. They become the heroes, and the president the villian. Either the president is a villian or he isn't. If he isn't than he at least deserves respect and respectful criticism. And if he is, than, yes, he should at the very least be impeached.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Instead your reply is basically: "Lincoln did it, so its right."
But Lincoln makes my argument for me in a so much more eloquent way.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
It didn't give him authority. He took it and stood by it.
And I never indicated otherwise. But Lincoln's actions fly in the face of the use of the freedom vs. security appeal. Clearly, Lincoln put security before freedom. Was he un-American? You simply cannot treat that question as merely an artifact of historic curiosity. It has a direct bearing on the issues we confront today. Either you are wrong or Lincoln was. Which is it?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
The president is not a King. He is a public servant.
He is a public servant who's primary consitutional responsibility is not safe quarding phone calls but safe quarding the physical security of the nation. To do the former at the expense of the latter would be the grossest possible violation of the constitution any president could possibly commit.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
We have all the right in the world to criticize him.
And I never said otherwise. But saying "I disagree with the presidents actions" is criticism. While saying "Bush is guilty of murder and profiteering and ... [add your delusional paranoia here]..." goes far beyond criticism. It challanges the very motives for the actions of the president in a way, which if not true, are, at least, bordering on treason.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But I want to know what you define as undermining. That's the topic. You didn't answer that.
I define undermining as the organized expression of sentiments which essentially make the enemies arguments for him at the expense of our president's stated goals. If Bush is, in fact, what his harshest critics say of him, than organized resistance to his actions are entirely justified. The enemy should be killing our troops in order to defend themselves against an unjust military action. In fact, the enemy should be admired for such resistance. They become the heroes, and the president the villian. Either the president is a villian or he isn't. If he isn't than he at least deserves respect and respectful criticism. And if he is, than, yes, he should at the very least be impeached.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Instead your reply is basically: "Lincoln did it, so its right."
But Lincoln makes my argument for me in a so much more eloquent way.
Sentiments can't undermine. Sentiments are in line with criticism. This is a free country. We are allowed our sentiments. Direct actions are different. But a sentiment is an opinion. Not treasonous.
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
No word smithing there.
led mike wrote:
not proof mind you
Not word smithing? really? Maybe something is something wrong with my browser but your post is not displaying any citations to support your claim. That is exactly what I was talking about.
Do you have any citations that prove your claim that Gay Marriage was a right under the law.. ever?
This statement was never false.
-
Sentiments can't undermine. Sentiments are in line with criticism. This is a free country. We are allowed our sentiments. Direct actions are different. But a sentiment is an opinion. Not treasonous.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But a sentiment is an opinion. Not treasonous.
I'm sure Clement Vallandigham felt exactly the same way. Both of you put your sentiments before the good of the country which the commander in chief is obligated to defend. Clement learned a lesson that many today badly need be educated on as well. I think banishing a few of the leaders of our modern 'copperhead' party to Iran would just about do the trick. I just wish Bush had a little more Lincoln in him (now thats respectful criticism, just in case you're taking notes).
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
This is a free country
No thanks to sentiments, but rather to presidents who understood what their oath to the constitution really meant.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But a sentiment is an opinion. Not treasonous.
I'm sure Clement Vallandigham felt exactly the same way. Both of you put your sentiments before the good of the country which the commander in chief is obligated to defend. Clement learned a lesson that many today badly need be educated on as well. I think banishing a few of the leaders of our modern 'copperhead' party to Iran would just about do the trick. I just wish Bush had a little more Lincoln in him (now thats respectful criticism, just in case you're taking notes).
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
This is a free country
No thanks to sentiments, but rather to presidents who understood what their oath to the constitution really meant.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
I keep my sentiments to myself for the most part. I've only stated that he's abused his power here in this forum. That's not undermining him. That's voicing my view. And I have that right as a citizen and it can't be considered treason. That's going overboard.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No thanks to sentiments, but rather to presidents who understood what their oath to the constitution really meant.
And not in spite of sentiments either.
This statement was never false.
-
Call me some more names. You're exposing your wonderfully creative personality with these inane attempts. I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny. It appears that you have a stick up your butt. Attempting to look smart clever by insulting other people. Interesting.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny.
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny.
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
And why would I care about that, and why would I even be offended? You're not doing to well at this insult thing. Why insult people you disagree with? Is it inversely reflective of your ability to reason?
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny.
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
And why would I care about that, and why would I even be offended? You're not doing to well at this insult thing. Why insult people you disagree with? Is it inversely reflective of your ability to reason?
I forgot what we were even talking about, to be honest. Congrats, you've bored me to tears.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny.
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
Hahahahaha.... thanks. I needed to laugh.
This statement was never false.
-
Do you have any citations that prove your claim that Gay Marriage was a right under the law.. ever?
This statement was never false.
Geez dude, didn't I already explain this is rehash of the same old boring argument. We all have the right to "Life, Liberty (Freedom), and the pursuit of happiness". Since we "all" have those rights you obviously can't infringe on my rights or you are violating the spirit of freedom. So if you are not impinging on someone else's unalienable rights, or there isn't a "written" law you are violating then you are "free" to do what makes you happy. So do you have any written laws to quote or are you just going to trot out the same old boring illogical nonsense about how if they had the right they would have been doing it a long time ago. If you think that passes for logic I certainly hope you are not a software developer.