Pro-Bush Booth Stirs Anger at Convention

AMERICAN MUSLIMS FOR BUSH ^ | Sep 4, 3:17 PM EDT | RACHEL ZOLL

[grey_whiskers]

You wrote:

"So what do you suggest? If Bush has the power than so will the next Democratic president. No matter how much you trust Bush not to misuse it, you must fight the precedent to prevent a future president Hillary from having that power."

Yes, that was my point.

I guess we'll have to keep electing Republicans, and
replacing RINOs with trustworthy folk, until such time
as we can safely repeal the law.

[Many libertarians agree that there are three means
to guarantee freedom: ballot box, jury box, cartridge box.
After Waco and Ruby Ridge, I'm not so sure of the third;
and I'm a lowly Republican, not a libertarian. What do
you think?]

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Oh, okay. Thanks for the correction. Are you Michael Badnarik?

[TASMANIANRED]

Any Muslim that doesn't vote for Bush probably has terrorist sympathies and is an implicit threat to the USA.

[Mike4Freedom]

[Many libertarians agree that there are three means to guarantee freedom: ballot box, jury box, cartridge box. After Waco and Ruby Ridge, I'm not so sure of the third; and I'm a lowly Republican, not a libertarian. What do you think?]

Actually, the usual formulation is: Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.

We must never let anybody, not even Republicans that you trust violate due process. It removes the jury box from the protection plan and makes the ammo box the only alternative when tyranny threatens.

If you want this nation to endure as a free constitutional republic, you will fight for due process, no matter who is in office, no matter what the crisis of the moment is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS possible without putting the nation at risk of destruction or enslavement.

That is the libertarian principle applicable here and that is the constitutional principle applicable here. What Lincoln did, what FDR did and what Bush did is unforgiveable. And I don't even see him saying that maybe he was wrong. Jose Padilla still sits in jail, there still has been no charge against him. This is a continuing criminal conspiracy and the leader of the crime is asking to be reelected. Outrageous!!!

[Mike4Freedom]

Any Muslim that doesn't vote for Bush probably has terrorist sympathies and is an implicit threat to the USA.

Now here is a great example of Nazi like thinking. Anyone of a certain religion who does not fall for the prevalent propaganda of the current administration is obviously the enemy. How far do you have to go with line of thought, to say that anyone, of any religion who does not vote for Bush is a terrorist? Not very far at all.

[Mike4Freedom]

Are you Michael Badnarik?

No, I do not have his speaking ability. He is very good on his feet in a debate. If he manages to embarrass the debate commission to let him in to the debates, he will make rhetorical mincemeat of Bush and Kerry. He wins the election for sure.

Bush or Kerry will only win because the media kept Badnarik a virtual secret.

True conservatives will flock to him when they realize how they have been used by Bush and the neo-cons.

[GeorgeW23225]

I'm sure it isn't the first time you heard it here. But, stay the course and keep the faith. The end of Osama Bin Laden is near.

[Starhopper]

Hey Blackdog; I like to see that comment on a bumper sticker :)

[GeorgeW23225]

Conservatism is not the politics of hate. But, it is also not the politics of sticking your head in the sand, pretending Muslims love us. They don't. They want us all dead. To deny this is delusional and self destructive. My motto: get THEM before they get us.

Thank God for President Bush!! He "gets" it!!

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

No, I do not have his speaking ability. He is very good on his feet in a debate. If he manages to embarrass the debate commission to let him in to the debates, he will make rhetorical mincemeat of Bush and Kerry. He wins the election for sure.

And then your alarm clock went off. : )

I realize you probably really believe this, but...well, I'll just shut up for once.

[crushelits]

I maintain that anything coming from the AP is not believable.

[grey_whiskers]

You wrote:

"If you want this nation to endure as a free constitutional republic, you will fight for due process, no matter who is in office, no matter what the crisis of the moment is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS possible without putting the nation at risk of destruction or enslavement.

That is the libertarian principle applicable here and that is the constitutional principle applicable here. What Lincoln did, what FDR did and what Bush did is unforgiveable. And I don't even see him saying that maybe he was wrong. Jose Padilla still sits in jail, there still has been no charge against him. "

First, thanks for the more complete exposition:
(soap box, etc.)

Second, I am NOT trying to start a flame war.
I was intending humor.

Third, I have not thought this issue all the way through
to my satisfaction. I agree about the dangers of the
Patriot Act if misapplied. I am much more concerned,
however, about the character of the individuals in
positions of authority. The Clintonistas needed no
Patriot Act for the atrocities at Ruby Ridge, Waco,
and with Elian Gonzalez. And I am not satisfied that
justice was ever served upon the perpetrators within
the bureaucracy, let alone upon the front line troops.(*)
As far as your assertions go, I agree with the risk,
but not necessarily with the results.
Lincoln-are you talking about the arrest warrant for
Taney; suspension of habeas corpus; or what?
FDR-not sure what you refer to here; please elaborate.
Bush-Padilla: Are no charges filed? Or no *public* charges?
I seem to recall he was accused of wanting to detonate
a radioactive device -- whether improv. neutron bomb,
or just conventional explosives laced with radioactive
material, I don't know.

Two key issues from my point of view:
1) Consent of the governed. In virtually every dispute
between a govt. and those seeking to overturn or replace it, there is a disagreement. Governments want to hold
on to power, legitimate or not; those advocating or
fighting for removal of government always claim to be
fighting injustice. How _does_ one tell the difference?
Socially, the key seems to be the degree of popular support. But this is not infallible--recall the 'Good
Germans' who let the Nazi system go unchallenged. And
if you claim "oppression" by the govt., every splinter
group in the world claims to be oppressed. In a humorous
vein, recall the discussion between Arthur and the smart-ass peasant at the beginning of Monty Python and the Holy Grail "Ah! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Help! Help! I'm being repressed"; or look at the loopy
protesters outside the RNC.
2) The actual danger to the govt. Remember that in Lincoln's day, we had an actual CIVIL WAR on US Soil.
The possibility existed not just of some states seceding,
but the destruction of the current US constitutional
system of government. Yes, I agree, states' rights
took a beating (with consequent loss of freedom)--and
what we have left now is less than we did, what with
guarantee of due process (rubber stamp, going through
the motions of justice) rather than real justice.
But maybe Lincoln wouldn't have been so draconian IF
the threat wasn't so severe: and the states' rights
most vocal advocates let themselves be associated with
the cause of slavery, thereby discrediting their
cause possibly for CENTURIES. Not too bright, that.
My point here is that desperate times call for extreme
measures. IF Padillo really did want to set off a nuke,
how much should we support him; but if the Clinton-types
see a precedent, then political enemies will
just 'disappear' to be accused of 'Heinous Crimes Against the State (TM)'.

One last point. Since we are fighting a war on terror
by means of intelligence, electronic intercepts, etc. the
factors Operational Security become important. How
are we to assure the govt. isn't making things up, while
still safeguarding the govt. sources to that we do not
tip our hand about where we are getting the information
(to make sure the rest of us stay safe)? Would you support
in-camera review by a panel of judges?


(*) One could make an analogy to the govt's behavior in these episodes to the John Kerry 1971 testimony before congress. But that is a whole different thread / flame war.

[grey_whiskers]

And hate is not the ideology of conservatism,
despite what some bumper stickers seem to say.

Hate is NOT a family value.

reply:
Only liberals think it is.
or
Family values are NOT hateful.
or
Homosexuality is NOT a family value.
or
Abortion is NOT a family value.

You get the idea :-)

[Graybeard58]

I know how you feel. In private debates, I jump down the throat of anyone who makes any reference to lower level humans

Yep, that's been my position in the past but every time those murdering bastards go on another rampage I get a little more radical in my thinking. After what happened in Russia I'm ready to get out my broad brush and paint them all sub human.

[TASMANIANRED]

I didn't say that any Moslem that didn't vote for Bush was a terrorist. You read that into my remark.

Sympathy:Mutual affinity, Mutual understanding, affection. capacity for sharing or understanding the feelings of another.

Contributing money to many of the so called Islamic charities that support the terrorist organizations is sympathy.

The silence of the majority of Moslems and their spokesmen towards terrorists acts is sympathy.

Looking the other way so that you don't see suspicious activity that could possibly be terrorist activity is sympathy.

All of the antiwar protests have had a huge Moslem contingent, especially Palestenian that have used their anti war protests as concealment for their rants and calls for more suicide bombings on Israel. This is sympathy.

You obviously have a very juvenile conception of what constitutes Nazi ideology.

You obviously have not listened to the presidents rhetoric at all because both he and every member of his administration have bent over backwards to say Islam is a religion of peace, especially when it is so obvious that a huge contingent of it are blood thirsty animals.

This is an implicit threat to the United States.

The silence of the Islamic community is deafening.

Just yesterday a imigrant British imam said that taking children hostage was acceptable if the cause was just. Do you consider this denouncing terrorism.

The moslem community of the world is being defined by the worst members among them.

Where are the Moslems in the streets protesting the terrorists. There aren't any.

[singfreedom]

Please DO NOT mistake my sense of fairness for a lack of caution! There is a segment of the world population(unfortunately mostly Muslim) that are very worthy of our suspicion, indeed our condemnation. These individuals do not feel any compunction to be truthful, deal fairly, or to even spare our lives. As I have said before on these threads, I was warned years ago by various Middle Eastern university students, sponsored by my husband and I, that Americans have no concept of the depths these terrorists will delve in their sick attempts to injure and kill Americans. These young people came from countries that have battled terrorists for many years. They were all moderate Muslim and had often, themselves, faced threats in their home countries because their families were not radical extremists.

I hope you noticed that your quote could also apply to terrorists? These are their stated goals: to terrorize the public and media into recognizing them as being legitimate. Yassir Arafat has used this technique with particular success. He has fooled most of the press into seeing him as "legitimate" when, in fact, he is still only a terrorist!

I also recognize the need for people to vent! If we were to meet most of these individuals on the street, those making the radical statements, we would probably be impressed by their congeniality, even their kindness! You can not always judge people by the very radical things they say online.

[singfreedom]

Sorry, Mike, I think you are wrong again. That is a terrible reason for passing or not passing laws. It's like Planned Parenthood's objection to partial birth abortion. Even the American Medical Association says it is medically unnecessary. Planned Parenthood's stance is, if this law is passed, eventually "choice" may be made unlawful. I find this a totally unacceptable philosophy for making, or not making laws. I guess you could call it the rule of "what may or may not happen". So we do nothing??!

Even though I believe in choice for the first trimester, I find something particularly unpalatable about a woman having an argument with her boyfriend, the last month of her pregnancy, and going to a clinic the next day to have a "spite" abortion. And from what I'm hearing, its happened more than once!

There are many, many, examples of special interest groups protecting their "turf" in this fashion. It is foolish indeed to "hamstring" our entire government based on such a weak assumption.

[Spirited]

Odd, when no one has yet convinced the Jews of this.

[185JHP]

Did you read the thread explicating the need to kill 24 million islamocrazies to stop the attempt to establish a worldwide caliphate? We have to stop them - they won't stop themselves. They've bought into something so twisted, and so vile, that their poisoned lives aren't of much value to them. All we lack is a decision to go to war in an effective way. The vilest islamocrazy is susceptibile to fire-and-fastmoving-metal therapy.

[Arizona Pard]

I dunno about the millions but I know about Mike4freedom's need for constitutional laws etc.

And I know that anyone who would kill innocent children to make a political statement has forfeited their "human rights". They recognize no laws and have no humanity.