WarFalcon

better fix your country now

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by wu_trax
better fix your country now

sad isn't it?

[menth0l]

haha

[Nodrog]

someone will do something to stop it, and even if they dont, youve got nothing to worry about unless youre actually doing something wrong.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Miasma
But it would of course be ok if it only applied to non-citizens, right?

They can get human rights only if they can prove they are human.

[acropolis]

I like the idea. I think we should use the second system for minorities too. And liberals. I don't like them either.

[Chrism]

"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

[Ragnarak]

Originally posted by Chrism
"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

no matter how much you like Mark Owen here is not really the place

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Nodrog
someone will do something to stop it, and even if they dont, youve got nothing to worry about unless youre actually doing something wrong.

I'm sure it will start that way, but in the end it will be a lead weight about our necks waiting to sink us.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by Ragnarak
no matter how much you like Mark Owen here is not really the place

What the hell are you talking about?

Originally posted by WarFalcon
sad isn't it?

i start to become a little worried about you people over there, wasting tax-money on social welfare is one thing, but imprisonement and trial by military is quite another league

[JonnyBGood]

To be honest, how many of us really thought the US would manage to last? Terrible pity. Perhaps a good thing though. At least now we'll stop pretending that just because something can work it will. Especially with external influences. "Mad."

[Haer]

Is nt this thing against the constitution?

As much as I think the near hero worship of the founding fathers and there constitution, I thought that Americans took violating it very seriously - As such I dont see why the opposition is nt kicking up a *Huge* fuss about this, while they may be called anti patriotic by the bush administration I would have thought that the double whammy of it being against the constitution AND the whole right to trial, freedom issue would make this political gold for the democrats?

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Haer
Is nt this thing against the constitution?

As much as I think the near hero worship of the founding fathers and there constitution, I thought that Americans took violating it very seriously - As such I dont see why the opposition is nt kicking up a *Huge* fuss about this, while they may be called anti patriotic by the bush administration I would have thought that the double whammy of it being against the constitution AND the whole right to trial, freedom issue would make this political gold for the democrats?

Yes its against the Constitution, but unfortunately too many people don't know what is happening or understand what it might mean. Some people are kicking up a fuss over it, the civil libertarians, etc...

Frankly because its the Republicans doing it its getting more of a free pass. Republicans are seen as the primary defenders of the Constitution and many people (Republicans) don't call them out when they do something like this. Democrats, it has long been realized, don't give 2 cents for the Constitution and so they're watched closer (by the Republicans).

[eple]

Originally posted by Nodrog
someone will do something to stop it, and even if they dont, youve got nothing to worry about unless youre actually doing something wrong.

that made me laugh.

[Haer]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
Yes its against the Constitution, but unfortunately too many people don't know what is happening or understand what it might mean. Some people are kicking up a fuss over it, the civil libertarians, etc...

Frankly because its the Republicans doing it its getting more of a free pass. Republicans are seen as the primary defenders of the Constitution and many people (Republicans) don't call them out when they do something like this. Democrats, it has long been realized, don't give 2 cents for the Constitution and so they're watched closer (by the Republicans).

But why are nt the Democrats kicking up a fuss?

From a purely selfish point of view, they could surely gain votes by really kicking up a fuss, as you said the republicans are supposed to be "Defenders of the constitution", if anything this shows how far they've gone in the name of "The war on terrorism" and as such could be an excellent way to gain support.

Just because they dont really care about the constitution(I dont *really* beleive this is totally true), does nt mean they cant highlight this, not to mention the homelands security thing et al.

Surely the fear of terrorist attacks has nt given bush *this* much political immunity?

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Haer
But why are nt the Democrats kicking up a fuss?

From a purely selfish point of view, they could surely gain votes by really kicking up a fuss, as you said the republicans are supposed to be "Defenders of the constitution", if anything this shows how far they've gone in the name of "The war on terrorism" and as such could be an excellent way to gain support.

Just because they dont really care about the constitution(I dont *really* beleive this is totally true), does nt mean they cant highlight this, not to mention the homelands security thing et al.

Surely the fear of terrorist attacks has nt given bush *this* much political immunity?

we had an election a few weeks ago. So no matter what he does, he has a couple of years of complete immunity from everything but his own party.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Haer
But why are nt the Democrats kicking up a fuss?

Heh. The Democrats have forgotten everything they ever stood for--except redistribution of wealth. Their only problem with the Homeland Security Bill was that the government could fire federal workers without cause. If you could somehow make the case that restrictions of Constitutional rights would somehow favor the rich, then maybe the Democrats would oppose it.

[Note: the above is not to be construed as an endorsement of the Republicans. They're not any better.]

[Haer]

Thats no reason to give up and die. Those years should be when the Democrats are doing all they can to swing things there way, not too mention having as many republicans question there beleifs in Bush's views.

Surely he cant instigate measures that go vastly against public wish's anyway?

[Haer]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Heh. The Democrats have forgotten everything they ever stood for--except redistribution of wealth. Their only problem with the Homeland Security Bill was that the government could fire federal workers without cause. If you could somehow make the case that restrictions of Constitutional rights would somehow favor the rich, then maybe the Democrats would oppose it.

[Note: the above is not to be construed as an endorsement of the Republicans. They're not any better.]

None of this should matter. As a political party they want to be in power. As such, they should be attacking the republican policies, especially ones such as this which are so easy to attack and detract popularity from the Republicans.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Haer
None of this should matter. As a political party they want to be in power. As such, they should be attacking the republican policies, especially ones such as this which are so easy to attack and detract popularity from the Republicans.

Why do you assume it's unpopular? The Democrats did not dare to offer any substantive opposition to the Homeland Security Bill lest they be labeled soft on terrorism. They believe--and probably rightly--that such a position would cost them far more votes than it could gain for them.

You have to have a highly principled view of freedom of speech before you're willing to apply it to, say, pornographers or neo-nazis; and likewise, you have to have a highly principled view of constitutional rights before you're willing to apply them to terrorists (or even suspected terrorists). The Democrats' principles just aren't that high--at least not on those issues, anyway.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Why do you assume it's unpopular? The Democrats did not dare to offer any substantive opposition to the Homeland Security Bill lest they be labeled soft on terrorism. They believe--and probably rightly--that such a position would cost them far more votes than it could gain for them.

Actually the Department of Homeland Security was the idea of the democratic party. As creating new beauracracies almost always is.

However, the Democrats stance on things managed to find all the cost (bush blasted them for not giving him the power to use the homeland security department the way he wanted the night before) without any gain at all (they avoided the issue).

To my knowledge no Democrat in 2002 won campaigning as a Democrat (some won by their opponents being crap (eg the one from arkansas won because his (her?) opponent was caught cheating on his wife) and others won on personal merit (eg rendell from pennsylvania won purely on his record as mayor of philly, without mentioning any democratic platforms in his campaign)).

My party couldn't suck more.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Haer
But why are nt the Democrats kicking up a fuss?

From a purely selfish point of view, they could surely gain votes by really kicking up a fuss, as you said the republicans are supposed to be "Defenders of the constitution", if anything this shows how far they've gone in the name of "The war on terrorism" and as such could be an excellent way to gain support.

Just because they dont really care about the constitution(I dont *really* beleive this is totally true), does nt mean they cant highlight this, not to mention the homelands security thing et al.

Surely the fear of terrorist attacks has nt given bush *this* much political immunity?

Look at it this way.

Democrats don't care about the Constitution, they are usually on the supporting side of unconstitutional laws. Democrats like more government control, this homeland security bill is about more government control, why buck an idea that looks like they wrote it?

You can also look at it this way too.

Democrats know that no conservative is ever going to believe them even if they claim to want to preserve the Constitution. Their core of support won't love them for taking a right wing stance. Exactly where is this alleged support supposed to come from if they start raising issues with Homeland Security?

Tactitus has it right here...

[Add]

I want to know when this is all going to end, and I'm more worried about how. I've not long come back from America, and probably won't be going back for 3/4 years, so if Bush gets in for his second administration, it will almost be over by then, and anything he does won't effect me.

However, I cannot believe that this won't start impacting on the rest of the world, and when it does that's when it starts to bother me. All I can see, is a string of events all building up, like pulling back an elastic band, well eventually it's going to snap, and when it does it normally hurts you. But that's just the historian in me talking. We're all about causes and effects . I can see my children, if I ever have any, studying this situation in 15/20/25 years time, as i studied kennedy, mcarthy and watergate.

oh well

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
Look at it this way.

Democrats don't care about the Constitution, they are usually on the supporting side of unconstitutional laws. Democrats like more government control, this homeland security bill is about more government control, why buck an idea that looks like they wrote it?

Since all republicans knew about the Patriot Act/Homeland defence etc etc from Bush's first term, wouldnt it have made more sense for them to all have voted Democrats at the election a few weeks ago, given that although the Democrats would do the exact same thing, they would now have credible and vocal opposition.

[Intrepid00]

Pffft, Bush is a wimp compared to Lincoln. Lincoln got rid of Horpus Criptus (sp) compelty, started income tax and jail hundereds at will.

Besides, non-citzens we capture do not have the same legal rights I do so I am not crying about the people still not tried in Cuba. Not to mention ciztens that are being charged with terror acts should hope they never get a regualr trial and get the military one cause they will just stay in a MP jail for life instead of death that the constituion supplies.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by Intrepid00
Horpus Criptus

Habeas corpus, literally it means '(produce/bring) the body'

[Haer]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
Look at it this way.

Democrats don't care about the Constitution, they are usually on the supporting side of unconstitutional laws. Democrats like more government control, this homeland security bill is about more government control, why buck an idea that looks like they wrote it?

You can also look at it this way too.

Democrats know that no conservative is ever going to believe them even if they claim to want to preserve the Constitution. Their core of support won't love them for taking a right wing stance. Exactly where is this alleged support supposed to come from if they start raising issues with Homeland Security?

Tactitus has it right here...

Because by showing the republicans have gone off the path of there core beleifs they can fragment support for them. It does nt matter where the support goes, as long as its away from the Republicans.

[SepH]

i laughed at first, now im just quiet :/

Originally posted by Haer
Because by showing the republicans have gone off the path of there core beleifs they can fragment support for them. It does nt matter where the support goes, as long as its away from the Republicans.

the d3emocrats dont dare to say something because they dont want to look 'unpatriotic'

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Haer
Because by showing the republicans have gone off the path of there core beleifs they can fragment support for them. It does nt matter where the support goes, as long as its away from the Republicans.

The Democrats are still worse than the Republicans, the best thing that the voters can do is elect more right wing Republicans and stop it with these RINOs *republican in name only*.


also, Bush may be expecting the Courts to strike down some of this stuff, but in any event its all quite disappointing. I've heard some of the Conservatives express apprehension over these proposals, but Republicans on a whole feel the pressure to deliver on a 'safe America' like what they promised in the elections and frankly talking about the Constitution doesn't win a lot of votes when the opponent is talking about 'safety'

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
The Democrats are still worse than the Republicans, the best thing that the voters can do is elect more libertarians and stop it with these RINOs *republican in name only*.

fixed

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Nodrog
fixed

libertarians in the US are a pretty scary bunch...