Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
September 03, 2014, 02:29:22 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: ATTENTION ALL NEW MEMBERS
PLEASE READ THIS OR YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE DELETED - CLICK HERE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Gasping for Air?  (Read 9236 times)
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15123


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #80 on: April 30, 2009, 01:32:21 AM »

finally something we can agree on.  there is very little difference between fascism and communism.  the main difference is that fascist states did not require that the government own all property, only that the government be the primary beneficiary of all production.  both have socialism in common.  socialism has it's roots in Platos' teachings of stateism.

it doesn't matter that communism in practice does not fit it's proper definition.  no form of government does.  it matters that the ideal fits.


Quote
As they say, the devil's in the details, and the details are that the government is not taking permanent ownership stakes in these businesses, and the businesses had every right to refuse.  What happened is they were failing and about to go under, and the government offered to buy a stake in the company for far more than it was worth, thus stabilizing the companies temporarily.

nice idea.  convenient excuse.  whenever a government offers to take over something so that they can "help" big red flags should go up all over the place.  this is what totalitarian governments do in the absence of a revolution. 

when i buy stocks, i am taking a personal stake in a business.  i become a participant in the market. i have a stake in making sure the company preforms well. when a government takes stock in a business, and begins to dictate terms of operation, they are taking the same steps that a communist government takes to control the market.  government owned and supported businesses cease to be market players. the only interest that the government has is to make sure the company stays alive, not that the company competes and does well.  the government does not answer to stockholders and can arbitrarily set wage and price controls.

the ideal action would have been no action.  let bad companies fail and let good companies take their place.  it would have been rough for a short period of time, but in the end it would have been better for all.  instead, we have shoveled billions of dollars into failing companies and when that has not worked, the government has stepped in to take control.  this is not a solution unless our country has suddenly slid south and changed it's name to Venezuela.

i really don't care how you label people, but because you have a poor understating of terms, you come to inaccurate conclusions. 
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #81 on: April 30, 2009, 05:18:01 AM »

nice idea.  convenient excuse.  whenever a government offers to take over something so that they can "help" big red flags should go up all over the place.  this is what totalitarian governments do in the absence of a revolution. 

when i buy stocks, i am taking a personal stake in a business.  i become a participant in the market. i have a stake in making sure the company preforms well. when a government takes stock in a business, and begins to dictate terms of operation, they are taking the same steps that a communist government takes to control the market.  government owned and supported businesses cease to be market players. the only interest that the government has is to make sure the company stays alive, not that the company competes and does well.  the government does not answer to stockholders and can arbitrarily set wage and price controls.

Well the government already does set arbitrary wage and price controls on businesses. 

Take price gouging laws as a perfect example of price controls.  It is completely anti-capitalist and furthermore it doesn't even help the people it's supposed to protect.  Sure, merchants that spike their prices in the face of a disaster might be douchebags, but a spike in prices also brings in more merchants with goods and resources to try to make a profit, and the more resources flowing into a disaster area, the better off the people of that area will be... and prices drop as competition increases.

And don't even get me started on the minimum wage... soapbox

Anyway, I don't think the government stake in these businesses will last very long, since I believe we have already seen the worst this economy will get to from this recession.

the ideal action would have been no action.  let bad companies fail and let good companies take their place.  it would have been rough for a short period of time, but in the end it would have been better for all.  instead, we have shoveled billions of dollars into failing companies and when that has not worked, the government has stepped in to take control.  this is not a solution unless our country has suddenly slid south and changed it's name to Venezuela.

You're preaching to the choir on that one.

i really don't care how you label people, but because you have a poor understating of terms, you come to inaccurate conclusions.

The only conclusion that I've reached is that the election ended last year.  This is my country, and like it or not he is my president.  Therefore, I'm going to give him a chance.  I also have not seen him do or say anything that would make me think we are in eminent danger of becomming a dictatorship.  Furthermore, I doubt that ANYBODY could be worse for this country than our last president was, so I don't see any reason to fear him.  That's why I think the hysteria is comical.

Logged
reinbeau
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2502


Location: Hanson, MA and Lebanon, ME


« Reply #82 on: April 30, 2009, 07:26:17 AM »

Quote
Furthermore, I doubt that ANYBODY could be worse for this country than our last president was, so I don't see any reason to fear him.  That's why I think the hysteria is comical.
As I said, your Bush Hatred has completely clouded your judgement and your ability to think rationally.  One bad president is no excuse to adore another bad president.
Logged


- Ann, A Gardening Beek -  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Click for Hanson, Massachusetts Forecast" border="0" height="150" width="256
Scadsobees
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3198


Location: Jenison, MI

Best use of smileys in a post award.


« Reply #83 on: April 30, 2009, 08:20:33 AM »


the ideal action would have been no action.  let bad companies fail and let good companies take their place.  it would have been rough for a short period of time, but in the end it would have been better for all.  instead, we have shoveled billions of dollars into failing companies and when that has not worked, the government has stepped in to take control.  this is not a solution unless our country has suddenly slid south and changed it's name to Venezuela.

You're preaching to the choir on that one.


OK, now I'm confused...conservatives(such as Hannity) are sliding toward communism(fascism), yet they(conservatives in general) are the ones that are trying to stop us from turning into Venezuela.  And Venezuela is racing toward totalitarian communism at breakneck speed....

So wouldn't that make Hannity less communist than say...our current administration (and previous one for that matter, although the previous one was more about shovelling and less about controlling)

Socialism may be be the same as Communism, but when people start depending on the government to fix things then it is but a bunny-hop from socialism to communism.

Socialism is working so well in Europe.

Rick

 huh.
Logged

Rick
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #84 on: April 30, 2009, 08:50:21 AM »


the ideal action would have been no action.  let bad companies fail and let good companies take their place.  it would have been rough for a short period of time, but in the end it would have been better for all.  instead, we have shoveled billions of dollars into failing companies and when that has not worked, the government has stepped in to take control.  this is not a solution unless our country has suddenly slid south and changed it's name to Venezuela.

You're preaching to the choir on that one.


OK, now I'm confused...conservatives(such as Hannity) are sliding toward communism(fascism), yet they(conservatives in general) are the ones that are trying to stop us from turning into Venezuela.  And Venezuela is racing toward totalitarian communism at breakneck speed....

So wouldn't that make Hannity less communist than say...our current administration (and previous one for that matter, although the previous one was more about shovelling and less about controlling)

Socialism may be be the same as Communism, but when people start depending on the government to fix things then it is but a bunny-hop from socialism to communism.

Socialism is working so well in Europe.

Rick

 huh.

Hannity isn't conservative though.  He's closer to fascism than conservatism.  Understand this, once you're at the point of complete conservatism on the political scale, regardless of what Hannity and Limbaugh tell you, taking a few more steps to the right doesn't make you more conservative.

When you have no rights, like the right to due process which was eliminated during the last administration and which Hannity applauds... it is a very short hop to fascism or communism.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15123


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #85 on: April 30, 2009, 09:38:20 AM »

Quote
When you have no rights, like the right to due process which was eliminated during the last administration and which Hannity applauds... it is a very short hop to fascism or communism.

now we get to the bottom of it and we are back where we stated.  because you do not know or understand your constitution, history, or have a rudimentary grasp of things like the Geneva conventions, you have swallowed the Guardian point of view.  that is why we have no basis for a rational conversation on this issue.

bush did some things that made me really mad. 
unfortunatly, some of the things he did that didn't make me mad, are going to make it much easier for this president and this congress to expand the role of government.  the tools bush used to make us safer may be the very tools that this president uses to suppress liberties. 

obama does not care about personal liberty, he cares about the "greater good".  he obviously does not care about national security, or he doesn't understand it, which may be worse.

what part of his agenda do you like?  what part do you want to see succeed.  i find it hard to see you as a fan of Reagan if Obamas policies are not making your hair stand on end.  Reagan believed in personal responsibility, limited government, and lower taxes.  he also believe in keeping the secrets of our intel community and growing our military. 
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
dragonfly
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 468

Location: 30 mi west of DFW, Tx


« Reply #86 on: April 30, 2009, 10:02:23 AM »


1. There is no communist country on earth that has an absense of social classes.  If anything, there is a greater disparity between the lifestyles of those in power, and those not in power.

2. a. using the word to define itself is not a useful definition.
b. Socialism and Communism are NOT the same. 

**********

I believe your hangup is on the word communism itself.  If you take a look at the illustration I posted, you'll see that I put communism and fascism together because I don't see any meaningful difference between them.  So if I were to say to you that Hannity is close to a fascist, would you still be so puzzled?



**********

  What happened is they were failing and about to go under, and the government offered to buy a stake in the company for far more than it was worth, thus stabilizing the companies temporarily.  Then if the companies survive this recession and can get back in the black, they have the option to buy back the stake the government bought. 



The human nature to divide people and things into classes does not change the definition of communism.

Communism is the goal of socialism.

**********

I'm not hung up on the word communism. I was wondering what evidence you see that Hannity is communistic.
The primary difference between communism and fascism seems to be the nationalistic tendencies of fascists, as was seen in Germany leading up to WWII.

**********

The "government" didn't give money to failing businesses. They obligated us, the taxpayers to prop up failing businesses, and if and when those businesses pay back the money, they will have to jump through governmental hoops in order to do that. By taking possession of GM, that most likely will obligate us to pay for all those pensions as well.
Logged
Scadsobees
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3198


Location: Jenison, MI

Best use of smileys in a post award.


« Reply #87 on: April 30, 2009, 10:31:39 AM »

Due process? Are you referring to the "enemy combatants"? The horrible torture whereby a poor innocent foreigner was subjected to horrific waterboard drowning 183 times!!!

Just read an analysis/opinion piece about last nights speech (no didn't watch it).  Sounds like Mr. President is spreading a lot of misinformation.

"Wash your hands when you shake hands. Cover your mouth when you cough.” -  Barak Mombama.
Logged

Rick
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #88 on: April 30, 2009, 11:31:09 AM »

No I don't care about waterboarding, I care about giving them a trial.  Reagan would not deny anyone a speedy and fair trial... and ultimately an execution in most of these cases.  The government being able to lock you away forever without giving you a trial pretty much wipes out any other rights you thought you had, doesn't it? 

No conservative could support the patriot act.  If 9-11 happened on Reagans watch, the last thing he would ever have done is limit freedom.   He might have made the bombing of Dresden look like a kid playing with firecrackers, but we'd still be free. 
Logged
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #89 on: April 30, 2009, 12:18:16 PM »

bush did some things that made me really mad. 
unfortunatly, some of the things he did that didn't make me mad, are going to make it much easier for this president and this congress to expand the role of government.

It's obvious to me that the things he did that made you mad aren't the things he did that made me mad... but that's why I said I think you're a neocon.   

The fact that anyone could use those things to expand the role of government are precisely why they were horrible things to do and should have made you mad if you were a true conservative.

the tools bush used to make us safer may be the very tools that this president uses to suppress liberties.

Bush didn't make us any safer.  Safety is an illusion to begin with.  Also, a strong national defense does not need to take away anyone's freedom.

obama does not care about personal liberty

So far I haven't seen any evidence to support that.

he cares about the "greater good".

Personal liberty is the greater good, there is no reason you can't have both.

he obviously does not care about national security, or he doesn't understand it, which may be worse.

The only thing I think you might be referring to here is leaving Iraq... and quite frankly, I agree with Obama on that one... I was for the war in Iraq, but not for the rebuilding of Iraq.  We should have left after we hung Saddam and tracked down the other key terrorist leaders we had evidence of being there without trying to rebuild them.  If that leaves them unstable and another group we don't like takes control, there's no reason we can't go back... even if he had to go back later, we'd still be thousands of lives and trillions of dollars ahead of where we are now that we've overstayed our purpose.

what part of his agenda do you like?  what part do you want to see succeed.
 

I like the idea of leaving Iraq, and concentrating our forces in Afghanistan (and hopefully Pakistan soon) because we haven't accomplished our objectives there yet. 

I also like the White House bee hive, and I want to see the vegetable garden succeed.  I know many of you think that's only a gesture, and it is... it's a gesture that's meant to encourage other people to do the same.  I believe that the best way out of this recession is for people to become more productive.  Put down the x-box, turn off the t.v., maybe even step away from the keyboard and create something of value where there wasn't anything before.  If every adult grew just $20 worth of vegetables (on top of what farmers already produce), it would raise the real GDP by around $5 billion.  $20 worth of veggies is easy to grow, I could grow that much on the desk I'm sitting at.  This is why "victory gardens" were encouraged during WWII.

I don't like the omnibus spending bill, but since it already passed I do hope it succeeds in helping the economy recover... unfortuneately both parties were shoving those stimulus bills down our throats, so it's not like we had any party to turn to there.

I also like most of his energy policies that encourage moving away from gasoline and coal.  The sooner we ditch them, the better.

i find it hard to see you as a fan of Reagan if Obamas policies are not making your hair stand on end.

I find it easy.  While I don't like some of the things Obama is doing, none of them so far is soo bad that it warrants fear and hysteria...

Reagan believed in personal responsibility, limited government, and lower taxes.  he also believe in keeping the secrets of our intel community and growing our military.

Apart from the stimulous bill which both parties did, I do not think Obama is getting off that track by a huge degree.  Yes Obama believes in less personal responsibility than Reagan did, yes he believes in a less limited government than Reagan did, at this point I don't even think we can pay the national debt without either making drastic cuts to the size and scope of government which we both know would have a snowballs chance in hell of getting passed no matter which party were in office, or by raising taxes... I do think Obama belives in keeping secrets of our intel community (Obama is not Clinton), finally, yes Obama believes in less military spending than Reagan did... but all that puts Obama on the moderate side of liberal, not communist.
Logged
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #90 on: April 30, 2009, 12:28:28 PM »

The human nature to divide people and things into classes does not change the definition of communism.
If the practice of communism does not fit the definition of communism, then it's time to either change the definition of communism or invent a new word. 

Communism is the goal of socialism.
No it's not, that's like saying fascism is the goal of capitalism.  It doesn't even make sense.

I'm not hung up on the word communism. I was wondering what evidence you see that Hannity is communistic.

The fact that you're still unwilling to use the word fascist instead of communistic tells me you're still hung up on the word communist.

The primary difference between communism and fascism seems to be the nationalistic tendencies of fascists, as was seen in Germany leading up to WWII.

Which is inconsequential.

The "government" didn't give money to failing businesses. They obligated us, the taxpayers to prop up failing businesses, and if and when those businesses pay back the money, they will have to jump through governmental hoops in order to do that. By taking possession of GM, that most likely will obligate us to pay for all those pensions as well.

I already said I'm no fan of that.  But what was the other option?  Elect a republican that was going to do the same thing... again?  It's also nothing to get hysterical over.  It's maybe a small fraction as bad as the patriot act was.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15123


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #91 on: April 30, 2009, 12:30:22 PM »

Quote
No conservative could support the patriot act.  If 9-11 happened on Reagans watch, the last thing he would ever have done is limit freedom.

libertarians would not have supported it.  when the patriot act was enacted, i had major doubts about it.   the press was all over it and it sounded pretty draconian.  i read it and read the revisions.  i also followed those court challenges that were made.  what most people don't realize is that the most of the powers granted in the patriot act were already available to the DEA.  most of the "new" powers had more to do with catching up with the technology available to the bad guys.

we do not know what Reagan would have done, but knowing that national security was one of his highest priorities and that he was not a libertarian, i suspect his measures would have been similar if not stronger.

during war, all presidents ask for, and are usually granted, extraordinary powers. the powers granted to bush were less than those granted to previous presidents.  the danger in granting those powers is less that they exist, but that they have the potential to be abused.  i do not know of any citizen who has experienced abuse under the patriot act.  i expect that may change under this president.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15123


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #92 on: April 30, 2009, 01:04:12 PM »

Quote
The fact that anyone could use those things to expand the role of government


bush expanded the role of government with TARP, childrens health care, medicare, etc.  he did not expand the role of government by doing those things that would allow the capture of terrorists.  government has very few constitutional duties.  one of them is the defense of the country.  bush was able to get back some of the presidential and intel powers that existed pre '70's.  he was also able to get many of the outdated intel laws updated to include current technology.  even with these updates, he had less power to act unilaterally than previous war time presidents.
there is always the potential for abuse by the government.  vigilance is the job of the people.

Quote
Safety is an illusion to begin with

safety is not an illusion.  safety is the absence of planes flying into buildings, clubs blowing up, trains blowing up, chemical being released on public transportation, etc.

 
Quote
a strong national defense does not need to take away anyone's freedom.

i do not believe in defense.  i believe in offense.  you can not defend until you are attacked. what freedoms have you lost? 

i don't have a problem with leaving iraq in an orderly manner.  i think we have accomplished what we can there.  i hope we keep a big old base there.  it's the perfect place.  i disagree with committing more money and lives to afghanistan.  i do not think that we can "win" there.  it is a cesspool of tribalism and no country has ever been successful in changing that.  we would do better, if we must stay, to use drones, overflights, and special forces, to flatten every place that offers trouble.  putting people on the ground in a place that only allows for fighting 6 months out of the year, and whos' borders are open, is a losing proposition for us.

i don't think that selectively declassifying, and making public, sensitive documents for political reasons, makes us safer. 

how is obama proposing to curtail personal liberties?  many ways.  redistribution of wealth, expansion of social programs, control of market forces, are all big programs that eventually will trickle down into all of our personal freedoms.  it's trickle down socialism.  socialism in practice is "the greater good".  it is taking from producers and giving to non-producers.  one of the greatest liberties we have is the freedom to be successful and hopefully wealthy.  every program that he has proposed interferes with my freedom to be successful.  every program that he has proposed punishes success by propping up failing institutions and taking my wealth to give to someone who has not earned it.

why is the president announcing the bankruptcy of a company?  when have you ever seen a president do that?  talk about expansion of government!

i gave you the definition of neocon.  since you seem to be more of a social liberal that i, that definition might fit you better.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Scadsobees
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3198


Location: Jenison, MI

Best use of smileys in a post award.


« Reply #93 on: April 30, 2009, 02:23:25 PM »

Ok, fine, so why do you say that Sean Hannity is a fascist?
Logged

Rick
Scadsobees
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3198


Location: Jenison, MI

Best use of smileys in a post award.


« Reply #94 on: April 30, 2009, 02:31:25 PM »

As bad as it is that President Bush denied some enemy combatants (terrorist) their due process, can you imagine the islamic outcry and riots if we'd have quickly tried them and executed them?  (and liberal outcry!!)

Can't execute them, can't let them go....catch 22.  So Obama apologizes, says how bad we've been, and lets them go.  They'll be back as angry as ever.  Many of them have been.

The current "diplomacy" is setting us up for grief, IMO.  Apologizing to the world and showing friendship to Iran and venezuala is really dicey considering their schizophrenia.

Rick
Logged

Rick
dragonfly
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 468

Location: 30 mi west of DFW, Tx


« Reply #95 on: April 30, 2009, 02:32:17 PM »

Communism is the goal of socialism.
No it's not, that's like saying fascism is the goal of capitalism.  It doesn't even make sense.


As far as I know, Marx is still considered the father of communism. His thoughts were that socialism was a step on the road toward communism.

from wiki:"Though often conflated with the thought of Karl Marx, Marx merely saw socialism as a stage in the ineluctable transition from capitalism to communism.[3][4][5]"

Communist Russia was never actually communist. It was socialist, but the goal was to transition to communism.

by SgtMjr:
Quote
The fact that you're still unwilling to use the word fascist instead of communistic tells me you're still hung up on the word communist.

That's a pretty big assumption on your part, but it really doesn't matter.






Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15123


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #96 on: April 30, 2009, 03:03:19 PM »

Quote
As bad as it is that President Bush denied some enemy combatants (terrorist) their due process

due process in this country is a right guaranteed by the constitution.  if we are going to extend constitutional protection to terrorists (as McCain wanted to do) we are going to be in real trouble.  even the Geneva conventions exclude terrorists from convention protection.

in the past, we treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem.  that didn't work.  we needed to do something different.  i don't know if what we did was the best thing, but it was not illegal, either by our laws, or by international law.  gitmo was a reasonably good solution to an immediate problem.  legal challenges were part of the reason that these cases were not tried more quickly. 

bringing them here and trying them under our federal laws is going to be a disaster.  the solution in the future may be to shoot them where you find them.

the idea that we are creating more terrorists by our actions is silly.  radical Islam has been growing since the 1920's.  they have a couple of goals that have not changes.  one is the destruction of Israel and the other is the institution of Islamic governments around the world.  they have, and have had, for many years, the permission of their radical religious leaders to kill all who get in the way of those goals.  that permission includes the use of WMD and slaughter of civilians.

over the years, their excuses for their actions have changed.  if it wasn't a secular Egyptian government, it was the "Palestinians".  if it wasn't our bad influence on the world, it was western countries stealing oil.  the excuses changed over the years and specific events were used to whip the radicals into a frenzy, but the goals remained the same.

if you want to blame frenzy on anyone, you can at least add newsweek and the bogus story on koran flushing  smiley
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Keith13
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1768


Location: Baton Rouge, LA


« Reply #97 on: April 30, 2009, 06:01:43 PM »

Quote
As bad as it is that President Bush denied some enemy combatants (terrorist) their due process


bringing them here and trying them under our federal laws is going to be a disaster.  the solution in the future may be to shoot them where you find them.


You got that right I can kill them until I advance across them.  evil Spring Break 2010 Mts of Afghanistan

Keith
Logged
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5440


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #98 on: April 30, 2009, 07:02:45 PM »


 huh.
[/quote]


When you have no rights, like the right to due process which was eliminated during the last administration and which Hannity applauds... it is a very short hop to fascism or communism.
[/quote]
 If your talking due process of the terrorists,I think the Constitution gives due process to US citizens not enemy combatants!
 
 There are certain rights granted,I believe ,to a uniformed soldier,but a plain clothed terrorist,I don't think so!!
Logged
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #99 on: April 30, 2009, 09:55:07 PM »

i do not know of any citizen who has experienced abuse under the patriot act.  i expect that may change under this president.

The sad thing is you see that as a problem with this president and not with the patriot act itself.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.209 seconds with 21 queries.

Google visited last this page August 18, 2014, 05:36:03 PM
anything