Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

[zoogs]

It's not that I feel the left is the center. It's that generally, America is on the right side of center. Want to talk about real leftists, maybe look at Europe.

 

[JJ Husker]

It's not that I feel the left is the center. It's that generally, America is on the right side of center. Want to talk about real leftists, maybe look at Europe.

I can't argue with that. The problem as I see it is we are following in Europe's footsteps. They may be a few miles ahead of us but it seems to me that we have a plethora of people who have failed to learn the lessons of Europe's failed economic and domestic policies. I truly believe we are at the tipping point of transitioning from right of center (where we belong) to leftist. I also believe it is a point of no return. Once 50% of the people can fulfill their needs by being dependent on the government, our country is screwed IMO. My favorite book is Atlas Shrugged if that helps y'all understand me better.

 

[carlfense]

My favorite book is Atlas Shrugged if that helps y'all understand me better.

Atlas Shrugged was OK. I preferred the Fountainhead because it's basically the same message without a 70 page John Galt speech.

 

[JJ Husker]

My favorite book is Atlas Shrugged if that helps y'all understand me better.

Atlas Shrugged was OK. I preferred the Fountainhead because it's basically the same message without a 70 page John Galt speech.

I liked The Fountainhead as well but feel it applied more to the personal level whereas Atlas had a broader message for society or rather was more foretelling of where I feel we are heading. 1984 is another that we are scarily beginning to live up to. Just look at the titles of major legislation and then look at what the bills actually do. If that isn't blatant doublespeak at it's finest, what is? Rupubs use it but liberals have refined it to an art. Illegal Immigrants are undocumented aliens? People who want the government off their back are demonized as Tea Baggers and radicals. Only 200 years ago those same people were patriots and founding fathers.

 

[carlfense]

My favorite book is Atlas Shrugged if that helps y'all understand me better.

Atlas Shrugged was OK. I preferred the Fountainhead because it's basically the same message without a 70 page John Galt speech.

I liked The Fountainhead as well but feel it applied more to the personal level whereas Atlas had a broader message for society or rather was more foretelling of where I feel we are heading. 1984 is another that we are scarily beginning to live up to. Just look at the titles of major legislation and then look at what the bills actually do. If that isn't blatant doublespeak at it's finest, what is? Rupubs use it but liberals have refined it to an art. Illegal Immigrants are undocumented aliens? People who want the government off their back are demonized as Tea Baggers and radicals. Only 200 years ago those same people were patriots and founding fathers.

Yeah . . . those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act.

When I use the term 'bagger I'm talking about the type of person who professes an undying love for the constitution and our history while failing to understand (or even be familiar with) either. The t-shirt patriots, if you will.

 

[redblooded]

My favorite book is Atlas Shrugged if that helps y'all understand me better.

Atlas Shrugged was OK. I preferred the Fountainhead because it's basically the same message without a 70 page John Galt speech.

I liked The Fountainhead as well but feel it applied more to the personal level whereas Atlas had a broader message for society or rather was more foretelling of where I feel we are heading. 1984 is another that we are scarily beginning to live up to. Just look at the titles of major legislation and then look at what the bills actually do. If that isn't blatant doublespeak at it's finest, what is? Rupubs use it but liberals have refined it to an art. Illegal Immigrants are undocumented aliens? People who want the government off their back are demonized as Tea Baggers and radicals. Only 200 years ago those same people were patriots and founding fathers.

Yeah . . . those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act.

When I use the term 'bagger I'm talking about the type of person who professes an undying love for the constitution and our history while failing to understand (or even be familiar with) either. The t-shirt patriots, if you will.

To be fair Obama campaigned on open government and getting rid of stuff like gitmo and the patriot act. Then didn't do much about any of it. So it's not like left leaning people don't want to get rid of it, it's just that politicians on both sides are corrupt. The sad thing is people are dumb enough to allow this crap. On both sides there's not enough accountability.

 

[JJ Husker]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

 

[carlfense]

To be fair Obama campaigned on open government and getting rid of stuff like gitmo and the patriot act. Then didn't do much about any of it.

Congress refused to allow the closing of Gitmo. For god's sake . . . the latest omnibus spending bill that they sent to Obama to sign yesterday STILL adds more provisions blocking the closing of Gitmo. (It specifically bars any funding for transferring prisoners from Guantanamo.) It's like the GOP is barricading streets to keep firetrucks away and then trying to blame Obama because the house is still burning.

Now, the Patriot Act . . . I am extremely, extremely, disappointed at Obama's flip flop on the Patriot Act. Regardless of who was responsible for it in the first place, Obama has apparently accepted it. If you're asking if I am OK with that, I am not.

 

[carlfense]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

Regarding the bold: no. Our security is not worth our liberty.

 

[JJ Husker]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

Regarding the bold: no. Our security is not worth our liberty.

But losing a little liberty by being forced to purchase health insurance or pay the penalty is fine? One definitely affects every American while the other only has the possibility. Can you explain the difference?

 

[Hingle McCringleberry]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

I still remember when Obama set up his transition office to work closely with the outgoing staff etc, and he would hold daily (?) pressors, and you could pretty much tell the day he was "read in" on the daily security brief, his tone and tenor changed in the blink of an eye. It is very easy to be critical when you dont know what you are talking about. I dont agree with the PA, and am more than a little worried that temporary powers granted under duress have been pretty much made permanent, but I would also like to see what we have stopped using it.

 

[carlfense]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

Regarding the bold: no. Our security is not worth our liberty.

But losing a little liberty by being forced to purchase health insurance or pay the penalty is fine? One definitely affects every American while the other only has the possibility. Can you explain the difference?

How can you argue that they are connected? Do you think Medicare/Medicaid take your liberty? Why do you think being required to carry health insurance (or any other kind of insurance) takes your liberty or anyone elses?

 

[carlfense]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

I still remember when Obama set up his transition office to work closely with the outgoing staff etc, and he would hold daily (?) pressors, and you could pretty much tell the day he was "read in" on the daily security brief, his tone and tenor changed in the blink of an eye. It is very easy to be critical when you dont know what you are talking about. I dont agree with the PA, and am more than a little worried that temporary powers granted under duress have been pretty much made permanent, but I would also like to see what we have stopped using it.

No kidding. "Most transparent administration ever."

 

[JJ Husker]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

Regarding the bold: no. Our security is not worth our liberty.

But losing a little liberty by being forced to purchase health insurance or pay the penalty is fine? One definitely affects every American while the other only has the possibility. Can you explain the difference?

How can you argue that they are connected? Do you think Medicare/Medicaid take your liberty? Why do you think being required to carry health insurance (or any other kind of insurance) takes your liberty or anyone elses?

Just a few posts back you were in your high horse talking about people who don't know anything about the USC. Where is congress or our government given the authority to make a citizen purchase any good or service? Or do you think you get to decide what is worthy enough to warrant ignoring the USC? I won't argue that having health insurance isn't a good thing but some might. They are connected because the PA might infringe on a persons liberty but Obamacare does infringe on a persons liberty if they do not want to purchase health insurance. You can't preach about 'baggers' not knowing the USC and then pick and choose what causes meet your criteria. You are just another partisan player so you can give up the holier than thou attitude.You like Obamacare but not the PA. Fine. But you should probably have a better reason than it infringes on our liberty and you should have a better idea of what really constitutes liberty and freedom.

 

[carlfense]

See, I just knew this thread would make it's way back to the topic. I agree that W gave us the patriot act and that it's title is of the doublespeak style I mentioned earlier. But sarcastically saying "those durned libruls givin' us the Patriot Act" is a little dangerous for the point you were trying to make. Unless givin' and renewing are viewed as 2 completely different things. I would like to think that W was privy to intel that led him to the PA. Considering how opposed BHO was to it before, and his lack of action against it, I assume that he was enlightened as to it's necessity. Yeah it makes me nervous but, possibly the benefits way outweigh the risks. I won't get overly excited about it until innocent US citizens get caught up in it. I don't happen to believe foreigners and terrorists should have the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

Regarding the bold: no. Our security is not worth our liberty.

But losing a little liberty by being forced to purchase health insurance or pay the penalty is fine? One definitely affects every American while the other only has the possibility. Can you explain the difference?

How can you argue that they are connected? Do you think Medicare/Medicaid take your liberty? Why do you think being required to carry health insurance (or any other kind of insurance) takes your liberty or anyone elses?

Just a few posts back you were in your high horse talking about people who don't know anything about the USC. 1. Where is congress or our government given the authority to make a citizen purchase any good or service? Or do you think you get to decide what is worthy enough to warrant ignoring the USC? I won't argue that having health insurance isn't a good thing but some might. They are connected because the PA might infringe on a persons liberty but Obamacare does infringe on a persons liberty if they do not want to purchase health insurance. 2. You can't preach about 'baggers' not knowing the USC and then pick and choose what causes meet your criteria. You are just another partisan player so you can give up the holier than thou attitude.You like Obamacare but not the PA. Fine. 3. But you should probably have a better reason than it infringes on our liberty and you should have a better idea of what really constitutes liberty and freedom.

1. Luckily we have an entire branch of government that applies the law. (That branch was established in the same document that you are ranting about.) We will find out this coming year whether the Constitution grants such authority.

2. It's not my criteria. It's the Supreme Courts criteria. We'll see how it comes out. (Insert generic argument about how the SC should not be able to determine what the Constitution means . . . while desperately arguing that the Constitution means what you want it to mean.)

3. Hey pot, kettle should be around here somewhere . . . I do enjoy the hypocrisy of you "choos[ing] what causes meet your criteria" for freedom and liberty while whining about me doing likewise. It got a small chuckle out of me on a rather dreary Tuesday morning.