I'll let you click the link but here's a teaser about predicting history (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucrr/20051203/cm_ucrr/isgeorgebushtheworstpresidentever;_ylt=AokvMw.G7JV e72vS6zgYT4as0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ -).

The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred and fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered -- maybe they were all crazed liberals -- making the project as unofficial as it was interesting. These were the results: 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever. Worse than Buchanan.

I can't say as I disagree.

President Bush is frightening. I do not know if it is out of ignorance, idiocy, obstinance, malice, or gullible infatuation with Darth Cheney, but the man is truly disturbing.

For most of us, its relative. I think it was Herbert Hoover my parents really hated.

After capably serving as Secretary of Commerce under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, and leading relief efforts in the wake of the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, Hoover became the Republican Presidential nominee in 1928. He said then: "We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land." Within months the Stock market crashed, and the nation's economy spiraled downward into what became known as the Great Depression.

After the crash Hoover announced that while he would keep the Federal budget balanced, he would cut taxes and expand public-works spending. However, he signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised tariffs on over 20,000 dutiable items, and later, the 1932 Revenue Act, which hiked taxes and fees (including postage rates) across the board. These acts are often blamed for deepening the depression, and being Hoover's biggest political blunders. Moreover, the Federal Reserve System's tightening of the money supply (for fear of inflation) is also regarded by most modern economists as a mistaken tactic given the situation. Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury was Andrew Mellon, a hold over from the Coolidge administration.

Hoover was nominated for a second term but was defeated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election. This was the first election in which the Republican party did not receive a majority of the African-American vote since Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860. In part, this can be attributed to Hoover's having broken promises made to the African-American community following the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. The trend continues to this day, with a majority of African-Americans voting for the Democratic Party.

That flood is really interesting. I read about it right after Katrina.

I think the Constitution and the rights of US citizens have taken the worst beating in this President's administration than any other I have lived through. It's going to take decades and more to reverse the effects I'm afraid.

maybe they were all crazed liberals

They polled history professors at universities.

Of course they are all liberal.


Arienne, what Constitutional rights have you lost in these 5 years? Enumerate them, please.


I know that if were a landowner, that government can take my land from me, drop me a check for a fraction of what it's worth, so that they can generate more taxes off who they sell my land to. I know I have lost that right. But that was by a Supreme Court appointed by other presidents. What rights have you lost?

They polled history professors at universities.

Of course they are all liberal.


Arienne, what Constitutional rights have you lost in these 5 years? Enumerate them, please.

Lets see. We can be hauled off by secret police to secret prisons and held indefinately without charge, without facing our accusers, and tried before secret tribunals without counsel.

The government can, without showing cause, gather information on what we read, watch, rent, borrow, where we go on the internet, and where our money goes.

The government can, again without showing cause, demand the member lists of our churches and synogues and spy upon them.

The government, without showing cause, can tap your phones.

Hmmm... so only liberals attend universities? That could explain quite a few things... thanks!

Lets see. We can be hauled off by secret police to secret prisons and held indefinately without charge, without facing our accusers, and tried before secret tribunals without counsel.
US Citizens? If you are a foriegn national, who even whispers that you want to kill Americans, gulag your ass. Show me US Citizens who are not Jihadists that this has affected. Just one dude or dudette. The Constitution is afforded to Citizens, any priviledges provided to non-nationals is just goodwill. Don't like it, naturalize.

The government can, without showing cause, gather information on what we read, watch, rent, borrow, where we go on the internet, and where our money goes.
They could already do that. But could not use in court, has this really changed. Without a warrant, that is.

The government can, again without showing cause, demand the member lists of our churches and synogues and spy upon them.
They already did that. But could not use in court, has this really changed?

The government, without showing cause, can tap your phones.
They already did that. But could not use in court, has this really changed?

Hmmm... so only liberals attend universities? That could explain quite a few things... thanks!

Professors at universities rarely attend universities. What are you saying?

That professors are still going to school while they are teaching.

I am sure that a few do, of course. Continuing education and all that.

Then again, are you saying that liberal arts and social studies type professors are NOT leftist?

I suppose if one were a liberal, that liberal instructors might seem moderate.

Then again, are you saying that liberal arts and social studies type professors are NOT leftist?

These are historians. I seem remember that one historian has just gone on trial for holocaust denial, so maybe they're not all as leftist as you like to characterise them.

US Citizens? If you are a foriegn national, who even whispers that you want to kill Americans, gulag your ass. Show me US Citizens who are not Jihadists that this has affected. Just one dude or dudette. The Constitution is afforded to Citizens, any priviledges provided to non-nationals is just goodwill. Don't like it, naturalize.

Jose Padilla. US citizen. Yaser Hamdi. US citizen.


They could already do that. But could not use in court, has this really changed. Without a warrant, that is.


They already did that. But could not use in court, has this really changed?


They already did that. But could not use in court, has this really changed?


Yes it has changed. They couldn't do it before. (They still did...but they were breaking the law). Just because it the Government was illegally violating our rights before doesn't mean we should simply make it so it isn't illegal.

Professors at universities rarely attend universities. What are you saying?

That professors are still going to school while they are teaching.

I am sure that a few do, of course. Continuing education and all that.

Then again, are you saying that liberal arts and social studies type professors are NOT leftist?

I suppose if one were a liberal, that liberal instructors might seem moderate.

There is a reason Professors are liberal, generally speaking.

It has to do with education, the ability to think freely, and appreciation to a society which affords the opportunity to do both. Something conservatives are not much concerned with. They will happily tell you how you should think and educate only those they feel are worthy.

I shouldn't dignify Fyyr's random stereotypes but it didn't say they were associated with universities. They might be writing glowing biographies of Ronald Regan and Nixon and working for the Smithsonian for all we know. There are quite a few conservatives, like Pat Buchanan, who really think GWB is pretty awful.

Of course they are all liberal.
There are plenty of conservatives who dislike Bush. In any case, it's not really liberal vs. conservative thing, he's just a crappy president.

There is a reason Professors are liberal, generally speaking.

It has to do with education, the ability to think freely, and appreciation to a society which affords the opportunity to do both. Something conservatives are not much concerned with. They will happily tell you how you should think and educate only those they feel are worthy.

More simpler than that.
The reason is that in their own way, they have the ability to change society through the profession. Liberal ideology is traditionally the one which promotes radical social change.

What better way to change society, than to take a room full of smart, educated -to-be, mush-heads and make them think like you?

Except, smart, educated-to-be mush-heads generally are also smart enough to think for themselves.

If you really want to indoctrinate people...it requires a certain amount of stupidity and willingness to not question.

The more educated you are, the more likely to be liberal you are. At least according to Pew Research.

Except, smart, educated-to-be mush-heads generally are also smart enough to think for themselves.

If you really want to indoctrinate people...it requires a certain amount of stupidity and willingness to not question.

Kidding right?

It takes years to unlearn most of the trash they teach and tell you to read. They are even still teaching Cultural Relativism in schools after all these years. Bah! What a load.

It is just like the abstract art conversation we had a few months ago. If you do not think that smart, rich, educated people can be sold to consume crap, you are wearing rose colored glasses.

Besides, that is a stereotype, and we all know that all stereotypes are wrong and bad, right? Don't you know that holding and believing stereotypes makes you a NAZI, Aidon?

I shouldn't dignify Fyyr's random stereotypes but it didn't say they were associated with universities.


Well, I am sure there are plenty of opportunities for PhDs in history, historians, outside of universities and colleges.

Jose Padilla. US citizen. Yaser Hamdi. US citizen.


Jose Padilla changed his name to Abdullah al-Muhajir, and is a Jihadist. He was arrested getting off a plane from Pakistan.

Yaser Hamdi is a Saudi Arabian citizen. He was captured in Afghanistan.

I asked about what rights YOU have lost, and wanted you to give an example of someone like YOU who's Constitutional rights have been taken. The implication of the state is that OUR Constitutional rights have been taken.

I tell you what, unless I convert to Islam, and attend training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and change my citizenship to some Arab country's...I am going to continue to feel perfectly safe that my Constitutional rights are still intact.

Hell, I am at more risk that the goverment will take my store or home downtown from me, than being arrested for being a Jihadist. 1000 times more risk.

My town alone, with the FBI's help of course, just deported 3 Jihadists, and has 2 on trial right now. I tell you what, if anything strikes close to home, it is that. I fear that these guys are living next door to me, not that the government will confuse me with some converted Rashid Al'Kaboom Jihadist. But then only attending terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, cause that is all ya got.

My town alone, with the FBI's help of course, just deported 3 Jihadists, and has 2 on trial right now. I tell you what, if anything strikes close to home, it is that. I fear that these guys are living next door to me, not that the government will confuse me with some converted Rashid Al'Kaboom Jihadist.

All american citizens deserve their rights. Not just you and people you might get mistaken for. Black americans, jewish americans, asian americans, islamic americans, and any other americans should not be persecuted or lose their civil rights to satisfy your personal drive for safety. That is not how equal rights work.

This is sounding a bit like the argument over national ID's. Why is it a problem unless you're trying to evade the law? Why is having your rights and privacy and guaranteed freedoms restricted a problem if it doesn't affect you personally right now?

All american citizens deserve their rights. Not just you and people you might get mistaken for. Black americans, jewish americans, asian americans, islamic americans, and any other americans should not be persecuted or lose their civil rights to satisfy your personal drive for safety. That is not how equal rights work.

If you are waging Jihad against the US, and you change your citizenship to that of a different country, why do you deserve the rights and protections of the very government you seek to overthrow?

Jihadists deserve no protection, for whatever reason. If I can not persecute those who wish to kill me, who can I persecute, Anka?

And I don't rightly know how blacks, jews, asians, or islamic Americans have anything to do with the discussion. I asked for US Citizens whose rights have been taken, as was stated in a previous post. Aidon gave me two estranged Jihadists as his example of normal US Citizens. I say cool that you were able to find a couple, but I was rebutting the idea that all of our Constitutional rights are now in jeopardy(from the Patriot Act, implied), or heaven forbid, actually being violated right now.

You gotta do better than a couple of honest to goodness Jihadists. You really do.

This is sounding a bit like the argument over national ID's. Why is it a problem unless you're trying to evade the law? Why is having your rights and privacy and guaranteed freedoms restricted a problem if it doesn't affect you personally right now?

How.

Sounds nothing like that.

It is a big jump from the US imprisoning two Jihadists, and national ID's.

That was like saying that this is sounding a bit like when you had your wisdom teeth removed.(which is absolutely not alike).

National IDs affect you and me, and directly diminishes your and my freedom.

Throwing Jihadists in jail or deporting them does not negatively affect you or your freedoms. Unless you are a Jihadist. In which case the government is actually doing you a service, for without them protecting you I would shoot you in the head myself.

Abraham Lincoln did some outrageously unconstitutional acts while president, but, since he won the war, history views him kindly. Had the south won the war, I think we would have a considerably dimmer view of him.

Bush is in a similar situation. How he will be viewed will be largely driven by how Iraq develops, regardless of the facts of how he actually handled his administration.

Jose Padilla changed his name to Abdullah al-Muhajir, and is a Jihadist. He was arrested getting off a plane from Pakistan.

Yaser Hamdi is a Saudi Arabian citizen. He was captured in Afghanistan.

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter where they were captured. It doesn't matter what other citizenships they held (the US permits dual citizenship). It doesn't matter what their name is. They were US Citizens. The Constitution is not just for US citizens we like. Its for ALL US Citizens. Oh, and those are just the two we know about.

I asked about what rights YOU have lost, and wanted you to give an example of someone like YOU who's Constitutional rights have been taken. The implication of the state is that OUR Constitutional rights have been taken.

My Constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial and my right to counsel have been taken away. All our government need do is accuse me of being a terrorist, and they do not even have to do that publicly. They do it in secret proceedings with no review. Men in black cars can show up at my house in the middle of the night and take me away to a secret prison where they can hold me indefinately without trial. Just like in Soviet Russia.

They are already trying to make the link between drugs and terror. How long before people the government thinks deal drugs just start vanishing?

Then there are people like yourself who think that speaking against the war is treachery...and then perhaps I'm just a Jihadist and I don't need my rights.

When the Government takes the rights away from any US citizen, it has a direct, real, and dangerous effect on all US citizens.

tell you what, unless I convert to Islam, and attend training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and change my citizenship to some Arab country's...I am going to continue to feel perfectly safe that my Constitutional rights are still intact.

"WHEN THEY CAME FOR THE COMMUNISTS, I DID NOT SPEAK, BECAUSE I WAS NOT A COMMUNIST. WHEN THEY CAME FOR THE JEWS, I DID NOT SPEAK, BECAUSE I WAS NOT A JEW. WHEN THEY CAME FOR THE UNION LEADERS, I DID NOT SPEAK, BECAUSE I WAS NOT A UNION LEADER. WHEN THEY CAME FOR THE CATHOLICS, I DID NOT SPEAK, BECAUSE I WAS NOT A CATHOLIC.

WHEN THEY CAME FOR ME, THERE WAS NO ONE LEFT TO SPEAK"

If you are waging Jihad against the US, and you change your citizenship to that of a different country, why do you deserve the rights and protections of the very government you seek to overthrow?

Jihadists deserve no protection, for whatever reason. If I can not persecute those who wish to kill me, who can I persecute, Anka?

And I don't rightly know how blacks, jews, asians, or islamic Americans have anything to do with the discussion. I asked for US Citizens whose rights have been taken, as was stated in a previous post. Aidon gave me two estranged Jihadists as his example of normal US Citizens. I say cool that you were able to find a couple, but I was rebutting the idea that all of our Constitutional rights are now in jeopardy(from the Patriot Act, implied), or heaven forbid, actually being violated right now.

You gotta do better than a couple of honest to goodness Jihadists. You really do.

There is not such thing as normal vs not-normal US citizens. There is only the catagory of US citizens. It is that simple, and woe to the he who tries to create a second class citizen status in this nation.

Jihadists deserve no protection, for whatever reason. If I can not persecute those who wish to kill me, who can I persecute, Anka?

Lets consider the people taken away by extraordinary rendition. Are they terrorists? We suppose so but we don't know and we're not going to get told. Are they Jihadists? We suppose so but we don't know and we're not going to get told. If they're innocent people will they get released? We don't know and we're not going to get told as we don't even know who they are.

While the US government is setting up secret police prisons in the old eastern bloc states, how about that for irony, we know absolutely nothing about their operation at all. We don't know who's being taken where, for what purpose, or what laws or regulations are in force. Can you honestly tell me with full confidence that only Jihadists are suffering extraordinary rendition?

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter where they were captured. It doesn't matter what other citizenships they held (the US permits dual citizenship). It doesn't matter what their name is. They were US Citizens. The Constitution is not just for US citizens we like. Its for ALL US Citizens. Oh, and those are just the two we know about.
They were only US Citizens based on the fact that they were born here, a mere matter of geography. There are thousands of immigrants who come here each year, just so that their children can be born here, to be US Citizens so that they can work here, teach here, learn here, be Americans. And we **** on those people. I have no sympathy for Jihadists. By definition they are waging a holy war against us infidels. Our two examples are just casualties of their own war against us. They can suck it.


My Constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial and my right to counsel have been taken away. All our government need do is accuse me of being a terrorist, and they do not even have to do that publicly. They do it in secret proceedings with no review. Men in black cars can show up at my house in the middle of the night and take me away to a secret prison where they can hold me indefinately without trial. Just like in Soviet Russia.
As said, the Supreme Court's decision to steal our property just because the government can make a bigger buck on taxes is a bigger and more immediate threat to my rights.

They are already trying to make the link between drugs and terror. How long before people the government thinks deal drugs just start vanishing?
US governmental drug laws already infringes upon my rights of freedom. 48% of every convict in prison is there because of so called drug crimes. The only plausible reason why this exists is to provide employment for police, DEA agents, judges, lawyers, and correction officers. The liberties have already been stolen, don't bitch to me that you don't like the slippery slope you have allowed already.

Then there are people like yourself who think that speaking against the war is treachery...and then perhaps I'm just a Jihadist and I don't need my rights.
My case was clear. Moral is utmost importance to winning a war. Demoralizing behavior works in the enemy's favor. If you do not want to make that connection to treason, and being a traitor, that is your choice.

When the Government takes the rights away from any US citizen, it has a direct, real, and dangerous effect on all US citizens.
I say that all the time. I just don't really care if the Government takes action against Jihadists. The Skokie NAZIs? I would have burned them. But noooo, the ACLU had to find some turncoat Jewish lawyer to defend those twats. To prove some point of principal, I suppose. I don't care, principal only matters when the principal matters.

"WHEN THEY CAME FOR THE COMMUNISTS, I DID NOT SPEAK, BECAUSE I WAS NOT A COMMUNIST. WHEN THEY CAME FOR THE JEWS, I DID NOT SPEAK, BECAUSE I WAS NOT A JEW. WHEN THEY CAME FOR THE UNION LEADERS, I DID NOT SPEAK, BECAUSE I WAS NOT A UNION LEADER. WHEN THEY CAME FOR THE CATHOLICS, I DID NOT SPEAK, BECAUSE I WAS NOT A CATHOLIC.

WHEN THEY CAME FOR ME, THERE WAS NO ONE LEFT TO SPEAK"
Americans don't remember the poor Rev's quote. And little of them today would even know what it's context was. Americans are too concerned with their SUVs, their mortgage rates, their Starbucks 5 Shot Caramel Machiattos. They don't care about some Catholic priest in WW2.

They were only US Citizens based on the fact that they were born here, a mere matter of geography. There are thousands of immigrants who come here each year, just so that their children can be born here, to be US Citizens so that they can work here, teach here, learn here, be Americans. And we **** on those people. I have no sympathy for Jihadists. By definition they are waging a holy war against us infidels. Our two examples are just casualties of their own war against us. They can suck it.

I don't care about terrorists either. Its not them I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about further application of the notion that US citizens aren't necessarily due our supposedly inalienable rights.

As for being US citizens based on their birth, that's a completely seperate issue. Perhaps we should alter what determines citizenship (though I would be quite wary of doing so). Regardless, though, they are US citizens. Hate them, or not. They are entitled to all of the rights a citizen of this nation is entitled to...and when you start suspending those rights because you disdain certain people, you create an evil far greater than any terrorist bomb.


As said, the Supreme Court's decision to steal our property just because the government can make a bigger buck on taxes is a bigger and more immediate threat to my rights.

Please, you know better.

US governmental drug laws already infringes upon my rights of freedom. 48% of every convict in prison is there because of so called drug crimes. The only plausible reason why this exists is to provide employment for police, DEA agents, judges, lawyers, and correction officers. The liberties have already been stolen, don't bitch to me that you don't like the slippery slope you have allowed already.

I didn't allow it. I've railed against it. However, just because rights have been erroded already is no excuse to allow the further errosion. And this President has been the worst in that regard.

I thought you were a libertarian?

My case was clear. Moral is utmost importance to winning a war. Demoralizing behavior works in the enemy's favor. If you do not want to make that connection to treason, and being a traitor, that is your choice.

No. Its not my choice, nor it is your choice. Its protected by the same rights you seem willing to give away. Which is pretty well idiotic of you considering those are the same rights which protect you from being persecuted for your 'heathen ways'.


I say that all the time. I just don't really care if the Government takes action against Jihadists. The Skokie NAZIs? I would have burned them. But noooo, the ACLU had to find some turncoat Jewish lawyer to defend those twats. To prove some point of principal, I suppose. I don't care, principal only matters when the principal matters.

Turncoat? No. Most Jews are quite proud that it was a Jew defending the Skokie Nazis. Their ability to march and speak their hatred for Jews is the same right which permits Jews to worship freely and express their beliefs in this nation.

If you honestly think these laws we've emplaced will be removed when the islamic threat is gone (never), you are naive. They will remain and the next enemy of the state may be the Chinese...and then the Chinese will start vanishing. Then the next may be Goddess worshipping libertarians who aren't really libertarians, and then you'll be up the proverbial creek sans paddle.


Americans don't remember the poor Rev's quote. And little of them today would even know what it's context was. Americans are too concerned with their SUVs, their mortgage rates, their Starbucks 5 Shot Caramel Machiattos. They don't care about some Catholic priest in WW2.

As an interesting note...its still widely regarded as being an anonymous quote, that he had spoken but not created.

That aside.

There are at least 5 million Americans who remember the quote, and why.

I'm with Aidon on this all the way.

I am seriously much more afraid of my government than I am of the terrorists. The government is using the exact same tactics: make people afraid and that will control their actions. But apparently they didn't notice that the typical individual's actions didn't really change all that much, 9/11 or not.

When my friends and family start dissappearing, THAT will scare me. Actually, a situation like that is exactly why we still have the right to bear arms. If enough people dissappear, the citizenry will eventually overthrow the forces that are causing that to happen (note: I'm talking worst case scenario, and do not believe this likely to happen - Bush won't be the president for tooooo much longer, and I doubt a Bush doppelganger will be elected given his current approval rating).

I am seriously much more afraid of my government than I am of the terrorists. The government is using the exact same tactics: make people afraid and that will control their actions. But apparently they didn't notice that the typical individual's actions didn't really change all that much, 9/11 or not.What scares me more than the government is the intelligent people who close their mind to the possibility that the government *might* even erode our freedoms. "MY government? Not them! They RUN this country... the 'land of the free'! Certainly ELECTED people wouldn't do evil!" These are the ones who do more damage than those who sit quietly and never speak. These are the enablers.
Americans don't remember the poor Rev's quote. And little of them today would even know what it's context was. Americans are too concerned with their SUVs, their mortgage rates, their Starbucks 5 Shot Caramel Machiattos. They don't care about some Catholic priest in WW2.
You don't have to remember (or even have to have heard) a specific quote to understand the meaning behind it.

Well, this guy wasn't a US citizen (or even in the US), but still, ouch...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1664845,00.html

The week that Rice is in Europe assuring the European Overlords that the US doesn't torture or turn over prisoner's to be tortured, I'm hearing that the guy who "confessed" that Saddam was allied with Al Queada had been sent to Egypt to be interrogated and he has, since then, admitted he only said it so the Egyptian's would go easy on him. Since them, the guy that the entire Al Quaeda/Saddam link was based upon, has disappeared and no one knows where he is now.

Good article in the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6) about the outsourcing of torture.

And how the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda was wrung out of a terrorist at the hands of Egyptians.
After Libi was taken to Egypt, the F.B.I. lost track of him. Yet he evidently played a crucial background role in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s momentous address to the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003, which argued the case for a preëmptive war against Iraq. In his speech, Powell did not refer to Libi by name, but he announced to the world that “a senior terrorist operative” who “was responsible for one of Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan” had told U.S. authorities that Saddam Hussein had offered to train two Al Qaeda operatives in the use of “chemical or biological weapons.”

Last summer, Newsweek reported that Libi, who was eventually transferred from Egypt to Guantánamo Bay, was the source of the incendiary charge cited by Powell, and that he had recanted. By then, the first anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq had passed and the 9/11 Commission had declared that there was no known evidence of a working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Dan Coleman was disgusted when he heard about Libi’s false confession. “It was ridiculous for interrogators to think Libi would have known anything about Iraq,” he said. “I could have told them that. He ran a training camp. He wouldn’t have had anything to do with Iraq. Administration officials were always pushing us to come up with links, but there weren’t any. The reason they got bad information is that they beat it out of him. You never get good information from someone that way.”

What scares me more than the government is the intelligent people who close their mind...
You don't have to remember (or even have to have heard) a specific quote to understand the meaning behind it.

"First they came for two Jihadists.
Now they are coming for you."

Talk about a disconnect.

I don't care about terrorists either. Its not them I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about further application of the notion that US citizens aren't necessarily due our supposedly inalienable rights.
Which inalienable rights? That is from the Declaration of Independance, a document which provides for no rights whatsoever, btw. It was a **** you letter to the king of England.

I didn't allow it. I've railed against it. However, just because rights have been erroded already is no excuse to allow the further errosion. And this President has been the worst in that regard.
I imagine that Jihadists deserve no rights.

I thought you were a libertarian?
I am. A practical and pragmatic one.

No. Its not my choice, nor it is your choice. Its protected by the same rights you seem willing to give away. Which is pretty well idiotic of you considering those are the same rights which protect you from being persecuted for your 'heathen ways'.
I don't worship. I look just like they do. I have no church, mosque, or synagogue to burn or glass to break in the middle of the night. I am not giving any rights away, I just want all Jihadists imprisoned or deported.

Turncoat? No. Most Jews are quite proud that it was a Jew defending the Skokie Nazis. Their ability to march and speak their hatred for Jews is the same right which permits Jews to worship freely and express their beliefs in this nation.
You honestly believe that? Jews would still be worshipping freely if every last one of those NAZIs were imprisoned. Logically, and knowing what people are like, why is this argument still purpetuated.

If you honestly think these laws we've emplaced will be removed when the islamic threat is gone (never), you are naive. They will remain and the next enemy of the state may be the Chinese...and then the Chinese will start vanishing. Then the next may be Goddess worshipping libertarians who aren't really libertarians, and then you'll be up the proverbial creek sans paddle.
You mean like the RICO act. Do gooders 'emplaced' that law to stop mobsters. Now it used by the government to steal peoples homes for growing 3 pot plants. If you are concerned about liberty, why not work on that one first. Pot smokers are not really motivated to kill Jews and Infidels.

When the Patriot Act jumps from these 2 Jihadists to some other group of people, I will join ya.

There are at least 5 million Americans who remember the quote, and why.
I certainly remember it, does not change anything. No more than anyone else remembering it does.

I am not giving any rights away, I just want all Jihadists imprisoned or deported.

I think everyone posting wants proven terrorists to be imprisoned and deported. You would seemingly allow the government to define a Jihadist as anyone they like, then imprison or deport whoever they like without proof. Those are the rights you are giving away.

Lets consider extraordinary rendition, again. The government is defining whoever they like as a Jihadist and then flying them across the world to a secret jail for an unlimited amount of time with seemingly no legal process. That is a human right that is gone. Can you prove to me that the only people suffering rendition are terrorists?

"First they came for two Jihadists.
Now they are coming for you."

Talk about a disconnect.

They weren't Jihadists. They were US citizens. They are owed a speed public trial by jury, with defense counsel, and the right to confront their accusers.

Not shadow courts, sat by hidden judges, with no counsel.

I'm willing to bet you would have been up in arms had the Government tried to deprive McVeigh and Nichols of their constitutional rights.

Which inalienable rights? That is from the Declaration of Independance, a document which provides for no rights whatsoever, btw. It was a **** you letter to the king of England.

A letter written by the same people who later put those inalienable rights into a Document we call the Constitution. Remember that?

That document which makes it amply clear that you can't take a US citizen, regardless of their political motivations or accused crimes, and cart them off to secret prisons, hold them indefinately without charging them with a crime, deprive them of counsel, or deprive them of public trial before a jury of their peers.

Even a charge of High Treason must be found by a jury in a court of law.


I imagine that Jihadists deserve no rights.

I imagine that all US Citizens, regardless of what appellation you give them, deserve the same rights you and I receive.


I am. A practical and pragmatic one.

I think not. There is nothing practical nor pragmatic about allowing the Government to suspend the rights of US Citizens.


I don't worship. I look just like they do. I have no church, mosque, or synagogue to burn or glass to break in the middle of the night. I am not giving any rights away, I just want all Jihadists imprisoned or deported.

Ah, so because you feel they can't take away your rights, because you are indistinguishable from them...you are safe. A particularly foolish point of view.


You honestly believe that? Jews would still be worshipping freely if every last one of those NAZIs were imprisoned. Logically, and knowing what people are like, why is this argument still purpetuated.

Because Jews once lived in a place which was considered the paragon of liberal Western Enlightenment. A place where they rose to the Supreme Court of the land, were Doctors, Attorneys, Professors, and Scientists. A place where they thought they were respected by their friends and neighbors.

It took less than a generation for that to change. That is why we stand for liberties in the US. Even when those liberties benefit those who despise us. Because, in the end, those Nazi's speaking against us in Skokie were less dangerous than the idea that our Rights as Americans are not sacrosanct.


You mean like the RICO act. Do gooders 'emplaced' that law to stop mobsters. Now it used by the government to steal peoples homes for growing 3 pot plants. If you are concerned about liberty, why not work on that one first. Pot smokers are not really motivated to kill Jews and Infidels.

When the Patriot Act jumps from these 2 Jihadists to some other group of people, I will join ya.

How do you know what the Patriot Act has jumped to or from? Two people have been made public. How many US citizens still languish in a hidden prison somewhere?


I certainly remember it, does not change anything. No more than anyone else remembering it does.

You're the one who brought up Americans not knowing the quote or the reasoning behind it.

They weren't Jihadists. They were US citizens. They are owed a speed public trial by jury, with defense counsel, and the right to confront their accusers.

Not shadow courts, sat by hidden judges, with no counsel.

I'm willing to bet you would have been up in arms had the Government tried to deprive McVeigh and Nichols of their constitutional rights.

If McVeigh and Nichols were arrested in Pakistan, or while getting off the plane from a terrorist training camp in the Sudan,,,I would say that all bets were off.

A letter written by the same people who later put those inalienable rights into a Document we call the Constitution. Remember that?
'Pursuit of Happiness' is not in the Constitution. Which all know was originally pursuit of property.

That document which makes it amply clear that you can't take a US citizen, regardless of their political motivations or accused crimes, and cart them off to secret prisons, hold them indefinately without charging them with a crime, deprive them of counsel, or deprive them of public trial before a jury of their peers.
We are talking about two Jihadists here.

Even a charge of High Treason must be found by a jury in a court of law.
Not that Sheehan nonsense again. OJ still is a murderer, and Sheehan can still be a traitor. I don't have to buy your legal gobbledy gook crap.

I imagine that all US Citizens, regardless of what appellation you give them, deserve the same rights you and I receive.
Like the folks in Waco? Or Randy Weaver's wife who took an FBI sniper bullet to the eye just standing on her front porch holding her baby?

I think not. There is nothing practical nor pragmatic about allowing the Government to suspend the rights of US Citizens.
Maybe I have notion that citizenship should be earned then, not just a matter of geographical birth.

Ah, so because you feel they can't take away your rights, because you are indistinguishable from them...you are safe. A particularly foolish point of view.
It is not foolish, just pragmatic. I remember when I was a child and watched "The Holocaust" on ABC. First question that popped into my head was, "Why don't they just say they are not Jewish, and get away?". Of course that is the logic of a child. If the US were to somehow someway become in to some absurd Conservative Judeo/Christian Theocracy which tormented and persecuted Atheists or pagans, I would have no problem fitting in. That is all I was saying.

Because Jews once lived in a place which was considered the paragon of liberal Western Enlightenment. A place where they rose to the Supreme Court of the land, were Doctors, Attorneys, Professors, and Scientists. A place where they thought they were respected by their friends and neighbors.

I don't know what neighbors you had. But I had a family right around the corner. Father was an ice cream man, just like Hayat. Their 6, and 8 year old boys(my age) dreamed of the day when they grew up that they could kill Jews and [expetives deleted]. I had no idea at the time what the Palestinian/Isreal thing was, but these boys did. I have met few(read NONE) Arab/Muslim Americans, in white middle class suburban America who have expressed any love for any Jew. I have never seen frothy spittle sprayed hate from any Jewish child or adult.

It took less than a generation for that to change. That is why we stand for liberties in the US. Even when those liberties benefit those who despise us. Because, in the end, those Nazi's speaking against us in Skokie were less dangerous than the idea that our Rights as Americans are not sacrosanct.
Still not connected. I know that you like the principle. It still does not mean the Jews in the US or US support of Isreal was ever in jeapardy.

How do you know what the Patriot Act has jumped to or from? Two people have been made public. How many US citizens still languish in a hidden prison somewhere?
That is the question I asked you. I do not feel threatened by the loss of rights of these two Jihadists. I feel more threatened by other liberties which are being taken freely from us, and me.

You're the one who brought up Americans not knowing the quote or the reasoning behind it.
They don't know it. It is as wasted breath as the Ben Franklin Security/Freedom quote. It is not convincing enough. It is poor marketing. You need to make it "Do it for the Children!" for it to sell with the American people(voters). You and I know it to be true, but us quoting it back and forth to one another is wasted time. That is what I mean. You are not going to convince many people to do things with logic or Ethos, you need more Pathos.

Like the folks in Waco? Or Randy Weaver's wife who took an FBI sniper bullet to the eye just standing on her front porch holding her baby?

You've seen me speak against those actions on these boards before. What I don't understand is, those actions angered you, how can this not? The removal of rights from a US citizen is a threat to all of us.

Your thought process is identical to those who put the Japanese into internment camps during WWII. There is no justification. The constitution doesn't specify "US Citizens who haven't travelled to Pakistan". Nor does it specify "US Citizens our Government have determined aren't a threat".


Maybe I have notion that citizenship should be earned then, not just a matter of geographical birth.

That is a seperate issue. How we obtain Citizenship is a completely different debate. While I think great thought and long debate must be had before any changes were made to how we determine citizenship...its something that may need changing given todays world. The rights the citizenry have, however, are sacrosanct.


It is not foolish, just pragmatic. I remember when I was a child and watched "The Holocaust" on ABC. First question that popped into my head was, "Why don't they just say they are not Jewish, and get away?". Of course that is the logic of a child. If the US were to somehow someway become in to some absurd Conservative Judeo/Christian Theocracy which tormented and persecuted Atheists or pagans, I would have no problem fitting in. That is all I was saying.

You'd better hope if that happens, the Grove is deleted first..and noone's saved your posts ;)


I don't know what neighbors you had. But I had a family right around the corner. Father was an ice cream man, just like Hayat. Their 6, and 8 year old boys(my age) dreamed of the day when they grew up that they could kill Jews and [expetives deleted]. I had no idea at the time what the Palestinian/Isreal thing was, but these boys did. I have met few(read NONE) Arab/Muslim Americans, in white middle class suburban America who have expressed any love for any Jew. I have never seen frothy spittle sprayed hate from any Jewish child or adult.

I was speaking about Germany prior to WWII, but in regards to your comment:

That is why Jews are better than Arabs.

The fact that my upbringing allows me to see that removing the rights of Citizens who happen to hate me and want to see me die is more dangerous than they are is why Jews are better than Arabs.


Still not connected. I know that you like the principle. It still does not mean the Jews in the US or US support of Isreal was ever in jeapardy.

Yes, actually Jews are constantly in jeopardy. I can't tell you how many Christians I've met who have expressed that they think America should be a Christian nation. While frequently, if they know I'm Jewish, they'll say a 'Judeo/Christian' nation. I'm not so stupid as to believe that they would let Jews stay if they managed to get rid of all the Muslims, Hindi, Buddhists, Shintoist, Athiests, etc. Its only through constant vigilance, lobbying, and education that non-Christians maintain the freedom of Religion.

I fear the day that Politicians realize they can get elected forever if they fight for an amendment eliminating the freedom of religion.


That is the question I asked you. I do not feel threatened by the loss of rights of these two Jihadists. I feel more threatened by other liberties which are being taken freely from us, and me.

If you dont' fight the loss of rights when you can see them, what hope have you for stopping them when they hidden?

http://www.nampn.doenetwork.us/mp2004Jan-Mar.html

There's a list of some of the people who've gone missing in North America in January-March of last year.

Can you tell me if any of those who've gone missing haven't been swept up by our new secret police?


They don't know it. It is as wasted breath as the Ben Franklin Security/Freedom quote. It is not convincing enough. It is poor marketing. You need to make it "Do it for the Children!" for it to sell with the American people(voters). You and I know it to be true, but us quoting it back and forth to one another is wasted time. That is what I mean. You are not going to convince many people to do things with logic or Ethos, you need more Pathos.

If "protect your rights before it happens to you" isn't Pathos enough, its because Goyim are apathetic. They always seem ready to let other people suffer, so long as it doesn't impact them.

You've seen me speak against those actions on these boards before. What I don't understand is, those actions angered you, how can this not? The removal of rights from a US citizen is a threat to all of us.
I am sure the reason why is that those people were not intent on killing me.

Your thought process is identical to those who put the Japanese into internment camps during WWII. There is no justification. The constitution doesn't specify "US Citizens who haven't travelled to Pakistan". Nor does it specify "US Citizens our Government have determined aren't a threat".
I don't see the parallel. No more than in the Pilgrims killing Indians because they looked different kinda way.

That is a seperate issue. How we obtain Citizenship is a completely different debate. While I think great thought and long debate must be had before any changes were made to how we determine citizenship...its something that may need changing given todays world. The rights the citizenry have, however, are sacrosanct.

Nothing is sancrosanct.

You'd better hope if that happens, the Grove is deleted first..and noone's saved your posts ;)
/smile

I was speaking about Germany prior to WWII, but in regards to your comment:

That is why Jews are better than Arabs.
That is my opinion too. Jews are better than Arabs(they are superior in secular culture). Jews are better than Muslims(they have a superior religious culture). Better than Christians too, for that matter.

The fact that my upbringing allows me to see that removing the rights of Citizens who happen to hate me and want to see me die is more dangerous than they are is why Jews are better than Arabs.
You have a different(superior, perhaps) morality than I. I have no problem killing those who wish to kill me, and the faster the better. If anyone has a problem with that, their only logical recourse is to not say that they are going to kill me. And then we can be friends and eat smores together and sing Kumbayah.


Yes, actually Jews are constantly in jeopardy. I can't tell you how many Christians I've met who have expressed that they think America should be a Christian nation. While frequently, if they know I'm Jewish, they'll say a 'Judeo/Christian' nation. I'm not so stupid as to believe that they would let Jews stay if they managed to get rid of all the Muslims, Hindi, Buddhists, Shintoist, Athiests, etc. Its only through constant vigilance, lobbying, and education that non-Christians maintain the freedom of Religion.
Well, even I do that, the Judeo Christian thing. I think we can all admit that while Christians make up the most in this society in sheer numbers, Jews do have a preponderance of power, per capita. The most singular powerful man in the world right now is a Jew. It is a touchy subject, for some can take it ZOGish(which is not my intent), but intellectually and culturally speaking, Jews are simply superior to non-Jews in very notable ways.

I fear the day that Politicians realize they can get elected forever if they fight for an amendment eliminating the freedom of religion.
Without complete revolution, I don't really think the First Amendment is in jeapardy.

If you dont' fight the loss of rights when you can see them, what hope have you for stopping them when they hidden?

http://www.nampn.doenetwork.us/mp2004Jan-Mar.html

There's a list of some of the people who've gone missing in North America in January-March of last year.

Can you tell me if any of those who've gone missing haven't been swept up by our new secret police?
I will read your link.

If "protect your rights before it happens to you" isn't Pathos enough, its because Goyim are apathetic. They always seem ready to let other people suffer, so long as it doesn't impact them.
Like I said, I am pragmatic. I am not going to let my own dogma or ideology get in the way of doing the right thing. And locking up and deporting Jihadists, is a good thing.

Like I said, I am pragmatic. I am not going to let my own dogma or ideology get in the way of doing the right thing. And locking up and deporting Jihadists, is a good thing.

I don't disagree that its a good thing. But if they are US citizens, you have to prove they actually are and that they've broken a law in a court of law before you can do so.

Its fundamental.

No US citizen is guilty until proven innocent.

What crimes were any of the 9-11 terrorists guilty of prior to blowing up TWTC?

And would any court our jury in the US have found any of them guilty of anything even if they were apprehended?

It is a fault in the system which obviously needs correcting. Maybe this will be the impetus for that change.

I am a Libertarian based solely on The Social Contract. I don't believe one is beholding to a contract with those who don't sign it, let alone breach it. I am a Libertarian, as most Libertarians are, because of pure selfishness. If the social order were different, I could just as easily be a despotic warlord; and would support that system just as readily as I do this one, now. Or in this case how vehement YOU support this one. I, on the otherhand, can be Marlow OR Kurtz with equal ease, depending on the situation.

That said, I would support the rooting out and prosecution of these fellows with the same vigor that Jews hunted out NAZIs after the war. If wannabee "Simon Wiesenthal"s want to go after Jihadists, I say more power to them. I certainly won't begrudge you your wanting to protect the rights of these folks(admittedly equally founded in your selfishness) or principles.

What crimes were any of the 9-11 terrorists guilty of prior to blowing up TWTC?

Attempted murder. Conspiracy to perform acts of terrorism. Membership of a terrorist organisation. Taking weapons onto an aircraft. Hijacking an aircraft. Using false identification. There are probably plenty of variations too. While they are in the act or preparation of a crime they can be arrested.

Before you say that this is inadequate, it is exactly the law applied to all other crimes. You can't arrest any potential murderer before he/she starts making preparations for that murder. Arresting someone for merely considering a criminal act is ludicrous.

Our system of justice is usually very adamant about NOT convicting people BEFORE they actually commit a crime.

Conspiracy to commit crimes are attached to convictions when another REAL crime has been committed.

If you can find me ONE case, in the US, where someone had been convicted of Attempted Murder without actually trying to carry it out, while they were planning it, I will buy you a pint of cole slaw.

We could not even convict OJ when he really did kill two people because of the legal/jury system we have. What makes one think that we could convict people before they actually try and kill people?

What crimes were any of the 9-11 terrorists guilty of prior to blowing up TWTC?

And would any court our jury in the US have found any of them guilty of anything even if they were apprehended?

Conspiracy. Aiding and abetting. A probably slew of other charges prosecutors are fond of using. Moot point, however, as none of the 9-11 terrorists were US citizens. The same thing any other non-Jihadist attempted mass murderer would get tried with as a US citizen.

Tried is not the same as convicted.

Pshaw, you know that.

All of them would have walked if they were arrested on 9-9-01. Even if they had Marcia Clark for their attorney.


Jihadists want to die for Allah. I would just hope that we can help them on their way as soon as possible.

If you can find me ONE case, in the US, where someone had been convicted of Attempted Murder without actually trying to carry it out, while they were planning it, I will buy you a pint of cole slaw.

Well I can't comment on that. There's a trial of terrorist conspirators at the moment in Australia and we've plenty up for trial in the UK. If for some reason the US legal system can't convict people of conspiracy then fix the legal system, don't bypass it.

Tried is not the same as convicted.

Pshaw, you know that.

All of them would have walked if they were arrested on 9-9-01. Even if they had Marcia Clark for their attorney.

Again, bad analogy. They were not US citizens. They could have simply been deported.

US citizens, however, must have a trial.