Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jlcooke3
    replied
    Originally posted by jasper45 View Post
    Yes, we are at war with terrorism, all terrorism. With this statement though, I think you're blurring the line just a bit. There is a difference between terrorism to topple a nation, and terrorism to make a point.
    I'm not sure if there is a difference. Terrorism is terrorism. According to the American Heritage Dictionary terrorism is "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
    There are laws and precedent in place for this, already.
    If an individual is tied to a foreign enemy, they can and should be tried as an enemy combatant, even if they are a US citizen. If an individual takes up arms with a foreign group, such as "The-Base", or the Taliban, or Iran, or any enemy of the United States, that person should forfeit their citizenship, and be treated as an enemy combatant.
    What about someone who is tied to subversive groups that are based here in America.
    Timothy McVeigh was not charged as an enemy combatant, and yet he committed an act of terror. He was still caught, tried, convicted and dealt with satisfactorily. Had he been tied to some type of foreign entity, that charge should have been changed.Again your limiting acts of war to foreign powers.
    The definition of terrorism has been around for a long time.
    If we take a hard look at the people detained at Guantanamo Bay, where are all these people from? Where is their funding and training coming from?

    I think there has to be a defining line in defining an enemy combatant. I have always believed that if you take up arms against the United States (here we go again with the Civil War debate), if you join forces with an enemy of our nation, from my perspective you lose your citizenship and should be treated as such.

    Bombing an abortion clinic is an act of terror, domestic terror. It is however different from plotting to destroy the United States. Bombing an abortion clinic is not about "defeating the infidel", or destroying our economy, etc... It is a criminal act, whereas the other is an act of war.
    I would submit that bombing an abortion clinic in and of itsself is a criminal act. I would also submit that bombing an abortion clinic in order to further ones political ideas or to force the U.S. government to change it policy on abortion could indeed be considered an act of war. An act war could be construed as any act that attempts to influence political policy through violence or threats of violence by a political group.
    This country is based on differing opinions and ideas, and all of us being able to argue them. However, we are not entitled to join the Taliban (or any other enemy of the US) if we disagree, and retain our citizenship. It's a very fine line, but it is one that needs to be there.
    This country offers more to its people than any other in the world, and if someone is going to try to destroy it, they are an enemy, and should be dealt with as such.

    This is also why the government has such a difficult job in defending us against terrorism, particularly from the mid-east. Maybe I'm just dumb and naive, but I believe with proper oversight, all of our constitutional rights can be maintained, and all our freedoms kept intact, and we remain safe.
    I guess that's what I see happening now, and with oversight it could happen in the future.
    I completely agree with you the biggest problem I see is the attempt by some to convey our constitutional rights to those that most assuredly do not deserve them whether they be foreign enemies or domestic. The enemy combatants currently being detained at Gitmo Bay or any other government facility should be tried under a military court. I also believe that those individuals that are citizens of the United States that attempt to change U.S. government policy by the use of force should be considered either a traitor and charged with treason or be classified as a combatant have his rights forfeited and dealt with as such.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlcooke3
    replied
    Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Actually, it is thought out. Our constitution does not apply to those in foreign countries. For instance, it does not apply in the UK, China, Iraq, Israel, and the list goes on. For our constitution to apply to other countries and other people then they would have to live by our laws. Certainly, when they visit our country they must abide by our laws. Key word is visit. When you attack or otherwise gain illegal entry then you do not fall under our laws.
    You've have only considered one dimension you are either ignoring or ignorant of the possible consquences to U.S. citizens. I'm well aware of what constitutes a foreign country, uh that would be like Canada right? And just so that you know living by our laws does not mean that our Constitution would apply. You not only be an American citizen you must be an American citizen on American soil.

    I'll try this again. For your consideration. An American citizen is charged with carrying out a terroistic act. Should he be prosecuted in a civilian court of law with all the protections that the Constitution allows or should he be charged as an enemy combatant go through military courts.

    Leave a comment:


  • jasper45
    replied
    If we are at war with terrorism as a whole then does it not stand to reason that if a citizen of this country commits a terrorist act shouldn't he/she be tried as a enemy combatant.


    Yes, we are at war with terrorism, all terrorism. With this statement though, I think you're blurring the line just a bit. There is a difference between terrorism to topple a nation, and terrorism to make a point.
    There are laws and precedent in place for this, already.
    If an individual is tied to a foreign enemy, they can and should be tried as an enemy combatant, even if they are a US citizen. If an individual takes up arms with a foreign group, such as "The-Base", or the Taliban, or Iran, or any enemy of the United States, that person should forfeit their citizenship, and be treated as an enemy combatant.

    Timothy McVeigh was not charged as an enemy combatant, and yet he committed an act of terror. He was still caught, tried, convicted and dealt with satisfactorily. Had he been tied to some type of foreign entity, that charge should have been changed.
    The definition of terrorism has been around for a long time.
    If we take a hard look at the people detained at Guantanamo Bay, where are all these people from? Where is their funding and training coming from?

    I think there has to be a defining line in defining an enemy combatant. I have always believed that if you take up arms against the United States (here we go again with the Civil War debate), if you join forces with an enemy of our nation, from my perspective you lose your citizenship and should be treated as such.

    Bombing an abortion clinic is an act of terror, domestic terror. It is however different from plotting to destroy the United States. Bombing an abortion clinic is not about "defeating the infidel", or destroying our economy, etc... It is a criminal act, whereas the other is an act of war.

    This country is based on differing opinions and ideas, and all of us being able to argue them. However, we are not entitled to join the Taliban (or any other enemy of the US) if we disagree, and retain our citizenship. It's a very fine line, but it is one that needs to be there.
    This country offers more to its people than any other in the world, and if someone is going to try to destroy it, they are an enemy, and should be dealt with as such.

    This is also why the government has such a difficult job in defending us against terrorism, particularly from the mid-east. Maybe I'm just dumb and naive, but I believe with proper oversight, all of our constitutional rights can be maintained, and all our freedoms kept intact, and we remain safe.
    I guess that's what I see happening now, and with oversight it could happen in the future.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by jlcooke3 View Post
    I can't say that I'm surprised at your response. You have responded without really considering the issues at hand and their consequences. In all honesty it simply sounds as the simple-minded propaganda laden response that is common to any political party.
    Actually, it is thought out. Our constitution does not apply to those in foreign countries. For instance, it does not apply in the UK, China, Iraq, Israel, and the list goes on. For our constitution to apply to other countries and other people then they would have to live by our laws. Certainly, when they visit our country they must abide by our laws. Key word is visit. When you attack or otherwise gain illegal entry then you do not fall under our laws.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlcooke3
    replied
    Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    My 3 cents on these issues.

    1. These are not US citizens, in fact, they are foreigners accused of acts of war against the US. Certainly, the U.S. constitution does not apply. Things that would apply are the Geneva Convention, international law, and military law.
    You automatically assume that this issue is confined to just foreigners. What you fail to see or you just ignore is the full implications of this question. The United States is waging a "War on Terror". If we are at war with terrorism as a whole then does it not stand to reason that if a citizen of this country commits a terrorist act shouldn't he/she be tried as a enemy combatant. Now think real hard about the consequences if this theory holds true. Police and DA's around this country are tacking on charges of terroristic acts/threats on every case they can. Think for a moment of what this means, it means that citizens who are charged with a terroristic crime could be labeled as a enemy combatant and be denied their civil rights. Far fetched? Maybe but its possible and that is what's scary.
    2. Illegal immigrants (not to be confused with those here legally) have no rights. Make them pay their time in our prisons, then ship them backAgain your thinking in singular. There is a multitude of issues that this raises. If illegal aliens have no rights afforded by the Constitution then the government has every right to take every bit of their personal property, can stop them from holding meetings, can limit speech, etc. the list goes on and on.
    I can't say that I'm surprised at your response. You have responded without really considering the issues at hand and their consequences. In all honesty it simply sounds as the simple-minded propaganda laden response that is common to any political party.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    And it can be argued that business did its very best to screw people until government intervened. Unless you believe things like child labor and absence of workplace safety things are detrimental. Business doen't care about the worker. I have long advocated that imported goods be produced by countries that have the same workplace and environmental protections as the US. That would at least even the playing field.


    I never said I was against gun ownership. I challenge you to find any place where I've stated that. I have stated I don't see the purpose in ownership of some weapons. Such as the one I detailed earlier. If you'd been around longer than "all day" you'd know I own several weapons. While I will give others the collectors or target shooters value, I can live with assault style weapons from being denied to the civilian populace. IMO there is no value to ownership and all those collectors will manage just fine without them.


    The Executive Branch has maintained that obtaining a warrant via the current procedure is too "cumbersome" and they should be exempted. This is in spite of the fact they have a special court available 24/7 and can obtain warrants retroactively.


    Do you also wonder if it is also a coincidence that both those states are two with the highest GDP (CA being the highest) and both contribute far more in federal taxes than they receive?
    Way too easy
    Bureau of Economic Analysis - Regional Economic Accounts List by state per capita. NY is 3rd, CA is 6th. Delaware and CT top the list.

    And yes, business did try to screw people. But it is business who makes the money and brings the money in. Government and it's agencies are without a doubt a burden on the economy, you might say, government taxes the economy.

    I have long advocated that imported goods be produced by countries that have the same workplace and environmental protections as the US.
    Great idea, just try to make it happen. Want proof, go watch people shop at WalMart. Heck watch them shop anywhere. Ever see someone go to several car dealers just to get the best deal. How many times have you seen someone go back and forth between two dealers to save a couple hundred dollars. Bottom line is, the American people don't really care about ethics and morals when they spend their money. All they want is what is cheapest. I used to work in retail and I pushed made in the USA goods. Many still want for the cheaper Chinese junk. Funny part, the Chinese junk got replaced on an annual basis. The good stuff lasted years.

    Leave a comment:


  • DennisTheMenace
    replied
    Without reading much of the thread past the first two posts, I will say that this is the one time that "W" can and should step up to the Constitutional plate, and call Congress back for a special session to deal with the Energy Bill. He has NOTHING to lose and EVERYTHING to gain for the Nation, the GOP, and your wallet.

    Leave a comment:


  • jsin925
    replied
    both parties are awful, and they don't care about the working man/woman. they are different sides of the same coin. bush portrayed himself as a cowboy from texas, when in reality he's a prep school cheerleader from connecticut. he's a wuss. most of these politicians have nothing in common with the average person. they grovel to the corporations because they are the ones really running this country. corporations get welfare then jet out of the country with their money so they don't have to pay taxes. everyone argues about who's responsible for the gas prices and the answer is the ones who are profiting from them.

    the whole liberal/conservative arguement is a red herring. its a divide and conquer strategy. last time i checked everyone who is middle class or below is getting screwed regardless of age, race, religion, or gender. i have a friend who has an MBA and he's working 3 part time jobs (one delivering subs) because he can't find a full time job. i have a master's degree and can't even get an interview (in the private sector) in the field i studied, and i graduated with honors and was voted one of eight outstanding members of UW-Milwaukee's student body. but that's life. i got to get in where i fit in, and i'm just a working class guy. i'm conservative about some things and liberal about others. i don't place myself in a box.

    our system is screwed, and it's the fault of both parties. the bill of rights has been eroded. the only one left is the one about quartering troops. pelosi sucks along with the rest of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefKN
    replied
    Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    My friend, we cannot afford either candidate with all of their spending plans. We need a candidate who will cut spending, not increase it. My previous predictions were that our country would crumble within the next 100 years. With the recent group of spenders, increased energy cost, combined with China's dominance of us, I believe the time frame is 50 years or less.
    These candidates don't exist in the two party system and the American people don't want them if they did.

    I think you are overly pessimistic, I don't think we will crumble. The country goes through cycles of growth and decline, but overwhelming growth over the long period.

    China is a concern, but China needs us more. We are the consumers of the world, and China is the producer of those goods.

    Idealogy will change as more money goes to china and more information, which they will struggle to control. The internet may do to China what Reagan did to the USSR.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Not what I said. What I said is business made this country wealthy, government stands in the way of wealth. In fact, through environmental, safety, workers rights and NAFTA we are pushing jobs off shore. Not saying any of those things are bad, just that there are consequences.
    And it can be argued that business did its very best to screw people until government intervened. Unless you believe things like child labor and absence of workplace safety things are detrimental. Business doen't care about the worker. I have long advocated that imported goods be produced by countries that have the same workplace and environmental protections as the US. That would at least even the playing field.

    Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    ROFLMAO!!!!! First you trash the 2nd amendment, then cry about the 4th and 5th. You cannot selectively pick which part of the constitution you favor. It's an all or nothing.
    I never said I was against gun ownership. I challenge you to find any place where I've stated that. I have stated I don't see the purpose in ownership of some weapons. Such as the one I detailed earlier. If you'd been around longer than "all day" you'd know I own several weapons. While I will give others the collectors or target shooters value, I can live with assault style weapons from being denied to the civilian populace. IMO there is no value to ownership and all those collectors will manage just fine without them.

    Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Although, I haven't seen any citizens rights violated here. We want to be bale to listen to conversations of non-citizens in foreign countries. Seems we should have the right to inspect that which is coming into the country.
    The Executive Branch has maintained that obtaining a warrant via the current procedure is too "cumbersome" and they should be exempted. This is in spite of the fact they have a special court available 24/7 and can obtain warrants retroactively.

    Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    wonder if it is a coincidence that the 2 most liberal states in the nation pay the highest taxes?
    Do you also wonder if it is also a coincidence that both those states are two with the highest GDP (CA being the highest) and both contribute far more in federal taxes than they receive?

    Leave a comment:


  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
    LOL, sorry I didn't take the time to contribute to this high brow, so important discussion..

    Give me a break.

    Just save us all the time, and in your replies simply put, "It's all Bush's Fault".

    OH boy, if Obama wins... what on earth will you do??
    My friend, we cannot afford either candidate with all of their spending plans. We need a candidate who will cut spending, not increase it. My previous predictions were that our country would crumble within the next 100 years. With the recent group of spenders, increased energy cost, combined with China's dominance of us, I believe the time frame is 50 years or less.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by DaSharkie View Post
    The problem is that there is now a legal precedent. Yeah the current administration is looking at one group. But another administration can turn it right around and look at another group that they do not like - and you might be a member of.

    Government, "controlled" by either political party in this country needs to be watched , because it will inevitably abuse its powers.
    Very good point, which is why the congress also approved of the actions. The President alone did not send us to Iraq or pass the Patriot act. Congress approved as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by FyredUp View Post
    I... If we were serious about ending gun crime here is what we would do, anytime a gun was used in a crime additional time is added that can't be plea bargained away. So even if the criminal gets a slap on the wrist for robbing the 7-11 he still gets 10 or 20 years for using a gun. No parole for that part of the sentence. You serve it all. ..
    Interesting concept. NY tried that with the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Now the liberals and special interest ethnic groups are crying that the laws are too harsh. They need to be repealed. People like Al Sharpton cry the laws unfairly target blacks. Of course, everyone, regardless of ethnicity, are subjected to the same laws.

    For some reason, which I don't understand, the liberals don't want to hold people accountable for their own actions. Liberals hold the view that society is to blame, not the individual.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by jlcooke3 View Post
    Actually I was thinking of two specific instances.
    1. Terrorist/Combatant detainees and whether or not they should receive the same protection under our Constitution in regards to civilian law or should they be held under military law. My personal thoughts on this is that these particular individuals whether captured overseas or in the United States should be prosecuted according to military law.

    2. Illegal Aliens that commit crimes on U.S. soil. At what point does the rights afforded to U.S. citizens carry over to those who are not citizens and are not here legally?

    We'll skip the torture debate for now as I was thinking more inline with what due process rights, search and seizure rights, etc. that non-citizens should be entitled to.
    My 3 cents on these issues.

    1. These are not US citizens, in fact, they are foreigners accused of acts of war against the US. Certainly, the U.S. constitution does not apply. Things that would apply are the Geneva Convention, international law, and military law.

    2. Illegal immigrants (not to be confused with those here legally) have no rights. Make them pay their time in our prisons, then ship them back

    Leave a comment:


  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    This is exactly the same type of activity we (the US) would criticize the KGB for performing on their citizens.

    I guess my belief in the Constitution goes beyond yours.
    ROFLMAO!!!!! First you trash the 2nd amendment, then cry about the 4th and 5th. You cannot selectively pick which part of the constitution you favor. It's an all or nothing.

    Although, I haven't seen any citizens rights violated here. We want to be bale to listen to conversations of non-citizens in foreign countries. Seems we should have the right to inspect that which is coming into the country.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X