Posted on 12/08/2003 12:16:58 PM PST by PureSolace
Idealistic. But I don't think an airline with the slogan "We respect your right to bring guns onboard" would do very well in the marketplace. An airline like that would also require its own airports.
Please clarify this. You seem to be agree with my earlier post that if Rush is guilty of illegal prescription drug use, and if he structured bank withdrawals and is therefore obviously guilty of money laundering that he could and could and should be charged under the PA. He could and should have his property seized and his communication and acquaintances scrutinized by some duly designated federal agency. He could and should be held incommunicado without charges until deemed safe to either charge or return to society. Did I summarize correctly? Are we in agreement?
So, support letting 'it' fail in the marketplace-- you are a capitalist aren't you?
Sure, I'm open to letting "Right to Bear Air" fail in the marketplace. Think anyone would pursue such an idea, given the startup costs and risk factors?
The article this thread is discussing is related to the "Patriot Act" and how it tends to set aside basic rights and freedoms. You are defending the Act; therefore, you are in agreement with Constitutional infractions. Also, you have made numerous comments about the lack of pertinence of a 1700s document to the present times. You have been quite clear that you imagine the Constitution to be outdated. I have asked that you illuminate the portions of the Constitution you find irrelevant, and you respond by attacking my character.
...Bro grow up...
I'm 54. I expect I am older than you. Being commissioned as an officer in the Army in 1972, I took an oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. You appear to fall in the latter category.
It seems to me that I handle threat much better than you. You might be the one who needs to gain a maturity enhancement.
-----------
I notice that I answer your questions directly; whereas, you merely engage in diatribe and obliqness. Now, kindly explain how the Constitution, that document from the 1700s, interferes with your safety. Please elaborate on how you believe the Patriot Acts not to infringe on the rights of citizens. Don't forget to address things like "right to a speedy and public trial ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him", "peaceably to assemble", "redress of grievances", "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ... 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", "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb", "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", and so on.
All of those old-fashioned 1700s ideas seem to be seriously impacted by the Patriot Acts. Please explain how this is not so. Halt with the diatribe. Discuss your stance.
Explain to me how a government that fails to close the Mexican border and curtail immigration from terrorist regions of the world and frisks retired Army Generals at airports is even attempting to increase your security within Constitutional guidelines. Then, explain how the government, negligent within its Constitutional authority, is going to improve your security by restricting the rights they are prohibited from reducing. Explain how reducing the rights of Citizens reduces the threats posed by foreigners. Explain how granting tyrannical powers to a government that already shows blatant disregard for its own citizens would enhance your personal security. I'm really interested in your honest responses.
Then why do you attempt to exchange your Rights for a pretense of security? Perhaps you underestimate the value of your Constitutional rights. Ever traveled abroad to third world countries?
Good L-rd! You're like a parody of a Freeper. (Talking much slower and deliberately, so you get it) This is because there were no airplanes in Franklins time, nor were there skyscrapers.
Aint that somethin'?
No place on the debate team for VapidThang4.
Is it an IQ issue, or a maturity issue, on your part?
Incorrect.
Anthrax letters were mailed after 9/11, causing a few casualties. Al Fuqra associated Mohammad and Malvo killed many in their DC Sniper attacks. Richard Reid tried (and failed only due to diligent passengers) to blow up an airliner with his sneaker bomb.
That's three right off the top of my head.
You really aren't very bright, are ya?
Probably. But I won't let a statement that is boldy and smugly ignorant stand in this forum without challenge.
How ya been, pal???? Long time no see!!! Miss ya around the shop. :o)
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.