Smoking, Trans fats, and terrorists

[manifold]

considering which of us has already had to CONCEDE a point in this thread feel free to talk about which of us has their head in the sand.

It doesn't surprise me from what I've gathered about you so far that you view keeping an open mind as a weakness.

I also noticed how you cleverly avoid the real issue surrounding the 9th Amendment: That it has been systematically destroyed by precedent. Acknowledging that sad fact would force you to face reality, and it's obvious how troubling you find reality.

 

[Shogun]

It doesn't surprise me from what I've gathered about you so far that you view keeping an open mind as a weakness.

I also noticed how you cleverly avoid the real issue surrounding the 9th Amendment: That it has been systematically destroyed by precedent. Acknowledging that sad fact would force you to face reality, and it's obvious how troubling you find reality.

An OPEN MIND? HA!

yea, whatever, dude. Telling Americans how they should live their lives becuse you can't stand the smell of smoke isn't an open mind. Defending the suppression of liberty because YOU don't think bar owners appreciate habeas corpus enough isn't an open mind.

Again, your ignorance conveys a total lack of comprehension as to why there is a ninth amendment in the first place. Indeed, preach on about that open mind while crying about how the Ninth slapped your grubby lil paws out of the social cookie jar..

 

[jillian]

I think you just proved his point, though... which, if we can stop the BS for a bit was that certain types of people get hysterical when they have to stand outside to smoke but don't blink when the right to Habeas Corpus is destroyed or the 4th Amendments prohibition against warrantless searches (with certain very narrow exceptions).

You need to suck it up and set priorities.

 

[Shogun]

I think you just proved his point, though... which, if we can stop the BS for a bit was that certain types of people get hysterical when they have to stand outside to smoke but don't blink when the right to Habeas Corpus is destroyed or the 4th Amendments prohibition against warrantless searches (with certain very narrow exceptions).

You need to suck it up and set priorities.

perhaps your point might be valid when ACTUAL examples of a shat upon habeus corpus are available instead of the, um, PROJECTED ESTIMATES that such a possibility... Give me a case example, Jill.

Thats the crux of this: Can you point at a single example of the reduction of habaes corpus like I can point at a specific example of narrowed liberties? If not, then braying on and on and on and on about homeland security just doesn't hold much water when liberal politics have been narrowing choice due to "public good" for a good while now.


You need to realize that liberty in America is more important than your heirarchy of personal opinons

 

[jillian]

perhaps your point might be valid when ACTUAL examples of a shat upon habeus corpus are available instead of the, um, PROJECTED ESTIMATES that such a possibility... Give me a case example, Jill.

Thats the crux of this: Can you point at a single example of the reduction of habaes corpus like I can point at a specific example of narrowed liberties? If not, then braying on and on and on and on about homeland security just doesn't hold much water when liberal politics have been narrowing choice due to "public good" for a good while now.


You need to realize that liberty in America is more important than your heirarchy of personal opinons

Every freaking person in Gitmo who's been locked up without charges...

shall I go on?

Liberty??? Do you think the revolution was had to protect your right to a cigarette? Seriously......

 

[Shogun]

Every freaking person in Gitmo are not American citizens. period point blank.


and, considering the focus of the fucking boston tea party? yes, I do think that the revolution happened so that i can smoke a legal tobacco product while patronizing a business whose success correlates with the will of the consumer.

Tell me why else a stamp act would piss off enough Americans to cause an uproar. I could go on if you need further clarification...



...but i'll settle for a single example of an AMERICAN having been stripped of habaes like they have been the LIBERTY to *GASP* allow a legal activity to occur in their bars... I mean, we all know how deadly the bartending industry is. it's a proverbial cancerlicious death sentence, lemme tellya. Not to even mention all the poor victimized non-smokers that are routinely knocked out and placed in a stool no less than 2 feet from my ashtray.

 

[jillian]

Every freaking person in Gitmo are not American citizens. period point blank.

you have no idea who's there....

and, considering the focus of the fucking boston tea party? yes, I do think that the revolution happened so that i can smoke a legal tobacco product while patronizing a business whose success correlates with the will of the consumer.

You're missing the point of the tea party... that wasn't about the tea, per se... they weren't fighting for their right to drink tea. They were fighting against "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

Tell me why else a stamp act would piss off enough Americans to cause an uproar. I could go on if you need further clarification...

See above...

...but i'll settle for a single example of an AMERICAN having been stripped of habaes like they have been the LIBERTY to *GASP* allow a legal activity to occur in their bars... I mean, we all know how deadly the bartending industry is. it's a proverbial cancerlicious death sentence, lemme tellya. Not to even mention all the poor victimized non-smokers that are routinely knocked out and placed in a stool no less than 2 feet from my ashtray.

You think its only American citizens who have a right to Habeas Corpus??

Rasul v. Bush says otherwise.

AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHO'S IN GITMO B/C THEY HAVEN'T TOLD YOU!

 

[Shogun]

you have no idea who's there....

and we had no idea weather or not saddam had phantom WMDs wither. Hey, look how assuming that he did turned out! Now, do you hve evidence that AMERICANS are being held at gitmo or was there antoher point to this strawman?

You're missing the point of the tea party... that wasn't about the tea, per se... they weren't fighting for their right to drink tea. They were fighting against "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

indeed, taxation that LIMITED THEIR BEVERAGE OPTIONS. Do you think that having a voice in British parlaiment would make colonialists super A-O-K with paying taxes on everyday goods for the sake of the british crown? I'm pretty sure they would not. Otherwise, there would have been no Boston Tea party.

Good grief, jill, why the hell do you think they organized boycotts of luxury items? Just because they didn't have a voice in parlaiment? sheesh.


See above...

no, YOU see above. Can you name one thing that was banned by the state during the first 50 years of our nation? NO?

that's probably about as impressive as pointing at gitmo when asked for a single example of Americans losing their right to Habeas.



You think its only American citizens who have a right to Habeas Corpus??

I think that the American Constitution applies to Americans

Rasul v. Bush says otherwise.

Rasul v. Bush

Rasul v. Bush [1] was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (release from unlawful imprisonment) filed on February 19, 2002 by Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul of British citizenship, and David Hicks of Australian citizenship. Their petition requested:

* That they be released
* That they be allowed to have private, unmonitored conversations with their attorneys
* That interrogations cease until the trials were complete

[edit] Habib v. Bush

Mamdouh Habib, an Australian citizen, filed a suit [2] very similar to Rasul on June 10, 2002. The Court dismissed it, on the same grounds as the other two, on August 8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush

um, no, Rasul v. Bush was a question of court jurisdiction over Guantanamo bay, not the application of the US Constitution to non-Americans. WOW, jill. WOW.

scandelous.



AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHO'S IN GITMO B/C THEY HAVEN'T TOLD YOU!

yea yea yea.. I know.. and EOTS thinks that flouride is a mind controlling agent and reptile aliens control the world. This is why we rely on EVIDENCE. Now, do you have evidence of a single AMERICAN losing out on habeus or would you like to congratulate me for keeping a critical eye on you as you tried to pull a foxfyre?

After all, I don't have to make erroneous statements about my evidence when using such as an example of shat upon liberties, jill.

 

[Ravi]

I think you just proved his point, though... which, if we can stop the BS for a bit was that certain types of people get hysterical when they have to stand outside to smoke but don't blink when the right to Habeas Corpus is destroyed or the 4th Amendments prohibition against warrantless searches (with certain very narrow exceptions).

You need to suck it up and set priorities.

I think the problem is that many people personally feel the effects of banning smoking, etc., but most don't feel the effects of losing the right to habeas corpus. And they don't understand that it matters even if they never know of any American that loses it. The fact that it is possible is the problem...it's just plain un-American.

At the same time I don't see it as a bad thing that people object to losing any rights.

 

[manifold]

I think you just proved his point, though... which, if we can stop the BS for a bit was that certain types of people get hysterical when they have to stand outside to smoke but don't blink when the right to Habeas Corpus is destroyed or the 4th Amendments prohibition against warrantless searches (with certain very narrow exceptions).

You need to suck it up and set priorities.

Of course the know-it-all, highbrow intellectual is setting priorities, really bad ones, he just doesn't realize it.

 

[jillian]

you have no idea who's there....

and we had no idea weather or not saddam had phantom WMDs wither. Hey, look how assuming that he did turned out! Now, do you hve evidence that AMERICANS are being held at gitmo or was there antoher point to this strawman?

You're missing the point of the tea party... that wasn't about the tea, per se... they weren't fighting for their right to drink tea. They were fighting against "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

indeed, taxation that LIMITED THEIR BEVERAGE OPTIONS. Do you think that having a voice in British parlaiment would make colonialists super A-O-K with paying taxes on everyday goods for the sake of the british crown? I'm pretty sure they would not. Otherwise, there would have been no Boston Tea party.

Good grief, jill, why the hell do you think they organized boycotts of luxury items? Just because they didn't have a voice in parlaiment? sheesh.


See above...

no, YOU see above. Can you name one thing that was banned by the state during the first 50 years of our nation? NO?

that's probably about as impressive as pointing at gitmo when asked for a single example of Americans losing their right to Habeas.



You think its only American citizens who have a right to Habeas Corpus??

I think that the American Constitution applies to Americans

Rasul v. Bush says otherwise.

Rasul v. Bush

Rasul v. Bush [1] was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (release from unlawful imprisonment) filed on February 19, 2002 by Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul of British citizenship, and David Hicks of Australian citizenship. Their petition requested:

* That they be released
* That they be allowed to have private, unmonitored conversations with their attorneys
* That interrogations cease until the trials were complete

[edit] Habib v. Bush

Mamdouh Habib, an Australian citizen, filed a suit [2] very similar to Rasul on June 10, 2002. The Court dismissed it, on the same grounds as the other two, on August 8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush

um, no, Rasul v. Bush was a question of court jurisdiction over Guantanamo bay, not the application of the US Constitution to non-Americans. WOW, jill. WOW.

scandelous.



AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHO'S IN GITMO B/C THEY HAVEN'T TOLD YOU!

yea yea yea.. I know.. and EOTS thinks that flouride is a mind controlling agent and reptile aliens control the world. This is why we rely on EVIDENCE. Now, do you have evidence of a single AMERICAN losing out on habeus or would you like to congratulate me for keeping a critical eye on you as you tried to pull a foxfyre?

After all, I don't have to make erroneous statements about my evidence when using such as an example of shat upon liberties, jill.

The point was that Rasul said they can challenge their incarceration... you can understand that, right?

That's right, you go worry about catching a smoke in front of a restaurant or having to wear a seat belt, but I'm suddenly EOTS if I point out that we have no idea who's being wiretapped or who's in Gitmo... genius, I tell ya... genius. I actually expected better from Mr. "I'm so worried about individual liberties".

And what was that about warrantless searches????

 

[manifold]

I think the problem is that many people personally feel the effects of banning smoking, etc., but most don't feel the effects of losing the right to habeas corpus. And they don't understand that it matters even if they never know of any American that loses it. The fact that it is possible is the problem...it's just plain un-American.

At the same time I don't see it as a bad thing that people object to losing any rights.

Good point.

 

[Shogun]

I think the problem is that many people personally feel the effects of banning smoking, etc., but most don't feel the effects of losing the right to habeas corpus. And they don't understand that it matters even if they never know of any American that loses it. The fact that it is possible is the problem...it's just plain un-American.

At the same time I don't see it as a bad thing that people object to losing any rights.

Thats exactly the thing my dear Jillian is sidestepping. I ask her for an example and she whips out gitmo and the assumption that there are Americans being held rather than foreigners. does she have proof? No.

MEANWHILE, I can show you time and again of liberties being shat upon in some pink lunger grab for public space. it's not so much that people don't care about Habaes as much as smoking, it's that people who scream that the sky is falling are lacking the one all-important thing that separates nutters from thinkers: Evidence that proves their position. None of us are going to give up the 4th amendment. BUT, it's going to take actual examples of such in order to trigger a reaction rather than some pink lunger forming a strawman argument.

 

[Shogun]

Of course the know-it-all, highbrow intellectual is setting priorities, really bad ones, he just doesn't realize it.

Should I ask you for evidence of such or are you content with talking shit as if your opinion means anything to people outside your lil bubble?

 

[Ravi]

Thats exactly the thing my dear Jillian is sidestepping. I ask her for an example and she whips out gitmo and the assumption that there are Americans being held rather than foreigners. does she have proof? No.

MEANWHILE, I can show you time and again of liberties being shat upon in some pink lunger grab for public space. it's not so much that people don't care about Habaes as much as smoking, it's that people who scream that the sky is falling are lacking the one all-important thing that separates nutters from thinkers: Evidence that proves their position. None of us are going to give up the 4th amendment. BUT, it's going to take actual examples of such in order to trigger a reaction rather than some pink lunger forming a strawman argument.

I don't think Jillian needs to cough up anyone that lost their rights to make her point. Like I said, it matters that it is possible. The sky isn't falling but...it could. A few years ago the President didn't have the power to lock anyone up on only his say so and deny them a right to due process. I personally think that is a lot scarier than not being able to smoke in a bar even though only one of these two things has inconvenienced me.

 

[manifold]

Should I ask you for evidence of such or are you content with talking shit as if your opinion means anything to people outside your lil bubble?

This from the guy who argues every point from inside his ideological vacuum.

 

[Shogun]

The point was that Rasul said they can challenge their incarceration... you can understand that, right?

That's right, you go worry about catching a smoke in front of a restaurant or having to wear a seat belt, but I'm suddenly EOTS if I point out that we have no idea who's being wiretapped or who's in Gitmo... genius, I tell ya... genius. I actually expected better from Mr. "I'm so worried about individual liberties".

And what was that about warrantless searches????

But, do YOU comprehend that none of those involved were America citizens from start to finish and triggered Habaes on the sole fact that they were being held on property that Scotus decided the US has jurisdiction. Can you tell me how Rendition to Egypt of a non-American compares to this single case? Further, can you finally point out where AMERICANS have lost their right to Habaes as you originally suggested?

Trust me, when there are actual examples instead of what amounts to tinfoil assumptions you'll see people like me react to a slight of liberty. Sue me if I don't go around waving the "sky is falling" banner every time I can't stand the smell of smoke in a bar that I chose to enter.

 

[Shogun]

I don't think Jillian needs to cough up anyone that lost their rights to make her point. Like I said, it matters that it is possible. The sky isn't falling but...it could. A few years ago the President didn't have the power to lock anyone up on only his say so and deny them a right to due process. I personally think that is a lot scarier than not being able to smoke in a bar even though only one of these two things has inconvenienced me.

When they bitch about people who put actual diminished liberty above the theoretical occurance of what may or may not happen then, yes, she needs to provide evidence of such. You know, like I can when asked for an example of individual liberties being shat upon by a throng of pink lungers.

Personally, I think that paranoid delusions and baseless assumptions are scarier since we can all look back over the last 7 years and see how empty are those who rely on ranting more than evidence. Indeed, when you see presidents start taking people into the new gestapo then get back to me. As it currently is, the population no longer gets to make a choice between the offerings of businessmen because someone, somewhere thinks THEORETICAL projected estimates are more tangible than yearly drunk driving casualties.

I guess im just one of those "evidence trumps the bullshit opinons" sorta guy.

 

[Shogun]

This from the guy who argues every point from inside his ideological vacuum.

oh sorry, were you ever going to say anything relevant today? I mean, you are not the first person to react in kind to having my mud-stomping foot digging a hole in your ass.

 

[manifold]

But, do YOU comprehend that none of those involved were America citizens from start to finish and triggered Habaes on the sole fact that they were being held on property that Scotus decided the US has jurisdiction. Can you tell me how Rendition to Egypt of a non-American compares to this single case? Further, can you finally point out where AMERICANS have lost their right to Habaes as you originally suggested?

Trust me, when there are actual examples instead of what amounts to tinfoil assumptions you'll see people like me react to a slight of liberty. Sue me if I don't go around waving the "sky is falling" banner every time I can't stand the smell of smoke in a bar that I chose to enter.

Here's your evidence. An excerpt from the Patriot Act.

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.
Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

`SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.
`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.

`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period--

`(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and
`(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'.

Of course you'll probably argue that because to your knowledge this hasn't affected you personally, it's not material.