The LARK Program

Anything and everything goes here... post away!

Moderators: EatMoreLead, Nad, Suck.

User avatar
Kahuna Mas
Senior Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Feb 11th, 2004 at 9:57 am

Postby Kahuna Mas » Sep 29th, 2006 at 11:13 am

EatMoreLead wrote:Be careful of becoming the monster you are trying to slay - if we indefinitely suspend our laws and trample our civil rights just to fight terrorism, then terorism has already won. What makes us the "good guys" anyway? Because we have more money? Because we have better military? Or is it possibly because we value democratic systems, free speech, and civil rights? Some of you flag-waving, gun-toting, "kill em all" asshats need to remember the concepts our country was founded upon and a little document called the constitution. It is the only thing that gives us superioor moral ground, and if you toss the constitution out, you are no better than the enemy.


Our country was founded on bloodshed to protect the innocents (or at least in an attempt to)
The Civil War was bloodshed in order to protect the innocents (or at least an attempt to)
Might want to ask the Polish and German Jews what they felt about our tactics.

I think it is time to wake up and realize that this world is not the magical world of make-believe where we can simply lay down and allow someone to take power in hopes they will change their mind and leave.

These people believe in violence and support all actions of it. These people are willing to kill themselves in order to kill others. There is no room for comprimise in this type of logic. Responding with non-violent behavior will not change their mind given that violence is in their core set of beliefs.

Interestingly enough we had a situation similar to this in WWII. I am surprised you still choose to be a US citizen knowing we dropped 2 nukes on innocents in Japan. But you still live in freedom now partly because we did that. What is your feeling there?

I for one would love to find a peaceful solution to this, but am having a hard time finding it. At the end of the day however, we MUST find a solution... even if it is not the BEST solution.

The worst thing than a bad decisionmaker is NO decision maker. I challenge any naysayer to change thier stance and instead of pointing out the problems, begin pointing out the solutions.

User avatar
Jeng
Elite Member
Posts: 1360
Joined: Nov 16th, 2005 at 6:16 pm

Postby Jeng » Sep 29th, 2006 at 1:29 pm

Half ya'll ain't even responding to each other. Your responding to news reports and straw man arguments heard on talk radio.

Miracl3, your an idiot, stfu.

EML, I have no idea how your being so mis-understood, I think you laid it out pretty basic.
I really need to change this sig

User avatar
sgarissta
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Jun 4th, 2005 at 7:02 pm

Postby sgarissta » Sep 29th, 2006 at 1:53 pm

Kahuna Mas wrote:
EatMoreLead wrote:Be careful of becoming the monster you are trying to slay - if we indefinitely suspend our laws and trample our civil rights just to fight terrorism, then terorism has already won. What makes us the "good guys" anyway? Because we have more money? Because we have better military? Or is it possibly because we value democratic systems, free speech, and civil rights? Some of you flag-waving, gun-toting, "kill em all" asshats need to remember the concepts our country was founded upon and a little document called the constitution. It is the only thing that gives us superioor moral ground, and if you toss the constitution out, you are no better than the enemy.


Our country was founded on bloodshed to protect the innocents (or at least in an attempt to)

Really, the Revolutionary War was about protecting the innocents? Please, which "innocents" were we protecting? I thought it was a war about POLITICAL, and due to political policy religious freedom.
The Civil War was bloodshed in order to protect the innocents (or at least an attempt to)

Really? I think that's the first time I've ever heard the Civil War described as such. Please I'd love to hear more about this.
Might want to ask the Polish and German Jews what they felt about our tactics.

What, open warfare against an established army, in a time of war? If it isn't this, which "tactics" are you referring to?

I think it is time to wake up and realize that this world is not the magical world of make-believe where we can simply lay down and allow someone to take power in hopes they will change their mind and leave.


I think I know what you're getting at here, I too hope that we can oust the religious extremists from our Government, and return it to something concerned more with the rights and lives of it's citizens.

These people believe in violence and support all actions of it. These people are willing to kill themselves in order to kill others. There is no room for comprimise in this type of logic. Responding with non-violent behavior will not change their mind given that violence is in their core set of beliefs.

Please quantify and describe "these people", I'm a bit fuzzy on which ones you're referring to. And no "the terrorists" isn't defined enough.

Interestingly enough we had a situation similar to this in WWII. I am surprised you still choose to be a US citizen knowing we dropped 2 nukes on innocents in Japan. But you still live in freedom now partly because we did that. What is your feeling there?

I think it's one of the greatest underplayed tragedies in history, actually. And along with nuking Japan we held Japanese American citizens in "internment" camps, out of fear and racism. It's absolutely terrible.

I for one would love to find a peaceful solution to this, but am having a hard time finding it. At the end of the day however, we MUST find a solution... even if it is not the BEST solution.


Solution to what? You describe it as if there is a well-defined problem here, that we can just fix. It couldn't have anything to do with us randomly attacking prodominately Muslim countries, based on ever changing lies, could it? Or possibly our support (for the good or the bad) of the Israel? Oh, that probably wasn't what you meant was it...

The worst thing than a bad decisionmaker is NO decision maker. I challenge any naysayer to change thier stance and instead of pointing out the problems, begin pointing out the solutions.


Yes, the "great decider" has done us well so far, let him keep at it, stay the course. I'd love to have all the answers, sadly I'm not an expert in international policy or politics, nor do I have access to the sort of information required to make such statements. There are people who are SUPPOSED to have those credentials in the government, and somehow we're still here.

User avatar
sgarissta
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Jun 4th, 2005 at 7:02 pm

Postby sgarissta » Sep 29th, 2006 at 1:54 pm

Jeng wrote:Half ya'll ain't even responding to each other. Your responding to news reports and straw man arguments heard on talk radio.

Miracl3, your an idiot, stfu.

EML, I have no idea how your being so mis-understood, I think you laid it out pretty basic.

qft

User avatar
Kahuna Mas
Senior Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Feb 11th, 2004 at 9:57 am

Postby Kahuna Mas » Sep 29th, 2006 at 3:07 pm

A refresher from History 101:

Revloutionary war: fought to protect the innocents suffering from tyrany. more specifically taxation without representation

Civil war: I am guessing you don't view slaves as innocents?

WW2: Yes bombing Japan was tragic. I said that. But the end of the war was not. One helpd facilitate the other.

Religious extremists: I am reffering to anyone strapping a bomb to their body and commiting suicide in an attempt to kill / scare innocent civilians into bowing to their power.

As for a solution, I do not think its an easy solution. That's my point exactly. I am offering an opportunity for all those who bitch, complain, gripe, whine, and piddle about what the current administration is doing while offering no insight into what they think should be done.

Keep on bitching at or about someone for trying (even in the face of failure) when you yourself are doing NOTHING to help the situation.

Funny thing is I am by no means a Bush supporter, but I certainly don't see many of us here volunteering to make things better, excluding K2 of course.

User avatar
sgarissta
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Jun 4th, 2005 at 7:02 pm

Postby sgarissta » Sep 29th, 2006 at 4:03 pm

Kahuna Mas wrote:A refresher from History 101:

Revloutionary war: fought to protect the innocents suffering from tyrany. more specifically taxation without representation

Calling all the origanal settlers "innocents" is a stretch and you know it. And it was such obviously terrible tyranny that the British are still around, and doing well to this day...But yes, I'm glad it happened, but it wasn't about innocence.

Civil war: I am guessing you don't view slaves as innocents?

Any history class past elementary school should teach you that the Civil War was about a LOT more than slavery, but by all means keep believing that.

WW2: Yes bombing Japan was tragic. I said that. But the end of the war was not. One helpd facilitate the other.

Your grasp of the obvious is astounding. Nuking a country not once, but twice, helped facilitate the end of a war.

Religious extremists: I am reffering to anyone strapping a bomb to their body and commiting suicide in an attempt to kill / scare innocent civilians into bowing to their power.

What about just killing innocent civilians in an attempt to get them to bow to their power? Because we have quite a history of doing exactly that...(See: Vietnam, Hiroshima, Korea)

As for a solution, I do not think its an easy solution. That's my point exactly. I am offering an opportunity for all those who bitch, complain, gripe, whine, and piddle about what the current administration is doing while offering no insight into what they think should be done.

Keep on bitching at or about someone for trying (even in the face of failure) when you yourself are doing NOTHING to help the situation.

Welcome to America. And last I checked discussing the problems surrounding us, does not require anyone to present a solution, it's a discussion.

Funny thing is I am by no means a Bush supporter, but I certainly don't see many of us here volunteering to make things better, excluding K2 of course.


I have never once degraded, or otherwise demeaned those that ARE willing to go fight our battles for us. But I do reserve the right to judge the worthiness of the War as a whole.

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Sep 29th, 2006 at 4:31 pm

The civil wasn't about slavery, though it played a part, it wasn't about it. There were far, far more pressing issues

Burzum wrote:By we I mean the government. They've detained them because based on suspicion. But if our government thinks they're suspicious than lock 'em up! You think American's don't spend months on end behind bars waiting for a fair trial?


And Burzum, as you've just shown that you have no fucking clue how the US legal system operates, do yourself a favor and don't comment until you read up on it a little bit more.

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Sep 29th, 2006 at 5:18 pm

Also, for Miracle, the SCOTUS has rules that captives in the war on terror do fall under the Geneva convention.

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm ... /index.cfm

Now go back to your little holes ...

User avatar
ender*(gayless)
Senior Member
Posts: 504
Joined: Jan 19th, 2005 at 9:36 am

Postby ender*(gayless) » Sep 29th, 2006 at 6:12 pm

i'll drop any bomb necessary on the civilians of a country (japan) who was blatantly aggresive in their empirical aspirations, attacked us without a declaration of war, and was absolutely fanatical (sound familiar) in their devotion to their god (the emperor).

any bomb they want to drop, i'd be just fine with it as long as it keeps our men from having to invade.
ender will save us all

User avatar
Deleted User
*poof*
Posts: 7507
Joined: Jul 13th, 2006 at 3:41 am

Postby Deleted User » Sep 29th, 2006 at 6:35 pm

I'm not going to debate anyone's "points" directly.

But I will say this much: morality is a double-edged sword. If you live by a Christian moral code, at some point you are going to suffer at the hands of someone who's not Christian. If you choose to turn the other cheek, you will get slapped stupid. If you choose to retaliate, you violate the moral code you claim to adhere to, thus validating the negative views that your enemy holds of you. At some point you have to decide which is more important, being an ethical person who is respected, or being a hypocrite who is respected by no one.
And to what ends do we justify killing in revenge for fallen civilians? For the sake of vengeance? Or security? When one kills for revenge, then they rightfully deserve to die for the same vengeance, and the cycle is endless. When one kills and tramples on freedom in the name of security, what is the purpose? To live longer, so you can be old enough to be spoon-fed like an infant by someone half your age who also helps you take a piss because you're practically a cripple? Is that freedom? Or to raise your children in a safer world, where they have less to fear than you did and they become spoiled by the securities you've worked to provide.
Isn't it odd that we live in the country that has the highest rate of obesity, people constantly complain about frivolous lawsuits made by individuals who think our system should set them up for life because they had an insignificant accident that troubled them for a few weeks at most, and all of these things are a direct result of our nation becoming safer?
We have names for natural human responses like road rage, anxiety, and depression. And we have a cornucopia of pills to combat these natural responses. We have complaints every day about minor problems like being assaulted(which includes being spit on). We shame people for raising their children under physical forms of punishment because violence is so wrong(though we resort to violence to solve most global conflicts).
We have the technology to send people into space for research, to extend life to double the natural lifespan, to communicate with peoples of a completely different culture halfway around the globe, to travel the world over every week(if you can afford it). All of these great advancements we've made and in the past 150 years nothing has changed. We still have racism prevalent in every social class. We still try to say who can and cannot marry or have children. We still claim that every new advancement made will be the end of us all. Since the Civil War ended, we've done NOTHING but advance and complain about those advancements.
Each and every one of us attempts to enforce our own personal moral code on the rest of the world saying things like, "some people are too stupid to vote," or, "we must protect the rights of those who are unable to protect themselves." We do these things without thinking of the ultimate consequences because we believe we are right. We do these things in a vain attempt to make the world better, and in the past 150 years nothing has changed in this country, aside from everyone becoming a bit whinier and quicker to condemn those they've never met.

So, if you read that, ask yourself this: What is the fucking point?
I've been deleted!!

User avatar
EatMoreLead
Benefactor
Posts: 4406
Joined: Sep 17th, 2002 at 11:59 pm

Postby EatMoreLead » Sep 30th, 2006 at 11:38 am

Kahuna Mas wrote:
EatMoreLead wrote:Be careful of becoming the monster you are trying to slay - if we indefinitely suspend our laws and trample our civil rights just to fight terrorism, then terorism has already won. What makes us the "good guys" anyway? Because we have more money? Because we have better military? Or is it possibly because we value democratic systems, free speech, and civil rights? Some of you flag-waving, gun-toting, "kill em all" asshats need to remember the concepts our country was founded upon and a little document called the constitution. It is the only thing that gives us superioor moral ground, and if you toss the constitution out, you are no better than the enemy.


Our country was founded on bloodshed to protect the innocents (or at least in an attempt to)
The Civil War was bloodshed in order to protect the innocents (or at least an attempt to)
Might want to ask the Polish and German Jews what they felt about our tactics.

I think it is time to wake up and realize that this world is not the magical world of make-believe where we can simply lay down and allow someone to take power in hopes they will change their mind and leave.

These people believe in violence and support all actions of it. These people are willing to kill themselves in order to kill others. There is no room for comprimise in this type of logic. Responding with non-violent behavior will not change their mind given that violence is in their core set of beliefs.

Interestingly enough we had a situation similar to this in WWII. I am surprised you still choose to be a US citizen knowing we dropped 2 nukes on innocents in Japan. But you still live in freedom now partly because we did that. What is your feeling there?

I for one would love to find a peaceful solution to this, but am having a hard time finding it. At the end of the day however, we MUST find a solution... even if it is not the BEST solution.

The worst thing than a bad decisionmaker is NO decision maker. I challenge any naysayer to change thier stance and instead of pointing out the problems, begin pointing out the solutions.


Sigh, this is why political debate on hf is a waste. Kahuna you are (edit)ACTING LIKE an idiot. Where did I ever say I propose non-violent means to overcome terrorism? I am saying that we fight within the bounds of our laws and give our enemies the same rights we give our citizens to due process. From my understanding of WWII, there were plenty of actions that broke laws (OSS specifically), but in general we treated our enemies well and the soliders who fought could proudly say that we "fought the good fight". Winning the war on terror by suspending civil liberties on US soil, by torturing and indefinitely holding "enemy combantants" without a trial makes us as bad as them. If you are so eager to fight dirty and kill people without casue, how about YOU LEAVE.
Last edited by EatMoreLead on Oct 1st, 2006 at 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
EatMoreLead aka EML

User avatar
Jeng
Elite Member
Posts: 1360
Joined: Nov 16th, 2005 at 6:16 pm

Postby Jeng » Oct 1st, 2006 at 1:48 pm

Kahuna Mas wrote:The worst thing than a bad decisionmaker is NO decision maker. I challenge any naysayer to change thier stance and instead of pointing out the problems, begin pointing out the solutions.


You can't start working out the solutions till you understand the problem. And those who are the decision makers in this issue deny that there are problems.

And in regards to a bad decisionmaker being worse than a No decision maker, I think Rumsfield clearly disproves that. Considering how many times he has tried to resign its possible he might even agree.
I really need to change this sig

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Oct 2nd, 2006 at 8:18 am

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:The civil wasn't about slavery, though it played a part, it wasn't about it. There were far, far more pressing issues

Burzum wrote:By we I mean the government. They've detained them because based on suspicion. But if our government thinks they're suspicious than lock 'em up! You think American's don't spend months on end behind bars waiting for a fair trial?


And Burzum, as you've just shown that you have no fucking clue how the US legal system operates, do yourself a favor and don't comment until you read up on it a little bit more.


I see insults but no valid rebuttal. When you have something useful to say, please post. Until then STFU.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Oct 2nd, 2006 at 10:00 am

oh, sorry, I just figured your first post was too moronic to justify a rebuttal, but since you asked kindly ...

The US does not just put people behind bars while waiting for a free trial. Those people have been assigned a public defender and have gone before a judge who has either set bail or denied it - but the person HAS gone before a judge and has been accused of something.

Then, if bail has been set, the accused can post bail or not, it's up to him whether or not he has the means.

The Government can only hold a person for 48 hours without charging him. Also, the people in Gitmo aren't waiting for a "fair trial" as you pointed out, they haven't been charged with anything.

Once a person has been charged the Government has 100 days (federal crimes) to bring him trial or the charges should be dropped.

Here's a link to learn some more: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/l ... iminal.htm
Appearance Before a Magistrate

After a suspect is arrested for a crime, he or she is booked at the police station; that is, the facts surrounding the arrest are recorded and the accused may be fingerprinted and photographed. Next the accused appears before a lower-level judicial official whose title may be judge, magistrate, or commissioner. Such an appearance is supposed to occur "without unnecessary delay";
...
The Sixth Amendment says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." The Founders emphasized the word speedy so that an accused would not languish in prison for a long time prior to the trial or have the determination of his or her fate put off for an unduly long period of time.
...
The act mandated time limits, ultimately reaching 100 days, within which criminal charges must either be brought to trial or dismissed. Most states have similar measures on the statute books, although the precise time period varies from one jurisdiction to another. By "public trial" the Founders meant to discourage the notion of secret proceedings whereby an accused could be tried without public knowledge and whisked off to some unknown detention camp.


The US Government SHOULD NOT just go around locking up people they feel is suspicious. That takes us down a slippery slope we don't want to go down.

Now you please STFU. Then again, if you actually knew what you were talking about these threads wouldn't be nearly as fun ...

wasn't there a thread that you claimed to have a genius IQ?

User avatar
Best_predator
Banished to Siberia
Posts: 2786
Joined: Dec 21st, 2004 at 5:40 pm

Postby Best_predator » Oct 2nd, 2006 at 10:43 am

roffle @ genius IQ.
I got like 165 on those online IQ tests and i cant even speak english.
Sneaky bastard...
"Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do." ~ Goethe

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Oct 2nd, 2006 at 1:32 pm

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:oh, sorry, I just figured your first post was too moronic to justify a rebuttal, but since you asked kindly ...

The US does not just put people behind bars while waiting for a free trial. Those people have been assigned a public defender and have gone before a judge who has either set bail or denied it - but the person HAS gone before a judge and has been accused of something.

Then, if bail has been set, the accused can post bail or not, it's up to him whether or not he has the means.

The Government can only hold a person for 48 hours without charging him. Also, the people in Gitmo aren't waiting for a "fair trial" as you pointed out, they haven't been charged with anything.

Once a person has been charged the Government has 100 days (federal crimes) to bring him trial or the charges should be dropped.

Here's a link to learn some more: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/l ... iminal.htm
Appearance Before a Magistrate

After a suspect is arrested for a crime, he or she is booked at the police station; that is, the facts surrounding the arrest are recorded and the accused may be fingerprinted and photographed. Next the accused appears before a lower-level judicial official whose title may be judge, magistrate, or commissioner. Such an appearance is supposed to occur "without unnecessary delay";
...
The Sixth Amendment says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." The Founders emphasized the word speedy so that an accused would not languish in prison for a long time prior to the trial or have the determination of his or her fate put off for an unduly long period of time.
...
The act mandated time limits, ultimately reaching 100 days, within which criminal charges must either be brought to trial or dismissed. Most states have similar measures on the statute books, although the precise time period varies from one jurisdiction to another. By "public trial" the Founders meant to discourage the notion of secret proceedings whereby an accused could be tried without public knowledge and whisked off to some unknown detention camp.


The US Government SHOULD NOT just go around locking up people they feel is suspicious. That takes us down a slippery slope we don't want to go down.

Now you please STFU. Then again, if you actually knew what you were talking about these threads wouldn't be nearly as fun ...

wasn't there a thread that you claimed to have a genius IQ?


There we go. I was waiting for you to actually back one of your statements unlike your previous post. I still don't understand why you feel the need to hurl insults to make yourself feel smarter. Oh well...

If you want to claim that America's judicial system is perfect then go ahead and show your ignorance. If you kill someone in self-defense, even when it's justifiable, you'll find yourself tied up in the court system for years. You can post bail but talk about a hit. Who wants to drop $20,000 to get out of jail when you shouldn't even be there?! Like I said our judicial system is screwed up. So why should these terrorists be privy to special treatment that American citizens don't even get? <insert impression of liberals crying about how these poor sweet terrorists are kept away from their loved ones>

All this crap is because the liberal media and their mindless followers, like you, want to come up with anything and everything that you can to crush America. It disgusts me to see you and the rest of the liberals pulling out all the stops on bringing us down. The world isn't full of unicorns, rainbows and puppies. Terrorists don't want to be your friend. They're only interested in slaughtering our women and raping our cattle.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Oct 2nd, 2006 at 3:15 pm

Burzum wrote:There we go. I was waiting for you to actually back one of your statements unlike your previous post. I still don't understand why you feel the need to hurl insults to make yourself feel smarter. Oh well...

I don't need to hurl insults to make myself feel smarter, all I have to do is read your posts.

Burzum wrote:If you want to claim that America's judicial system is perfect then go ahead and show your ignorance.

You show your ignorance. Where did I say it was perfect? I just said that you obviously don't know how the legal system works. Then I proved it (making YOU look like the ignorant one).

Burzum wrote:If you kill someone in self-defense, even when it's justifiable, you'll find yourself tied up in the court system for years.

Nope. Not always. If it's apparent that it was self-defense and that the person was the legal owner fo the weapon, etc. etc. then they won't even press charges. If there is some doubt, though, then there will be an investigation.

Burzum wrote:You can post bail but talk about a hit. Who wants to drop $20,000 to get out of jail when you shouldn't even be there?!

Again, here is your genius IQ rearing it's big ol head. First off, you get it back when you show up to trial. Secondly, there are bondsmen, surety bonds, and property bonds that mean you only have to put up a small % of the bail or nothing at all.

Burzum wrote:Like I said our judicial system is screwed up. So why should these terrorists be privy to special treatment that American citizens don't even get? <insert impression of liberals crying about how these poor sweet terrorists are kept away from their loved ones>

EML has posted quite a few times about what gives us our moral authority/moral highground - you should read some of his posts. To sacrifice that is to lose what makes us American, what makes this a Democracy, and what seperates US from THEM.

Also, it's been decided that the terrorist detainees DO fall under the Geneva Convention so, my dear little impudent strumpet, technically what we're doing is a WAR CRIME.

Burzum wrote:All this crap is because the liberal media and their mindless followers, like you, want to come up with anything and everything that you can to crush America. It disgusts me to see you and the rest of the liberals pulling out all the stops on bringing us down.

Oh? Liberals are the threat?

"You guys won't like it but I personally wouldn't mind seeing Theocracy given a fair chance. " - Burzum (from another thread)

You need to do some SERIOUS self-analysis and shift your paradigm.

Also, I really like how you won't admit that you know shit about the legal system when I "refuted" your baseless claims and, instead of adressing my points (which I guess technically you wouldn't be able to), you fly off shrieking about how liberals are ruining this country.

To recap, this is what you think:
- The Government should have the right to detain suspects THEY deem suspicious, without a trial, for as long as they want.
- Theocracy should be given a chance.
- You have a Genius IQ.

I only drug the old stuff back up because you seem to think that my views threaten democracy while, clearly, most level-headed people would think that YOU are the threat.

It seems to me like you're the threat to Democracy and the American Ideal, not me.

User avatar
Miracl3
Senior Member
Posts: 596
Joined: Mar 25th, 2006 at 8:51 am

Postby Miracl3 » Oct 2nd, 2006 at 7:35 pm

To sacrifice that is to lose what makes us American, what makes this a Democracy, and what seperates US from THEM.

rofl if u think this country is a true Democracy then your the one who's intellectually challenged. Starting to lean more towards a Republic in the sense the only thing we vote on is elected official and local law. The only national elections held are for the big boys in washington and etc. I never got to vote on whether we should enter Iraq or any other big decision. My State "representatives" and Senators did all the voting for me. And its funny to see what these guys would rather us spend our tax money on.

The term democracy indicates a form of government where all the state's decisions are exercised directly or indirectly by a majority of its citizenry through a fair elective process. When these factors are met a government can be classified as such. This can apply to a multitude of government systems as these concepts transcend and often occur concomitantly with other types.


a republic is a state or country that is led by people whose political power is based on principles that are not beyond the control of the people of that state or country. Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic.



EDIT: And another thing..why should Sixth Amendment apply to them? The only reason they become citizens is to complete their mission. Hell i bet they dont even know the fucking amendments.
Image
Image

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Oct 2nd, 2006 at 8:52 pm

*Technically* we are a democracy:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
5 results for: democracy
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
de‧moc‧ra‧cy  /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.


If you want to call me on something, fine, but at least double check to make sure you're correct first, because you're the one that comes out looking like a tard :)

Also, I never said we were a pure democracy and, if you had the reading comprehension, you would see that what you quoted directly supports my statement.

So, according to the dictionary (as well as what you yourself posted), YOU are the intellectually challenged one.

But you are a correct, we are a representative republic.

User avatar
Miracl3
Senior Member
Posts: 596
Joined: Mar 25th, 2006 at 8:51 am

Postby Miracl3 » Oct 2nd, 2006 at 9:17 pm

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:*Technically* we are a democracy:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
5 results for: democracy
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
de‧moc‧ra‧cy  /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.


If you want to call me on something, fine, but at least double check to make sure you're correct first, because you're the one that comes out looking like a tard :)

Also, I never said we were a pure democracy and, if you had the reading comprehension, you would see that what you quoted directly supports my statement.

So, according to the dictionary (as well as what you yourself posted), YOU are the intellectually challenged one.

But you are a correct, we are a representative republic.

rofl Well if ur gonna call it a Democracy make sure u label it as what it is. Only Democracy by labeling. Still arent free as a pure democracy. Its people like you who fight for rights of terrorists. People that should be shot dead on the spot...you root for. "Yeah give em rights along with a nice glass of Koolaid" I say we give them freedoms right along with a swift shock in the temples until intel is gathered from them them dispose of them. But its tree hugging hippes who want them to have rights. And btw u never responded about the 6th amendment? And where the fuck do u see political and social equality? Fucking get real...has never been equality and never will be. Rofl Canada is more of a democracy then US. I wanna know why u think 6th amendment should apply to
any terrorist groups. WoW would you be willing to give them a foot massage in order to ease their day or something? You people are too soft...or at least pup n sgar. Im tired of getting fucked by terrorists. I guess maybe the UK shouldnt have legalized profiling. Thats wrong too i guess. rofl
Image

Image

User avatar
Deleted User
*poof*
Posts: 7507
Joined: Jul 13th, 2006 at 3:41 am

Postby Deleted User » Oct 2nd, 2006 at 9:56 pm

One word for you guys: oligarchy.

Besides, America was founded on terrorism and oppression. Revolutionary War, the British viewed our military as nothing but terrorists. We never fought an official battle by the standards of battle at the time, thus we were terrorists in the King's eyes.
Slavery and Native Americans, I don't think I should have to explain those two.
Why should things be any different now? :roll:
I've been deleted!!

User avatar
Jeng
Elite Member
Posts: 1360
Joined: Nov 16th, 2005 at 6:16 pm

Postby Jeng » Oct 2nd, 2006 at 10:02 pm

Technically we are representative democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Representative democracy is a form of democracy founded on the exercise of popular sovereignty by the people's representatives. The representatives act in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representative—i.e., not necessarily always according to their voters' wishes, but with enough authority to exercise initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where the representatives are absent or only proxy representatives

The representatives are usually chosen by voters in free, secret, multi-party elections. While existing representative democracies hold such elections to choose the representatives, in theory other methods, such as sortition, could be used instead.

As a representative democracy involves significant powers given to the legislators, there are usually constitutional (as in a constitutional republic or a constitutional monarchy) or have other measures to balance representative power:
I really need to change this sig

User avatar
Deleted User
*poof*
Posts: 7507
Joined: Jul 13th, 2006 at 3:41 am

Postby Deleted User » Oct 2nd, 2006 at 10:07 pm

Oligarchy.
I've been deleted!!

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Oct 2nd, 2006 at 10:09 pm

Miracle .. did you graduate HS? Because I'm really beginning to doubt that you did ... I never said that the detainees held in Guantanamo should receive 6th Amendment rights (and whether I do or don't I haven't stated my opininion on that matter), I only mentioned the Sixth Amendment to Burzum because he doesn't comprehend how the US legal system works.

As for the detainees, they apparently DO fall under the Geneva Convention and, as such, should be afforded the due process provided by the convention we agreed to.

Yeah, I know you said that they don't fall under the Geneva Convention but, your own uniformed and obtuse opinions aside, they do. Now go crawl back under a hole :)

User avatar
Jeng
Elite Member
Posts: 1360
Joined: Nov 16th, 2005 at 6:16 pm

Postby Jeng » Oct 2nd, 2006 at 10:38 pm

Benedict wrote:Oligarchy.


Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where most or all political power effectively rests with a small segment of society (typically the most powerful, whether by wealth, family, military strength, or political influence). The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγον óligon) and "rule" (ἄρχω arkho). Some political theorists have argued that all governments are inevitably oligarchies no matter the supposed political system.


Your splitting hairs.

Although those who have more money tend to sway our representative democracy more than those of us without, it is still a representative democracy even if it has oligarchy tendencies.
I really need to change this sig


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests