What Should Happen to George W. Bush?

[Ramo]

Leaving aside the moral question of slavery

That's kind of my whole objection..

What's wrong with these points?

These were laws intended to steal from the poor to benefit the rich. Theft is wrong...

Why were we there?

To prevent something of a domino effect.

Hati was a French colony at this time, right? Why weren't they taking care of the rebellion on their own like any other colonial overlord?

Well, there was a minor conflict going on in Europe at the time...

[drake]

I believe I asked you how.

You already stated it for me! I thought the implication was clear! Better intelligence. Over and over, the issue that kept coming up was lack of intelligence about these people who came into this country. Some of the hijackers were in the country on expired visas that were never even used for their sole intent in the first place! Keeping tabs on aliens and insuring they are doing what they said they were gonna do would be good for starters!

Gathering information and then scanning it for red flags is not much of a cramping of ones rights. So the gov intercepts a few telephone calls and grabs a few emails. So? If a red flag goes up and a terrorist activity is detected, then it is a success. So a person's phone call got screened by a computer for word recognition. So? I sure as hell wouldn't take offense. If it could help nab a terrorist and save even one life, my slight violation is worth it.

Sure, Senor Franco. Why, if everyone is locked up, no one would be murdered.

Big difference between putting everyone in jail and putting people who have links to terrorism in jail. And of those people, some will be completely innocent and yes, pissed off. But again I ask, whats worse, a few pissed people and a little civil lawsuit, or a few thousand more people dead? I chose the former any day.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's kind of my whole objection..

Then all I've got to say to that is that the government lacked the authority to do what should've been done and had to operate within the bounds it was provided.

These were laws intended to steal from the poor to benefit the rich. Theft is wrong...

Re point 3: Tariffs are one way for a developing country to gain its economic footing. One need only to take a look at the success of some of the Asian Tigers to see that.

Re point 4: This is the first time that I've heard such an objection to the Bank of the US. Could you expand a bit on the ways it stole from the rich and how it was more onerous than any other bank of the time in that regard?

I'll bring up point 5 once I have time to do some research on the subject.

[Ramo]

You already stated it for me! I thought the implication was clear! Better intelligence.

The relevant part was without judicial supervision. The USA PATRIOT Act entails giving the gov't intelligence not relevant to terrorist activities!

If a connection to terrorism (actual terrorism, not the covoluted definition our new law uses) can be demonstrated, old laws already cover it.

So the gov intercepts a few telephone calls and grabs a few emails. So?

Under new laws, IMF protesters, for instance, can be declared terrorists. They can be monitored without restriction, they can be denied freedom of movement, they can be locked up; in general their liberty can evaporate.

If you can't see any problem with this, I suggest moving to Afghanistan.

But again I ask, whats worse, a few pissed people and a little civil lawsuit, or a few thousand more people dead?

Again, these laws don't prevent more murders.

[Ramo]

Then all I've got to say to that is that the government lacked the authority to do what should've been done and had to operate within the bounds it was provided.

I fail to see how the bounds dictate more pro-slavery legislation. Especially since there were many Northern states that had abolished slavery at the time.

Tariffs are one way for a developing country to gain its economic footing. One need only to take a look at the success of some of the Asian Tigers to see that.

That still doesn't make tariffs anything less than theft. It prevented poor farmers (who made up the vast majority of the American population at the time, North and South) from providing for their families.

I consider our current trade barriers as the most abhorrent aspect of our foreign policy, as I'm sure you know.

This is the first time that I've heard such an objection to the Bank of the US. Could you expand a bit on the ways it stole from the rich and how it was more onerous than any other bank of the time in that regard?

It saddled the gov't with the banking interests...

[Saint Marcus]

Shrubya should be deported to Belgium and tried for warcrimes, only to be released after the psych reports clarifies that his IQ doesn't exceed 80 and he can therefor not be called accountable for any of his actions.

[Jaguar]

I have not even noticed a change in my civil liberties. I would notice if 500 more people died because the government didn't have enough power to stop it from happening.

[David Floyd]

Ramo, just out of curiosity, would you also consider income taxes theft, even though they primarily rob from the rich and give to the poor? Just wondering

And DinoDoc is right, BTW, regarding the Fugitive Slave Act. That was a perfectly reasonable law, because slaves at that time WERE property, and the federal government had no power to ban slavery. None at all - in fact, even the Constitutional amendment banning slavery is illegitimate, so technically speaking slavery is still legal in the US from a certain point of view. Doesn't make it right, of course.

I'll leave the rest of you with one, very simple quote:
"Those who would exchange a little necessary liberty for some temporary safety deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

[SlowwHand]

Slaves were property. You just insist on falling over your own ignorance.
For the record, Texas had little to do with slavery.
No matter Master David's thoughts on the subject.
Texas was in it for State's rights.
Which I still agree with.

[David Floyd]

Slaves were property according to US law and the Constitution. That was morally wrong, but fortunately we don't make laws based only on personal morality.

And states rights were a MUCH more important issue than slavery, in any case - why do you think that North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas seceded, as well as most of the other states?

[Berzerker]

David -

And DinoDoc is right, BTW, regarding the Fugitive Slave Act. That was a perfectly reasonable law, because slaves at that time WERE property, and the federal government had no power to ban slavery

But the Constitution did not and still does not allow the federal government the power to track down and return our property once it is stolen. And the premise for this Act was just horrible, if the Congress had the power to track down and return one form of property - slaves - then it had the power to enforce all laws pertaining to theft.

Ramo -

I take freedom for granted? You're willing to throw them away!

Lol! This thread has revealed the difference between logic and emotion. Even MtG has come off sounding like a moron when we know he isn't...

Drake -

A little inconvenience or a little discomfort to a few people is better than people dying. Isn't it?

The trade off "we" made is very simple: the Democans traded the live's of the people who were killed in these attacks for the foreign policies they find desirable.
If you really believed we should put up with a little discomfort to save live's, why aren't the Democans the ones suffering the discomfort by having to forego their foreign policies? Do you support Democrats and/or Republicans? I'm tired of people who share a certain complicity telling others they are responsible for what happened.

[Ramo]

amo, just out of curiosity, would you also consider income taxes theft, even though they primarily rob from the rich and give to the poor? Just wondering

I wouldn't say they primarily rob from the rich and give to the poor, but yes I do think our current income taxes are theft.

And DinoDoc is right, BTW, regarding the Fugitive Slave Act. That was a perfectly reasonable law, because slaves at that time WERE property, and the federal government had no power to ban slavery.

You miss my point. The Northern states did not consider slavery to be legitimate at the time, and the federal gov't certainly had no business in enforcing Southern laws in Northern states.

even the Constitutional amendment banning slavery is illegitimate

I'd say that parts of the Constitution are illegitimate.

[faded glory]

Northern Republican Abolitionist movements did away slavery on the pretense of 'States Rights'. During the consititution you cannot dare hold our forefathers accountable for not freeing the slaves!!!

the Union was on the verge of collapse almost as quickly as it was born! Northern and Southern delegates squaabled over where to put the capital.....and who should pay off the massive war debt the Northern states ran up (the south would pitch in obvuoisly)! This Slavery issue had to be set aside for good reason.....the south wielded more power at the time and would have secceded from the Union immediately upon the freeing of slaves! Well.....im glad they did what they did. It all worked out

---------------------------------------------

der new laws, IMF protesters, for instance, can be declared terrorists. They can be monitored without restriction, they can be denied freedom of movement, they can be locked up; in general their liberty can evaporate.

Bull****!! You are ranting on about somthing you dont know jack **** about. If there planning somthing horrible like what happened in Seattle or Goteburg......my government has the right to arrest these people. In this case they ARE terrorists!

I take freedom for granted? You're willing to throw them away!

Be honest.....you dont give a rat's ass about your freedom..What you call 'Freedom' is what I call 'irresponsibility'. Its stupid to have gone about life the way it was before 9-11. **** CANNOT go on like that. Stop living in the past man! Wake up

[David Floyd]

Berz, Ramo, I see what y'all are getting at...my understanding of the fugitive slave law was that the feds themselves didn't track down the slaves, only that they required the return of property to Southerners...

Incidentally, though, the current definition of Interstate Commerce would actually validate the Fugitive Slave Law in the courts, more than likely

[Berzerker]

Faded Glory -

Bull****!! You are ranting on about somthing you dont know jack **** about.

Ramo is right! Did you ever think the RICO laws written to go after the Mafia would be used against abortion protestors? Once a law is passed, it takes on a life of it's own. I have no doubt IMF protestors (and let's leave the vandals out of this) will become "suspected" terrorists by virtue of their political beliefs. But so far, it appears these laws deal only with aliens.

Be honest.....you dont give a rat's ass about your freedom..What you call 'Freedom' is what I call 'irresponsibility'.

Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraints in choice or action. Did Ramo have a different definition? What is your definition of freedom?

Its stupid to have gone about life the way it was before 9-11. **** CANNOT go on like that. Stop living in the past man! Wake up

The problem is you don't understand why it was stupid to have gone about life the way it was. You think it was because we did not have enough security measures in place when the reason we were attacked is because of enemies created by our foreign policies. Just what security measure not already allowed by current law would have prevented this attack? I keep asking this and no one wants to answer.