non-flame questions to liberal americans

reply to post by HeadFirstForHalos


how is it a flame-off?

im flattered that you're insulted i never got to your topic...but when you respond and partake in multiple topics, its easy to overlook a few. So by saying "im right" simply because i didnt respond, it tells me you were timid coming into this conversation and i can feel the sigh of relief you had while posting your reply of victory

sorry that i will eventually have to squash your feeble efforts of self-gratification resistance is futile.

reply to post by harvib


harv, i just read S. 3930. Now....maybe i need to read it again, but its giving the president more refined power during times of national duress (IE: Martial Law)
By defined i mean, its narrowing it and being more specific. I remember, several years ago, having a discussion at a luncheon, about how the presidents power of martial law had no clear direction.....

so Bill S. 3930 kinda makes me not wanna read the rest you posted (but i will)

however its getting to be very late... 3a.m.
and my brain istn functioning so well.....so debate me while im weak, because its really the only chance you have to get a glimpse of what victory can taste like

reply to post by HeadFirstForHalos


just foudn it

and yeah, i did respond to it.

i called you out on your stance that says Ahamenijad has the "right" to talk the way he does...remember my comparison to hitler?

All of your other points are shared with everyone else who is in opposition to me, so im not goign to re-type my answers, you can just go read what i've already typed multiple times to mulitple other people

you might wanna have someone set with you and hold your hand though
because it can be really scary how right i am when debating someone who has a bleeding heart for people liek Hitler

I would say that you can't buy that kind of blind confidence, but um.
Conservatives can.

reply to post by ybab hsur



He HAS the right to.
Read your Bill of Rights.
It may suck, but it's a basic human right.

Oh & when exactly did Hitlers words kill people??
I think that was his armies.

But please let me know of the first word related death you find.
I have yet to see some idiot spewing crap out out their mouth kill anyone.


Are you against freedom of speech or are you against tyranny and dictatorship? Because they are two very different things.

reply to post by HeadFirstForHalos


Hahaha. the bill of rights does nto apply to the president of Iran. You are amazing. it's people liek you that allowed the rise of hitler. You were too busy wondering if you should allow hitler to kill innocent people and conquer nations under a racially biased regime bent on mass-genocide...instead you shoulda been wondering why he was doing it.

Absolutely amazing. You assert no reasonable argument what so ever. Hell, im dog tired, and your posts still make no sense what so ever.

reply to post by HeadFirstForHalos


oh, and in case you didnt go to school here in American, in germany, in poland, in the UK, in China, in Japan, or any where else in the civilized world, here is your answer to

But please let me know of the first word related death you find.
I have yet to see some idiot spewing crap out out their mouth kill anyone.


Click here only if you're ready to be proven wrong...again.

Ignorance costs this country more money than all other government programs combined.

reply to post by ybab hsur


if you dont wanna watch the entire video (though you SHOULD if you wanna have a proper debate)

you should fast foward to 0:49 and read Hitlers quote

it more than wipes out your assertion that no hate speech ever killed anyone.

edit: After 15 minutes or so of waiting and you havent responded, i must abide by your rules and i cordially accept victory. I will not rub it in your face too much....but....i hope you learned something today. Hitler was an evil man. So is Irans president. When you stick up for those people, in any way, you too become the target of scrutiny, especially from someone like me

School is adjurned.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by ybab hsur]

reply to post by ybab hsur

I fail to see any liberties that have been given up.

I know.

i can still come here and write, and say whatever i want, as long as certain moderators dont see it

Ugh...

Read the T&Cs of the website before climbing up on the cross, please.

I took a trip to new york not too long ago, and guess what?

Tourist, eh? New Yorkers love tourists...

I lived there for much of my life, until one day some planes flew into some buildings and I found myself on a normally quiet street, surrounded by a bunch of pawns in fatigues; loaded rifles at the ready, all barking orders and blocking streets.

I left as soon as they opened the bridges.

Maybe you would feel comforted by the presence of the military in your city, but I felt betrayed and disgusted by country and my fellow citizens. To each their own.

Its not different from ISPs forbidding their customers from accessing P2P networks for file sharing. Giants like comcast have, so far, resisted the urge. But its a matter of time before big govt is stuffing the pockets of some fat money hungry prick in the comcast rankings to ensure P2P's demise.

When a private company takes to working for the feds, they ought to be held accountable for their actions just as if they were government employees proper. That's just common sense.

I suppose that next you're going to tell me mercenaries who cash a paycheck signed by Uncle Sam have no need of rules of engagement because, after all, they're a private company, and it says they have the right to torture people, or shoot small children for sport, because there's no specific language in their contract forbidding it?

personally - if someone wants to spend time listening to my conversations, go ahead. They'll find nothing incriminating. And even if they do - and it doesnt relate to a terrorist activity - there's not a dang thing they can do about it

There's precedent being established that says you're wrong. Evidence gathered by intelligence agencies not allowed to use their resources domestically has been successfully used to prosecute crimes in domestic courts.

They're going after terrorists, not Americans. I only hope you can see the reason. I agree that, to some degree, you can make the argument that "terrorists arent using landlines, they're using those pay as you go phones"

Statistically speaking, most terrorists in this country's history were Americans (if you count Puerto Ricans, which you ought to). One man's freedom fighter and all that...


[edit on 31-5-2008 by WyrdeOne]

reply to post by ybab hsur


I'm assuming you are referring to the first sentence in the first section of the bill. Which reads as follows:

SEC. 2. CONSTRUCTION OF PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

The authority to establish military commissions under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 3(a), may not be construed to alter or limit the authority of the President under the Constitution of the United States and laws of the United States to establish military commissions for areas declared to be under martial law or in occupied territories should circumstances so require.


What this is saying is that the president’s ability to establish military commissions is not altered or limited by the bill under martial law or occupied territories. It is not saying that it only applies in those circumstances.

However since you are tired let me help you out on what you can debate. It is of controversy as to whether this bill applies to American citizens. However Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions under paragraph (c) states:

(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

Although the purpose of the bill as stated by the bill is to try alien unlawful enemy combatants. Paragraph (c) omits the word alien. As a result unlawful enemy combatant may apply to American citizens.

Happy reading...




[edit on 31-5-2008 by harvib]

reply to post by WyrdeOne


1.) im not climbing up on a cross. You wanna have a u2u conversation? Fine, but dont believe everything you get access to in the private forum. If yer gona take one persons side without hearing both sides of the argument, fine, but dont claim to be objective.


2.) What is disgusting about the military making sure you were safe when the planes flew into the building? But as you said, to each their own, but you really shoudl shun the condescending manner if you want to live by that particular creed.


3.) "When a private company takes to working for the feds, they ought to be held accountable for their actions just as if they were government employees proper. That's just common sense. "

No. They shouldnt. Its not common sense. I agree with you that it SHOULD be that way - but should and shouldnts isnt the argument. Reality is the argument. And the reality is, what i spelled out is true.


4.) "I suppose that next you're going to tell me mercenaries who cash a paycheck signed by Uncle Sam have no need of rules of engagement because, after all, they're a private company, and it says they have the right to torture people, or shoot small children for sport, because there's no specific language in their contract forbidding it? "

once again - reality. Dont like it? Go trip on some '___' and create your own form of reality and yes, that is what im going to tell you (thats why mercanaries make money..)


5.) Statistically speaking, most terrorists in this country's history were Americans. One man's freedom fighter and all that...

"statistically speaking" ahhhh - when those two words are combined together, you just know someone's trying to back themselves out of a hole. To give you definition on how ignorant that phrase is (im not calling you names, so please, no more punishments)

Statistically speaking

During the summer time, the largest majority of drown victims were also eating ice cream teh same day. If you dont want to drown, dont eat ice cream.

Statistically speaking
Airline travel is still the safest mode of transportation (theres a joke, no kidding its safer statistically....how many flights v.s. how many cars on the road, duh

But i do agree with you. America has had a lot of its own home-grown terrorists.

I gota go wash my mouth out now.....i cant believe i just agreed with you

reply to post by harvib


okay i see the distinction you're pointing out now.

But i have to agree with this bill...

What you're telling me is that if an american citizen decides to attack America in a terrorist style bombing/shooting whatever, that the government/law officials have to play "war games" like some darn redcoat from the 1700's marching in a straight line playing footsie with the enemy?

Put yourself in the shoes of those whom are terrified for a second. Wouldnt you want someone to come and bully those who are bullying you?

If you were in a shopping mall, say...buying cream for the mental scars that my ideals have left upon you, and a gunman suddenly appeared and started killing your wife and kids (bear with me, i would never wish that upon you)

But if that happened, wouldnt you want that person to be brougth down by any means necsesary before any more killing could go on?

now picture a world where the police just stand by and let that person get away with it, because, *gasp* they have rights too!!! (?)

WRONG. A criminal should have ZERO rights in a case like this. If a crime is alleged, then, yes, due process. But if you walk in on a guy killing people, why give him due process? he's guilty. Open and shut. Kill him on the spot and throw his corpse to the sharks, literally.

or would you rather walk up to him and try to be diplomatic?



I always hate referencing anythign that comes out of hollywood, but go watch the new "RAMBO" movie for a direct example of exactly what im talking about, pay special attention to the actions and words of "Michael Burnett" character in the film.

reply to post by ybab hsur



Yeah well I can't spend my life on ATS hoping to prove people wrong and help my ego along. I'm doing this for fun. For you....this really seems to be quite a big deal.


You haven't responded to my response on Iraq.
Because I brought the facts.
That showed he let the UN inspectors in and that the evidence for WMD's was knowingly fabricated.
But whatever. You're beef is with Hitler and things that come out of peoples mouths, not the grenade or guns they just used.


WORDS caused the holocaust?
ACTIONS caused the holocaust.
SHEEP caused the holocaust.
People who were too afraid to go against their government and ask questions.
People who didn't refuse to fight in wars they didn't believe in.
People who allowed the obvious cracks in the Reichstag fire story to go on as truth.

ACTIONS not WORDS bring on wars.

reply to post by HeadFirstForHalos


WORDS fueled the actions.

SHEEP did cause the holocaust. Sheep like......you? I mean that loosely of course and with respect, but still....standing by and letting someone preach genocide isnt allowing them their right.

The freedom of speech only applies until it condems another persons freedoms as well.

Did you know that if a whtie man gets in a fight with a black man, that the person who started the fight will go to jail?

Did you also know, that if in that fight, at any time, the whtie man calls the black man a "n-word" - the whtie man will go straight to jail for a hate crime (fittingly so)

Words have power. Words mean something. If hitler were a drooling idiot, he never would have accomplished the horrible things that he did. But he was very well versed, and knew his way around an ink bottle (cough, obama, cough)

Ignorance costs this country more money than all other govt programs....combined.

reply to post by ybab hsur



I give up.
I can't sink to spending my entire time on here debate with someone who asks for people's genuine opinions and beliefs just to childishly put them down and act like a....you know what.

Let's say I say you suck and should go away...
Am I condemning your freedom?
I might be verbally, I might in thought, but it's not a physical threat.
Which is all that matters.
Sticks and stones man, sticks and stones....

Read up on some Voltaire dude.
Basically it's, I think the things you say suck and are stupid, but I'd be pretty pissed if anyone tried to take that right away from you.


If it's the First Amendment then I'd think it's pretty important.

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by HeadFirstForHalos

 

how is it a flame-off?

im flattered that you're insulted i never got to your topic...but when you respond and partake in multiple topics, its easy to overlook a few. So by saying "im right" simply because i didnt respond, it tells me you were timid coming into this conversation and i can feel the sigh of relief you had while posting your reply of victory

sorry that i will eventually have to squash your feeble efforts of self-gratification

resistance is futile.

Well the thread YOU started is called
NON-FLAME questions for liberal Americans. As I read page after page, you are flaming everyone that doesn't agree with you. Doesn't that make you a Conservative Hypocrite?

reply to post by dariousg



dariousg

Electronic voting and protesting "areas" have absolutely nothing to do with Bush. This is where I disagree with you. Bush didn't implement them, he didn't make them law. So why you try to blame him for them is beyond me.

reply to post by ybab hsur


Words are responsible for what now?

Words are just thoughts cast into the public domain. So, by extension, you believe thinking is dangerous?

If it weren't for the slavish obedience of UNTHINKING individuals, events like the holocaust could never happen.

1.) im not climbing up on a cross. You wanna have a u2u conversation? Fine, but dont believe everything you get access to in the private forum. If yer gona take one persons side without hearing both sides of the argument, fine, but dont claim to be objective.

Yeah, you really are. Your failure to read and understand the terms and conditions does nothing to put you in the good graces of the forum staff. The fact that you then want to play at martyrdom is just silly.

I would have warned you myself, at least once, if it weren't for the fact that we're directly engaged in discussion.

2.) What is disgusting about the military making sure you were safe when the planes flew into the building? But as you said, to each their own, but you really shoudl shun the condescending manner if you want to live by that particular creed.

If you learn no other Latin, learn Habeas Corpus. Not just for your own sake, but for the sake of your countrymen...

No. They shouldnt. Its not common sense. I agree with you that it SHOULD be that way - but should and shouldnts isnt the argument. Reality is the argument. And the reality is, what i spelled out is true.

Which is it, should or shouldn't? You contradicted yourself, and that makes it hard for me to know exactly what your opinion is on the subject.

"statistically speaking" ahhhh - when those two words are combined together, you just know someone's trying to back themselves out of a hole. To give you definition on how ignorant that phrase is (im not calling you names, so please, no more punishments)

Statistically speaking

During the summer time, the largest majority of drown victims were also eating ice cream teh same day. If you dont want to drown, dont eat ice cream.

How is it backing into a hole to call B.S. on a statement as unimaginative as 'the government isn't using their new powers on Americans, just terrorists'? I'm pretty sure that was an example of me putting you IN a hole.

And what does ice cream and drowning (a statistically irrelevant corollary) have to do with the FACT that most terrorists in this nations history were American, something I felt the need to point out since you stated the government wasn't going after Americans, just terrorists.

By proxy, you stated that terrorists aren't American, and that's just ludicrous. I suppose you'll resort to acrobatic semantics around the definition of American, but let me save you some time - since the discussion hinges on law and sovereignty, the only definition of American that's worth a crap in this context is citizenship.

(I admit, I was counting Puerto Ricans, but c'mon, they're close enough to count)

[edit on 31-5-2008 by WyrdeOne]

reply to post by WyrdeOne

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I take my shoes off at Japanese restaurants, not a big deal.

What I object to is the illusion of security and the farce that surrounds the whole process - airlines are NO SAFER than they were before 9/11, excepting those that have had the cockpit doors reinforced. But air travelers have to jump through more and more hoops, all of it a charade, and it serves nobody except the contractors who profit, and the government that reaps the benefits of our pathetic, mewling terror.

So, what would you propose? Don't you agree that some type of screening is necessary before boarding?

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Citizens of this ostensibly free country are being treated like serfs by these barely-educated wage slave enforcers, and it makes me physically ill to watch it, nevermind participate.

Is it really necessary to insult the security worker?

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

If terrorists really wanted to hurt this country though, instead of just shock it, they would hit any number of soft infrastructure targets like the electrical grid, the water supply, or the fuel supplies - but they haven't. You know why they haven't? Because there simply are not millions of boogeymen hiding in the seams of our country, it's nonsensical to think that.

Or maybe they have learned that this president will not sit back and wag his finger at their terroristic acts. Instead, he will hunt them down and kill them.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

That's the problem, isn't it? For every citizen like myself, who would gladly take the risk if it would preserve liberty, there are six like yourself, who are only too eager to sacrifice their freedoms for the illusion of safety.

That is unfair and uncalled for. I don't advocate giving up liberty for security. But I think - no, I know - that some security beyond lockedcabin doors is necessary.

Terrorists have tried smuggling bombs onto planes in discrete parts, then re-assembling them onboard. So what is the solution? Prohibit certain sized- containers of liquid? Or sophisticated scanners at the boarding points?

Once again, you are taking issue with the wrong people. You should be blaming those who put us in this position.

And despite all the inconvenience, you haven't lost any liberties.

reply to post by jsobecky

So, what would you propose? Don't you agree that some type of screening is necessary before boarding?

Most of the screening tools we've had in place, even before 9/11, are effective when properly used. They're minimally invasive and quite fast. Best of both worlds.

Making grandma take off her orthopedic shoes to check for bombs is just nonsensical...

Is it really necessary to insult the security worker?

My statement was based on the education requirements and pay rate for the job in question. I probably could have been nicer about it, but I don't see the need. They certainly don't take the time to be nice...

Despite the fact that I haven't flown in quite some time, I've spent enough time in and around airports to see the worst kind behavior from these people. I'm sure they're not all thugs, but enough of them are that the impression one is left with is not flattering.

Or maybe they have learned that this president will not sit back and wag his finger at their terroristic acts. Instead, he will hunt them down and kill them.

Sorry, but if we wanted to kill terrorists, we would have identified and bombed targets in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The cold, hard truth is that the economic interests of the elite trump the wellbeing of the masses.

As it is, all we've managed to do is create a four-fold spike in the number of terrorism deaths, by invading a country that had NOTHING to do with the attacks on our city. Way to go us...

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

That is unfair and uncalled for. I don't advocate giving up liberty for security. But I think - no, I know - that some security beyond lockedcabin doors is necessary.

You're right, that was unfair, and I apologize. We disagree on whether or not liberties are really being given up, not on whether we should give them up. I respect you, and I ought to have acted like it.

Terrorists have tried smuggling bombs onto planes in discrete parts, then re-assembling them onboard. So what is the solution? Prohibit certain sized- containers of liquid? Or sophisticated scanners at the boarding points?

There is no good solution to the problem of liquid explosives, that I'm aware of, at least not in terms of detecting the device or its components.

Personally, I'm willing to accept a certain level of risk when boarding an aluminum tube that flies at speeds upwards of 300mph up in the thin air...

And if you invoke the name of Richard Reid, so help me God...

If his handlers had actually wanted the mixture to ignite, they would have given him a butane torch, but they didn't. He was a patsie.

Once again, you are taking issue with the wrong people. You should be blaming those who put us in this position.

I do blame those who put us in this position. We just disagree about who they are, I think.

And despite all the inconvenience, you haven't lost any liberties.

If I agreed with that statement, I wouldn't be posting on this thread.