What Should Happen to George W. Bush?

[Berzerker]

MtG -

4,500 people in New York had their liberties violated in a much more fundamental way.

So if I murder someone the government can ignore our civil liberties too?

So what are you going to say while people whoop and holler about the gummint takin' away our rights, while these ********ers openly announce their intent to wage nuclear and chemical warfare on the civilian populace of the US?

I'll be on the side of those whooping and hollering about our rights. Will you be on the side of the government - the Democans - which has created the motives for these people to attack Americans? Yeah, I really need you and your government to "protect" me when it was the government that exposed us to these attacks.

You're awfully willing to toss away other American's lives, which is a far more onerous invasion of liberty than any yet proposed by the US government.

He's a Libertarian, we would not have been attacked if Libertarians were running the government. So it's really stupid to accuse David of throwing away the live's of Americans when it was the Democans and their supporters (you?)who gave us this situation with their foreign policies. Yeah, go look in a mirror before throwing around your absurd accusations.

These ********ers out there (and infiltrated into the US) could give a flying **** less for your pedantic debates.

So what do they care about? "Our" foreign policies? Get a ******* clue!

They laugh at how US intelligence and law enforcement is so hog-tied that it's been rendered virtually impotent by all this abstract whining about civil liberties.

"Abstract whining"? Tell that to the Japanese American victims who were put in cages during WWII because not enough people engaged in "abstract whining" then. And just what civil liberty has David defended here that would have led to the capture of these terrorists had it not existed? This happened (aside from foreign policies) because of lax security at airports and the failure to track foreigners who've violated their visitation contracts, not because we don't have some military tribunal.

Meanwhile, while we have people who have stated outright their intent to wage nuclear and chemical war against us

Gee, you'd have the government protect us after it has created these enemies?

you ***** and whine about a military tribunal which does not yet exist

Are we supposed to wait until after the laws are passed? Kind of stupid, don't you think?

about pedantic questions on the interpretation of what is an "unreasonable" search or siezure under the Fourth Amendment

But when you contemplate the meaning of the 4th Amendment, you are not engaging in "pedantic questions" about what constitutes an "unreasonable" search. You succeeded in stinking up this thread with both your hypocrisy and stupidity.

and about the function of National Guard troops acting in a constitutionally permitted role (nationalization in time of public emergency)

The National Guard is not in the Constitution, or did you ascertain the opposite after asking yourself a pedantic question?

at facilities with Federal jurisdiction (the function of airports is interstate transportation and commerce)

Interstate transportation is not in the Constitution and flying an airplane to another state is not interstate commerce, the transaction of fee for service took place in the same state.

Everyone else can bend over and take it up the ass at the terrorists convenience

Let me see, US foreign policy = terrorist attacks on Americans. And you point at the people who oppose these policies and the infringement on our civil liberties as the problem?

as long as you aren't "affected" by an order authorizing the executive branch to do something in the future that may never be done, and won't in any conceivable likelihood be done to you

I was never a slave, does that mean I shouldn't oppose slavery?

[David Floyd]

Ramo, (especially) Berz,

Lonestar, Slowwhand, by what right does the federal government ration, say, food? And while we're on the subject of food, go look up a case called Wickard v. Filburn if you want to see some of the injustices done to civil liberties in the name of the good of the many.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Ramo
I agree with most of what David has written wrt civil liberties, blah, blah, blah. I've argued about this enough since 9/11.

Ah, something new...



1. Massive theft of Amerindian lands
2. The Fugitive Slave Act
3. The first protective tariff
4. The First Bank of the US
5. The Whiskey Excise Tax
6. Attempting to crush the slave rebellions in Haiti

And I'm sure there's some other stuff I can't recall at the moment...

So Washinton was a bastard.

Would you consider doing me a great favor?
Go live in the hell hole they call Afghanistan, then whine about the liberties you've lost.
You have it made, bud.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Ramo, (especially) Berz,

Lonestar, Slowwhand, by what right does the federal government ration, say, food? And while we're on the subject of food, go look up a case called Wickard v. Filburn if you want to see some of the injustices done to civil liberties in the name of the good of the many.

David, I'm losing patience with you rapidly.
Giving up gas or whatever isn't jack.
You need to withdraw your head from your anal orifice, and get with the real world.

[David Floyd]

Well, since you apparently didn't look it up, Wickard v. Filburn involved the federal government telling a farmer he couldn't grow food for his family outside of the grain he sold on the market during the New Deal, a huge violation of civil rights and just one example of the federal government running wild with very liberal definitions of interstate commerce.

And giving up gas certainly means something to ME - if I can't get gas, I can't get to school, I can't go to the movies, I can't go clubbing, I can't drive to the grocery store, etc. And guess what? I care far more about going to the grocery store whenever I want than I do about the US fighting a war 8000 miles away that it probably shouldn't be in anyway (not referring to Afghanistan, I'm referring to something where there would be actual rationing, ie World War 1, World War 2, etc.). Call me selfish - fine. I just call it consistent with the ideals of the Founders and the Constitution.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and if joining the real world means "entangling alliances" and foreign wars, I'll just keep my head where it is, thank you very much.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, since you apparently didn't look it up, Wickard v. Filburn involved the federal government telling a farmer he couldn't grow food for his family outside of the grain he sold on the market during the New Deal, a huge violation of civil rights and just one example of the federal government running wild with very liberal definitions of interstate commerce.

And giving up gas certainly means something to ME - if I can't get gas, I can't get to school, I can't go to the movies, I can't go clubbing, I can't drive to the grocery store, etc. And guess what? I care far more about going to the grocery store whenever I want than I do about the US fighting a war 8000 miles away that it probably shouldn't be in anyway (not referring to Afghanistan, I'm referring to something where there would be actual rationing, ie World War 1, World War 2, etc.). Call me selfish - fine. I just call it consistent with the ideals of the Founders and the Constitution.

You're certainly "Me" orientated, aren't you?
I hate to burst your bubble, but there are a great many people who manage to make it to their college classes without wheels.
You ought to consider your ass lucky you get to go to college.
Being the selfish ass you are, that doesn't cross your mind, does it?
Go ahead on. Keep your head firmly planted.

[David Floyd]

We can argue selfishness all night. I wish you'd address some of my, or even better, Berzerker's, actual points about civil liberty.

[SlowwHand]

Jesus Christ, David.
In what way? In how many ways?
Sometimes you have to put aside what's ideally best for David.
Is that so hard for you to grasp?
I guess you're the U.S. equivalent to silver spoon fed Infatuation.

[David Floyd]

I agree. I would certainly put aside my personal comfort, even my life, to ensure that civil liberties for all would be maintained. Hence my oft-repeated assertion that I would gladly fight against the US government to defend our liberties, but not for it in a foreign war, such as every war from the War of 1812 on.

And I also really wish you'd stop with the personal attacks. I think it's abundently clear I'm not trolling, and I think it's clear I'm not acting like Infatuation either. Come on Slowwhand. Address the points made in this thread, don't attack me personally.

[faded glory]

I bet you 100.00 bucks says somebody tries to assasinate him during 2002.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dave, Berz, Ramo

And Dave, you shouldn't be hounded for thinking about you. In an individualistic society, the individual's wants and desires and cherished, and deservedly so, I think.

[David Floyd]

faded - I wouldn't shed too many tears.

Imran, yup I agree. The US is the most individualistic society on the planet. Can't fault me for being an individualist - although as I've stated before I'm more than willing to put my life on the line for freedom - that is, when freedom is actually threatened, not just when the government says it is.

[SlowwHand]

I give up on you, David.
Nobody is paying me to try and straighten out your selfish and sheltered mind.
And yes, you are just like Infatuation.
Exactly. Sheltered, selfish, and unappreciative of the opportunities you have.
Frankly, I don't care.
Eventually, you'll pay. One way or the other.
You're on your own, kid.
You will remember I tried to warn you, I hope.
Now, it's all on you.

[David Floyd]

Slowwhand, you are one of the posters on here I have respect for. We simply have a difference of opinion in this case.

I just wish you'd directly address some of the points made by myself, and made much better by others.

Maybe I will pay for idealism - probably, in fact. Does that make idealism wrong? No, on the contrary, it legitimates it more than anything else.

You do have one thing right. It's all on me. I'm one of the VERY VERY few left in the US who want to hold the Constitution to a literal, strict interpretation, one of the few who wants to maintain liberal civil liberties as laid out in the Constitution, one of the few who wants to limit foreign involvement and avoid entangling alliances. Yes, that's all on me, and I'm very proud of that fact.