Posted on 12/03/2001 1:52:58 AM PST by Ada Coddington
Ah, yes. Government is our friend, now, isn't it? You know, I'm starting to think that if 9/11 hadn't happened on its own due to OBL, government power-grabbers would have had to invent or stage a 9/11 themselves. It's just so lucrative.
They have nukes.
They hate us.
They aren't afraid to die killing us.
We either fight back or we die
Wow. You really learned your programming from the TV good, huh? W. must have really convinced you. Smallpox? Do we even know that? If they even did, does that mean we should let A**crack do whatever he wants to the Constitution? Better Red than dead, huh? Sheep!
Rights, as Heinlein pointed out, are not divisible. Anyone under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U. S. laws is also entitled to U. S. protections.
Ok, that's Heinlein's vote. Now what about the rest of the American public? Do we get to vote to? If so, I vote for dividing up rights between citizens and non-citizens.
What, do non-citizens suddenly have the right to live in American without permission? Have you hereby conferred the right of unlimited residence to all non-citizens. Certainly citizens have that right, so, by the Heinlein Principle, all people from Yemen, Uganda and Uraquay should have that right to? Right?
The fact is, we routinely decide which of our rights to dole out to non-citizens, and I don't give a flying fart what Heinlein happened to whimper on the subject, I think we should treat non-citizens with a heavier hand than we do citizens.
That was an asnine, low-life comment - or do you detest the image because it brings home what this country is fighting about?
You have perverse, purient interests. Have some respect for the dead.
It's a tribute to the stupidity of Americans that they keep finding themselves in what is always called a "war for our survival". Every war is called that by the government to whip up people like you into letting them do whatever they want. Remember, the Constitution is based on the idea that you don't trust your government...that's why it binds the government down, like a chain, to paraphrase Jefferson.
Get lost. You just can't stand those pictures because it destroys the peacenik, "we shouldn't be in Afghanistan" arguments. And you're truly despicable to try this argument about respecting the dead. Anyone from a Souix Indian to a TRUE Zviadist would understand that respecting the dead involves both avending their deaths and keeping others of your country from dying the same way.
Thomas Jefferson was a monitary profligate, who couldn't handle his own finances. Yes, he had a brilliant mind; however , he wasn't perfect, and was far from being the picture of prefectuse, when he was president. He did NOT have Congress declare war in the Barbary Pirates, BTW
I'm not a libertarian, I'm a paleo-conservative. There's a difference. The libertarians wouldn't like my anti-immigration, anti-free trade, pro-life, anti-gay rights, anti-drug stances.
As for the Jefferson stuff you raise, my point wasn't arguing about the man himself...just the general point that is raised that you shouldn't trust your government to protect you (at least to the point you hand over the store).
The government has already shown it cannot protect the people from terrorists. In fact, the Pentagon couldn't even protect itself.
Patriotic Americans defend the Constitution, not John Ashcroft.
If the nuke hits a pesthole like Los Angeles or San Francisco, the political makeup of our country might just improve
And there you have it. At least one of the anti-Ashcroft ninnies here actively hoping for a nuclear detonation inside an American city, and measuring in advance the good that can come of such an event. Even if tongue-in-cheek, a nevertheless sobering moment here on FR. Worried about Ashcroft but not worried about --- and even accepting of --- nuclear detonations inside American cities.
See the level of argument on this thread? These people are not rooted in reality.
Thank you George Bush. Thank you John Ashcroft. And thanks again to the person (forget your name) who posted the photo of the WTC under attack.
That's an interesting point. You're not only admitting that it's OK for the American people to give up their rights, but also you're describing the process by which it occurs: emotionalism. So if I show you enough emotionally-charged pictures, I guess I can get you to do anything, even if it's not in your own long-term interest?
Still the same mentality, though, and can be defeated without suspending habeus corpus and abolishing Posse Comitatus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.