Unless you're bleeding or dying....

Dixie said:
It explains why I don't have the mindset that government should be taking care of my every need. It explains why I face challenges and adversity with determination, and don't look to government to bail me out.

If "ifs and buts" were "candy and nuts" we'd all have a Merry Christmas. None of us bled to death or died, we all managed to find a way to live through it, and survive.
Click to expand...

In your Nazi utopia, not everyone finds a way to survive. That is why conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
 
Bfgrn said:
In your Nazi utopia, not everyone finds a way to survive. That is why conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
Click to expand...

LOL... Yeah, that's why Socialist countries like China have so much trouble with people trying to get into the country.
 
Dixie said:
LOL... Yeah, that's why Socialist countries like China have so much trouble with people trying to get into the country.
Click to expand...

America was founded on LIBERAL tenets. Conservatives in 1776 were called Tories, Redcoats, Lobsterbacks and Loyalists.

When conservatives ultimately get their hands on any government, they turn it into what conservatism has ALWAYS been about...aristocracies, plutocracies and oligarchies.
 
Bfgrn said:
In your Nazi utopia, not everyone finds a way to survive. That is why conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
Click to expand...

It's not "Nazi" and it sure as hell ain't "Utopia" but I bet most would find a way to survive. I'd say it's probably slightly better to be indigent here, as opposed to say... Cuba, don't you imagine?

As I said earlier, the "Unless you're bleeding or dying" approach, does two things... it saves us an awful lot of wasted resources, and helps to instill the values of self determination, self reliance, and self responsibility. These are very important aspects, not to be simply ignored, even though you pinheads are doing a very good job of it.

The System fully allows you to take whatever charitable actions you wish, it has zero restriction on your ability to do that! So we can't blame "a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception" now can we? You can do like Apple says he wants to do, and open a daycare center to take care of people's kids who have to work. If you think he has a good idea, maybe you two can pitch in together on it, and make it happen? Like I said, get it off the ground, and I'll send you a donation, I think it's a great idea!
:good4u:
 
Bfgrn said:
America was founded on LIBERAL tenets. Conservatives in 1776 were called Tories, Redcoats, Lobsterbacks and Loyalists.

When conservatives ultimately get their hands on any government, they turn it into what conservatism has ALWAYS been about...aristocracies, plutocracies and oligarchies.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with Conservatives of 2010? Liberalism destroyed the Roman Empire! Socialism destroyed the Soviet Union! ...SO WHAT?

I'm going to do my Greg Guttfield impression now... If by 'Liberal tenets', you mean, our nation was founded on belief in a Creator who endowed inalienable rights, then you are correct. But I somehow don't think that's what you meant.
 
Bfgrn said:
America was founded on LIBERAL tenets. Conservatives in 1776 were called Tories, Redcoats, Lobsterbacks and Loyalists.

When conservatives ultimately get their hands on any government, they turn it into what conservatism has ALWAYS been about...aristocracies, plutocracies and oligarchies.
Click to expand...
This is retarded. Modern American Conservatives are all about the founding documents. It is you Liberals who seek to destroy the Constitution.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Talking to a suspected terrorist overseas is the warrant.:)
Click to expand...

and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

i fail to see how suspected and overseas fulfills the requirements outlined in the 4th Amendment portion I quoted above. like to try again?
 
Or comparing intelligence information for who's a suspected terrorist. If they were a known terrorist, would you then support a wire tap?
 
Damn Yankee said:
So its the number that's important, not the person?
Click to expand...

how could it not be? Not that I have a high respect for the efficiency of our intelligence agencies and FISA courts anyway, but how can one POSSIBLY monitor a suspected person overseas, see which phone they are going to use, know the number to that phone, call an official standing next to a FISA judge, get a warrant signed, then tap that line?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
how could it not be? Not that I have a high respect for the efficiency of our intelligence agencies and FISA courts anyway, but how can one POSSIBLY monitor a suspected person overseas, see which phone they are going to use, know the number to that phone, call an official standing next to a FISA judge, get a warrant signed, then tap that line?
Click to expand...
You can't, which is why there should be a standing warrant.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
how could it not be? Not that I have a high respect for the efficiency of our intelligence agencies and FISA courts anyway, but how can one POSSIBLY monitor a suspected person overseas, see which phone they are going to use, know the number to that phone, call an official standing next to a FISA judge, get a warrant signed, then tap that line?
Click to expand...

We are talking about terror suspects abroad, who's cell phone numbers we have intercepted, and we've been tracking their activity and conversations all over the world, but when they call someone in the USA, the ACLU is standing there wagging their finger in our face, saying it violates the 4th Amendment to listen to their call.

It's important to note, the 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and not reasonable ones. In this case, your 'privacy' can be 'searched or seized' because there is reason to believe you are consorting with a known terrorist. Because of the logistics you most accurately pointed out, it was necessary for our intelligence to tap first, and deal with the warrant later. I know you don't like that, I know that ticks off quite a few libertarian types, but that is the only "reasonable" way to gather accurate intelligence. The 4th Amendment was never intended to hamstring those charged with our security.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top