Sagis said:
This is why no one takes liberals seriously.
------------------------------------------------------
Amendment 1 - Well now talking badly about the government you can be called a domestic terrorist and arrested under the patriot act.
And if I "offend" a minority, it's "hate speech" and I am penalized. Yeah, liberals pissed on it first. Not to mention, please name one LEGIT person who was arrested for "talking badly" about the gov't.
Amendment 2 - Well this was not bush but many argue that a lot of people have been going after this one for a while through bills such as the brady bill
Look around, it's far from touched. People can still gather up any which way they want. Only the left want to revoke rights of this.
Amendment 4 - Woo this ones a good one. The NSA is allowed to do wiretaps on anyone without warrants. The police in boston are going door to door asking to enter houses for searches without probable cause. Not to mention some high profile seizures such as the liberty dollar seizure.
Wiretaps on "anyone"? Really... Oh, you mean people who have high profiles. I guess you didn't read about how over 11 terrorist attacks were halted through wiretapping? Oh right.. let me guess, typically watch CNN? Also, requesting a search is perfectly fine. It is the legal responsibility for every citizen to know and understand every right and law.
Amendment 5 - Oh wait... thats right no more habeus corpus... thank you military commissions act
This has not even been touched... and should be. Criminals should forfeit rights.
Amendment 6 - Eh good job military commisions act once again... you can have someone testify against you secretly and not be privliged to the information that was used to convict you.
So that the person can be put on a hit? That would surely get people to come forward with testimony...
Amendment 8 - Thats right torture is illegal, but were getting such good information out of Guantanamo bay and waterboarding.
Best one so far. Even leftist idol Bill Clinton is for torture. However people have to be questioned to get answers is all that matters. Get off the soap box and accept that THEY torture OUR guys for FUN. At least we do what we have to for SURVIVAL.
Also, insta-fail for saying waterboarding is torture. It is a discomfort at best.
Amendment 9 - Protection against unlisted rights violations... i'm sure this has been violated but at the same time its so generic that anything i post will be argued against.
You mean like how I'm told by ACLU and other useless wastes of flesh that I cannot act or say certain beliefs because they may offend someone? Or that freedom in general is constantly under fire by illegal swarming? Or how about them attempting to remove all guns? Yeah...
Amendment 10 - Shit we have been breaking this one forever with taxes, rowe vs. wade, morality laws, prohibition, ...
Bit vague. Sometimes however, the government needs to keep control. Not oppressively so, but enough to keep things in check.
Please, before you start such a widely disputable topic, make sure you research the points and maybe you will even agree with it.
ok well im not sure why you didnt have the balls to post this in the actual thread but i will go ahead and respond to it here because i like the debate...
First off i believe that i stated that this has been happening for a long time but i think that bush has gone the furthest yet in the "progressive" direction. Also i am not a liberal i am actually extremely conservative in that i believe that the government should be extremely limited and stay out of the business of the rest of the world. The idea that the government is supposed to protect people foreign or domestic is a liberal view and therefore imo Neo-cons such as Bush or Clinton or the fools on TV are all liberal because fundamentally they believe that the government has the purpose to caudle.
1. What i stated is true that u can be arrested for what you say as a domestic asset now however as far as i know of this ability has not been used yet. The problem is that just because something has not been used does not mean that it is not present. There are laws against sodomy on the books in most states and honestly if the government was put into a position where they could prosper from using that law it would be used.
2. Well although you can still have weapons many are starting to try to pave the road towards a gun free society. The problem is the whole give a mouse a cookie argument. First they take away the assault weapons.. ok thats not that bad i didnt really need an AK-47 neways. The next step is to take away the hand guns... well ... i guess i could live with out those but how will i protect myself in my house... well i still got my hunting rifle. Then they turn around and say oh well we can really reduce gun crime if you give me that too. If you give an inch, which i believe that the assault weapons ban and the brady bill are this first step, the people who are ignoring the constitution will go for that next foot. Also why does the right to bare arms exist in the first place. It is so that you will maintain the ability to fight off a tyrannical government if one does come into power.
4. First off i typically watch fox news but honestly watch all 4 of the news channels because i would prefer a well rounded news show. As for the wiretaps how do you think that they figure out who they need to listen to... they listen to a whole bunch of stuff and when the find that needle in a haystack it makes it all worthwhile. With this in mind i think that the government should put a padded section at the bottom of every flight of stairs because someday when someone falls down them they are going to be saved and that makes it all worthwhile. Ben Franklin once said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." and i believe that this applies to this situation.
5. Wow.. now i am convinced that you are insane i will quote this one because it is that bad
Amendment 5 - Oh wait... thats right no more habeas corpus... thank you military commissions act
This has not even been touched... and should be. Criminals should forfeit rights.
First off do your research on the military commissions act and you will see that it does by definition discontinue habeas corpus for people that are seen as "unlawful enemy combatants" now first off anyone can be termed an unlawful enemy combatant foreign or domestic and beyond that what difference does it make if someone is foreign or domestic... This is like craping in your hand its doesn't make sense to me how can something be illegal for the government to do to its own people but ok to do to the people of other countries.
As for criminals forfeiting their rights wasn't our court system built on the innocent until proven guilty and in that regard when is a criminal supposed to forfeit their rights when they are accused or when they are convicted. Because as far as i know it takes a jury to prove guilt not just a hunch.
6. Um... there is a very good reason for this one.. if you dont have the ability to see the evidence against you and who is providing it then how in the hell are you supposed to try to defend yourself. This is the reason why the witness protection program exists. You testify and then you disappear. Now this may not be the best thing for you because you have to give up your current life when you testify but it makes it so that you would be assured a fair trial. How would you like it if i provided testimony that you were the center of a terrorist ring that was plotting to take over san fransisco. Now with the ideals that you seem to support all you would hear is that there is convincing evidence against you and that its good enough that you are going away.
8. Ah the "they do it so, therefore so should we" argument i was disappointed that no one had called me out on it before because its is one of the best. So with this reasoning its ok to kill civilians in their country because they killed civilians in ours. Its along the same lines in the argument. As for waterboarding being nothing more than discomfort i pose another question which is since when is discomfort to gain information not torture. Now if you want to argue over the meaning of the word torture we can do that but that is one of the biggest fallacious arguments that one can make but i will argue it anyways since it seems to be the course of action that you wish to take. As far as i understand it torture is anything that causes intentional suffering for the purpose of getting information or acquiring confessions under duress. As for my soap box.. im comfortable up here so make a decent argument and knock me off the damn thing.
9. this one i conceded for the most part to begin with because it is so incredibly generic that its going to get into an arguement on semantics.
10. I guess this one is once again a difference in what the purpose of government is because you apparently believe that it is the purpose of the federal government to control everything however it clearly states that anything not listed on the constitution should fall to the states to be governed. Although you may disagree with the way that it is written it is the law and imo extremely important because it is supposed to limit the power that the government can take and keep us from turning into socialism.
Btw i am posting this in this thread because someone felt it necessary to send the quoted section to me in a nice PM from a sockpuppet which im not sure on the rule on this one since it was sent as a PM but i do kinda want to know who it was.
and he, by no means, created our country and government on his own. I just don't think anyone deserves deification, but *shrugs* ah well.. that's off topic.
