|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
09-12-2006, 01:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You said that people aren't arrested if they are obeying the law. Well, I found a ton of articles that say that the government has been arresting protesters unconstitutionally. Here are just a few... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112302185.html http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050...5611-3029r.htm http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/...lders+kept+out http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316 Here are also some other articles on how people are starting to fight back. Even state attorney's are finding fault in the government and are starting to talk up about. The fact is that the government is infringing on our rights. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...s-Lawsuit.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/us/08liberties.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/op...c7a&ei=5087%0A http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/wa...8prexycnd.html Also... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/us/12bush.html How do you beat these people... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/wo.../12afghan.html Here are the articles about the two women who were arrested at Cedar Rapids...they were teachers... http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...otesters_x.htm http://www.blogforiowa.com/blog/_arc.../7/136478.html http://www.drudge.com/news/83680/arr...protesters-sue Here is the Jose Padillo case... http://www.chargepadilla.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%...d_terrorist%29 http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...amiherald_news He didn't do anything bad, he only was planning on detonating a "dirty bomb" in a major US city to try to kill a few-hundred thousand people. This statement that you said earlier is very false. They have no evidence out that whatsoever as stated in the last link above. Last edited by kentuckyrosesinmay : 09-12-2006 at 01:59 PM. 
|
|
#2
09-12-2006, 02:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
are you taking some kind of class?
|
|
#3
09-12-2006, 02:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
09-12-2006, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You say that it is false that Padilla planned on detonating a dirty bomb? I'd like to see where you came up with that. There are tons of witnesses that have said he was planning to do that and I believe he even admitted it himself. Granted the plan was in the very early stages and he hadn't obtained radioactive materials yet. Just because he wasn't charged with this specific plot, that does not mean that there was no such plot. They have a ton of things that they are charging him with. He will probably receive multiple lfe sentences. They don't need to charge him with that specific plan. They would rather charge with things that are even easier to prove. There have been serial killers that murdered 40 people. They aren't always charged with all 40 murders. If the police have their strongest evidence in 20 of the cases and the guy is only charged in those 20 cases, it hardly mean that he is innocent in the other 20. That's basically the case with Padilla. They have such strong evidence against him on multiple charges that they probably won't charge him specifically with the "dirty bomb" plot because it was in the early stages and it is a harder case to prove than the other charges that will be brought against him.
|
|
#5
09-12-2006, 09:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you read those articles carefully about the protesters Rupert, you would have noticed that the lawmakers set up those laws specifically against those protesters. They had protested a year before, so they made up some BS law, so that when they protested in the same spot the next year, they got arrested. Also, what about the two women (you were schoolteachers) that were taken to jail, strip searched, and not charged? What about the people who were charged and the charges were dropped? Again, you are not acknowledging the facts that our government is infringing on citizen's constitutional rights. You are so biased to your opinion that you cannot see that. About Padilla, it may just be a cover up as to why they didn't charge him with that. From reading all of the articles that I have, it does sound awfully suspicious. They are all just allegations anyway, although they are probably correct allegations. Nothing is set in stone yet. I have not seen any evidence about exactly what he was doing and how he was found to be plotting a dirty bomb. If you can find some concrete evidence that he to the contrary, please post it. I don't agree with abrupt radical change, but I would at least like the government to follow the U.S. Constitution. That is all I want. Follow the U.S. Constitution. If they aren't following the U.S. Constitution in every aspect, then they are infringing on citizen's rights. I guess that asking the Bush administration and Congress to follow the great U.S. Constitution, the very thing that defines us as a country, is just too much...The government is changing way too many things. Miami Herald "Those charges do not mention the ''dirty bomb'' allegations and one of them -- that Padilla and his codefendants conspired to ``murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country''-- was thrown out in August by Cooke because it duplicated allegations made in other charges." Last edited by kentuckyrosesinmay : 09-12-2006 at 10:12 PM.
|
|
#6
09-12-2006, 11:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'll give my opinion on what is unconstitutional. They wanted to open a Wal-Mart in Los Angeles but I believe it was the County Board of Supervisors who wouldn't allow it because the unions were against it. Now that goes against everything this country is all about. To tell someone that they can't open a business? To me that is unconstiutional. How could someone not be allowed to open a business? The "Founding Fathers" would be turning in thier graves over that. The Founding Fathers would have no problem with the Patriot Act. The government's most important role above anything is to keep us safe from attack. If you look at the pros and the cons of the Patriot Act, the pros far outweigh the cons. You talked about our rights being infringed upon. If you have terrorists blowing up buidings and airplanes all the time, that is a far greater infringement on our liberty than anything that the government has done through the Patriot Act. If we are not safe to get on an airplane, if it is not safe to go to New York city, if it is not safe to go on a train, then we have no freedom at all. If there was no Patriot Act, there would have probably been a few more 9/11 type attacks. People would be scared to death to travel in their own country. Now that would be a great infringement on our civi liberties. When it is too dangerous to even go to a sporting event because of the fear of a terrorist attack, then we have no freedom at all. Thankfully it hasn't gotten to that point. Because of the Patriot Act, we haven't had any more terrorist attacks and people feel relatively safe. You can ask anyone in law enforcement and they will tell you that the Patriot Act is directly responsible for foiling numerous terrorist attacks. The Constitution is the means to an end. It is not an end in itself. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Do you have any common sense? Even the Forefathers recognized this and allowed Congress to make ammendments to the Constitution if neccessary. Congress also has the authority to make laws. They passed the Patriot Act and it has not been overturned. If it was unconsitutional, the Supreme Court would have overturned it. It is lucky that you are not in charge because you appear to have no common sense. Luckily for us, the vast majority of our Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle agree with me and that is why the Patriot Act has overwhelming bipartisan support. Just in the last year, it passed the Senate by a vote of 89-11 or something like that. Do you know something that the US Senate doesn't know? What are they missing? They're not missing anything. They get it. You clearly don't get it. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 09-12-2006 at 11:14 PM.
|
|
#7
09-12-2006, 11:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jessica, I have a question for you. Are you against being searched at the airport? I mean isn't that against the Constitution? How can they search you? There is no probable cause.
I mean technically you could argue that being searched at the airport is unconstitutional. If you want to go by the letter of the law, being searched at the airport is probably unconsititutional. But nobody with any common sense is going to complain about being searched at the airport. sure it's an inconvenience but it is absolutely neccessary. It would be too dangerous if they didn't search you. The Founding Fathers would have no problem with people being searched at the airport. As I said before, the Constitution is not a sudiced pact. It's not an end in itself. It's a means to an end. When deciding whether or not something is constitutional, the most important thing to ask yourself is whether the spirit of the Constitution has been violated. The sprit of the law is what is important. The letter of the law is not important. That is why it is permissable for them to search you at the airport. Even though you could ague that that being searched at the airport is a violation of the letter of the law of the Cosnstitution, it is not a violation of the spirit of the law. That is what really matters. The same can be said about the Patriot Act. When they search you at the airport, they're not doing it to get a cheap thrill. They're not doing it to harrass people. They're doing it to protect us.
|
|
#8
09-12-2006, 11:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
So again. We are back to the fine line between the rights of individuals and the rights and protection of our society as a whole.
|
|
#9
09-13-2006, 12:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I persoanlly have thought about these issues very carfeully. I think that what the government has done is a no-brainer just like I think that searching people at the airport is a no-brainer. In both cases, the pros far outweigh the cons. It's that simple.
|
|
#10
09-13-2006, 05:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
i hold a CDL license, by signing that line on the paper, i agreed to be randomly drug tested at any time. to me that's an invasion of privacy....but who is going to say for example, that a school bus driver shouldn't be randomly tested, since the lives of the children on the bus, and others on the road, could be at stake... i do think that it has gone too far, i don't agree with drug testing kids at schools. but then, i don't see why pro sports test their athletes. what safety issue is there with a free safety smoking marijuana? i don't think it's the leagues place to do that. you could go on and on with this subject, everyone could find examples of laws they do or don't agree with. just like i could put up stupid quotes from both ultra right and ultra left wing zealot/fanatics. neither extreme side has much to offer regarding intelligent conversation. you can't discuss things with people who have a very narrow mindset. as the famous saying went-freedom of speech doesn't mean you can yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre.
|
|
#11
09-13-2006, 08:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Rupert,
No, I am not against searching people at the airport because flying is a privilege not a right. The plane is not mine, the airport is not mine, so I abide to their rules. If I didn't like being searched, then I would use another means of transportation, like my car. Of course the Constitution is not concrete. We have built upon and added Amendents throughout the history of this country. There is a lot to left to be interpreted. However, the government is drifting too far away from it. Also, here is the article on the two women that taken to jail and strip searched. Read the article and tell me just what they did wrong. They didn't do anything wrong even though the security people said that they did. That is why they are sueing and why the judge dropped their charges. (I took a few things out at the very beginning of the article because I had to many characters, but here is the website) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...otesters_x.htm CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) — Their reward: a pair of handcuffs and a strip search at the county jail. Authorities say they were arrested because they refused to obey reasonable security restrictions, but the women disagree: "Because I had a dissenting opinion, they did what they needed to do to get me out of the way," said Nelson, who teaches history and government at one of this city's middle schools. Their experience is hardly unique. In the months before the 2004 election, dozens of people across the nation were banished from or arrested at Bush political rallies, some for heckling the president, others simply for holding signs or wearing clothing that expressed opposition to the war and administration policies. Similar things have happened at official, taxpayer-funded, presidential visits, before and after the election. Some targeted by security have been escorted from events, while others have been arrested and charged with misdemeanors that were later dropped by local prosecutors. Now, in federal courthouses from Charleston, W.Va., to Denver, federal officials and state and local authorities are being forced to defend themselves against lawsuits challenging the arrests and security policies. While the circumstances differ, the cases share the same fundamental themes. Generally, they accuse federal officials of developing security measures to identify, segregate, deny entry or expel dissenters. Jeff Rank and his wife, Nicole, filed a lawsuit after being handcuffed and booted from a July 4, 2004, appearance by the president at the West Virginia Capitol in Charleston. The Ranks, who now live in Corpus Christi, Texas, had free tickets to see the president speak, but contend they were arrested and charged with trespassing for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts. "It's nothing more than an attempt by the president and his staff to suppress free speech," said Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU of West Virginia, which is providing legal services for the Ranks. "What happened to the Ranks, and so many others across the country, was clearly an incident of viewpoint discrimination. And the lawsuit is an attempt to make the administration accountable for what we believe were illegal actions," Schneider said. In Cedar Rapids, McCabe and Nelson are suing three unnamed Secret Service agents, the Iowa State Patrol and two county sheriff deputies who took part in their arrest. Nelson and McCabe, who now lives in Memphis, accuse law enforcement of violating their right to free speech, assembly and equal protection. The two women say they were political novices, inexperienced at protest and unprepared for what happened on Sept. 3, 2004. Soon after arriving at Noelridge Park, a sprawling urban playground dotted with softball diamonds and a public pool, McCabe and Nelson were approached by Secret Service agents in polo shirts and Bermuda shorts. They were told that the Republicans had rented the park and they would have to move because the sidewalk was now considered private property. McCabe and Nelson say they complied, but moments later were again told to move, this time across the street. After being told to move a third time, Nelson asked why she was being singled out while so many others nearby, including those holding buckets for campaign donations, were ignored. In response, she says, they were arrested. They were charged with criminal trespass, but the charges were later dropped. A spokesman for the Secret Service declined to comment on pending litigation or answer questions on security policy for presidential events. White House spokesman Alex Conant also declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation. But Justice Department lawyers, in documents filed recently in federal court in Cedar Rapids, outline security at the rally and defend the Secret Service agents' actions. They contend the GOP obtained exclusive rights to use the park and that donation takers were ignored because they were an authorized part of the event. They also say McCabe and Nelson were disobedient, repeatedly refusing agents' orders to move. "At no time did any political message expressed by the two women play any role in how (the agents) treated them," they wrote. "All individuals ... subject to security restrictions either complied with the security restrictions or were arrested for refusing to comply." Defenders say stricter policies are a response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and a small price for ensuring the safety of a world leader in an era of heightened suspicion and uncertainty. But Leslie Weise says law enforcers are violating citizens' rights to voice objections within earshot of the president. Last year, in Denver, Weise and two friends were evicted from a Bush town hall meeting on Social Security reform. Weise, a 40-year-old environmental lawyer who is now a stay-at-home mother, opposes the war in Iraq and the administration's energy policies. Like friends Alex Young and Karen Bauer, Weise did some volunteer work for the Kerry campaign. In the days before Bush's March 2005 town hall meeting, the trio toyed briefly with the notion of actively protesting the visit. But they said they decided against it because they had heard of arrests at Bush appearances in North Dakota and Arizona. After parking Weise's car, the three, dressed in professional attire and holding tickets obtained from their local congressman, arrived at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum. Young cleared security, but Weise and Bauer were briefly detained and told by staff they had been "identified" and would be arrested if they tried "any funny stuff," according to court records. After finding their seats, they were approached again by staff and removed before Bush began speaking. Days later, Weise learned from Secret Service in Denver that a bumper sticker on her green Saab hatchback — "No More Blood for Oil" — caught the attention of security. "I had every reason to attend that event, just as anyone else in the room had that day," said Weise. "If we raised security to a higher level just because we had an opinion different from the administration, I think that goes far beyond what is appropriate for this country." Lawsuits by protesters are not always embraced by the courts. In Pennsylvania, a federal judge dismissed a suit challenging the arrests of six men who stripped down to thongs and formed a pyramid to protest the Abu Ghraib scandal when Bush paid a visit to Lancaster. Such efforts to segregate or diminish dissent are hardly new to American politics. The ACLU has sued several presidents over attempts to silence opposition, as in 1997, when President Clinton tried to prevent protesters from lining his inaugural parade route. And during the tumultuous 1960s, it was not uncommon for hecklers and protesters to be whisked away or managed at a distance from rallies and events. "In my mind, it all started with Nixon. He was the first presidential candidate to really make an effort to control their image and disrupt public interruption at events," said Cary Covington, a political science professor at the University of Iowa. But political experts say the 2004 Bush campaign rewrote the playbook for organizing campaign rallies. At the Republican National Convention in New York City and at other campaign stops, security segregated protesters in designated "free speech zones" set up at a significant distance from each rally. To get into events headlined by Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney, supporters were required to obtain tickets through GOP channels or sign loyalty oaths. Political experts agree Bush 2004 went to greater lengths than Kerry officials — or any past campaign — to choreograph a seamless, partisan rally free of the embarrassing moments that attract media attention. Gone are the days of candidates facing down hecklers or reacting to distractions like, the man who donned a chicken costume and pestered George H.W. Bush in 1991 after he balked at Bill Clinton's invitations to debate. Anthony Corrado, a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution, said ticket-only events are an effective tool for rewarding legions of volunteers who work the phone banks, raise money and build support. "In my view, the Republicans did a much better job of linking field volunteers with their schedule and events," Corrado said. "I had never seen it done to the extent it was on 2004 on the Republican side. And my guess is we'll probably see a lot more of it all."
|
|
#12
09-13-2006, 12:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
First I want to repsond to Oracle's post. I agree with Oracle 100%. I agree with everything he said. He actually took the words right out my mouth.
In response to Jessica's post, I think the most important part of the whole article were these quotes, "Such efforts to segregate or diminish dissent are hardly new to American politics. The ACLU has sued several Presidents over attempts to silence opposition, as in 1997, when President Clinton tried to prevent protesters from lining his inaugural parade route." This has been going on for years. This is nothing new. I'm not necessarily in favor of it. It just depends on the circumstances of the event. I volunteered for a candidate running for Mayor of Los Angeles several years ago. His opponent was giving a speech in a small room at a local health clinic. I went there and was considering protesting. The people putting on the event figured out that I was not a supporter of this candidate. If I would have started yelling or protesting during his speech, it would have been very disruptive. They made me promise that I would behave myself. If I didn't promise that I would behave myself, I would have been asked to leave. I had no problem with this. The truth of the matter is it would have been completely inappropriate for me to disrupt his speech. They didn't even need to make me promise to behave. When I saw the setting, I could see how disruptive and inappropriate it would have been for me to yell or anything like that. I would never have the nerve to do something like that. With regard to your having no problem with being searched at the airport, then that means that you agree that we don't need to follow the Constitution to a "T". The airport is a public place. Technically they should not search you if they don't have probable cause. We all know that it is very important for them to search everyone at the airport in the times we live in, regardles of the wording of the Constitution. I'm glad you agree with me about that. With regard to the two women who were arrested, how can you say that they didn't do anything wrong? You weren't there. You don't know what happened. I don't either. The article doesn't give any details. Authorities say the women refused to obey reasonable security restrictions. The women disagree. I don't know all the facts but from the small amount of information that I have, I would tend to believe the authorities. If the authorities were arrresting everyone with dissenting opinions, how come those two women were the only ones arrested? I'm sure they were mouthing off or something. I don't know what the exact laws are but I do know that it's not very smart to mouth off to cops. If you start swearing at a cop or calling him names, there is probably a good chance that you will be arrested. I'm not even talking about political rallies. I'm talking about any situation when you deal with police. If they give you some type of order and you disobey it or you mouth off to them, there is a good chance you will arrested. There is also a good chance that the charges will be dropped.
|
|
#13
09-13-2006, 01:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
All of the arrests cited were made by Secret Service agents ... or by law enforcement authorities working in conjunction with them. Protecting the U.S President ... and other important office holders ... is a very serious responsibility ... always has been ... and is especially so in these days of terrorism ... regardless of who the president and office holders are. The Secret Service isn't sacrosanct ... anyone can file a complaint against them ... and some actually do ... but I know of no instance ... and you haven't cited any ... of their agents being penalized or upbraided by any court for infringing on citizens' rights. When you have a headline which says, "Secret Service Agent Arrested/Fired/Fined For Civil Rights Violation" ... please post it here.
|
|
#14
09-16-2006, 01:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Holy cow; so many good posts I can't keep them all in my head... my first thoughts...
I don't think you get searched at the airport; I think you get searched as you go on the plane. I've never been searched entering an airport. So I don't quite buy the "searched in a public place" argument you presented to Kentucky, Rupert. I asked myself about getting searched in museums, but you pay to go to museums, so I'm not sure where that falls... BB, I cited in my earlier post the names of the two main authors of the PATRIOT Act. If you find different info, indicating someone else were the main authors, please post it, rather than saying mean things about me. I find it odd that anyone would think the Iraqis should be "happy" about our intervention. Whatever Saddam did in the early '90s, 43,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion. Mothers, fathers, children. Do we really think, regardless of what the long-term outcome may be that they are "happy" about 43,000 (and that's a lowball estimate) of their people dead? Whether this Iraq thing will turn out to have been good or one of the US's greatest follys, I don't know. But I don't expect the Iraqis to be happy or grateful for 43,000 dead because of US intervention, regardless of the outcome. Cajun, I hope at some point you reconsider your voting principles-- the danger in choosing a party and sticking to it is that political parties have a way of going in directions you might not have expected, and by being unwilling to cross a party's line a voter can put people in power who do things with which she disagrees. When the Republican party began, it was the party of liberals-- ending slavery was a VERY liberal move (as was the 8-hour workday, safety regulations, Social Security, votes for women and all the other things that make BB mad. Not all put in place by Democrats, but all pushed for by liberals). Remember, conservatism, at it's core, is about keeping things the way they are- you're conserving. And it's a valid political stance, and if you were a conservative in the 1860's, you'd have been voting Democratic. The parties switched-- Dems became the party of liberals and Repubs that of conservatives, but one finds liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. And what makes one "liberal" or "conservative" changes, too. In the 1950's, for example, both parties were to the left of the mainstream today. Party values are made up of the people who comprise them, but if you choose to vote for someone purely because he wears the label you want, and not because he stands for the things you want him to stand for, then he may wind up voting for laws that you hate and despise. Treating your political party like you do your sports team-- you stick with them through thick and thin-- is dangerous and can lead to zealots of either ilk (left or right) in charge and making decisions for you. If you are unhappy with what your party does, the best way to get them to knock it off is to not keep them in power. Then the party has to regroup and actually earn their votes. Here's a link to some interesting, some infuriating, some funny editorials by assorted prominent Republicans on why they hope the Democrats win this year. None of them have any intention of giving up on their own party, but they feel the current crop has got to go. Which they won't unless the members of their own party look beyond the title "Republican" and into what they want their representatives to stand for. I promise, the articles are a fun read. And God help me, I even find myself agreeing with Scarborough... http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...610.forum.html
|
|
#15
09-13-2006, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's not unconstitutional for someone to search you before you enter their property. No one has a "right" to enter my house with anything ... weapons, drugs, body odor, fried foods ... that I don't approve of.
|
|
#16
09-13-2006, 02:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#17
09-13-2006, 12:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's a comfort and pleasure to know that you're out there. The young ladies on this site ... who have allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by leftist loonies ... will (hopefully) some day look back on this period of their lives and say, "Wow! I was really crazy back then." And reasoned posts like yours will surely help speed that day.
|
|
#18
09-12-2006, 10:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Here's another instance of an otherwise commendable contributor making an inadvertent fool of herself. The subject here happens to be a political topic ... but if it were UFOs ... it would be every bit as easy to regurgitate dozens of loopy sources who'd swear they saw the space ships ... met the aliens ... and went shopping at Wal-Mart with them. Rosie ... this isn't any sort of way to make your points. When you bay at the moon with lunatics ... you soon become identified as one of them. Use your own thought process and create cogent arguments of your own. This sort of stuff only makes you look weird.
|
|
#19
09-12-2006, 10:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
OK, BB, so just HOW did I make a fool of myself when I have stated that there are obvious biases in the articles, but there are some real truths to them as well. Some of the articles aren't biased at all, but are just providing unbiased facts. Most of the articles that I posted weren't editorials. They were solid NYTimes articles and USA today articles. They are also very easy to find, and it does not take them very long to look up. I have also read a lot of them before. Oh yeah, and just for the record, some of those articles were all about being for Bush, and about Bush's new war policy. They weren't deragotory of Bush at all. So I guess that Bush is one of those lunatics... Isn't it a fact that those for radical change in this country are infringing on our rights as citizen's with their new laws and policies? Isn't it a fact that the U.S. Constitution is being neglected in certain instances in which it wasn't back in 1996? Of course it is. Go ahead, and depute the facts of this article. Show me just HOW this isn't true, and just how, from this article, anyone could possibly fathom that those in office aren't neglecting the U.S. Constitution. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...otesters_x.htm I rest my case. Even if you continue to ignore the facts, the others see them. This thread has gotten tiresome. I'll start another one back up in a month or so...
|
|
#20
09-13-2006, 12:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As far as I can determine ... neither you ... nor any of the moonbat leftists ... have provided the name(s) of any American(s) whose rights have been unjustly "infringed" by the Bush administration. You cite Jose Padilla ... but it's a virtual certainty that he was planning to become a mass murderer. Can you cite any other American ... out of 300,000,000 ... who wasn't planning to become a mass murderer ... and whose rights have been "infringed"? Your reliance on leftist propaganda outlets like the New York Times and USA Today ... indicates that you are politically claustrophobic. You need to escape that leftist closet ... and expand your horizons. If you have a voracious appetite for political commentary ... try visiting townhall.com ... a site which compiles columns from highly reputable ... and generally scholarly ... right-wing political observers. Try being a glutton there. If you can't read everything ... try focusing on Dr. Thomas Sowell ... not only his political columns ... but go to the library and read some of his many scholarly books. Open your eyes and your mind ... there are some real ideas out there which may appeal to you much more than the drivel which emanates from ultraleftist circles.
|
Hybrid Mode
