Police State USA

[DKSuddeth]

Sorry DK..but I think "your" point was we lost freedom, due to
the PA, not the potential of lost freedom. Ya still gotta show me that.

well, If I need to point out the exact wording of the exact specific paragraph of the exact specific section of the patriot act as well as the exact specific wording of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments in the bill of rights, I'll do so If you can afford to wait until later tonite when I'm not busy anymore.

 

[Mr. P]

well, If I need to point out the exact wording of the exact specific paragraph of the exact specific section of the patriot act as well as the exact specific wording of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments in the bill of rights, I'll do so If you can afford to wait until later tonite when I'm not busy anymore.

OKay...make it iron-clad.
But why waste your time? You know and I know you can't. But hey,
give er a shot if ya like.

 

[HGROKIT]

I didn't say that. I'm saying right now I haven't seen anything too alarming. I've seen nothing so far that seems unjustified in the context of the war on terror. You'll find many feel as I do.

That is the point! A little here, a little there so whatever, right? All in the name of security right?

You go one way on one thread and then change your view in another. Where are your convictions, your principles? Take a stand right, wrong or indifferent, but take one.

 

[DKSuddeth]

OKay...make it iron-clad.
But why waste your time? You know and I know you can't. But hey,
give er a shot if ya like.

yeah, fine. whatever.

In federal court, the Bush Administration has claimed in court the ability to designate U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" and hold them indefinitely without trial and without access to counsel. In this claim, they say the government may designate any American as an "enemy combatant" without issuing any evidence supporting the designation.

If a trial is granted, it may take the form of a military tribunal where the accused may not challenge or even see the evidence against them. Essentially, they can be convicted and put to death simply by the government saying Trust me, you're guilty. While this is in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution, it is essential to keep America safe from terrorists.

you don't see that as a removal of your rights? what country do you want to live in?

 

[Annie]

That is the point! A little here, a little there so whatever, right? All in the name of security right?

You go one way on one thread and then change your view in another. Where are your convictions, your principles? Take a stand right, wrong or indifferent, but take one.

I hear you, but what about what I said?

I am all for as much personal rights as possible, from freedom of speech to religion, to property. However, when the public safety is at risk, which I think is a logical concern in NYC during the convention, I don't think that protestors, that have an agenda of anarchy, http://www.rncnotwelcome.org/fighttheman.html

should have free reign. If that is curtailing of rights, well slap me silly. (I know you will!) I also believe that rational use of profiling should be allowed at airports, etc. That doesn't mean, 'round up the Muslims' but does mean that they shouldn't be pulling over X number of grandmas/grandpas and toddlers. While it's possible these are suicide bombers, less likely than 25 year old, Saudi, name Ali.

 

[Mr. P]

In federal court, the Bush Administration has claimed in court the ability to designate U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" and hold them indefinitely without trial and without access to counsel.

And what did the court rule..DK?

 

[OCA]

why do I who what where?

Our civil rights won't matter if we're all nuked because we're too politically correct to take the measures necessary to stop terrorists using our freedoms to destroy the government which maintains those freedoms. also, read my sig.

So its politically correct now to be for maintaining personal liberties and freedom, interesting.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That is the point! A little here, a little there so whatever, right? All in the name of security right?

The constitution could not foresee an era of suitcase bombs that could level a block. Ignoring security due to an ability to cope with change is no solution either.

You go one way on one thread and then change your view in another. Where are your convictions, your principles? Take a stand right, wrong or indifferent, but take one.

Hmmm. These criticisms sound so familiar. Do your own bits, man. Don't steal lines from superchicken. I believe you'll find I'm quite consistent, in actuality.

 

[OCA]

The criticisms sound the same because you're rhetoric and debating style are the same, all big words and no substance mixed with ad hominem attack.

Lol instead of lobbing rocks from miles away why don't you man up and log on to "superchicken's" site? Or is it you don't fancy an asskickin' again?

"Hey i'm RWA and i'm scared, feel free to chip away at my freedom"

 

[freeandfun1]

The criticisms sound the same because you're rhetoric and debating style are the same, all big words and no substance mixed with ad hominem attack.

Lol instead of lobbing rocks from miles away why don't you man up and log on to "superchicken's" site? Or is it you don't fancy an asskickin' again?

"Hey i'm RWA and i'm scared, feel free to chip away at my freedom"

you two are too funny! :spank3:

 

[Annie]

The criticisms sound the same because you're rhetoric and debating style are the same, all big words and no substance mixed with ad hominem attack.

Lol instead of lobbing rocks from miles away why don't you man up and log on to "superchicken's" site? Or is it you don't fancy an asskickin' again?

"Hey i'm RWA and i'm scared, feel free to chip away at my freedom"

Let's all speak for ourselves, or if compelled to use others, at least say 'we are using their voice." Hmmmm....

 

[OCA]

Let's all speak for ourselves, or if compelled to use others, at least say 'we are using their voice." Hmmmm....

Ok I will state the obvious, that last bit was in supposed to be in RWA's voice.

I do stand behind my view that it is chickenshit to talk trash when they know the person will not hear. My challenge is clear: RWA log on to NG's site and have at it, are you man enough?

I'll provide the link if you need it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The criticisms sound the same because you're rhetoric and debating style are the same, all big words and no substance mixed with ad hominem attack.

Lol instead of lobbing rocks from miles away why don't you man up and log on to "superchicken's" site? Or is it you don't fancy an asskickin' again?

"Hey i'm RWA and i'm scared, feel free to chip away at my freedom"

The criticism is invalid, because my style is stellar, clean and logical. Irrefutably kickass.

Arguing with children is not really a goal of mine. So no thanks, Potsy!

 

[Annie]

The criticism is invalid, because my style is stellar, clean and logical. Irrefutably kickass.

Arguing with children is not really a goal of mine. So no thanks, Potsy!

Not all of us see this way!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not all of us see this way!

Yeah. Right. You don't have to appear impartial for my sake, Kathianne. I know you love me!

 

[OCA]

The criticism is invalid, because my style is stellar, clean and logical. Irrefutably kickass.

Arguing with children is not really a goal of mine. So no thanks, Potsy!

Didn't think you were man enough.

Hey do you wear your white pumps with your miniskirt after Labor Day or are you a traditionalist?

 

[HGROKIT]

The criticism is invalid, because my style is stellar, clean and logical. Irrefutably kickass.

Arguing with children is not really a goal of mine. So no thanks, Potsy!

Yes, real mature post.

As for your consistency, the only thing you appear consistent on is dropping back ten yard and pulling your pud (or choking your chicken as the case may be, but I am sure it is anything but SUPER) anytime you are caught with nothing to say other than to make personal innuendo or flat out attacks.

You represent the ugly side of the right wing and what are you supposed to be avenging - the fact you are a failed attempt at an abortion?

 

[Annie]

Refute all you like, but avoid the personal attacks! This means all!

 

[HGROKIT]

PERSONAL FOUL - fifteen yards for roughing the passer.

 

[jimnyc]

It appears this thread has ran it's course. Thread closed.