Are we realy this gullible? by oldenglanddry

No,

We're not. I've run into no one so far who bought this last terrorist attack, including a guy who's planning to campaign for Condi '08. So, I think it's down to no one. Maybe Hero. I can count the entire republican community here as not-fooled, as well as the democrats.

The thing is, it's become a buy who cried wolf. No one would believe it even if it was real. It hasn't escaped my notice that the govt. of the UK is now actively trying to give terrorists ideas, as Rummy was doing over here, and Cheney also, a couple years back with the "oh they could poison the water supply, or load explosives in the landing gear." Irresponsible comments like that.

But sadly for the world conquering nitwits, our terrorist enemies are morons. They couldn't pull off 9-11 without inside help because they couldn't pull themselves out of bed. By which I mean nothing against arabs, it's just an observation of what we see. A quarter of a billion angry arabs should have kicked our ass by now, retaken israel, and establish a theocratic empire.

I suspect what's really happening is that smart people aren't joining the suicide army, they're flying off to Dubai and making deals. The random poor are emigrating to Europe, or coming here. This already *is* world war three, it certainly bigger than any since wwii, when you take in all the ME countries involved since the 1st gulf war. WWIII in the sand. Not a lot of reason to stay. They'll be flooding into Texas pretty soon. Maybe they'll join the guest worker program, or perhaps they'll set up in pakistan and become an outsourcing destination.

I guess what I'm saying is there's no way this isn't coming back and biting us in the ass, which we so richly deserve. But I don't know that that will be a terrorist attack. If I were an Israeli, I'd be leaving just in case.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:34 PM

FREMDFIRMA

You see, that's what worries me.

They'll sit there and cry wolf so often that when some pissed off guy who knows what the hell he's doing decides to sidestep the highly politicized and completely ineffective security, boom.

We need professionals, not political favorites leeching off the public coffers who do the most halfass job imagineable, and I can SAY this because right up to the day of the accident, security was my business, my career.

What we got now is a buncha political appointees and favor-trade buddies feeling up peoples girlfriends and hassling obvious arabic folk while paying little or no attention to even VERY suspicious behavior by others, they're incompetent to the extreme, yet another alphabet-agency that soaks up huge amounts of tax dollars to do an inadequate or counterproductive job.

It wasn't so hot before, either, I've always despised wackenhut for the piss poor job they did of securing BWI - but we've seen no substantial improvement.

And, of course, while we're hysterically shaking down airline passengers to the skin, some cunning bastard is gonna slip over the rio grande with a stinger and use it from a nearby highway, golly gee whiz, didn't see that coming, did we ?

It makes ZERO sense to go paranoic on one spot, and leave a gaping barn door hole in another, it's almost like asking for it to happen.

And our intelligence agencies are too busy spying on US, to do their fekkin job, or, like the Plame incident, when their reports don't match the desired outcome, they're ignored in favor of bullshit that does.

SOooo in essence, we've *reduced* our security for a fiction that looks good on TV and in the polls.

Again, the gravest threat to our national security...
is our National Security.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 1:35 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Naive for those who think such terrorist attacks can't happen, or that folks aren't motivated to do such destruction.
Um, you made these people up. Do you honestly believe that OED, or I--or anyone on this board!--believe that terrorist attacks can't happen? Why would you ever think such a thing? And better yet, why would you bother even replying if that were the case?

Quote:
Cynical for those who think that every time a plot is discovered or that a nation tries to fight back against the terrorist, there MUST be something ulterior, sinister going on here.
And you made these people up too.

This is a favorite neo-con method of misrepresenting their opposition. People don't hate the Administration for a long list of specific reasons, oh-no, they just hate Bush arbitrarily. People don't suspect the government of wrong doing because the government has in their view behaved in an untrustworthy fashion, but because they simply don't trust the government outright.

Quote:
You literally can't handle the truth. And because of that, you must invent an entirely new foe, while ignoring the one which has openly vowed to kill you and destroy your culture.

AU, why do you think that is? Why do you think I can't handle the truth? And how is it that you can?

No one has to invent the idea of government corruption and no one is advocating that our govermnent simply ignore the threat of terrorism. When you argue your point like this, I don't get the impression that you're remotely interested in legitimate debate or rational discussion.

HKCavalier

I was responding to the cynicism that the foiled attack on the airlines wasn't a legitimate one. I didn't make anyone up, they're posting right on this board! Oldenglanddry didn't believe there was any real threat, that somehow Bush/Cheney control the British Gov't to such a degree that 21 + British muslims could be rounded up and a completely made up charge of trying to blow up mulitiple planes was fabricated out of thin air. WOW, those guys are good!

Fact is, I can handle the truth because I understand that the muslim radicals would rather kill as many innocent people , along with themselves, instead of living in peace. Other's have not accepted that simple, clear fact, and instead accuse 'authority' of being the bad guys, and that Islmaic terrorism is a fictional vehicle by which control the people, remove their civil liberties and clamp down on their freedoms.

When folks are so compelled to dismiss the very legitimacy of the existance of such threats in the first place, and instead accuse the Gov't of 'making up' such plots as an excuse to takee away more of our freedoms, I can't possibly make up any of these people. They need only to post on this board, as they've done, and all I'm doing is replying. How you can't see that is beyond me.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 4:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think what Hero and Rap can't understand is that we DO understand the threat- we're just not running around messing our pants because of it.

Seriously, five times more people are killed by air pollution- AIR POLLUTION- every year than were killed in the WTC. Ten times or more are killed by automobiles. 30,000 people are killed by guns. And cigarettes - even just secondhand smoke- will do you in more surely than terrorists. I could prolly say the same about Big Macs or food poisoning, except I haven't looked up the stats.

So it's not the possibility of death that troubles Hero and Rap, because there are plenty of risks in our lives, even risks that we didn't "choose" to engage. I think it's the whole idea that some people hate us SO MUCH that they see us as mortal enemy. Facing naked hate just seems to cause an awful lot of sphincter action.

Cheney, Rummy and all the big guys... they're not afraid like that. But they stoke that gut-roiling fear because it serves them well. It is far more to their purpose to pull out the bogeyman once in a while and make sure it plays big in the papers. SEE? WE SAVED YOU ONCE AGAIN!

And somewhere between the relentless fear-mongering and the cynicism that this breeds we have to find our own way to address the very real problem of terrorism.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 5:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rap- Let me answer you specifically

Quote:
Fact is, I can handle the truth because I understand that the muslim radicals would rather kill as many innocent people , along with themselves, instead of living in peace. Other's have not accepted that simple, clear fact,

Say, did the WTC shock and surprise you? If it did, then you're a Johnny-come-lately as far as I'm concerned to this whole notion that people hate America. I'd been expecting a major terrorist attack for at least five years before 2001. So don't tell me that I don't "understand".

Quote:
and instead accuse 'authority' of being the bad guys, and that Islmaic terrorism is a fictional vehicle by which control the people, remove their civil liberties and clamp down on their freedoms.

Islamic terrorism is not fictional, but is is a vehicle to remove civil liberties. The question is- can we prevent terrorist attacks and preserve civil liberties? I believe the answer is "yes"... we have a whole system and series of laws and procedures to do just that.

The problem is, Islamic terrorists are bad guys and so is our administration. Just because you have one set of guys against another set of guys doesn't automatically mean that one set is "good" and the other is "bad".
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 5:46 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
HK:
You're not listening to 'Hero'! Don't you understand, are you that naive? WE NEED to phone tap everyone everywhere, we can't be allowed privacy because we can't be trusted, don't you see?

If your talking to terrorists...you really can't be trusted and you should be tapped. Nobody else has anything to worry about.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 5:51 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If your talking to terrorists...you really can't be trusted and you should be tapped. Nobody else has anything to worry about.

The more I hear "It's only the bad guys that have to worry!" the more it makes me laugh, or weep...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 5:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero- There are several view of privacy. As a lawyer, your prolly know this better than I.

One view holds that privacy is a thing onto itself, and that ANY violation beyond what is allowed by law is illegal.

Another view holds to "no harm, no foul". If your privacy is violated but no harm comes of it... you're not informed, and no government action results... then nothing illegal occurred.

It is my understanding the Constitution (which yeah, I know, doesn't refer to "privacy" with that word but DOES talk about being secure in person and effects and so forth...) was based on the first viewpoint.

What is YOUR legal intepretation?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 6:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hey DREAMTROVE! Nice to see you again. Welcome home.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 6:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, Hero seems to be stuck on this question. It may require legal research on his part.

Quote:
Hero- There are several view of privacy. As a lawyer, your prolly know this better than I. One view holds that privacy is a thing onto itself, and that ANY violation beyond what is allowed by law is illegal. Another view holds to "no harm, no foul". If your privacy is violated but no harm comes of it... you're not informed, and no government action results... then nothing illegal occurred. It is my understanding the Constitution (which yeah, I know, doesn't refer to "privacy" with that word but DOES talk about being secure in person and effects and so forth...) was based on the first viewpoint.

What is YOUR legal intepretation?

I'm eagerly awaiting his reply because I'm always ready to learn. I hope we get links to citations.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 7:51 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Auraptor,

You're still making up people's positions. Nobody said the threat wasn't real.

It is very real to us. What is not very real to us is this administration's ability to capture actual terrorists, or for that matter, its ability to be honest and unmanipulating of the information we receive from it.

this scares the crap out of us, because we know these attacks really can happen and we think this government is politicizing the threat even while it fuels it, not combating it in any meaningful fashion.

We aren't the ones being naive. Our government has long since lost our trust on this because it has failed at every turn to do anything but use scare tactics.

what can I say? I hope they really caught some real terrorists, but even if they did, I'd like to know how 4 years after the original attack, fighting them over there has helped us, if they are still able to mount an attack at us over here? Where is the ultimate success at curbing this extremism? And isn't it likely then, and please admit it already, that all we have done in the middle east is to fuel more Jihadists willing to kill us at home and abroad?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 9:34 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero- There are several view of privacy. As a lawyer, your prolly know this better than I.

One view holds that privacy is a thing onto itself, and that ANY violation beyond what is allowed by law is illegal.

Another view holds to "no harm, no foul". If your privacy is violated but no harm comes of it... you're not informed, and no government action results... then nothing illegal occurred.

It is my understanding the Constitution (which yeah, I know, doesn't refer to "privacy" with that word but DOES talk about being secure in person and effects and so forth...) was based on the first viewpoint.

What is YOUR legal intepretation?

Actually the Constitution does not expressly recognize the Right to Privacy...its implied. Also the Constitution has room for the "no harm, no foul" point of view. There are several doctrines, one is good faith (they violated your rights, but they didn't mean too, ie "oops"), another is "inevitable discovery" (we'd have found that gun anyway, so our illegal search of your trunk does not mean we can't use it). There's also 'protective sweep', plain view, and so on. Also a person's right to privacy extends only to a zone in which they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Does a person making an overseas phonecall to Osama Bin Ladden have that reasonable expectation? I think not. How about a payphone to call the local Mafia boss to arrange a hit on PirateNews? Maybe. Talking to your lawyer? Definately. Sending a message via your lawyer to Osama Bin Ladden or the Mafia? No (and a great Law and Order episode).

Also the Poison Fruit doctrine means that if I violate your rights I can't use it against you in court...I can use it to prevent you from making a terrorist attack or funnel money to terrorists or some such. So while I may not be able to convict you I can possible save lives and I can always charge you with something else since terrorists usually commit a number of other crimes as part of or preparation for the larger operation.

One Justice noted that the Constitution in not a suicide pact (his words), meaning that security is a compelling governmental interest, and thus can be a legitimate reason for reasonable infringement of civil liberties.

So legally I guess your first interpretation is most correct and most often used, but it is not the exclusive understanding.

Also I note for the record that the operative part of your sentiment was: "beyond what is allowed by law". What is allowed by law? That is the question we've been struggling with for a couple hundred years now.

Edited to add: And I wasn't stuck on the question, I was up in court beating a fellow attorney over the head with my PocketConstitution. Misdemeanor possession (weed). Attorney said they didn't have the right to search the car (routine traffic stop). Correct. "He consented", says I. They should not have even asked to do the search says the Defense Attorney. "He c-o-n-s-e-n-t-e-d," says I again. I won. Rule of thumb for everyone. Weed in the car DON'T CONSENT. And don't get me started talking dogs and the plain sniff doctrine.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 10:01 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'd like to further this question somewhat.

The Constitution is supposed to protect citizens from the government.

What is the basis for protecting citizens from citizens, or citizens from business?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 10:04 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'd like to further this question somewhat.

The Constitution is supposed to protect citizens from the government.

What is the basis for protecting citizens from citizens, or citizens from business?

I may not understand your question. In Ohio its the Ohio Revised Code. It contains things like the Uniform Commerical Code, criminal laws, etc.

I've heard that other states and the Federal Government have something similar, though not nearly as much fun.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 10:32 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

What I mean is this:

What is the legal basis for murder laws if not in the Consitution? (since the Constitution only addresses the relationship of Federal government to people)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 10:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Bump ???" I said hopefully ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 12:13 PM

For my part, I don't believe there's a threat from the islamic sector. I think there's a threat from the texarkana area. I think if we keep trying there will be a threat if we keep ticking them off.

Also, the constitution is irrelevent since it's been repealed. I mean this literally. The Constitution was only the supreme law of the land when the supreme court used it as a singular source. The moment the supreme court decided it was okay to use the federalist papers are source material, the constitution ceased to be the law of the land.

I'm going to take a radical stand here and say that the confirmation of Sam Alito to the bench officially put five charter members on the federalist society on the bench which made the above a reality, and de facto repealed the constitution as the supreme law of the land, thus dissolving the United States of the America, an institution which now no longer exists. The upcoming NAFTA and GATT redux will make this a political reality, but it is already a process reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 2:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm still hoping I'll get an answer to my question. The reason I'm asking is b/c there's been a tendency to minimize the importance of the Constitution, and in fact, the argument has been successfully made that the Constitution ONLY protects citizens from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. That is why corporations can gather your private data, turn you in to the police for software piracy, why state workers have no federal civil rights protections etc.

So it got me to wondering - if the Constitution isn't the basis for anything except to protect citizens from their Federal government - what is the legal basis for murder laws - protecting one citizen from another?

DT - interesting idea 'bout the Federalist papers.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 2:37 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"US President George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."

And you know what? I hope he keeps ON trying to ride his golden 9/11 moment. What a fool.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 3:12 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What I mean is this:

What is the legal basis for murder laws if not in the Consitution? (since the Constitution only addresses the relationship of Federal government to people)

Most laws concerning murder are State laws. These are covered under the 10th Amendement, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people". They pretty much derive from English Common Law.

There are also Federal laws relating to murder, although most murder prosecutions are at the state level. There are several references to murder in Title 18 of The US Code.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 3:18 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Cool. So this is my question - if the Consitution only protects people from the Federal government, and the States can pass whatever laws they like that devolve to them - how can the Supreme Court rule on the Constitutionality of any state law?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 3:37 PM

I suspect, generally speaking, corporations have little interest in having you arrested. It's the police and government that can garner financial rewards from arrests, it's business to them, and their budget is dependent on it. Think of it this way, if crime goes down, police departments will be downsizeed. The police have a vested interest in crime. The best and simplest way to increase crime is to write new laws, and if you dig you'll find that police groups are perpetually lobbying for the creation of new laws restricting personal freedoms. Don't get me wrong, they're not driving this truck ride (these guys hate trains :( ) to hell, by any means, it's just another mechanism which allows police states to happen.

Here's the way I see it. The constitution itself is a federalist plot. The original founding document, the articles of confederation, did not provide for a king of america, and the federalists, who themselves wanted to be king, didn't like that. They also hated the idea of peasants rights. So they created the constitution, creating a position of king, two houses to make legislating difficult, and the bill of rights was stripped completely. When it became clear that the bill of rights was going to make a comeback, the feds added a supreme court to prevent the states from interpretting the constitution, not under fears that it would be misinterpreted, but for fears it would be literally interpreted. The federalists real goal for the supreme court was to abolish the bill of rights, which they have now done.

Intersting side note on this: If you read the about the confederacy they rant about this stuff a lot, more in fact than they do about slavery. The Civil War was about three things: 1. federalism vs. anti-federalism, or confederatism, 2. the proposed partition of the west into states, which was done by a GOP congress to intentially marginalize the south (as I believe it was jefferson davis who said who would want to be part of a union in which you were completely marginalized? or something to that effect.) and 3. it was about slavery, which is unfortunate. I'm not a confederate battle flag person by any means, but I think it's an interesting subject. I get that it doesn't mean 'yay slavery' as a symbol, I suspect to the people who fly it, it means states-rights mostly.

To get what's going on here legally, I think you really have to examine the federal concept. The New England Confederaion (1643) was our first political entity. After that there was a Confederacy of United States (1781) which lasted eight years, until it was superceded by the Federal Govt. of the USA. (1789)

The new concept changed the idea. Federalism was geared around a a federal entitiy, a govt which has as its members, other govts. The union is a strongly binding one, the member states essentially are bound to it, like an empire being make of kingdoms, only in democratic terms. There are very few federal systems out there in the world. The creation of a strong independent entity contrasts with the loose confederacy idea, which would be something more like the UAE, an alliance of willing members seeking mutual protection.

Originally, of course, the US was set to be more like the UAE in structure. But the federalist intervened to create this large imperial body, similar to the soviet union. Todays federalists are trying to do the exact same thing to the EU right now.

As for criminal code, this is not a matter for a federal govt. The constitution of the united states is not a basis for our criminal code. Criminal codes traditionally are the purview of a municipality, and the creation of the nation state sought to make a universal legal code to reduce confusion among travelers. But the laws against killing one another are a matter of municipal or state, and not of federal importance. The federal govt. in washington is not the evolution of the nation state. Our own nation states have been suppressed through the union to the point where they're merely member states. the federal govt. is a separate entity, which for all practical purposes has states as citizens, rather than us people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 3:58 PM

I thought about the last part of your question and here's what I came up with

A lot of legal opinions know as 14th amendment cases, regardless of how little some of them bear on the actual text of the 14th amendment, seek to define the relationship of consumer to producer. It's not really a charter agreement of the sort that we need. In a system which was truly designed with capitalism as a core principle, there should be a defining document, like the constitution, equal in stature, but not connected in process. This 'trade charter' would then set down all the key principles upon which the legislative rules of commence could be based. I think it would help a lot.

Another interesting side note is that the bill of rights itself came from England in 1689. The title of the document was the "bill of rights" and it contains some language which made it into our own constitution verbatim, such as item 10: "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;" which is very similar to our own 8th amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm

I think ideally, there should be separate documents for the constitution, which defines the process of government, and the bill of rights, which defines the rights of the people. An over arching legal code might be less of a great idea, as people vary by their culture, etc. and also, laws can be written to favor one side, such as our national tax code which essentially does one thing very well, which is siphon off dollars from NY and CA and give them to TX. Except now when it gives them to Saudi Arabia, Israel and sometimes China. But politics aside, I think that founding documnents are meant to set a basis for rules, rather than the rules themselves. So an item on a legal basis document created to inpire the creation of a criminal code might say something like 'each citizen has a right to live provided that they are no threat to another life' or something. that lets you know you're going to outlaw murder. The thing is, you have to have good and careful people design these things, or you end up with something like the ten commandments, which has some good pieces in it like that but some other ones like no false gods, which has led to many genocidal campaigns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 4:10 PM

Quote:
Cool. So this is my question - if the Consitution only protects people from the Federal government, and the States can pass whatever laws they like that devolve to them - how can the Supreme Court rule on the Constitutionality of any state law?

Rue,

This is the crux of the problem. Under the original design there was no supreme court, it was created to prevent the states from interpreting the constitution. I guess, in theory, it creates a sort of universal similarity of laws. In practice, whoever is represented up top starts slanting the whole country toward their own bias. I suspect this question is somehow connected to the SD abortion thing, but with any luck we can avoid that particular debate like the plague.

Anyway, the key thing here is that the states have lost their sovereignty, and the supreme court is a central element in that. It was the other part of the plan of the federalists, who wanted an empire, so technically I should have said they wanted to be emperor, but at the time several senators commented that the federalists would someday create a king george (look, and here he is.)

Federalism was done a huge blow by the creation of the demomcratic republican party, which had more jeffersonian principles, but after the split, the debate became democrat vs. republican, and gradually things got more and more federalist as people were focusing on the left-right and not on the federalist-antifederalist. Post wwii the federalists got a new lease on life, and if you look particularly in the post watergate period, every administration is more federalist than the last.

Sygnym,

Hey. Sorry didn't see you there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 4:11 PM

FIVVER

The constitution trumps state law. The rights protected (NOT GRANTED!) by the constitution are for all citizens of the United States.

In your example of the murder laws, the Supreme Court has ruled the death penalty constitutional. States can enact it or not as they choose, but no state can force a defendant to testify against himself (5th amendment).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 4:18 PM

America loves a winner!

Friday, August 11, 2006 07:51
Auraptor,

You're still making up people's positions. Nobody said the threat wasn't real.

It is very real to us. What is not very real to us is this administration's ability to capture actual terrorists, or for that matter, its ability to be honest and unmanipulating of the information we receive from it.

this scares the crap out of us, because we know these attacks really can happen and we think this government is politicizing the threat even while it fuels it, not combating it in any meaningful fashion.

We aren't the ones being naive. Our government has long since lost our trust on this because it has failed at every turn to do anything but use scare tactics.

what can I say? I hope they really caught some real terrorists, but even if they did, I'd like to know how 4 years after the original attack, fighting them over there has helped us, if they are still able to mount an attack at us over here? Where is the ultimate success at curbing this extremism? And isn't it likely then, and please admit it already, that all we have done in the middle east is to fuel more Jihadists willing to kill us at home and abroad?

At no time has my Gov't politicized the terror issue. To date, the jihadist have scored an absolute zero attacks on the US. But the same can't be said of Spain or England.

The threat is real. The thrust of those who want to kill us all isn't going away.

Why the FUCK can't you see that?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 4:19 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Cool. So this is my question - if the Consitution only protects people from the Federal government, and the States can pass whatever laws they like that devolve to them - how can the Supreme Court rule on the Constitutionality of any state law?

First, You're making quite and assumption when you state that "...the Consitution only protects people from the Federal government." I would think that the Constitution defines the rules under which the Federal Government operates, and some specific conditions relating to the rights of the people.
Second, the Supremes can rule on the Constitutionality of state law when they believe that the state law contravenes either the Constitution or federal laws passed under the provisions of the Constitution.

Do you have a particular point you're trying to make? Just curious.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 4:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
At no time has my Gov't politicized the terror issue. To date, the jihadist have scored an absolute zero attacks on the US. But the same can't be said of Spain or England.

The threat is real. The thrust of those who want to kill us all isn't going away.

Why the FUCK can't you see that?

Breathe deeply. In, out, in, out. Slow your breathing. Pay attention to the air filling your lungs. Pay attention to your lungs exhaling. Notice areas of tension - relax you face. Soften your brow. Relax your mouth. In, out. In, out.

OK.

NOW GET THIS. WE KNOW THERE'S A THREAT. THAT'S WHY WE WANT SOMETHING REAL DONE.

"There are no published criteria for the threat levels, and thus no independent way to tell whether the current threat level is accurate. The evidence cited to justify changes in threat levels has been stated vaguely (see below) and its sources have seldom been revealed. This lack of disclosure makes the system vulnerable to manipulation by government officials. These attributes have been criticized by cartoonists,[6][7] journalists,[8] entertainers,[9] civil libertarians,[10] and security experts.[11]

The alert level was raised once in 2004, an election year, leading some critics to speculate that the Bush Administration used them for political rather than strictly security reasons.[12][13]"

It's not that we don't reconize the threat.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 4:35 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Time ... to go ...

bird flutters out of hands into the rain ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 5:16 PM

The emperor has no threat.

There I said it, and I'm proud. I'll say it again. As auraptor said, the jihadists have scored an absolute zero attacks on the US, zero meaning zero, as in none. Since they did not attack us on september 11th, which auraptor as a member of the MIC and the new crusaders knows, they have scored a some total of zero. This is not a very alarming threat.

In fact, the jihadists can't even defend themselves. Ideologically, the jihadists are nationalists, and they are religious fundamentalists, neither one of which is really a fatal flaw, in fact, they're perfectly within their rights to be both. They're also perfectly within their rights to defend themselves. They may get desperate and do stupid things, but I have no reason to think that they are evil, or in any way subhuman. They're not even an irreconsilable foe. If we just talked to them, considered not disassembling their govts., raping and torturing their children, killing their populations in genocidal slaughter and stealing their land and oil (sound like any past American policies towards some other ethnic group, say 170 years ago or so?)

But what we have here is a phantom menace. There is no foe. There are no terrorist except those we elected in washington dc. If bin laden shows up at your house, offer him potatoes, I hear he likes potatoes.

I don't recognize this threat.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 5:26 PM

A few clarification points here, since there have been some mistatements:

1. the constitution is a document of process, it protects nothing.

2. The bill of rights stated purpose is to protect the citizens from unjust rule, and since the only rule that they have in the federal govt., then it's state purpose *is* to protect the people from their own govt. to prevent tyranny. ie. rue is right on this one.

3. The word that is used in the senate by both side to the exclusion of all other words on this topic of the rights of the people is "guarantees" the bill of rights within the constitution *guarantees* these rights. According to our senate, it does not protect them, grant them, give them, it guarantees them.

4. "Time to die." if you were intending to follow [All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain.] sorry to be such a geek :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 11:04 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The emperor has no threat.

There I said it, and I'm proud. I'll say it again. As auraptor said, the jihadists have scored an absolute zero attacks on the US, zero meaning zero, as in none. Since they did not attack us on september 11th, which auraptor as a member of the MIC and the new crusaders knows, they have scored a some total of zero. This is not a very alarming threat.

In fact, the jihadists can't even defend themselves. Ideologically, the jihadists are nationalists, and they are religious fundamentalists, neither one of which is really a fatal flaw, in fact, they're perfectly within their rights to be both. They're also perfectly within their rights to defend themselves. They may get desperate and do stupid things, but I have no reason to think that they are evil, or in any way subhuman. They're not even an irreconsilable foe. If we just talked to them, considered not disassembling their govts., raping and torturing their children, killing their populations in genocidal slaughter and stealing their land and oil (sound like any past American policies towards some other ethnic group, say 170 years ago or so?)

But what we have here is a phantom menace. There is no foe. There are no terrorist except those we elected in washington dc. If bin laden shows up at your house, offer him potatoes, I hear he likes potatoes.

I don't recognize this threat.

You have eyes to see, yet you remain blind. Fine by me, just stay out of everyone's way when the NEXT attack happens.

Oh, and when that happpens, you do NOT get to criticize the Gov't for " not doing its job " in protecting its citizens. Your credability on that issue has sailed long ago, although I suspect you'd be the 1st one shouting tbat this too is Bush's fault.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 12, 2006 2:57 AM

Auraptor

You don't get to define my credibility.

When the next attack happens, I'll blame Hillary R. Clinton, who will be president of the united states, becaust she will have planned and executed it.

9-11, Osama Bin Laden didn't do it, a fact which has alrady been proven. I haven't yet determined who did, but I have a long list of suspects with a lot of americans on it.

considering that i consider your side as a chief suspect in the crime, not surprisingly, my attitude towards your camp (neocon) is exactly the same as your attitude towards the camp you suspect (al qaeda) no more strongly than I, and with no more evidence.

Considering that, consider this:

How convincing would a follower of osama bin laden be to you if he came on this forum and addressed you in the manner in which you and the other neocons address the rest of us here on the forum?

I'd hazard a guess that he wouldn't make a dent. You should bear that in mind. You suspect them, what would it take them to convince you of their innocence. When I came this forum the time, I qas certain of bin laden's guilt. Something convinced me otherwise. persuasive arguments, loaded with facts, some words from the man himself, bin laden, whose writings I read some of in an effort to "know the enemy" and eventually I came to the conclusion that we have met the enemy and he is us.

Now, you find yourselves in the same position, some of us here suspect the people you have chosen to follow. This isn't about blaming bush because of an ideological difference, this is about suspecting his people of perpetrating the drime of the 21st century.

You have caught yourself in a debate where your competition for the truth is not me, and the other doubters and bush haters etc., but al qaeda, and they are winning. think about it.

ps. to the mole on this board, you know who you are, I don't support al qaeda, I'm simply saying, they make a more impressive case for their innocense than do the neocons for theirs, and their in less against them, in this crime. If people are going to continue, and they seem to not stop, to use 9-11 as a sole motivator of action, then that action must be directed at the perpetrators of the crime, and not at a suspect who happens not to be guilty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 12, 2006 6:07 AM

ANTIMASON

Dreamtrove..according to CNN yesterday, we share the same belief as the terrorists; apparently Hezbollah and Al-qaeda are taken by the 9/11 truth movement aswell.

so maybe theyre right, and we are the terrorists!...this could be why they dont want us to profile Muslims; otherwise we forget to suspect everday Americans too

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 12, 2006 7:43 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Auraptor

You don't get to define my credibility.

I just did define your credability. It's non-existant.
Quote:
When the next attack happens, I'll blame Hillary R. Clinton, who will be president of the united states, becaust she will have planned and executed it.
- Gee, like her hubby planned and executed the '93 WTC bombing ? Yep, you're a certified whacko

Quote:
9-11, Osama Bin Laden didn't do it, a fact which has alrady been proven. I haven't yet determined who did, but I have a long list of suspects with a lot of americans on it.
OBL did it. Why am I even debating this point w/ you ?

Quote:
considering that i consider your side as a chief suspect in the crime, not surprisingly, my attitude towards your camp (neocon) is exactly the same as your attitude towards the camp you suspect (al qaeda) no more strongly than I, and with no more evidence.

Actually, I'm not a 'neo-con', or code word for Jew. I'm a American, who is politically Conservative Libertarian. More times than not, I tend to vote Republican or Libertarian.

Quote:
Considering that, consider this:

How convincing would a follower of osama bin laden be to you if he came on this forum and addressed you in the manner in which you and the other neocons address the rest of us here on the forum?

I'd hazard a guess that he wouldn't make a dent. You should bear that in mind. You suspect them, what would it take them to convince you of their innocence. When I came this forum the time, I qas certain of bin laden's guilt. Something convinced me otherwise. persuasive arguments, loaded with facts, some words from the man himself, bin laden, whose writings I read some of in an effort to "know the enemy" and eventually I came to the conclusion that we have met the enemy and he is us.
I have no idea what you're rambling on about. The Islamo fascist have admitted to doing it, have said they'd do it again, what more do you want? I'm sorry you got conned into thinking they didn't do it, but that's not my problem. I'm sure you'd deny the Holocaust ever took place too. OBL declared war on the U.S. back in '98, or did you forget that? Did you forget also the training video of masked men shooting at a large photo of the President ? That would be Bill Cliton, fyi.

Quote:
Now, you find yourselves in the same position, some of us here suspect the people you have chosen to follow. This isn't about blaming bush because of an ideological difference, this is about suspecting his people of perpetrating the drime of the 21st century.
No, I DON'T find myself in any such a position. That's simply you projecting your delusional view point onto others. Sorry, I'm not playing your game.

Quote:
You have caught yourself in a debate where your competition for the truth is not me, and the other doubters and bush haters etc., but al qaeda, and they are winning. think about it.
Huh? You're not even remotely making sense now.

Quote:
ps. to the mole on this board, you know who you are, I don't support al qaeda, I'm simply saying, they make a more impressive case for their innocense than do the neocons for theirs, and their in less against them, in this crime. If people are going to continue, and they seem to not stop, to use 9-11 as a sole motivator of action, then that action must be directed at the perpetrators of the crime, and not at a suspect who happens not to be guilty.

Don't know who this mole is, but sounds as if you're paranoid. al Qaeda has never made ANY case for their innocence, and that's what makes me suspect you're nothing but a loser troll who doesn't have a life.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 12, 2006 8:33 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

HEh, neocon is codeword for jew? Really? I've used it and that's the first I"ve heard of it. That's absolutely stupid dude.

Clicking around a little bit, i've run into the term being associated with jews, but only by republicans, who must really be desperate to make that racist card stick to all parties, since they know they can't shake it from theirs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 12, 2006 8:37 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Auraptor,

Give me a fucking Break. I only have to look to yesterday for their politicizing of it.

"A vote for Ned Lamont is a vote for the terrorists."

Let a story rest more than a week before you say it never happened...jesus.

added on edit -

to date more americans have died than Europeans to terrorists since this administration started its war against terror. And our government wasn't the one who foiled this attack either.

So let me get this straight. England foils the attack, and then our threat level goes up? Wow, we're really on top of shit.

Now you could argue that raising the threat level would have tipped off the terrorists. VERY GOOD ARGUMENT! So what the hell do we have a color coded threat level for at all then?

Scare tactics anyone?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 12, 2006 8:42 AM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Flying out to the US in two weeks, I hope they relax the restrictions a bit by then, don't like the idea of an 8 hour flight without anything to do or read.

Did I miss something? When did they restrict reading material?

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 12, 2006 8:46 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Did I miss something? When did they restrict reading material?

The only things allowed as carry on:

Quote:
Pocket-sized wallets/ purses, plus contents
Passports/ travel tickets
Prescription medicines, not in liquid form unless verified as authentic
Essential medical items, eg diabetic kit
Glasses & sunglasses, no cases
Contact lens holders, no solution
Baby food & milk for those with infants - bottle contents must be tasted by accompanying passenger
Essential sanitary items for infants
Female sanitary items, unboxed
Tissues, unboxed, or handkerchiefs
Keys, but no electric key fobs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4787161.stm

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 12, 2006 10:47 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
oldenglanddry wrote:
Thursday, August 10, 2006 05:19
Another non-existant "plot" by non-existant "terrorists" to blow up Airliners with baby milk has been "foiled" by our magnificent security services.
21 people have been arrested in the UK in connection with the terror plot. I wonder how many of these 21 will actually be charged with an offence.
The Uk's airports are now in a state of utter confusion and chaos because liquid explosives (do such things realy exist?) might be used to blow up planes in mid flight.
Of course, because the "plot" has been "foiled" we will never know who was telling the truth.
Coincidentely, the Isreali offensive into Lebanon has suddenly become un-newsworthy.

Are we realy this stupid?

Are you really this naive and cynical? Just how many times have you seen V for Vendetta ?? Would you prefer the bombs have gone off, and several airliners full of men,women and children be blown to bits and the pieces scattered across the Atlantic like flakes of human flaoved fish food ? But if/when that happens, you'll be quick to BLAME the very same authorities who stopped this attack for not catching the terrorist. And you'd problably blame Bush and Blair for making the terrorist mad enough in the 1st place to even pull such an attack off in the 1st place.

You're pathetic. You really are.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Nice personal insult.
Perhaps you would like to adress the issue now.

The fact is if there ever was a "terror plot" the security sevices had it covered weeks ago. So why did'nt they just take the suspects in to custody quitely and without panicking the people of UK and US?

Get back to me in a month or six weeks time and tell me how many of the 24 people so far arrested have actually been charged with an offence relating to terrorism.
Of course, you will have had plenty of time by then to come up with a "pathetic" apologist theory as to why it is in our best interest to be led around by the nose by our Governments and media.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 12, 2006 11:04 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
The fact is if there ever was a "terror plot" the security sevices had it covered weeks ago. So why did'nt they just take the suspects in to custody quitely and without panicking the people of UK and US?

Exactly! What possible use does trumpeting it in the press serve other than to incite hysteria so we won't question too loudly the latest abridgements of our freedoms? (And no, I'm nost suggesting it go unreported, simply that it not take over the front page for weeks at a time. What goes on the front page is a matter of editorial policy.)

Fer cryin' out loud folks, it's propaganda! Its purpose is to pacify us into submission. AFAIK, we had a color coded threat meter looooong before USA Today put it on the front page. Back in the day, the government didn't make a lot of noise about it so Americans wouldn't panic. Times have changed, and the people in power today obviously want us to panic as much as possible. The only thing a panicked citizenry does for the government is make the people more likely to accept authoritarian interferance; terrified people will choose security over liberty every day of the week. And some of the folks on this board have swollowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 13, 2006 5:16 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Tell me, for all the bomb shelters and drills...

For all the color-code threat warnings...

For all the paranoia, hysteria, and rights-stealing...

For HUAC and the red scare...

For all of that - exactly how many nuclear missles DID the Soviet Union fire at us ?

Hmm ?

Take your threat level and shove it, and go back to your monica blewhimsky impression on the ghost of Joe McCarthy, cause what you're selling here, ain't nobody buying.

History defeats the argument utterly, without me having to lift a finger.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 13, 2006 10:24 AM

Antimason

Maybe so, except they're not the terrorist. Hamas, Hezbollah, and even Al Qaeda, are not terrorist organizations. They may support terrorist organizations.

Al Qaeda is a communication network of an acephalous nature, not dissimilar in design to the internet. It is used by a large terrorist organization called the Mujahideen, which ius what our press usually calls Al Qaeda. The overwhelming majority of westerners get this wrong, or so the muslim press keeps telling me.

Anyway, sure, the Mujahideen undoubtedly buys the 911 conspiracy, but then so do the french, the polish and probably the vanuatans. But for me, the terrorists of 9-11 are here and in saudi arabia.

Auraptor,

1. You're an imbecile.

Neocon is not a code word for jew. Jews represent a minority within the neocon movement. Bush is a neocon, condi, sadly, has become one. Fukyama is one of the founders of neoconservatism. Neocons include people of every race, creed, culture and religion. They are also all collectively wrong. You are one of them because you consistantly support their positions. You can call yourself a libertarian but you aren't one because you never support a libertarian position.

2. You hate America

If you really cared about this country, you'd give a damn who attacked us on 9-11 and do some reason. It took the whackos five years to convince me, and that was with a lot of arguing. Finally they one, and I'm pretty much convinced that at least a *portion* of the real story lies on their side of the fence. But you don't care. You worship Bush and his neocon globalist agenda (only a tiny fraction of which is support for the zionist israeli agenda - saudis get more out of this than israel as do about half a dozen other nations.) You don't question policies which restrict your freedoms and mine, which sell america down the river, and systematically destroy our society and our valued.

3. You a christian crusader consumed by hate

You take the anti-muslim positions whenever the possibility arises, and support anyone who commits genocide against them, even your own political opposition (clinton et al.)

4. Your a hypocrit.

You don't admit to the ideology consistant with the positions you take, you don't support positions consistant with the ideologies you claim.

If I'm wrong, then show me why, because I've read a lot of your posts, and this is the conclusion I'm coming to

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 13, 2006 10:28 AM

Quote:
Don't know who this mole is, but sounds as if you're paranoid.

A mole is just someone whose job it is to report if someone in this group suggests, as once happened, that we go blow up a govt. building. It's not a bad thing to have a mole. Mole exist in almost every community, if you had ever been in one before, you would realize this. Moles are also, not the enemy. Many people on this forum have suggest for instane that FInn is a mole because of his position in military intelligence, and though we disagree from time to time, I think Finn's basically a decent guy.

Quote:
al Qaeda has never made ANY case for their innocence

You don't even read do you. Bin Laden/Mujahideen have made this case ad nauseam. It's actually in their interests to claim credit. Why would they make the case if it weren't true?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 13, 2006 10:39 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Many people on this forum have suggest for instane that FInn is a mole because of his position in military intelligence, and though we disagree from time to time, I think Finn's basically a decent guy.

Does that mean I'm a mole? I work for the MOD?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 13, 2006 11:06 AM