RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ?

RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Smith117 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 3:13:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "Co-operate with the hijackers" What fucking cracksmoking public servant dreamed that shit up. I'd wager it was the same people who decided they didn't want to be sued by people who claimed that the airline 'expected' them to help. Ohhhhh if only there were "some" way to get information about potential attacks before they happened..... Wiretapping? Oh no....that's unconstitutional.......torturing known terrorist suspects? Nope....too harsh. Hmmmm......offering the bad guys coffee and donuts, perhaps?

farglebargle -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 3:17:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "Co-operate with the hijackers" What fucking cracksmoking public servant dreamed that shit up. I'd wager it was the same people who decided they didn't want to be sued by people who claimed that the airline 'expected' them to help. Ohhhhh if only there were "some" way to get information about potential attacks before they happened..... Wiretapping? Oh no....that's unconstitutional.......torturing known terrorist suspects? Nope....too harsh. Hmmmm......offering the bad guys coffee and donuts, perhaps? Tough Shit. Either this is a Nation of Laws, and *EVERYONE* is liable for their crimes, or it is a dictatorship with arbitrary enforcement. You want the Gov't to be able to LAWFULLY torture prisoners, then AMEND THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION -- OR CHOOSE to violate the law, and go to prison. I'm not seeing THE TORTURERS sitting in prison for their CHOICE to torture prisoners....

Smith117 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 3:18:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "Co-operate with the hijackers" What fucking cracksmoking public servant dreamed that shit up. I'd wager it was the same people who decided they didn't want to be sued by people who claimed that the airline 'expected' them to help. Ohhhhh if only there were "some" way to get information about potential attacks before they happened..... Wiretapping? Oh no....that's unconstitutional.......torturing known terrorist suspects? Nope....too harsh. Hmmmm......offering the bad guys coffee and donuts, perhaps? Tough Shit. Either this is a Nation of Laws, and *EVERYONE* is liable for their crimes, or it is a dictatorship with arbitrary enforcement. You want the Gov't to be able to LAWFULLY torture prisoners, then AMEND THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION -- OR CHOOSE to violate the law, and go to prison. I'm not seeing THE TORTURERS sitting in prison for their CHOICE to torture prisoners.... That's because what they call torture, or 'called' torture and what you call torture aren't necessarily the same thing. Isn't law interpretation fun?

farglebargle -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 3:21:02 PM)
quote: That's because what they call torture, or 'called' torture and what you call torture aren't necessarily the same thing. Isn't law interpretation fun? On exactly what planet is non-consensually strapping someone to a table and drowning them NOT Torture?

Smith117 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 3:45:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: That's because what they call torture, or 'called' torture and what you call torture aren't necessarily the same thing. Isn't law interpretation fun? On exactly what planet is non-consensually strapping someone to a table and drowning them NOT Torture? The same planet where those who are stapped to that board, if in the right circumstance, would decapitate one of our people on youtube.

mnottertail -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 4:34:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: That's because what they call torture, or 'called' torture and what you call torture aren't necessarily the same thing. Isn't law interpretation fun? On exactly what planet is non-consensually strapping someone to a table and drowning them NOT Torture? The same planet where those who are stapped to that board, if in the right circumstance, would decapitate one of our people on youtube. Well, as you lie there 'stapped' to your board, consider that in the United Fucking States of America, and several other countries you cannot be tortured for crimes some random I 'thinks' you might commit, other than some portions of the Driving Under the Influence Laws here. But let me tell you something (and I know somewhich about this), if I use a Bob Vila 'sinergistic racheting action' vicegrips on your nuts (only from sears and quality craftsman products) with certain amounts of professional flair, you pretty much will tell me you burnt the fucking Reichstag, and started the Chicago fire and that you put Richard Nixon up to everything he did, and you will fucking near even convince me that you are telling the truth, but that don't fucking necessarily make it fucking so. Ron

farglebargle -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 5:59:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: That's because what they call torture, or 'called' torture and what you call torture aren't necessarily the same thing. Isn't law interpretation fun? On exactly what planet is non-consensually strapping someone to a table and drowning them NOT Torture? The same planet where those who are stapped to that board, if in the right circumstance, would decapitate one of our people on youtube. I never suggested that beheading wasn't torture, did I? However it might be lawful. Say, if the beheading victim was a convicted spy. Drowning a man might be appropriate, if they are convicted and sentenced to death by drowning. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about Officers and Agents of the UNITED STATES, UNLAWFULLY TORTURING PRISONERS. These victims DID NOT HAVE A TRIAL, and WERE NOT FOUND GUILTY OF ANY CRIMES and WERE NOT SENTENCED. I'd expect the barbarians to act like... well, barbarians. I expect more from one who has sworn an oath-to-god to live by the Rule of Law. I expect them to show honor and integrity and be faithful to THEIR OATHS. I wonder why the Moderators permit people to publicly advocate and promote the commission of felonies, in violation of State and US Law in EVERY jurisdiction Collarme.Com reaches.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 6:04:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne they have the right to legal protection under the constitution. Obviously not the right to the pursuit of happiness unless they become a legal citizen. I rented 'The Pursuit of Happiness' out on DVD the other week and I'm not a US citizen.[8\|] End.

Smith117 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 6:37:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I'd expect the barbarians to act like... well, barbarians. I expect more from one who has sworn an oath-to-god to live by the Rule of Law. I expect them to show honor and integrity and be faithful to THEIR OATHS. Personally, I'd rather my government do what is necessary to protect its people. The longer we listen to those decrying the enemy for being barbarians while expecting the US government to mind some ludicrous set of "war rules" is the longer we can plan to lose.

Smith117 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 6:39:03 PM)
Ahh so you pointed out a typo. Feel better now? Do you feel important or superior than the random person on the net that you're arguing with? [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, as you lie there 'stapped' to your board, consider that in the United Fucking States of America, and several other countries you cannot be tortured for crimes some random I 'thinks' you might commit, other than some portions of the Driving Under the Influence Laws here. But let me tell you something (and I know somewhich about this), if I use a Bob Vila 'sinergistic racheting action' vicegrips on your nuts (only from sears and quality craftsman products) with certain amounts of professional flair, you pretty much will tell me you burnt the fucking Reichstag, and started the Chicago fire and that you put Richard Nixon up to everything he did, and you will fucking near even convince me that you are telling the truth, but that don't fucking necessarily make it fucking so. I remember exactly where I am, thank. I just hope that the government where I am stops playing by these lame rules when we know that not one of our 'enemies' in the last 50 years or so plays by them.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 6:46:14 PM)
Fight the good fight to win support for your fight. Makes life easier on a number of counts. Your enemy is evil so why would you expect it to follow the rules, you are not just as evil are you?

Smith117 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 6:51:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Fight the good fight to win support for your fight. Makes life easier on a number of counts. Your enemy is evil so why would you expect it to follow the rules, you are not just as evil are you? Well, attending history class in school taught me one thing. Evil is determined by they who write the history books. Personally, I'd like students 100 years or so from now to read something like "Though regretable, the US went to extreme measures to protect itself in extreme times, and succeded." I'd rather they didn't read something like "After many more cities fell to terrosit attacks, the US wasn't able to cope and began to crumble." (Written in another language of course.)

farglebargle -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 7:31:41 PM)
Evil is strapping someone to a table and drowning them. My FOUR YEAR OLD knows that. Again -- is the United States you want to protect the same United States that tortures prisoners and spies on everyone, and lies to everyone?

Smith117 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 7:34:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Evil is strapping someone to a table and drowning them. What I consider evil is decapitating a kidnap victim on youtube. I'll tell you this....were I in some type of custody.....I'd rather be boarded than have my head cut from my body while I was still alive to watch it happen.

mnottertail -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 7:36:34 PM)
apparently, men can be evil in many situations. On youtube, and when in the vicinity of plywood and other lumber. What does the constitution say? Grasshopper

farglebargle -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 7:40:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Evil is strapping someone to a table and drowning them. What I consider evil is decapitating a kidnap victim on youtube. And we're VERY proud of you for being able draw that conclusion. It shows your ability to pay attention to a short video clip and recognize a violent act, weigh it against your own experiences and beliefs, and summarize your position on the matter. It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, however.

Smith117 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 8:06:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, however. Apparently so is your definition of evil.

farglebargle -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 8:47:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, however. Apparently so is your definition of evil. Please explain your reasoning exactly why your simply providing another example of torture is supposed to legitimize the unlawful violent felonies committed against prisoners in US custody. I'm having trouble understanding your promotion of unlawful acts and the commission of violent felonies.

Smith117 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 9:28:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Please explain your reasoning exactly why your simply providing another example of torture is supposed to legitimize the unlawful violent felonies committed against prisoners in US custody. I'm having trouble understanding your promotion of unlawful acts and the commission of violent felonies. It's really quite elementary, Mr. Watson. Water boarding, though incredibly scary and unpleasant, does not kill and it doesn't leave lasting physical damage. Decapitating someone on youtube does all of those.

mnottertail -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 9:51:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 Ahh so you pointed out a typo. Feel better now? Do you feel important or superior than the random person on the net that you're arguing with? [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, as you lie there 'stapped' to your board, consider that in the United Fucking States of America, and several other countries you cannot be tortured for crimes some random I 'thinks' you might commit, other than some portions of the Driving Under the Influence Laws here. But let me tell you something (and I know somewhich about this), if I use a Bob Vila 'sinergistic racheting action' vicegrips on your nuts (only from sears and quality craftsman products) with certain amounts of professional flair, you pretty much will tell me you burnt the fucking Reichstag, and started the Chicago fire and that you put Richard Nixon up to everything he did, and you will fucking near even convince me that you are telling the truth, but that don't fucking necessarily make it fucking so. I remember exactly where I am, thank. I just hope that the government where I am stops playing by these lame rules when we know that not one of our 'enemies' in the last 50 years or so plays by them. Well, actually your posts are rife with spelling errors as your logic is rife with illogic, and this is all a very pretty bunch of jingoes......... I wonder if you realize the irony and the lack of weltanschuung you exhibit when you can quote 'enemies' like that and use it in a sentence? Who are our 'friends', prithee? You are born, die and cum alone, my friend, all else is relations, legitimacy, diplomacy, self-determination and historical perspective (as in how WE got here, which you seem to dabble in, as an amateur and how THEY got there (also of some import)) and other concepts that must look out for the good of all beyond the four year horizons. But 50 years, so what happened about 1958 or so that made us infirm? You are close to the bemoaning by Ike of the military-industrial complex, or Korea, or the sending of advisors into Viet Nam. If this is the case, and you obliquely allude to these events, then your rhetoric is all the more troubling, if it is just unlearned angst and you are emoting some base frustrations, oh well..... but as Lennon said, "But when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out..". Ron

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875