Are we realy this gullible?
POSTED BY: oldenglanddry
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 01:53
VIEWED: 13731
PAGE 13 of 18
Bush is a PC fear monger. Everything the admin says comes out as 'ooh scary....'
Just watch jon stewart, he illustrates it well, I should find some good clips and post them.
Bush does everything he can to make americans afraid. terrorists, bird flu, panic panic, hey everyone, scared yet, i'll bet if you're scared enough you'll vote for me, who cares that i'm robbing the till, look, terrorists, oooh, scary....
Auraptor,
A little advice. Chill. go take a vacation, cool off, and think about how much you hate muslims. The ask yourself why you hate muslims and if it's justified. Then paint yourself a little chart of the world, and put God where you want him, in the US, and label the rest of the world "monkey people"
No, seriously, this is how some of your rants come across. Al Qaeda isn't he anti-christ and arabs aren't the canaanites. They're just a group of people looking after their own. Like you and me.. only on the other side.
Consider the possibility that you're wrong. Maybe there are other ways out of this mess, dare I say, more conservative ones.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
From that I presume that states passed laws based on English Law and English Common Law.
I would not presume anything if I were you. Only 13 states can trace their judicial origins directly to Common Law. One state is a direct decendent of the Napoleonic Code. Even allowing for two hundred plus years of variation, common law (up to 1776 anyway) merely places things in context, it does not provide a definitve answer to what is or is not legal.
For example, a Presidential pardon is not valid when signed because common law tells us it is a deed, not a warrant, and thus requires both delivery and acceptence by the pardoned person to be valid. Thats why an outgoing President can 'call back' a pardon issued in the last hour of the prior Presidency if he can do it before its delivered. An appointment on the other hand is valid when signed and does not require delivery (aka Marbury v. Madison). Common law is very usefull. Tells us what words mean, gives us traditional notions like marriage and self defense, all kinds of cool stuff that can be used or discarded as we see fit.
Quote:
Despite the Fourteenth Amendment's recognition of federal “privileges and immunities,” and its guarantee of “due process” and “equal protection,” the Supreme Court majority held the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) cannot be enforced against states because the Supreme Court itself never said discrimination against older workers violates the Constitution.
It would help the explanation if it cites the case. I suggest, as an example, Roe v. Wade, which extends the Constitutions implied right of privacy to the states because of the 14th Amendment. I note for the record that not all rights have yet to be incorporated and sometimes the Court has declined to do so for some reason or another. In the old days States could have, if they chose and if their constitution allowed which most or all would not, restricted free speech. That right has since been incorporated under the 14th Amendment giving you Federal protection against such a state action.
Edited to add: I have been reviewing Supreme Court cases regarding the ADEA and it seems you are wrong and that the states must comply with the act (although how they comply varies). Cite me the case you think denies this so I can review it and comment properly.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As someone who once was very involved in the Libertarian Party, I'd just like to say that people who call themselves Libertarian or vote Libertarian are very diverse and do not necessarily represent Libertarian Party positions.
I'm a American, who is politically Conservative Libertarian. More times than not, I tend to vote Republican or Libertarian.
In fact, the Libertarian Party platform does not support neocon positions and calls for reduced governmental authority, not increased meddling, in all areas. The party is firm on the principle of non-intervention in foreign entanglements (including our "War on Terror" abroad).
I have to admit that in recent years, the LP has lost members to the Republican Party because they, like Auraptor, are emotionally vested in the war on terror and cannot stomach the non-interventionist position of the LP. To prevent further attrition, the LP has softened its language somewhat to not be as "in your face" about the Iraqi war--something to the effect of, "Iraq is now stable, we should withdraw our troops now."
Anyway, I had to point out Auraptor's positions are not consistent with the Libertarian Party platform, even if some Libertarians might agree with him.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
(I'm no Libertarian poster child either.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dreamtrove,
I'm with you, in that I do not believe Al-Qaeda perpetrated 9/11. I'm open to correction, but thus far, I have not seen any convincing evidence of their involvement and too many inconsistencies.
Just as one example, they have pictures of the alleged Arab terrorists, but then admit some of them were cases of stolen identity. How do we know all of them weren't cases of stolen identity? And for those whose identities were stolen, why are their pictures STILL up there on the terrorist list?
I do think though, that Al-Qaeda may be a threat now and in the future. Whereas they were a low-rent fringe operation in the past, I believe our atrocious aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq have served to advertise their operations and recruit more members for them. I think our government may have created the very terrorist group it was trying to destroy, either through incompetence or intentionally.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which logical fallacy is that?
Originally posted by AURaptor:
HK, Signy brought in stats sure enough, but I am right in that comparing the deaths of terrorists attacks and traffic accidents is a logical fallacy itself.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you're too stupid to work it out YOURSELF why should I complete YOUR education for you, you pinhead.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Which logical fallacy is that?
YOU use ad hominims because YOU are too STUPID to let your lies stand on their own! YOU hate America with YOUR ASSumptions and terrorist LOVE.
You're a moron, and you'd never find ME stooping to the levels of Ad hominims!
AUCitizen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor,
i hate to call you out, but i thoroughly disagree with you about 9/11, the WTC, and the entire war on terror scenario.
for starters, you need to understand..i am not a "liberal", simply because i disagree with Bush and his agenda. i realize its hard for one to wrap their head around the concept that humans are free-thinking beings, who share common truths..but its something you should consider.
in order to believe the government, you have to assume a number of things which have been proven false:
-the government knew nothing of the attacks planned, and did everything possible to stop them.
-our government had no prior envolvement with al-qaeda, and previously did everything within their power in the past to detain BinLaden.
-NORAD and FAA were justified in their lack of response, and its perfectly normal to lose track of 4 planes at once, and customery to send military craft from the farthest possible bases to respond to incidents.
-there is no such thing as PNAC, or the Downing stree memos, nor a prior agenda to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria prior to 9/11.
-its just a coincidence that: the CIA was running an identical simulation to the 9/11 attacks, the very same morning; that Bushs bro Marvin headed the WTC security company; that Fema just happened to arrive on 9/10; that rumors on the street warned employees not to show up that day; that CIA insider trading on wall street took place the morning of; the firemen and eye witnesses just "heard" explosions, and believed that they could put the fires out; its normal for 3 steel framed buildings to collapse, by fire, within hours of burning, at FREE FALL SPEEDS.
-no investigation of the buildings collapse was neccessary; its typical for random collapses to fall perfectly into their own footprints(who needs demolitionists); BYU is only lying that it has confirmed incendiary residue among the pulvarized ash; they secretly love terrorists
-the pentagon is merely withholding footage of its own impact to "protect national security"...not because the cameras show something different than what they claim
-our government, using the best possible intelligence, led us into Iraq because Saddam did have WMDs, and was working in concert with Bin Laden; no falsehoods have been proven, the government has no motive to lie to us...Iraq really planned on attacking America; muslims are the biggest threat to world peace
- there has always been a radical Islamic threat, Muslims hate freedom; it took 9/11 to bring it to the forefront of Americans minds. the government has never been shown to be complicit in other terrorist attacks, such as WTC1, Oklahoma city, Ruby Ridge, or TWA , or even considered executing terrorist attacks on its own public, as declassified Operation Northwoods documents suggest
--the Bush and Bin Laden families dont actually vacation together, Bush really didnt have an oil company with Salem Bin Laden, Osama was never a CIA asset, and we didnt actually evacuate all Saudi nationals and Bin Laden members immediately after the attacks..when all other flights were grounded
-our deficit is not increasing, inflation is a myth, our economy is actually growing, standard of living is higher than ever, America has never been more safe, liberals are evil, and the trillions of dollars in private no-bid contracts benefit everyone, including the Iraqis
- sure, Bush is in the proces of classifying more documents than any other administration in history..but only because "terrorists" hate truth, and Americans need not know what their trusting officials are up to.
- the threat of terrorism is so great, its expected that the public should submit its rights, and allow secret searches and wiretaps; meanwhile, Bushs allowance of free passage over the southern border can only help Americas security and prosperity..hey, SPPA anyone?
- the FBIs joking, when they say they have NO HARD EVIDENCE tying Bin Laden to 9/11.
do i really need to go on? ..just reiterating it is making my head spin. look, i tracked down
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTTS
Sorry,
Libertarian should be 'l' libertarian. Not the Libertarian Party. I think we need a new word.
I'm not convinced there was no al qaeda involvement at all, but I don't think they're a serious threat. They don't concern me. The bear is a bear. What you have to worry about is the guy covered in honey charging for your campsite. Shoot him, and ignore the bear. Al Qaeda is a relatively small threat to global stability. Moussad is worrisome, and China is more so. But neocons are definitely the bigest threat. That and their left wing counterparts.
I used to think that they were a threat because of all the muslim terrorism in europe, but now I strongly suspect they are not acting alone.
The bear, alone, is a bear.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
well said.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME