So is a rudimentary grasp of Geography.
Diego Garcia is a gas station in the middle of the Indian Ocean. I presume if their are British subjects there, they are pumping gas, no?
Posted on 08/26/2002 7:12:10 AM PDT by Boonie Rat
This "we're not free" stuff is usually associated with a bong-head who invokes the founding fathers in his selfish desire to get high, or some "constitutionalist" who rails because he has to get a license to drive. Are you "suffering" because your head's not in a cloud of smoke?
I said all of this to say, that from my position on the far right, a D being elected certainly isn't a tragedy; in fact, it might be a step in the right direction to achieving the ultimate goal.
See what I mean? You'd rather have Hillary Clinton as president because you mistakenly think that, finally, most Americans will come around to your point of view.
Until you guys actually figure out how to sell your libertarianism to your fellow citizens you're going to remain on the sidelines, bitching and bellyaching.
That does seem to be the prevailing climate of the neo-cons. I always cringe when I see FReepers resorting to childish name-calling of the opposition (DimoRATS, liberdopians) in lieu of actually arguing against the ideology. Too many people around here think Pubs vs. Dems is a football game, and spend more time hurling insults at the other side than helping their own team.
There are a thousand reasons to dislike the ideology of liberalism. But to simply say "Democrats are a thousand times worse than Republicans" as a security blanket when "your team" is doing something reprehensible just seems like a head-in-the-sand partisan game.
I boil it down to this...Conservatism is not always right and socialism is not always wrong. To hew to the party line, regardless of party, is wrong headed.
Socialism is always wrong.
To hew the party line regardless of principles is to place the Party as superior to God. For God is represented by our own personal adherence to principle. You're subordination of your principles is the primary means by which socialism assumes authority over a people. Socialism always requires the subordination of religion and individual principles to the "greater good of the State".
This statement is a bald faced lie.
Jonathan Turley, a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University said, "Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties."
And Jonathan Turley had crow feathers floating around his mouth when he was called on it in an interview by Sean Hannity. He made the camps up out of whole cloth.
Thats as far as I got in the reading of this and I feel no need to continue when the first point he makes is bs.
That is the way I took it. Thanks
You clearly accept that your life will be run by the government. Will this always be so?
If you believe that someday it may change then you must ask "If not now, when?", "If not you, who?"
But if the evidence eventually demonstrates that those who once appeared to be Conservatives are in fact seeking to aggrandize personal power, at the expense of the Constitutional system, then the answer is that they are no longer Conservatives, if they ever were. Certain Eastern journalists, notwithstanding, the word Conservative means and always will mean to Conserve something vital. And the Conservatism of any of us may be judged by how willing we are to conserve, and how willing to abandon, whatever our reasons.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
So Ashcroft has never referenced internment camps for enemy combatants? How is Diego Garcia classified? We do have British citizens there, as well as other nationalities.
So is a rudimentary grasp of Geography.
Diego Garcia is a gas station in the middle of the Indian Ocean. I presume if their are British subjects there, they are pumping gas, no?
So now that we have cleared that up, perhaps you would be interested in answering the previous question. I will restate the question more explicitly.
You suggested that Ashcrofts referral to internment camps for US citizens was a "bald faced lie". So I now ask "Is it true that he never made such reference?"
That is correct. Mr Turley made it up out of whole cloth and was suitably ridiculed for it by the JD spokesperson and Sean Hannity, a conservative talk show host based in NYC.
"Internment Camps", when alluded to in America, raise hackles because it frames images of American citizens being rounded up by the truck load and placed in said camps. RE: The Japanese in WW2. Turley knows this and his use of the term despite knowing this makes his claim all the more despicable.
Now on to the "Brtish Citizens" in GITMO. They are being held in a United States Military compound as enemy combatants and thats where they will remain for the duration of the War. I would suggest that you advise any other British citizens who take up arms against this country in support of terrorists that that indeed is the preferable alternative of the two available to them.
I would also like to know if you were upset when the British Government held IRA terrorists incommunicado way back when. By the way, they were entitled to do so by the Rules of War just as we are entitled to do so now.
Cheers.
If Congress isn't even going to be involved in the decision for an Iraq campaign, how would it affect those races one way or another? Even a surge of popularity for Bush doesn't necessarily mean he'll have long coattails.
I'll keep in mind that there is a dispute over Ashcroft's quote, and continue to withold judgment on that particular issue. Thanks for your info, it helps.
American citizen "enemy combatants" should be subject to military courts marshall, unless they are in the field engaged in the conflict, in which case they should be summarily shot. If police can shoot citizens for brandishing a weapon in hostilities, certainly it is true for US citizens.
So true. I pointed out that the congress must be the one's to declare war, and was told that I was wrong and a 'pubbie. His reasoning? The "War Powers Resolution" which delegates the power to the President: "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks ..."
See this post to see what Abraham Lincoln thought about this in 1848.
See this post to see what SCOTUS Justice John Jay thought about Congress vesting legislative powers to someone.
I'm presuming that you're being stupid in order to try and make a point. But I'll humor you, for the moment, and illustrate. I can't buy a gun anywhere in the US without a license or a background check. You call that free? We have "free" speech, but oh wait--check that, we have regulations for "time, place, and manner," and oh, by the way, don't try and publish anything that might be classified as a "state secret," or the government will come after you. Oh, we have "free" speech and association, sure--but we're not free to associate in a K-Mart parking lot or participate in nude dancing at the strip club or publish what is deemed "obscene" without government coming and throwing us in jail. We're "free," as long as we're not deemed "enemy combatants" by the government, in which case we'll just be thrown in jail for God knows how long without any sort or rights. We're "free," but not free to purchase products from overseas competitors without involving government in the form of customs and taxes without breaking the law. We're "free," but I'm not free to hire the people I so choose without breaking the law if I choose to hire a Mexican that hasn't submitted to the government yet for identification and conditioning. Please.
As far as Hillary goes, I have no love for the woman and I hope she doesn't get elected President, but she's no whit different than Bush. Bush wants to expand prescription drug care for the elderly--sounds remarkably like Hillary's health care plan of several years ago, doesn't it? Bush is "anti" gun control, but oh--of course we need "reasonable" laws for guns. Bush is for free trade, oh well, as long as that doesn't include steel or lumber.
I don't care how we end up where we'll eventually end up. If you think the Rs are the answer, you're just lying to yourself.
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.