Yeah Baby, YEAAAH

[Mor Paul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0TMDc - -why do these cops hate America? :laughing7:

Because... they're Nazis.

 

[Superlizard]

See, you don't even pay attention to the main point - nobody ever said they were innocents falsely accused. What you're doing is making up a ridiculous version of what you'd like your debate opponent to have said, and then arguing against that.
What those guys were, clearly, is US citizens. Their guilt or innocence is therefore determined by a jury trial, to which they have a speedy right. The Constitution is really, extremely clear about this!  The tough question is, can your elected leaders uphold the laws of the land when it's inconvenient or difficult?
Padilla was eventually found guilty and will spend his life behind bars, and that's great. Hamdi was guilty of nothing, apparently, but hating his country - the government never charged him with a specific crime! The government, who claimed he was so dangerous that trying him would endanger national security, eventually released him to Saudi Arabia !!
Picking people up off the streets and holding them in solitary for three years without accusing them of a crime, is NOT supposed to be the American way.

Ah, but you miss the main point:  both were tied to the Taliban.

Haven't you heard?  The Taliban is our enemy.  Aiding and abetting the enemy is a quick way to lose your citizenship, and rightfully so.

So in conclusion, we nabbed the bad guys; job well done.

Anyhow, I've enjoyed pooping on your winger thread once again, but I'm going to bail out here because we've been down this road before. See ya.

Yeah, you're good for about $h!t when it comes to this stuff - go eat your granola and strum your Springsteen cowboy chords, Birkenstock Boi.  :icon_biggrin:

 

[Superlizard]

That's why we have social services.

So what you're saying is if someone cannot be responsible, let society (other people) take the responsibility.

I'm sure people don't want to have to pay for someone else's inability to be responsible; myself included (we do already, mind you).

You know that whole "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt others?" schtick that so many like to spout? 

This falls right into that, but the problem is it does hurt others - other taxpayers.

So if someone has a problem with drugs, etc... it isn't just their problem, it becomes everyone's problem.

Screw that.  What it should be is "pull your own weight or GTFO".

 

[Superlizard]

Regardless of whom they sympathized with, whether or not they were members of a terrorist organization, whether or not there is a war, or even if they were guilty or not, they were US citizens, detained by the United States government without being charged with a crime for over 3 years.      The 6th amendment to the constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial.   Being held for 3 years without being charged doesn’t seem very speedy.

"whether or not there is a war"  No, this is a key component (the presence of war).  Wartime law changes the rules; obviously.

Not only that, common sense dictates it - we don't need Taliban supporters/sympathizers running around free.

 

[Soylent]

I love my texas.. it's a fun place to live.. you all (well some of you all(or "Yall")) are taking this way to.. crazy.

I don't think much if anything will actually change here..  and as far as our education sufferring, our education is already horrible.. so there! HAHAHAHA wait..

Good times.

 

[taez555]

Ah, but you miss the main point:  both were tied to the Taliban.

Haven't you heard?  The Taliban is our enemy.  Aiding and abetting the enemy is a quick way to lose your citizenship, and rightfully so.

So in conclusion, we nabbed the bad guys; job well done.

So you're ok allowing the government, without a trial, to determine your guilt and then revoke your citizenship?

 

[Superlizard]

I love my texas.. it's a fun place to live.. you all (well some of you all(or "Yall")) are taking this way to.. crazy.

I don't think much if anything will actually change here..  and as far as our education sufferring, our education is already horrible.. so there! HAHAHAHA wait..

Good times.

Nah - it's a good discussion... all that liberal brainwashing aside.

I'll have some Texas Toast.  :icon_biggrin:

 

[Superlizard]

So you're ok allowing the government, without a trial, to determine your guilt and then revoke your citizenship?

If you're aiding the enemy or are a member of the enemy; absolutely.

The Taliban is the enemy of the people of the US of A; not to mention (as I said previously) the entire Western world.

I think people are conveniently forgetting we were at war (and still are) with the whole Padilla spiel.

I'll counter your question with my own:

Are you okay with allowing someone who aids the enemy or is a member of the enemy to run free on American soil?

 

[taez555]

"whether or not there is a war"  No, this is a key component (the presence of war).  Wartime law changes the rules; obviously.

Really?    Would you mind highlighting the section of the Constitution that says US Citizens lose their rights during wartime?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html  

 

[taez555]

Are you okay with allowing someone who aids the enemy or is a member of the enemy to run free on American soil?

Of course not, which is why they should be arrested and tried in a court of law.  Being held, or losing your citizenship without a trial is my only issue here.  I just think we should follow the constitution as written.  Just like I agree with you about the 10th ammendment.

 

[Superlizard]

"whether or not there is a war"  No, this is a key component (the presence of war).  Wartime law changes the rules; obviously.

Really?    Would you mind highlighting the section of the Constitution that says US Citizens lose their rights during wartime?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html  

There is none.

And just as well, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees that US Citizens get to keep their rights should they aid/become part of the enemy.

Since neither exist, it would stand (at least among us "laymen" - non-lawyers) that common sense should prevail... e.g. bad guy goes to jail; especially considering they are affiliated with a wartime enemy of the US of A.

Call me a Dirty Harry or bad bad evil right winger or whatever - I'd rather a known threat be nullified than continue to allow them the freedom to be a threat.

 

[Mor Paul]

Are you okay with allowing someone who aids the enemy or is a member of the enemy to run free on American soil?

Of course not, which is why they should be arrested and tried in a court of law.   Being held, or losing your citizenship without a trial is my only issue here.  I just think we should follow the constitution as written.  Just like I agree with you about the 10th ammendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

You know what... I don't like how that court case ended up either.

 

[GoDrex]

That's why we have social services.

So what you're saying is if someone cannot be responsible, let society (other people) take the responsibility.

I'm sure people don't want to have to pay for someone else's inability to be responsible; myself included (we do already, mind you).

You know that whole "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt others?" schtick that so many like to spout? 

This falls right into that, but the problem is it does hurt others - other taxpayers.

So if someone has a problem with drugs, etc... it isn't just their problem, it becomes everyone's problem.

Screw that.  What it should be is "pull your own weight or GTFO".

Call me a Dirty Harry or bad bad evil right winger or whatever

hahahaha this is brilliant stuff man. You should write for SNL or Conan or something. Dirty Lizard. Do you feel lucky punk? :laughing7:

 

[taez555]

And just as well, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees that US Citizens get to keep their rights should they aid/become part of the enemy.

Except of course Article 1, section 9   "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended"

Although that doesn't guarantee your rights as a Citizen, it does guarantee you the trial to determine whether or not you ARE the enemy or a traitor.    Until that's established it's a very dangerous thing to allow anyone to simple accuse you of being the enemy and hold you indefinitely without trial.

 

[GoDrex]

And just as well, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees that US Citizens get to keep their rights should they aid/become part of the enemy.

Except of course Article 1, section 9   "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended"

Although that doesn't guarantee your rights as a Citizen, it does guarantee you the trial to determine whether or not you ARE the enemy or a traitor.    Until that's established it's a very dangerous thing to allow anyone to simple accuse you of being the enemy and hold you indefinitely without trial.

Guys like Dirty Lizard can tell if someone's an enemy or traitor just by looking at them.  :laughing7:

 

[Superlizard]

And just as well, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees that US Citizens get to keep their rights should they aid/become part of the enemy.

Except of course Article 1, section 9   "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended"

Although that doesn't guarantee your rights as a Citizen, it does guarantee you the trial to determine whether or not you ARE the enemy or a traitor.    Until that's established it's a very dangerous thing to allow anyone to simple accuse you of being the enemy and hold you indefinitely without trial.

Just how far said Habeas Corpus reaches had not been determined until quite recently in the Guantanamo case, and certainly not before said detainment.

From the Wiki (Habeas corpus):

The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty." In most countries, however, the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency. In most civil law jurisdictions, comparable provisions exist, but they may not be called "habeas corpus." The reach of habeas corpus is currently being tested in the United States. Oral arguments on a consolidated Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainee habeas corpus petition, Al Odah v. United States were heard by the Supreme Court of the United States on December 5 , 2007. On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush recognized habeas corpus rights for the Guantanamo prisoners. On October 7, 2008, the first Guantanamo prisoners were ordered released by a court considering a habeas corpus petition.

And to add the full text:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

 

[Superlizard]

Regardless of all this, and back to original tangent argument put forth by tfarny, I fail to see the big evil nasty nasty right-winger Cheneybush plan for locking up American citizens who eat hummus and keep camels as pets.

Just another liberal attempt (albeit an old chestnut) at blowing something way out of proportion to demonize the Shrub clan.

What concerns me far more than the typical smear campaigning is the fact that they're (or they were) willing to bypass the detainees' guilt to prove the Shrub "wrong".

Not cool in the least, and definitely not wise.  And it shows their true motivation for their "arguments".

 

[taez555]

What concerns me far more that the typical smear campaigning is the fact that they're (or they were) willing to bypass the detainees' guilt to prove the Shrub "wrong".

Huh?  What does any of this have to do with Bush?    If they're guilty they should go to jail, if they're not they get set free(or deported).  What's so wrong about trying them in a court for their crimes?

 

[dbw]

That's why we have social services.

So what you're saying is if someone cannot be responsible, let society (other people) take the responsibility.

I'm sure people don't want to have to pay for someone else's inability to be responsible; myself included (we do already, mind you).

Dude I don't want to pay for irresponsible people either, but first of all I DO want society to support children regardless of what the parents do... maybe you're down with children starving in America but whether you like it or not this is a welfare state.  Second of all, you'd pay WAY more to put and keep the parent in jail, plus you'd STILL have to support the kid if you did so.  Apparently you have a philosophical disagreement with the idea of helping children of irresponsible parents... I'm sure you'd feel the same way if your parents had been crackheads...

 

[Superlizard]

Dude I don't want to pay for irresponsible people either, but first of all I DO want society to support children regardless of what the parents do... maybe you're down with children starving in America but whether you like it or not this is a welfare state.  Second of all, you'd pay WAY more to put and keep the parent in jail, plus you'd STILL have to support the kid if you did so.  Apparently you have a philosophical disagreement with the idea of helping children of irresponsible parents... I'm sure you'd feel the same way if your parents had been crackheads...

There's no excuse for not being a productive member of society in these cases.

Along these lines, I was thinking about the Octomom during lunch, and I thought this would be a great solution:

- assuming she's a decent parent, let her keep the kids
- since the taxpayers are supporting her and her kids, she could do her part by say, mowing lawns or housecleaning and such in her neighborhood... for free of course.  Or perhaps regular community service.  Fine the doc who did the procedure, and forward that money to the community.  All court-mandated for sure.

I think this would work for any case whereupon someone fooked up and the taxpayers are supporting them - it's definitely fair and square for all.

Which reminds me of an old 70's saying:  "Gas, grass or ass - nobody rides for free".   :icon_biggrin: