AsburySkinsFan Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 I'd say that there are probably less than 5000 people in this entire country right now who DESERVE the rights discussed in the Constitution. And you know better than that because the Constitution is not for those that you or anyone else deem deserving, its for ALL people regardless. But, then why in the world do I expect you to understand that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 I don't however think he would shred the constitution, if he was going to use it as toilet paper though. Nah, Bush is so "butch" that he almost certainly knows how to "Ranger Wipe". BTW, Ranger Wipe, take a single piece of TP, fold twice tear out the thick corner (thus tearing a hole in the middle). Open piece slide over finger, proceed to wipe with finger. Wipe finger by pulling TP over finger. Take the center piece (torn off earlier) and clean under finger nail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 And you know better than that because the Constitution is not for those that you or anyone else deem deserving, its for ALL people regardless. But, then why in the world do I expect you to understand that? As you already know, I disagree with that philosophy. I believe the protections of the Constitution should be applied only to those people who fall under what I consider to be a Citizen. Interestingly enough, I don't fit into that group of 5000 or so whom I believe it should apply to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 Nah, Bush is so "butch" that he almost certainly knows how to "Ranger Wipe".BTW, Ranger Wipe, take a single piece of TP, fold twice tear out the thick corner (thus tearing a hole in the middle). Open piece slide over finger, proceed to wipe with finger. Wipe finger by pulling TP over finger. Take the center piece (torn off earlier) and clean under finger nail. I don't even want to know where and or why you know how to do this..... That being said, how come nobody has ****ed about the title of this thread? Does that only apply when someone is defending the subject of the article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 But we aren't talking about walkie talkies, we're talking about phones and email which go across private lines of communication, and the gov't IS violating due process by committing illegal search and seizures on this evidence. And IF, by some chance, while listening to one of those conversations, a plot to kidnap, and kill, a bus load of young children, one of them being your son, was discovered and stopped in time, would you testify for the plotters rights at their trial? Yes it's hypothetical, but don't do a two step with your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 Nah, Bush is so "butch" that he almost certainly knows how to "Ranger Wipe".BTW, Ranger Wipe, take a single piece of TP, fold twice tear out the thick corner (thus tearing a hole in the middle). Open piece slide over finger, proceed to wipe with finger. Wipe finger by pulling TP over finger. Take the center piece (torn off earlier) and clean under finger nail. A minister my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 it should be clear by now that bush doesn't give a **** what we think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 And IF, by some chance, while listening to one of those conversations, a plot to kidnap, and kill, a bus load of young children, one of them being your son, was discovered and stopped in time, would you testify for the plotters rights at their trial?Yes it's hypothetical, but don't do a two step with your answer. This is the road to totalitarianism. Speaking of hypotheticals, have you seen the movie I-Robot with Will Smith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 A minister my ass. LOL!!! I wasn't always in the ministry. Remember I was once in the Army. BTW, are all ministers supposed to sit back and act like up-tight prudes? My guess is you'd then complain about that.:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 This is the road to totalitarianism. Speaking of hypotheticals, have you seen the movie I-Robot with Will Smith? No, actually it's the road to Security, which is a concept most Americans couldn't comprehend on the best day of their academic lives. Mostly because it means saying certain things are Right, other things are Wrong; that there's going to be Zero tollerance for those things which are Wrong; and that we're going to do as much as is realistically possible to ensure that everyone who crosses that line gets caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 MSF your version of security maybe, but to the rest of the world its Totalitarianism. Removal of rights and personal liberties in order to ensure the safety of people. I'm sorry but freedom is a burden that we bear. *edit* Our system is a "reactive" system because the rights that limit the government via the Constitution mandate that it must be a reactive system, otherwise we really could turn this country into a police state.*/edit* BTW, I still find it hysterical that ya'll don't trust the government on SO many issues, yet for your security you're more than willing to turn yourselves over to the government and its military. I honestly find this comical, and yet frightening all at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnick Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 Can we all just blame Clinton and call it a day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 MSF your version of security maybe, but to the rest of the world its Totalitarianism. Removal of rights and personal liberties in order to ensure the safety of people. I'm sorry but freedom is a burden that we bear. *edit* Our system is a "reactive" system because the rights that limit the government via the Constitution mandate that it must be a reactive system, otherwise we really could turn this country into a police state.*/edit*. No. I can understand and see how you might see it that way, but you're probably taking it a little further in your mind than I am. Of course in my utopia there is no contact with the outside world, so that make much of the wiretapping and other things unnecessary. Likewise, those citizens who understand and accept the concepts that the country is founded on have nothing to fear. Only those who cannot accept or understand these concepts and who choose to try and modify the system instead of simply leaving the country really have anything to fear at all. BTW, I still find it hysterical that ya'll don't trust the government on SO many issues, yet for your security you're more than willing to turn yourselves over to the government and its military. I honestly find this comical, and yet frightening all at the same time. National Security is one of the few mandates that I believe the government has. Both externally and internally. Including, so far as I'm concerned, the mandate to ensure the existance of a proper and appropriate society inside the country. Now, for those of us who are willing and capable of living a proper life that shouldn't be an issue. For those who choose to ignore that, well they get exactly what they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 You're mixing and matching definitions again. Just because something isn't admissable in court doesn't mean it was private. There is nothing preventing the people transmitting the signals from "listening" to your conversation. Furthermore, unless you have something that specifically states otherwise in your contract w/ them (which I'll bet isn't in the standard contract), there is nothing to prevent them from selling/sharing that information w/ a third party (e.g. the US goverment). so if i were to tap someone's phone on my own, its fine because their conversation is public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 No. I can understand and see how you might see it that way, but you're probably taking it a little further in your mind than I am. The problem with your idea is that once you get to the point where you want things to be, then what's to stop the gov't from taking that next step toward absolute totalitarianism (i.e. police state) in order to "protect the people"? Answer, nothing. Likewise, those citizens who understand and accept the concepts that the country is founded on have nothing to fear. Only those who cannot accept or understand these concepts and who choose to try and modify the system instead of simply leaving the country really have anything to fear at all. Interesting how you want people to leave your utopia instead of changing it, and yet here you sit not even following your own advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 so if i were to tap someone's phone on my own, its fine because their conversation is public? Oh, heck no PPacker, only the gov't is allowed to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 I'm not defending it, but that doesn't make what you are saying is correct. If I'm talking to you on one of those walkie talkie phones and you are in a public place, then I have no real expectation that the conversation is private, but in many states, if you are recording the conversation w/o my knowledge, that recording is not admissable in a court, and you are in fact breaking the law. walkie talkies do not have one specified destination, they throw their signal out there for anyone to grab. a telephone specifies where its destination is. Kinda like a bill-board vs. the mail. a bill-board can be seen and read by all, mail is meant for a single private individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 The problem with your idea is that once you get to the point where you want things to be, then what's to stop the gov't from taking that next step toward absolute totalitarianism (i.e. police state) in order to "protect the people"? Answer, nothing. Answer, the armed and trained citizens who undertand the concept that the country was founded on. Interesting how you want people to leave your utopia instead of changing it, and yet here you sit not even following your own advice. Believe me, if there was any other place for me TO go, I would have been gone a very long time ago. Unfortunately this God forsaken rat hole is the closest place on Earth to what I would consider a Utopia; which truly confirms for me that humanity no longer has a reason to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 I swear to goodness I am constantly amazed by those who seek to protect our freedoms here in this country by taking away those very freedoms that they are supposedly protecting!!! Actually some of those people you should be "amazed" by are the ones who seek to protect your LIFE by "taking away" your freedoms. If thet were seeking to protect your life by taking away the very life they were supposedly protecting then you would have a valid point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 All the whining about the constitution and it is the constitution that allows Bush the power....Unless SCOTUS says differently he is fulfilling his responsibility. Or Congress can try and impeach him :rotflmao: :dunce: :jerk: BTW..Where does the quote in the thread title come from? Rule breakers complaining about others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 Answer, the armed and trained citizens who undertand the concept that the country was founded on. So it's totalitarianism until you don't like the people who are in charge and then its vive le revolution! Funny, because it seems this whole thing works better by the rule of law, and there also seems to be a lot more bloodshed and hardship under your system. Believe me, if there was any other place for me TO go, I would have been gone a very long time ago. Unfortunately this God forsaken rat hole is the closest place on Earth to what I would consider a Utopia; Funny, I can think of several dictatorships that fit fairly nicely into your system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 Actually some of those people you should be "amazed" by are the ones who seek to protect your LIFE by "taking away" your freedoms. If they were seeking to protect your life by taking away the very life they were supposedly protecting then you would have a valid point Well tell that to those who say that our soldiers are over there fighting for our freedoms, which I hear all the time in Memorial Day and Veterans Day services. BTW, my life doesn't need protecting by any government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 So it's totalitarianism until you don't like the people who are in charge and then its vive le revolution! Funny, because it seems this whole thing works better by the rule of law, and there also seems to be a lot more bloodshed and hardship under your system. No, it's a semi-authoritarian state where the government is held to it's limits and responsibilities by the armed and trained Citizens. Unfortunately, as this country and the history of Rome has proved, a truly Republican form of government can only exist in a useful form until the concepts of morality and values break down. Then the whole thing falls apart (as we're currently experiencing). The semi-authoritarian system remedies that problem right from the start. Funny, I can think of several dictatorships that fit fairly nicely into your system. If you truly believe that then you have no idea what it is I actually believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 Well tell that to those who say that our soldiers are over there fighting for our freedoms, which I hear all the time in Memorial Day and Veterans Day services.BTW, my life doesn't need protecting by any government. I will tell that to those. When I was over there fighting, I wasn't doing it for your freedom...well unless you consider it the freedom to live. Don't need your life protected by any government? Weren't you the guy wanting the government to lower your gas prices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted August 15, 2007 Author Share Posted August 15, 2007 I changed the title for accuracy's sake (though the original wasn't too far off). And ASF, I hate secret trials, but hell, it'd be better than NO trials at all to challenge the constitutionality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.