I'm confused at this paragraph, it would seem to be equally applicable to people on _either_ side of this argument.
What is really meant by "weakening our nation"? and "these people (who) break down our system" Our system of laws and equal protection under them? Or our system of arbitrary enforcement?
Remember what Orwell's slogan for the government: "Ignorance is strength, war is peace, and freedom is slavery"
rar
Nor do I, though I often wish more of the people would participate. There are a whole lot of folks who would get on the rooftops of every town and city in the nation with guns, (and even rocks, if need be,) to repel a foreign invader. Now if only there were some way to get that same attitude applied to participation in the general political discussion, we'd be doing very well.
All that participation might not always lead to what I hope for, but it would certainly be better than the general apathy most seem to have regarding our collective political obligations. I can't even begin to count the numbers of people whom I have heard complain about the government, only to follow that bellyaching with the statement that they don't vote- missing the obvious point that if they don't, someone else will.
Well, we've got facts, and we've got spin.
The facts say that a very small fraction of a percentage of our population was killed, and two buildings were destroyed (the third being only damaged) five years ago by a handful of people dedicated to making a statement at any cost to themselves. They also tell us that those people needed a great deal of time to co-ordinate, plan and train for that single act of violence that shook our country. There has not been a repeat performance. Given the lack of strategic thinking that the current administration has shown in both Iraq and in the aftermath of the flooding of New Orleans, it is a great leap of faith to assume that they are so competant that they have thwarted dozens or hundreds of attacks as bad or worse than Sept. 11th.
My guess- and this, of course, is leaving the realm of fact- is that they haven't done it again because they can't do it again. I have no doubt that Al-Quieda would just love to blow up the White House and make us all pray to Mecca, but that doesn't mean they're competant or qualified to do so- we're looking for them as they're hiding in caves, for god's sake.
The spin tells us that none of us are safe, and that shadowy figures in the dank underbelly of the Mid East are moments from destroying our entire country with some undisclosed surprise weapon that will send us into a new dark age. Just like it tells you that your children are likely to be abducted at any moment, your food and drink will kill you, and you need dozens of patent medicines to get through the day.
Remember the modern newsman's first principle- "If it bleeds, it leads." Most news sources are trying desperately to fill 24 hours with 15 minutes worth of news every day. If they can get you worried, you'll tune back in, and watch for further developments.
Yes, when a person stands up and declares that we need to follow the rules set forth in our Constitution, I am sure that they are not "enemies of the state." When someone declares that they need to do some things that are illegal because they said so, and it's in our best interest to agree with them, that is cause for concern.
Again, I will state this as clearly as possible. It is completely,
100% impossible to use the Constitution as a "weapon against the establishment and our society in general". The Constitution *is* the establishment, and is a set of rules designed to protect our society. To defend it from fear-based alteration is not breaking it down, it is preserving it for ourselves and future generations.As far as "hitching up behind" people who claim altrustic motives and toss around patriotic slogans goes, that is precisely what I am warning against. I am not an altruist- I want my rights. And I shall never jump on a senselessly patriotic bandwagon- too often, the ones driving the truck are demanding that you follow without thought, lest you be labeled an enemy.
And let us not forget that we are at war with Iraq, and Saddamn Hussein is the devil incarnate because we have *always* been at war with Iraq, and that man has *always* been the devil.
Also remember to thank your leaders for lowering the price of gasoline in honor of the elections. It's like getting an larger chocolate ration!
Shinola9 (for lack of any other name,) I want you to understand that I am not attacking you personally. I've spent so much time on this because if I can help even one person- yourself, or some others who are merely reading along, understand this argument and begin to question what has been going on in fits and spurts since the founding of our country, it will have been worth any amount of time I can spend on the subject. I am not trying to harm our democracy, I am doing the only thing I can think of to help preserve it- because I want to live in it, not just remember it fondly.
I will have you note that above, I am looking only for an understanding of the total argument, and for you to question the party line that is being given to us all for yourself. I do not wish for you to simply agree with me- the truth of the matter is for you to find.
That's all anyone can ask of you or any one of us- because we are free. I understand the fear that a lot of people feel when they think about this- but we cannot let fear rob us of our senses, or we will forever be at the mercy of whomever can tell the scariest tale. There will always be someone or something to fight against, and the world will never be entirely safe for every single person. We will never live forever, but we can live free and without fear until it's time to go.
The problem is not lack of participation in the general political discussion, it's that the politicians in the US have stacked the deck so that anybody who is neither an incumbent nor a member of one of the two major parties is at a serious disadvantage. And history has shown that both parties when they are in control do pretty much the same thing, find new and creative ways to buy votes and line their pockets.
I can't really argue with any of that. About the only thing we can do as a nation is get fed up and toss all the bums out one of these days.
I'd submit that if we all were participating in the general political discussion, we'd have a pretty good shot at coming up with a third viable option. While it's been two-party Democratic V. Republican for quite some time, that hasn't always been the case. The problem (IMO) comes from waiting until voting day, and then choosing from what somebody else put on the ballot. I don't know anyone who is very enthusiastic about either of the two parties (though I have met a number who are very supportive of the President). Out of 300 million people in the country, there have to be at least enough decent people to start up a new party that can challenge the big two.
Problem is, the big two are both so crappy, most of us (and I'm ashamed to say I'm guity of it as well) feel like we have to vote for the "less bad" candidate in every election cycle.
What an idiot.
You have confused the rights of a citizen, with the rights of non-citizens. Not only that, but non-citizens who seek to kill your fellow citizens, and have already killed three thousand civillians in an un-provoked attack. But you don't care about that, if you did, you never would have made the argument you did. You care more about legal arguments, than about the lives of victims of murderers. I question your patriotism. You are no American. I beleive the true nature of your argument, it's wellspring, is simply cowardice, and hatred, specifically of the working class, (the class the communist's always thought would rise up and overthrow their capitalist oppressor's...how suprised they were, when the American working class told the commies to stick it, and how betrayed they felt, and still feel) albiet gussied up in respectable legal form. But, in the end, you watch women and children die, and all you do is talk. And mostly you talk about what we should not do, to stop it from happening again. It's unfortunate you, and others of your kind, can't suffer the fate you deserve, which is to die, blindfolded, by the side of the road, falling into the ditch that you just dug, with your last words being, of course, ones of utter suprise, how this is just impossible!
But I sleep better at night, knowing that this great, FREE, country is well protected, not by useless and self-important traitors like you, but by brave men and women, who, by the way, come from the lower and middle classes, and not the effete and effeminate upper class, and who know the price of freedom is not measured by the paragraph.
Hope you didn't lose too many billable hours writng your post's.
Interesting that you mention Mcarthyism, with no mention of what led up to it, namely communist spies, and sympathizers, taking over unions, by intimindations and beatings, ruining and blacklisting any who opposed them, for years beforehand. There was indeed a commiunist scare, it was caused by communist spies and their friends. But the commies still around don't want us to remember that. Just like the Wahhabbi's have there friends in this country now...but I suspect you, the great defender of our freedoms (as long as we are not actually alive to claim them) already know that.
Prometheus wrote:
And f*ck you too.
That load of crap was so ignorant, it's not even worthy of a full response.
Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....
Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious example is that only citizens have the right to vote.
| In article , | "tom" wrote: || Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are || created equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all || people. Inalienable rights for_all_ people. | | Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....
It doesn't, of course. It appears in the Declaration of Independence - the first act of Congress (which, to my knowledge, has never been repudiated nor repealed by either that Congress nor any subsequent Congress - and which is today enshrined alongside the original hand-written Constitution.)
The Constitution also does not mention the Magna Carta nor established (British) Common Law (or even "Jefferson's Notes") - and yet these have very real bearing on how the United States are/is governed and what we recognize as the foundation of our system of justice.
| Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious | example is that only citizens have the right to vote.
This is a non sequitur. A significant proportion of US citizens do not have the right to vote; but that does not detract from the right to claim *just* and *fair* treatment within the purview of American justice.
Always it comes down to questions of ideal and principle and whether/how we choose to state and act (or not) on our ideals and principles.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA
The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution and has little force in law.
You don't need to _watch_ "Lost", you appear to be there already.
Tom
But neither is it a part of that Constitution, and therefore it is not part of the law of the land. And that's probably a good thing, too: "... that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it..." is a call to revolution.
It is not a non sequitur at all. The claim was made, implicitly, that all have equal rights, regardless of their citizenship or lack thereof. And that simply is not true. Citizens _do_ have rights that non-citizens lack.
The only "significant proportion" of US citizens who do not have the right to vote are minors, and if you think that what the Military Commisions do to noncitizen terrorists is bad then you haven't been paying much attention to the way the government treats children.
| In article , "Morris Dovey" | wrote: || Doug Miller (in AVi5h.584$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com) said: || ||| In article , ||| "tom" wrote: |||| Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are |||| created equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all |||| people. Inalienable rights for_all_ people. ||| ||| Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution.... || || It doesn't, of course. It appears in the Declaration of || Independence - the first act of Congress (which, to my knowledge, || has never been repudiated nor repealed by either that Congress nor || any subsequent Congress - and which is today enshrined alongside || the original hand-written Constitution.) | | But neither is it a part of that Constitution, and therefore it is | not part of the law of the land. And that's probably a good thing, | too: "... that whenever any form of government becomes destructive | of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish | it..." is a call to revolution.
Exactly so. It's also a reminder to _participate_ in a truly representative government to effect those alterations when, in the judgement of citizens, alteration is needed. The text of the DoI makes clear (to my satisfaction, at least, and IMO properly) that revolution was considered a last resort.
|| The Constitution also does not mention the Magna Carta nor || established (British) Common Law (or even "Jefferson's Notes") - || and yet these have very real bearing on how the United States || are/is governed and what we recognize as the foundation of our || system of justice. || ||| Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious ||| example is that only citizens have the right to vote. || || This is a non sequitur. | | It is not a non sequitur at all. The claim was made, implicitly, | that all have equal rights, regardless of their citizenship or lack | thereof. And that simply is not true. Citizens _do_ have rights | that non-citizens lack.
It _doesn't_ follow. At one time (assuming you're a US citizen) _you_ did not have the right to vote. I also, at one time, did not have the right to vote even though I was an American citizen born in the United States. That had nothing to do with my legal rights. Further, non-citizens in the United States have the right to bring lawsuits in the same manner as citizens; and are subject to lawsuits in the same manner as US citizens.
The right to cast a ballot does _not_ determine an individual human being's right to fair and just treatment. Citizenship does _not_ determine an individual human being's right to fair and just treatment.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA
I never said that it does, and you're reading carelessly if you think I did. I brought that up only to illustrate the point that the set of rights held by citizens, and the set of rights held by non-citizens, may overlap -- but they are *not* identical.
|| A significant proportion of US citizens do || not have the right to vote; but that does not detract from the || right to claim *just* and *fair* treatment within the purview of || American justice. | | The only "significant proportion" of US citizens who do not have | the right to vote are minors, and if you think that what the | Military Commisions do to noncitizen terrorists is bad then you | haven't been paying much attention to the way the government treats | children.
You're right about minors - but beyond that your assumptions about me are a bit wobbly. I'm a good bit less concerned about treatment of proven terrorists than I am of the possibility that non-terrorists are mistreated because it's "inconvient" to use a legal system evolved over centuries to ensure that persons in position of wealth/power not be able to persecute the innocent.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA
Huh? So if the right to vote is not a "legal right" then what is it?
Who gets to vote is defined by the Constitution and by statutes and case law. Every other right that a person has in the United States is also defined by the Constitution and by statutes and by case law. So how is voting different from the "legal rights" about which you are concerned?
And what provision of law established this "right"?
You are missing the point entirely.
No, it determines what laws apply to him.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.