Freedom has a price, sometimes it is being less secure.

[Jarod]

These Republicans are amazing to me.

They decry the Supreme Court that says that our governement gives certian rights and certian protections to those who are subject to its power. The founders called it checks and ballances.

They would like to trade the freedoms provided by the constitution for a little temporary illusive possability for some security. Those freedoms and protections our forefathers fought and died for...

And they do it in the name of patirotism and bravery?

 

[Jarod]

Would you give up liberty for safety?

 

[Damocles]

I would not. I would give up "safety" for more liberty.

It is one of the largest things I have disliked about our reaction to 9/11. We are so reactionary we make some of the most ineffective changes...

TSA for example. "Homeland Security", another one. Huger bureaucracy was not an improvement.

 

[Jarod]

I would not. I would give up "safety" for more liberty.

It is one of the largest things I have disliked about our reaction to 9/11. We are so reactionary we make some of the most ineffective changes...

TSA for example. "Homeland Security", another one. Huger bureaucracy was not an improvement.

What is your take on the recient Supreme Court decision regarding the detaines in Cuba?

 

[Damocles]

What is your take on the recient Supreme Court decision regarding the detaines in Cuba?

Read the thread on it. I already celebrated the choice.

I feel we should use the UCMJ and try them using those means. They definitely need to be able to mount an effective defense. What if we are wrong? It would do us no good to keep people detained if we were wrong.

 

[Jarod]

Read the thread on it. I already celebrated the choice.

I feel we should use the UCMJ and try them using those means. They definitely need to be able to mount an effective defense. What if we are wrong? It would do us no good to keep people detained if we were wrong.

How do you feel about McCain calling it possably the worst Supreme Court decision ever?

 

[Socrtease]

Read the thread on it. I already celebrated the choice.

I feel we should use the UCMJ and try them using those means. They definitely need to be able to mount an effective defense. What if we are wrong? It would do us no good to keep people detained if we were wrong.

You would think that wouldn't you. Funny thing though, this looks more like Utilitarian justice where so long as publicly our govenment can point to convictions and executions and punishments and ALL of it is obtained behind closed doors and out of the light of day, it LOOKS like they are doing something in the war on terror. I don't know how many people are aware of this but in their war on the IRA the Brits used to put people into prison for things like crossing over into northern Ireland too often. One of the Grad Assistance that worked at the University when I was getting my BA was Irish and had a cousin in a British prison for 23 years with NO CHARGES, no due process. That is very slowly where we are slouching.

There I highlighted where I was saying "you would think" I know where you stand but I don't believe that the Bush administration cares if they have the right people or not so long as they can say they are doing something.

 

[Damocles]

You would think that wouldn't you. Funny thing though, this looks more like Utilitarian justice where so long as publicly our govenment can point to convictions and executions and punishments and ALL of it is obtained behind closed doors and out of the light of day, it LOOKS like they are doing something in the war on terror. I don't know how many people are aware of this but in their war on the IRA the Brits used to put people into prison for things like crossing over into northern Ireland too often. One of the Grad Assistance that worked at the University when I was getting my BA was Irish and had a cousin in a British prison for 23 years with NO CHARGES, no due process. That is very slowly where we are slouching.

I would think what? You are making no sense here. I am pro-the scotus decision, not anti.

 

[Socrtease]

I edited my comment above to make it clearer

 

[Cancel7]

Uh-oh, has Damo been misunderstood again? I don’t understand it, he is always so clear? Why him?

 

[Jarod]

Damo, what do you think about the Republican stance on this issue?

 

[Damocles]

Damo, what do you think about the Republican stance on this issue?

How can you have missed it for all these years?

I have repeatedly stated that I am upset that the party of "Strict constitutionalism" and personal freedom has abandoned principles for security. It is why I voted Libertarian in the last election. When have you ever heard me say anything short of that?

Why must I constantly repeat what I feel about this to you?

 

[Damocles]

You would think that wouldn't you. Funny thing though, this looks more like Utilitarian justice where so long as publicly our govenment can point to convictions and executions and punishments and ALL of it is obtained behind closed doors and out of the light of day, it LOOKS like they are doing something in the war on terror. I don't know how many people are aware of this but in their war on the IRA the Brits used to put people into prison for things like crossing over into northern Ireland too often. One of the Grad Assistance that worked at the University when I was getting my BA was Irish and had a cousin in a British prison for 23 years with NO CHARGES, no due process. That is very slowly where we are slouching.

There I highlighted where I was saying "you would think" I know where you stand but I don't believe that the Bush administration cares if they have the right people or not so long as they can say they are doing something.

Ah, I personalized when it wasn't really personal.

"You would think that" was meant as a general statement that it makes sense! D'oh!

 

[Damocles]

Uh-oh, has Damo been misunderstood again? I don’t understand it, he is always so clear? Why him?

No, it was me reading emphasis on the wrong portion of the post. You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Cypress]

How can you have missed it for all these years?

I have repeatedly stated that I am upset that the party of "Strict constitutionalism" and personal freedom has abandoned principles for security. It is why I voted Libertarian in the last election. When have you ever heard me say anything short of that?

Why must I constantly repeat what I feel about this to you?

Are you still voting for Tom Tancredo?

And honestly, you'll be on your knees the night of November 4 praying that Obama is denied the white house, and that McMaverick wins instead, right?

 

[Damocles]

Are you still voting for Tom Tancredo?

And honestly, you'll be on your knees the night of November 4 praying that Obama is denied the white house, and that McMaverick wins instead, right?

Tom isn't running. And I am likely to vote for Barr at this time.

 

[Cancel7]

Tom isn't running. And I am likely to vote for Barr at this time.

…unless Colorado’s close.

 

[Cypress]

…unless Colorado’s close.

LOL

C'mon. Is making fun of embarrased republicans even a challenge anymore? Its like shooting fish in a barrel!

 

[Cypress]

Tom isn't running. And I am likely to vote for Barr at this time.

Oh right, the whole revoking the war powers act thingy. Is Barr proposing that?

Well, cheers on your selection of Barr. I was wondering when you'd choose a candidate.

 

[Damocles]

…unless Colorado’s close.

Nah, that was last time.

It's okay, you can rest assured that unless McCain begins promoting an ending to the WPA and a direct Declaration for wars then I will not be voting for him this time.