Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing

page: 2
53
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by jibajaba
the only thing that needs to change is:
the DHS head in charge - needs to resign for incompetency.


See, I'd argue the entirety of the DHS should be mothballed. It is an Orwellian agency which serves no legitimate purpose other than being an invasive pain in the ass. If I was holding a glass of water and the DHS was on fire, I'd drink the water.

Oh Burdman, you really must preface a note like that with a warning. "Finish swallowing any drinks before reading further.." I'd just put down my Dr. P, but my poor keyboard may have had more on it than I managed to drink if I'd read that a moment sooner!


That's one of the funniest yet true ways I've ever heard it put! Drink the water, indeed. It would do you far more good than saving what the DHS has become. (Was it ever a good idea? Hmm)




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
The minute you 'make a change' in response to terrorism you concede victory to the terrorist. Every freedom conceded and every drone strike is a big win for enemies of america.

The only way to defeat terrorism is to refuse to be terrorised. That requires a certain state of mind, not new statutes of law.

You are more likely to die in an auto accident on the way to the mall than be a victim of terrorism. 25,000 americans died on the roads last year (and it was a good year).





edit on 23-4-2013 by justwokeup because: typo



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 

At the risk of being a tad redundant and sharing a clip twice in the same week? I think your message fits this and expresses the sentiment so well, it well fits to share a second time.



On September 12, 2001, I would have been the guy in the audience cheering the General and thinking the FBI agent, played by Denzel Washington in this movie, WAS the problem. The obstruction. The whole reason why terrorism could win in our nation.

After a decade and more of seeing what the attitude of men like Bruce Willis's Character here have done and brought us to? I look back on my mindset of 2001 and wonder what I could have been thinking to have been so incredibly naive of the doors those first steps were opening to all that came afterward.

The hardest part is, it's still a struggle between The General and the Agent as played out in this scene. Every major event, it's still a mental struggle between those two sides.

You're 110% right, I believe. We, as a nation, DO give the terrorists every victory they could never achieve themselves ...and we do it by willing choice to the cheers of crowds at times. It's done by every new law that restricts the freedoms these people used against us in the first place. It's done by every voice raised in hate against the very people who would see our rights upheld and not sacrificed to the group altar of security and complete safety.

They haven't won yet ...but they've sure come closer than I'd ever have thought possible in 2001. The thing is, as you say so well, they haven't done it. We have. All by choice or the lack of choosing when we could and should have.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
(Was it ever a good idea? Hmm)


I think the initial idea wasn't horrible, but it was switched to the wrong track before it even became an actual agency. "Department of Homeland Security"
What a steaming pile of Cold War, Communist Manifesto horsecrap jargon the name alone invokes. We don't pledge allegiance to the flag of the homeland. We don't sing "My homeland 'tis of thee." We don't ask somebody we just met "So, commrade, what part of the homeland are you from?"

Normally I don't read a lot into names... especially federal agency names. I figure most of the folks working for the Feds couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel anyway, but in the case of DHS I think the agency name was a strong predicator of just how asinine and cartoonish the whole thing was going to be. Combine that with the fact that we went from profiteering jackass Chertoff as the director to the "whatever it is" we've got running it now, in Nepalitano. Then blend it all with the fact the the DHS' most developed dingleberry hanging off itself is the TSA (another modern embodiment of Laurel & Hardy pretend to be Nazis) and we're stuck with a laughingstock that isn't even remotely funny because they weild actual power and we're the idiots who are paying for it all.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


And this is precisely why dual citizens should not be allowed to be politicians in this country. People need to wake up and see that there is an ongoing cold war attack against America.

What do these Leftist Democrats fear anyway? Why are they so scared of guns and freedom of speech?



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Have you watched that whole movie recently?

The "terrorists" get into the USA using student visas. This movie was made back in 1998. There are many plot points in that movie that foreshadowed the "war on terror" that began 3 years later.

I think everyone should watch "The Siege", especially in these days/times.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 
Lord help us if this jerk ever runs for President- and wins!!!

He is already turning New York City into a fascist controlled regime that must bend to whatever his whims dictate are "good for the people". It's only a matter of time before you can be arrested for farting in public!



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Well the Constitution has endured far worse than this and its been under attack in one form or another since the day it was ratified.

There is a reason the Founders made it very difficult to change and I doubt we are going to see any major changes soon unless the dems get 2/3 of both houses and can somehow convince 3/4 of the States to agree with them.

Given that the majority of States are deep red, that is highly doubtful.

I think we are good for awhile.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
If you are serious about your Freedoms.
It's time to put up or shut up.
Get off your chairs and go visit your congressman.
Hell become a congressman and change things.

Complaining about stuff on the internet isn't going to change anything.


I'd beg to differ. It's clear the battles being waged are of opinion and consensus. The need for congress to act within the bounds of public opinion is obvious. History is replete with the use of leveraging tools in the form of supposed tragic events that have swayed public opinion in the direction of the desire of "congress" (lobbied and payed off douche bags) and those behind them. Events that are consistently staged or allowed to happen. The internet is a far more powerful tool for the swaying of public opinion than could have been expected per the previous model of centralized information in the hands of monied media controllers. Now that that cat is out of the bag, why would you resort exclusively to older less effective methods that are practically defunct. Propaganda is a consistent message, there is a reason it is the holy grail of advertising. Repeat something enough times and it will pierce even the thickest of skulls. Therefore I say bitching... or repeating a message, like "gun control sucks and wont save babies you morons, and it certainly wont save you from horrorists" or whatever, works, and the recent triumph of the anti gun control message over the untold billions spent to the contrary, has worked! So bitch on bitches... More bitching, consistent bitching... don't shut up until something is right in this world! And never undervalue the internet as a tool to carry and amplify that "bitching"! It's just too bad we let CISPA sly by, people should have bitched about that allot more!



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Have you watched that whole movie recently?

The "terrorists" get into the USA using student visas. This movie was made back in 1998. There are many plot points in that movie that foreshadowed the "war on terror" that began 3 years later.

I think everyone should watch "The Siege", especially in these days/times.

I'll admit to it being a few years since I've watched the whole thing. I own it on VHS and DVD though. I ought to pop that in and see it again sometime. You're right, it did foreshadow much of the conflict and inner struggles of how America would come to face and respond to the real threat some years later.

Unfortunately, of course, the way The Siege ended isn't how it's come to pass IRL. Not that movie endings ever do when they're fairly positive ones.

Another line that stands out from that movie though is a simple one and I think it DOES apply to Boston as well as future hits we take on American soil. (No doubt, there will be more in time....eventually). That was the point blank statement that to face a terrorist incident is a Lose/Lose situation. There IS NO winning. There IS no happy way that CAN end once it's begun. It's a cold choice of lose small or lose big. Take the risks and do the ugly things to end it....or let it play out by avoiding those things to the ultimate worse outcome.

^^^ I think the lesson there is valid, but our leadership miss the point. Lose/Lose is incident based and immediate to the specific event for making those hard choices in actions. The nation's leadership since 9/11 seems to think it's much better to take that hard stand toward freedoms as a daily, ongoing attitude into the indefinite future.


Thats how they win, I think. We lose all that was special about us to begin with. We become what we fought.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
The interpretation is always changing.

I don't really see the issue.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Why is it that every time A tragedy happens, the prime suspect is always OUR RIGHTS?



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 

That's an outstanding question! I'd say the best answer is that some people have been looking hard for ways to curtail those rights since the days well before incidents started happening.

I wouldn't suggest cause and effect for incidents being done so our rights can be taken. Naww... Human nature is too predictable for causing incidents out of pure ignorance, arrogance and meanness. All they have to do for reasons to attack those rights is wait patiently and do nothing at all. Another incident will come soon enough. People are 100% reliable in seeing to that without official help.


Hence the "Let no crisis go to waste" motto. Sad huh?



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Yes.

Change back to the original intent where by anything not specifically addressed in the Constitution, the FedGov shall have no opinion, involvement, law or regulation authority. Those things are reserved for the states to take up.

Just because something is not mentioned does NOT mean it is permission to do anything about it.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny
Yes.

Change back to the original intent where by anything not specifically addressed in the Constitution, the FedGov shall have no opinion, involvement, law or regulation authority. Those things are reserved for the states to take up.

Just because something is not mentioned does NOT mean it is permission to do anything about it.


You have heard of implied powers haven't you?

And for the record, there was never any "original intent" of the Framers. They had distinct splits on almost every single issue they debated. Some of the Framers actually even argued on opposite sides as lawyers in front of the Supreme Court about what the intent of the Constitution was.

Maybury v. Madison if I remember correctly.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 



And for the record, there was never any "original intent" of the Framers.


AAAAAAaaaannnd, you have just lost ALL credibility.

The original intent of the framers was to prevent the same kind of Government Tyranny that they were fighting against for a decade.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Hopechest
 



And for the record, there was never any "original intent" of the Framers.


AAAAAAaaaannnd, you have just lost ALL credibility.

The original intent of the framers was to prevent the same kind of Government Tyranny that they were fighting against for a decade.


Sorry but the Constitution is my field of expertise.

Preventing government tyranny had absolutely nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention was held to refine the Articles of Confederation because they were totally ineffective for the current time.

As the convention progressed it turned into the complete re-writing of the Articles into what became an outline for the Constitution. The intent had nothing to do with government tyranny, those issues were not brought up until the Constitution began to be debated between Hamilton and Jefferson in the local papers to try and prove why each of their sides was the correct one.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest


Sorry but the Constitution is my field of expertise.

Ah No, It is not.

You have Your OPINION of the Constitution, and Apparently, your are wrong.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
Bloomberg is the embodiment of modern tyranny. Let us hope this man never runs for president.


Given his track-record, he himself never will, but a puppet of his would. He throws money around to expand his sphere of influence and right now it reaches from "sea to shining sea". His view of the world is that only the elite can rule and hold order and that self-government is passe. "A little government is needed" in all aspects of life.


He truly believes freedom is too dangerous for anyone but him. This is what happens when an insulated rich liberal is given power over the people. He's insane and I can only hope that his ilk are marginalized from American politics forever.


Sadly it is not just "liberals" who believe this as you presented. Elites (the cream of crop; those with power) all believe themselves to be the savior of the world. We have come full circle. Out of the ashes of monarchism and straight into the hands of elitism (just in a different form); of those who believe they only can determine what is best for the whole because of the power they wield. That is why power was disseminated and diluted with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, with self-governance, with a republic.

But a republic is only as strong as the people who believe in it, who understand it, and who can make solid determinations on the course of it. Sadly, we have fallen far from the ideals of which the forefathers hoped we would achieve (even if they themselves failed before us, they had hope).



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Hopechest
 



And for the record, there was never any "original intent" of the Framers.


AAAAAAaaaannnd, you have just lost ALL credibility.

The original intent of the framers was to prevent the same kind of Government Tyranny that they were fighting against for a decade.


Sorry but the Constitution is my field of expertise.

Preventing government tyranny had absolutely nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention was held to refine the Articles of Confederation because they were totally ineffective for the current time.

As the convention progressed it turned into the complete re-writing of the Articles into what became an outline for the Constitution. The intent had nothing to do with government tyranny, those issues were not brought up until the Constitution began to be debated between Hamilton and Jefferson in the local papers to try and prove why each of their sides was the correct one.


I see where your coming from, though establishing colonies half a world away and fighting a long bloody revolution against Royalty had to have something to do with the drafting of the Constitution.

I'm not saying that was the sole purpose of the Constitution, though I'm sure it had some political weight.





top topics
 
53
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join