# Nativity Scene ACLU-style (ROFL)



## Jimmy G (Mar 23, 2006)

https://imageshack.us

AUSTIN, TX - The Young Conservatives of Texas - University of Texas 
Chapter announced today that they will be displaying an "ACLU Nativity Scene" on the West Mall of the University of Texas campus on Monday and Tuesday, December 4th and 5th. The group's intent is to raise awareness on the extremity of the ACLU, and bring to light its secular-progressive efforts to remove Christmas from the public sphere. The display, the first of its kind in the nation, will feature characters that are quite a bit different than the standard crèche.

"We've got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for homosexual marriage, and of course there isn't a Jesus in the manger," said Chairman Tony McDonald. "The three Wise Men are Lenin, Marx, and Stalin because the founders of the ACLU were strident supporters of Soviet style Communism. The whole scene is a tongue-in-cheek way of showing the many ways that the ACLU and the far left are out of touch with the values of mainstream America."

The scene will also display a terrorist shepherd and an angel in the form of Nancy Pelosi.

"The ACLU and other left-wing extremist groups are working diligently to destroy American's rights to the free expression of religion," said Executive Director Joseph Wyly. "We've already seen in Chicago an attempt to censor the nativity by a city government this week. It's just more evidence that there is a War on Christmas being waged by the far-left in this country."

Young Conservatives of Texas, a non-partisan conservative youth organization, has been fighting for conservative values for more than a quarter century in the Lone Star State and publishes the most respected ratings of the Texas Legislature. YCT has chapters at universities across Texas including Texas A&M University, West Texas A&M University, Baylor University, University of Texas at Austin, Southern Methodist University, Midwestern University, Texas State University, University of Texas San Antonio, University of North Texas, Hardin-Simmons University, Texas Tech University, and Stephen F. Austin University.


----------



## nation (Jul 30, 2005)

I didn't realize that the ACLU followed the teachings of Groucho Marx.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Kudos to the Young Conservatives of Texas for an entertaining and appropriate response to just one of the extreme and ridiculous postitions advocated by the ACLU.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Great and humorous idea!


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

When I was in college the Young Republican Club would bring live sheep and "exit only" signs etc... to heckel gay events.

It was more than a bit mean spirited...amazing how times have changed in just the last 20 years.

I hope to they do pull the manger scene off, it would be a riot 

-spence


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Is the ACLU really that bad?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Albert said:


> Is the ACLU really that bad?


If you're a paladin in the Culture Wars they are a mouthpiece for Satan himself. Just ask Bill O'Riley 

-spence


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

Albert said:


> Is the ACLU really that bad?


I am sure that you will get lots of interesting responses. I find the ACLU an excellent idea in concept. They (IMHO) fall short in their incosistent protection of civil rights. I think the nativity issue is something worth discussing in the US, I think their support of free speech and privacy are admirable. They for some reason, do not count the enumerated right to bear arms as worthy of protection.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> If you're a paladin in the Culture Wars they are a mouthpiece for Satan himself. Just ask Bill O'Riley
> 
> -spence


Paladins are always the weakest class of fighters, re: EQ and WoW. :icon_cheers:


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Spence said:


> If you're a paladin in the Culture Wars they are a mouthpiece for Satan himself. Just ask Bill O'Riley
> 
> -spence


LMAO...for 'fair and balanced' I'm sure - LOL


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

As an agnostic that lives a godless life, I for one like Xmas. The whole "good will towards men" thing, the "holiday spirit", the sparkly lights, all great stuff. The US and Canada *were* founded by Xtians and the Xtian legacy is still very strong. To deny that is ludicrous. I can see the beef in using tax dollars for religious displays, but this whole anti-Xmas thing has gone way too far. When Kwanza is more welcomed that Xmas, the thought police have been a bit too busy.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wayfarer, it's OK. You can say the word _Christ_mas and still be agnostic.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

KenR said:


> Wayfarer, it's OK. You can say the word _Christ_mas and still be agnostic.


But Xmas is just as appropriate. The X (chi) and P (rho) were often used in the past (to antiquity) to denote the Christ, since they are the first two Greek letters of that Greek word. Those who argue to put 'Christ' back in Christmas, as if using 'X" were taking him out, simply don't know, or appreciate, history.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Understood. However, this derivation seems to be a bit obscure and that few, if any, people know this (I am certainly one). The general belief among christians is that the usage of "X"Mas does not show respect for Jesus or Christmas.

Please note that I fully respect Wayfarer's beliefs.


----------



## mack11211 (Oct 14, 2004)

*Yawn.*

I get the point. But the execution is tired and witless.

I went to UT/Austin, and suspect it will play better down there.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

KenR said:


> Understood. However, this derivation seems to be a bit obscure and that few, if any, people know this (I am certainly one). The general belief among christians is that the usage of "X"Mas does not show respect for Jesus or Christmas.
> 
> Please note that I fully respect Wayfarer's beliefs.


Don't mind me, I'm just an elitist nonbeliever. Raised Roman with mostly Anglican friends I remember seeing this symbol in many churches and learning the meaning as a child. I think the christians who don't know the use of the Chi Rho are people who belong to sects that haven't been around for a very long time and thus perhaps history isn't so important. It is interesting that some know the use of the fish as a symbol - you see it on cars sometimes. They probably think 'Christ' was part of his name, not a title given to him by non-Jewish believers.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I'm Catholic and certainly think that the history of the Church is fascinating. I just didn't know about Chi Rho.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> Wayfarer, it's OK. You can say the word _Christ_mas and still be agnostic.


Ken:

The true irony of your reply is that in my whole post, I defended the Xtian nature of the country, indeed, stated that to deny the Xtian heritage is "ludicrous". Hell, did you know at one time, only Catholics could settle in Quebec?

Thanks for respecting my beliefs but the whole reason I use Xmas and Xtians is it is just plan shorter to type


----------



## Full Canvas (Feb 16, 2006)

Surely the ACLU will immediately apply for an injunction and, in the meantime, seek an emergency/temporary restraining order that prevents such a nefarious display. The compliant court will issue the TRO later today and set the hearing for December 26th. We must be protected from ourselves at at all costs. 

What insidious tradition will be next on the list?
________________________________________


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Ken, sorry if I offended you. There's lots I don't know about the church I was raised with. I wonder sometimes what the church teaches today. I was taught Darwin/evolution by good old German Franciscan nuns, along with other stuff (including lots of church symbols/symbolism). Today I meet young college age catholic kids who don't know the church as no problem with evolution. They think that because many 'Christians' oppose evolution, they should too. They are quite surprised.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Thank you but I have not been offended at all. I view the Interchange as an exchange of ideas.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

And one wonders why there aren't any conservative comedians who are any good. 

And why the once-funny comedians who turn right (e.g. Dennis Miller) so quickly lose the funny.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

If any other group perverted the Nativity to make a political statement, wouldn't the Young Conservatives of Texas be up in arms about it?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I disagree with the ACLU. I am a liberal, ergo a 'leftist' I deeply resent the blanket, fellow travellor inclusion this group has used to cast a wide net of condemnation. They're behaving like a bunch of Log Cabin Republicans.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

DocHolliday said:


> If any other group perverted the Nativity to make a political statement, wouldn't the Young Conservatives of Texas be up in arms about it?


LOL, very good point.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Kudos to the Young Conservatives of Texas for an entertaining and appropriate response to just one of the extreme and ridiculous postitions advocated by the ACLU.


+1. The ACLU has been taking on extreme leftist positions for years.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The ACLU does not litigate to keep discussions of religion our of the public square. I'm talking about private individuals who want to talk about their religions in public, without getting the government to support or sponsor their religious expression. The ACLU supports people's right to express their religious views, but opposes the activities of the government in promoting religious views. Take a look here at instances in which the ACLU has gone to court specifically to support people's right to practice their religion:

One would think that the difference between an individual standing in a public place and reciting the Ten Commandments, and the chief justice of a state supreme court installing a two ton block of granite in the supreme court building setting forth the text of the Ten Commandments would be pretty obvious, but maybe not. Or, for that matter, a school child privately reciting a prayer, vs. a government school promoting religion by leading all students in prayer or promoting student-led prayer at school or school events.

With regard to the Second Amendment, here's what they say:

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times. 
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. 
https://aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

You're certainly free to disagree with this view, but it is not correct to say that they "do not count the enumerated right to bear arms as worthy of protection."


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

ACLU Website said:


> IN BRIEF
> The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. *If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.*
> 
> Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
> ...


I'm not going to argue with whether or not states can and should register guns, but this (in bold) is a stupid statement. The right to keep and bear automobiles does not exist in the Constitution. Also, I don't think that it's much of a stretch to suggest that the founders intended "arms" to mean "firearms," those being projectile weapons in which the projectile is fired by the detonation of an explosive substance from behind said projectile in a partially enclosed chamber...hence pistols, rifles, etc.

While I appreciate the ACLU's attempts to *appear* to have no position on gun control, their lack of enthusiasm for supporting gun rights seems pretty apparent to me. I don't blame them for this. I'm sure they'd piss off a lot of their members if they were to support gun rights as vigorously as they support abortion rights. In fact, I'm sure there are plenty of members who are not too thrilled with the organizations position on gun rights. I just wish that someone from their organization would be willing to admit that they value some rights more than others.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

One has to wonder, if the ACLU is not anti-Xtian and anti-2nd Amendment, why so many people feel it is? Is it a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear all those hard working, god fearing, flag waving, patriotic, freedom loving lawyers? That makes sense, does it not?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

So do you think bazookas, mortars, and fully automatic machine guns are "arms"? What about sawed-off shotguns, guns with silencers, and armor-piercing bullets? If so, do you think any government system of prohibition, regulation, or registration of private ownership of such weapons violates the Constitution?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> So do you think bazookas, mortars, and fully automatic machine guns are "arms"? What about sawed-off shotguns, guns with silencers, and armor-piercing bullets? If so, do you think any government system of prohibition, regulation, or registration of private ownership of such weapons violates the Constitution?


Oh boy, you've done it now. You dared question a left wing lawyer over gun control. My prediction? Hilarity ensues.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> So do you think bazookas, mortars, and fully automatic machine guns are "arms"? What about sawed-off shotguns, guns with silencers, and armor-piercing bullets? If so, do you think any government system of prohibition, regulation, or registration of private ownership of such weapons violates the Constitution?


Of the three examples you've mentioned, the only one I would possibly argue should not be restricted is the machine gun. I suppose in my definition I should have stated that I think the "arms" reference was probably intended to protect firearms that are handheld and therefore did not include cannons. So, adjusting for modern times pistols and rifles (including submachine guns and possibly machine guns) should be protected.

As I understand bazookas they are rockets with the propellant attached to the projectile and continuing to burn beyond a detonation in the chamber. So the bazooka is out. I would say the mortars are essentially cannons and therefore not protected.

With regard to sawed off shotguns, they're firearms so I think as nasty as they may be, they're fair game. Silencers however, unless they're integrated into the weapon so as to be irremovable, should be regulatable.

I'm fine with "reasonable" regulation and registration of gun ownership, but defending doing so by comparing it to the licensing of automobiles and driving is idiotic.


----------



## 18677 (Jan 4, 2006)

*.*



Albert said:


> Is the ACLU really that bad?


Yes. It is.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I think the biggest problem with your two posts is that you just totally invented the interpretation of "arms" that you are using. Not only that, it undoubtedly omits numerous weapons that were known to the Framers and used by military forces in those times, including edged weapons of all kinds, including swords, spears, knives tomahawks, etc.; bows and arrows; cannons, missiles, rockets, and bombs ("and the rockets' red glare . . ."). 

It is certainly possible to draw the line you are drawing, but there is no principled basis to do so, not to mention going all the way to the kinds of weapons someone would need to fight against a modern government, up to and including nuclear weapons, or chemical or biological weapons.

It does sound as though you are trying to be reasonable in the lines you are drawing, but I suspect that there are many gun control opponents who would not draw any such line, and believe that they have an enforceable constitutional right to individually acquire any of the weapons I have mentioned.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I really don't see it as much of a stretch to believe that "arms" means "firearms." I'm assuming that most people didn't own cannons, but a lot owned rifles. It's an invention, but something has to be invented and it works. I would say it is a pretty fair compromise considering the degree to which arms can be interpreted, such as the examples you've provided.

I imagine a citizen army with modern pistols and rifles could be pretty effective against a tyrannical government. I can't imagine any government being dumb enough to use nuclear or biological weapons in places where they would be effective (it kind of defeats the purpose unless they're really hell bent on governing rubble), but chemical weapons would certainly be a useful tool for such a government.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The government can require you to own a gun, so know you have a gun, and the comma says any and all guns you choose there after or before- the government has no say over. 

A large portion of Americans are or have been Christians, so part of there tax money can go to what they want. The first legal document has Christian belief written in it, so, much of the ACLU fight is illegal. Wacky judges has allowed them to get away with crime.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 12, 2005)

DocHolliday said:


> If any other group perverted the Nativity to make a political statement, wouldn't the Young Conservatives of Texas be up in arms about it?


exactly what I was thinking Doc...


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> I think the biggest problem with your two posts is that you just totally invented the interpretation of "arms" that you are using. Not only that, it undoubtedly omits numerous weapons that were known to the Framers and used by military forces in those times, including edged weapons of all kinds, including swords, spears, knives tomahawks, etc.; bows and arrows; cannons, missiles, rockets, and bombs ("and the rockets' red glare . . .").
> 
> It is certainly possible to draw the line you are drawing, but there is no principled basis to do so, not to mention going all the way to the kinds of weapons someone would need to fight against a modern government, up to and including nuclear weapons, or chemical or biological weapons.
> 
> It does sound as though you are trying to be reasonable in the lines you are drawing, but I suspect that there are many gun control opponents who would not draw any such line, and believe that they have an enforceable constitutional right to individually acquire any of the weapons I have mentioned.


Lines are invented all the time to demark reasonable interpretation of rights. There are invented limitations on all of our enumerated rights.

The ACLU posesses an inconsistent position on the 2nd Ammendment because its membership is largely anti-gun, not because it is too complicated to devine an appropriate interpretation of what constitutes an arm. The fact that they choose to ignore the 2nd ammendment entirely makes that fact clear.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Careful, Hopkins Student, you may be getting closer to what I think than you want to. 
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there's a major difference between debating what might be a set of reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and insisting on a constitutional right.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WA said:


> A large portion of Americans are or have been Christians, so part of there tax money can go to what they want.


You see, this is exactly the opposite of the real situation. The reason we have a Bill of Rights is to impose limits on what the government can do even if those actions are supported by a majority of the population. Understanding that point is crucial to understanding the American Constitution and government.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You see, this is exactly the opposite of the real situation. The reason we have a Bill of Rights is to impose limits on what the government can do even if those actions are supported by a majority of the population. Understanding that point is crucial to understanding the American Constitution and government.


Details, details, next you'll be talking about the tyranny of the majority. Jeeze. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> *The government can require you to own a gun, so know you have a gun, and the comma says any and all guns you choose there after or before- the government has no say over. *
> 
> A large portion of Americans are or have been Christians, so part of there tax money can go to what they want. The first legal document has Christian belief written in it, so, much of the ACLU fight is illegal. Wacky judges has allowed them to get away with crime.


I'm not sure what you mean by this first statement. Could you please explain?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

From nativity scenes to firearms.....  .

I may be in favor of gun control but I am not in favor of nativity control.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am really not too worried about the black helicopters nor Dubya declaring martial law (unlike many liberal web-blogs, go figure) and me having to snipe from my roof top....

All the liberals need to do to get me to buy into "gun control" is prove to me there is 0% possibility that I might ever need a gun to defend myself. Until that time, would one not be rather stupid to give up the right to own and carry? And there is already a mother lode of gun control legislation. It is not like you can put money into a vending machine and get a high-cap Glock to spit out.

Just my two cents on the topic.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I am really not too worried about the black helicopters nor Dubya declaring martial law (unlike many liberal web-blogs, go figure) and me having to snipe from my roof top....
> 
> All the liberals need to do to get me to buy into "gun control" is prove to me there is 0% possibility that I might ever need a gun to defend myself. Until that time, would one not be rather stupid to give up the right to own and carry? And there is already a mother lode of gun control legislation. *It is not like you can put money into a vending machine and get a high-cap Glock to spit out.*
> 
> Just my two cents on the topic.


Maybe they have them in Japan. They seem to have a vending machine for everything.

https://photomann.com/japan/machines/


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

If the ACLU's position is to defend civil liberties to the maximum, should they not be arguing for a very liberal definition of "arms?"


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

I would support a constitutional amendment repealing or modifying the second amendment in a heartbeat.

That being said, the language is more plain than people like to claim. If the idea of collective rights was applied to the first amendment, only the press as a group would have the right to freedom as opposed to any individual journalist. Also, the ninth amendment that has been so overused by the supreme court would no longer be usable for individual rights.

I guess that my point is that there is a mechanism for changing the constitution. It should be used.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Jimmy G said:


> https://imageshack.us
> 
> AUSTIN, TX - The Young Conservatives of Texas - University of Texas
> Chapter announced today that they will be displaying an "ACLU Nativity Scene" on the West Mall of the University of Texas campus on Monday and Tuesday, December 4th and 5th. The group's intent is to raise awareness on the extremity of the ACLU, and bring to light its secular-progressive efforts to remove Christmas from the public sphere. The display, the first of its kind in the nation, will feature characters that are quite a bit different than the standard crèche.
> ...


Is this all you've got,
defaming the Nativity?
This represents conservative values?

What the hell has happened to Republicans?
All it says to me is that history has moved on and left the conservative movement behind.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

m kielty said:


> Is this all you've got,
> defaming the Nativity?
> This represents conservative values?
> 
> ...


You could be right....if a bunch of Texas college kids actually represents all Republicans and "Republican" is an identity with "conservative" and using that term correctly.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You could be right....if a bunch of Texas college kids actually represents all Republicans and "Republican" is an identity with "conservative" and using that term correctly.


They represent Republicans if Republicans do not object.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

m kielty said:


> They represent Republicans if Republicans do not object.


That is interesting logic. Bent and twisted, but interesting.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> So do you think bazookas, mortars, and fully automatic machine guns are "arms"? What about sawed-off shotguns, guns with silencers, and armor-piercing bullets? If so, do you think any government system of prohibition, regulation, or registration of private ownership of such weapons violates the Constitution?


Weapons which were historically crew-served (i.e. cannons, mortars, bazookas, heavy machine guns, etc.), would have been part of the formal militial armaments. Individual members of the militia have always been required to supply their own weapons, usually within a standard set by the militia authority. This was so things like ammunition could be shared. At the time of the Spanish-American War, state militias still used the old Government .45-70 black powder round which gave their firing positions away to Spanish and Cuban soldiers. They took horrible casualties from the modern Mauser rifles.

Sawed-off shotguns, silencers, and armor-piercing bullets are terms tossed about by anti-gun people to scare the public into thinking that these items are so nefarious, that they should be banned.
· Sawed-off shotguns are not illegal, per se. In states which permit Class Three weapons, federally registered sawed-off shotguns are permitted to be owned. In fact modern versions of the weapon are perfectly legal. Certain .45 caliber single-shot handguns will also load and shoot .410 gauge shotgun shells; and the handgun itself is a form of sawed-off shotgun, and no special license is required.
· Silencers (a better term is suppressor) are also legal. However, they are not silent as the movies and TV shows would suggest. They only work with ammunition which exits the barrel (or silencer) at sub-sonic speeds. They are heavy and cumbersome, and sound like a loud cap pistol when the gun is discharged. They fall under the same Class Three weapons laws.
· Armor-piercing ammunition is another mis-nomer. Currently, there is only one type of body armor which can resist a standard rifle round, and it's only available to police. There is no record of this type armor being used by bad guys. Most full-metal jacket ammunition will penetrate body armor. Further, the trauma of being hit by a high-velocity rifle round is sometimes enough to cause death, even if the bullet does not penetrate all layers of the armor. I personally know of a policeman who is now on permanent disability because of nerve damage done by a shotgun-wielding bad guy, though the double-ought buckshot did not penetrate beyond the second layer of his vest (the shotgun was a standard hunting gun). Standard body armor like Second Chance, etc., will only resist pistol and shotgun ammunition.

Please don't persist in spreading more disinformation.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> The ACLU does not litigate to keep discussions of religion our of the public square. I'm talking about private individuals who want to talk about their religions in public, without getting the government to support or sponsor their religious expression. The ACLU supports people's right to express their religious views, but opposes the activities of the government in promoting religious views. Take a look here at instances in which the ACLU has gone to court specifically to support people's right to practice their religion:
> 
> One would think that the difference between an individual standing in a public place and reciting the Ten Commandments, and the chief justice of a state supreme court installing a two ton block of granite in the supreme court building setting forth the text of the Ten Commandments would be pretty obvious, but maybe not. Or, for that matter, a school child privately reciting a prayer, vs. a government school promoting religion by leading all students in prayer or promoting student-led prayer at school or school events.
> 
> ...


Why is it that the ACLU considers every amendment, but the Second, to be individually oriented? The framers of the U.S. Constitution certainly intended that the Bill of Rights were aimed to protect the individual's rights.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> That is interesting logic. Bent and twisted, but interesting.


I don't think what they've done with the Nativity scene is funny .
I guess I don't have a sense of humor.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

m kielty said:


> I don't think what they've done with the Nativity scene is funny .
> I guess I don't have a sense of humor.


I do not believe I was commenting on that. I thought I was very clear, it was your logic I had a problem with. Did you know I have been going around representing you for 10 years now, and as you've never objected about it, everyone thinks what I have to say about what m kielty thinks is the truth.

Do you see what I was saying now?


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I do not believe I was commenting on that. I thought I was very clear, it was your logic I had a problem with. Did you know I have been going around representing you for 10 years now, and as you've never objected about it, everyone thinks what I have to say about what m kielty thinks is the truth.
> 
> Do you see what I was saying now?


Do you mean changing my ideas because I found out that belief might somehow hurt me professionally or financially?

You must have me mixed up with some other mkielty.

My assertion stands.

I've always thought of the Republican Party as the keel of the country.

I don't feel that way anymore.

I find this Nativity scene affair highly repugnant.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

m kielty said:


> Do you mean changing my ideas because I found out that belief might somehow hurt me professionally or financially?
> 
> You must have me mixed up with some other mkielty.
> 
> ...


You really have no idea what I am trying to point out, do you? One last try:

You stated what the college kids in Texas were doing was representative of all Republicans unless Repubs objected and that Republicans and "conservative" were identity. I found that to be faulty logic and tried to demonstrate it to you. I failed it would seem.

Cheers


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You really have no idea what I am trying to point out, do you? One last try:
> 
> You stated what the college kids in Texas were doing was representative of all Republicans unless Repubs objected and that Republicans and "conservative" were identity. I found that to be faulty logic and tried to demonstrate it to you. I failed it would seem.
> 
> Cheers


No, I don't understand.

They are "Young Republicans".
A group having shared values and one of those values is to trample on the values of others to achieve a point.

If other Republicans don't object to this, than they are tacitly giving it their okay.
They are validating the values of the "Young Republicans".
They share those values as well.

That's all I'm saying.

I thought you were my lawyer.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

m kielty said:


> No, I don't understand.
> 
> They are "Young Republicans".
> A group having shared values and one of those values is to trample on the values of others to achieve a point.
> ...


I believe what Wayfarer is trying to tell you is this: If he went around telling people that he is mkielty and that his views represent yours, if you did not object to this (even if you had no idea he was doing this)....then it must mean that what he has said is true. This is faulty logic, in the same way as saying these students represent Republicans, if they do not object.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> Also, I don't think that it's much of a stretch to suggest that the founders intended "arms" to mean "firearms," those being projectile weapons in which the projectile is fired by the detonation of an explosive substance from behind said projectile in a partially enclosed chamber...hence pistols, rifles, etc.


Then again, at the time of the founders the average sidearm was about 6' long, had a smooth bore, and fired a ball loaded by hand on top of a paper cartridge shortly before it was to be used. The founders had no idea that a weapon 6" long and firing a (well) bullet-shaped projectile with integrated propellant encased in metal and a long shelf-life would be both more accurate and more deadly than any sidearm available in their time. So maybe it's best to leave the founders out of things...



hopkins_student said:


> I imagine a citizen army with modern pistols and rifles could be pretty effective against a tyrannical government.


Ah, yes, the classic loony-right argument.

I had lunch with a friend today. She's a biochemist, but despite that I love her.  I had never had occasion to visit her office before, but today I did and saw something on her wall that this discussion reminds me of: a poster with the words "I believe in God: everyone else better show me data."

So let's look at some case studies. Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of places with "the right to bear arms" that's the stuff of an American loony-righty's wet dream. In Iraq, every household is allowed a Kalashnikov. In Afghanistan, things are even looser than that. Yet somehow, the citizenry in those places are not that effective against a hostile modern army. When they do score kills, it's rarely the sidearms fire that does the job. Iraqi kills against American forces (and senseless massacres of each other) have come overwhelmingly from timed explosives, not sidearms. The same holds true for the Soviet occupation Afghanistan and the current Pakistan Army campaign in the NWFP/Waziristan region. Hezbollah only did as relatively well as they did against the marauding Israeli army because they were coördinated, organized, and trained military units with heavier weaponry at their disposal.

Hate to throw pour real-world case studies onto people's dreams, but reality is what it is. A citizen discharging a gun near an organized, trained military unit is just giving away one's position and asking to die. Even if there are many more of said citizens than soldiers.

(Not that I'm against the right of citizens to bear arms necessarily. In the past year, with the kind assistance of one of our own I've purchased a pistol for myself, in response to death threats resulting from my research.)


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

SGladwell said:


> Then again, at the time of the founders the average sidearm was about 6' long, had a smooth bore, and fired a ball loaded by hand on top of a paper cartridge shortly before it was to be used. The founders had no idea that a weapon 6" long and firing a (well) bullet-shaped projectile with integrated propellant encased in metal and a long shelf-life would be both more accurate and more deadly than any sidearm available in their time. So maybe it's best to leave the founders out of things...


I don't agree at all with this argument. The basis of our form of government is a document written and ratified by the founders so what they said and meant counts for a lot. It is a constitution that has stood the test of time and deserves respect.

Everybody seems to forget that the founders included the means for changing the document. If it needs to be changed, we should use the tools that they put in the document to do so.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> One has to wonder, if the ACLU is not anti-Xtian and anti-2nd Amendment, why so many people feel it is? Is it a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear all those hard working, god fearing, flag waving, patriotic, freedom loving lawyers? That makes sense, does it not?


Yes.

Merry Xmas,
Gurdon (resident atheist, anarchist, gun enthusiast)

PS: I like xmas trees, mincemeat pie, and electric trains. I don't much like publically sponsored nativity scenes, nor do I think adding symbols of other religions to balance things out makes it OK to spend my money promoting religion. It is, btw, government promotion of religion that is the issue, not the so called war on christmas invented by the right to stir up the bubbas.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by this first statement. Could you please explain?


I don't have the law in front of me, but I do know the Democrats have wanted enough liberal judges on the US Supreme Court to rewrite the law to remove the comma- meaning you have no right own a gun. Another words, you are government property like a dumb animal in a barn yard.

I am not as dumb as some of the people in government, which, then, means they have no right to even think of running my life. What I see by the Democrat party is the removal of our liberty, since at least Jimmy Carter. We are not the free people we were.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You see, this is exactly the opposite of the real situation. The reason we have a Bill of Rights is to impose limits on what the government can do even if those actions are supported by a majority of the population. Understanding that point is crucial to understanding the American Constitution and government.


So our money goes to the minority, which is anti-democracy. You need to do a lot of rethinking.

By the way, if the minority gets the tax money as you say, then it is time to bring the Christmas spirit into schools and all other government functions.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

m kielty said:


> No, I don't understand.
> 
> They are "Young Republicans".
> A group having shared values and one of those values is to trample on the values of others to achieve a point.
> ...


Didn't they call themselves "Young Conservatives"? That's a different thing than Young Republicans, isn't it?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WA said:


> So our money goes to the minority, which is anti-democracy. You need to do a lot of rethinking.
> 
> By the way, if the minority gets the tax money as you say, then it is time to bring the Christmas spirit into schools and all other government functions.


I didn't say anything about giving tax dollars to the minority. What I said was the Bill of Rights exists to protect the individual rights of people who may be in the minority, because there is a danger that the majority could decide to have the government take all kinds of actions that would roll right over minority rights. As one example, it is easy to imagine (I don't know if there are poll results to back this up) that a majority of Americans would support a requirement that someone who does not believe in god is ineligible to hold elective office. It is the Constitution, and particularly the First Amendment and the religious test clause, that would prevent such a requirement from becoming law.

In case you have some opposition to the countermajoritarian effects of the Constitution it is worth keeping in mind that whoever you are, it is likely that you will at times be in a minority needing Constitutional protection.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> I don't have the law in front of me, but I do know the Democrats have wanted enough liberal judges on the US Supreme Court to rewrite the law to remove the comma- meaning you have no right own a gun. Another words, you are government property like a dumb animal in a barn yard.
> 
> I am not as dumb as some of the people in government, which, then, means they have no right to even think of running my life. *What I see by the Democrat party is the removal of our liberty, since at least Jimmy Carter.* We are not the free people we were.


Doesn't GWB also remove our liberty through the Patriot Act, suspension of _habeas corpus_ and the NSA wiretaps? Which is more important to you, _habeas corpus_ or the right to own an assault rifle? These are topics for another thread, but I just wanted to point out that the removal of freedoms is shared by both parties.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> Wayfarer said:
> 
> 
> > One has to wonder, if the ACLU is not anti-Xtian and anti-2nd Amendment, why so many people feel it is? Is it a vast right-wing conspiracy to smear all those hard working, god fearing, flag waving, patriotic, freedom loving lawyers? That makes sense, does it not?
> ...


Ah Gurdon,

I have to be your worst nightmare. I live a godless life like you claim to. I am not a "gun enthusiast" (talk about bubba!) but I own a few and have my CCW. I love Xmas. However, the PC bullshyte over Xmas is not an invention of the right and anyone that thinks it is has delusions. Do you really think the right started the persecution of Xmas just to stir up their base? Man, now that is some whacky conspiracy theory. And of course, you have to attempt to demean anyone that disagrees with you by calling them "bubbas", no doubt inferring uneducated, blue collar, six-pack Joe types. Typical.

Cheers


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Do you really think the right started the persecution of Xmas just to stir up their base?
> Cheers


Wayfarer, I can't answer your question. I don't understand this persecution of Christmas (or Xmas). Can you still go to the church of your choice and celebrate the day? Can you still sing carols, give gifts, decorate your house, send cards, greet people on the street? Do most people get the day off work, spend the day with their family or friends, bake cookies, send cards? Where is the persecution? Oh you must mean the arguement to not using public schools and spaces to promote a specific religion. Does the persecution extend anywhere else? Those who are bullied into sending 'Holiday' cards or saying 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas' perhaps should rethink their ideas of freedom of religion. After all, if they are not going to use it of their own free will....


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I believe what Wayfarer is trying to tell you is this: If he went around telling people that he is mkielty and that his views represent yours, if you did not object to this (even if you had no idea he was doing this)....then it must mean that what he has said is true. This is faulty logic, in the same way as saying these students represent Republicans, if they do not object.


Wouldn't it have been more simple to say that the Young Conservatives don't represent Republicans?

Wayfarer, your model is flawed because you are an individual representing mkielty fraudulently.
The Young Conservatives are a chartered organization, with quite a few chapters, and I would assume, some kind of guidance.

Maybe what I've done is the eqivalent of Republicans hauling out of the Ted Kennedy corpse and using it as a metaphor for the Democratic Party. 
I don't think that logic is much questioned.
Looks like I've succumbed to that kind of weak thinking.

In the case of the Nativity scene, I'm genuinely horrified.
I've never been a believer in, "The end justifies the means.", because this, and a lot worse, is what you end up with.

Laxplayer, thanks for taking the time for the explanation.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Wayfarer, I can't answer your question. I don't understand this persecution of Christmas (or Xmas). Can you still go to the church of your choice and celebrate the day? Can you still sing carols, give gifts, decorate your house, send cards, greet people on the street? Do most people get the day off work, spend the day with their family or friends, bake cookies, send cards? Where is the persecution? Oh you must mean the arguement to not using public schools and spaces to promote a specific religion. Does the persecution extend anywhere else? *Those who are bullied into sending 'Holiday' cards or saying 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas' perhaps should rethink their ideas of freedom of religion.* After all, if they are not going to use it of their own free will....


There is the point right there. You have described part of this "war" perfectly. The fact that some are bullying people as you describe, shows a conscious effort on the part of some is being undertaken to remove Xmas from the public mind. Now you are blaming the victims, saying it is their fault for not fighting the bullying? Sorry, that does not wash with me. It takes a strong fish to swim up stream and at the end of that swim, the fish usually dies after spawning 

We have two points under discussion here, maybe more. Point #1 would be, "Is there an effort to change how people feel about Xmas?" Point #2, for some, would be, "Is this just something fabricated by the right to stir up their base?" You have given statements to the effect you feel #1 is true. I have concerns for people that feel #2 is true, as that is a quite detailed conspiracy theory, that the right has led this long term imposition against overt Xmas messages merely to rile up their base.

But what do I know? Apparently I am showing I am against Xmas as I keep typing "Xmas". Life is funny.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

m kielty said:


> Wayfarer, your model is flawed because you are an individual representing mkielty fraudulently.


That is your good old _ad hoc_ rescue fallacy coming into play. However, glad you finally started to see the flaw in your logic.

Cheers


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> There is the point right there. You have described part of this "war" perfectly. The fact that some are bullying people as you describe, shows a conscious effort on the part of some is being undertaken to remove Xmas from the public mind. Now you are blaming the victims, saying it is their fault for not fighting the bullying? Sorry, that does not wash with me. It takes a strong fish to swim up stream and at the end of that swim, the fish usually dies after spawning


Amazing, "saying it is their fault for not fighting". I guess I view freedom in broad terms with each person responsible. Many of us fight against tyranny, terrorism and oppression to keep from becomming victims. Those who have given in have only made themselves victims. Yes, it is their fault. When you relinquish your freedom freely, you'll get no pity from me. The pilgrams were strong fish, had they stayed in England - yes - it would have been their own fault.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> However, glad you finally started to see the flaw in your logic.
> 
> Cheers


Yes.
I 've also come to understand why the conservative construct is so short lived.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> You see, this is exactly the opposite of the real situation. The reason we have a Bill of Rights is to impose limits on what the government can do even if those actions are supported by a majority of the population. Understanding that point is crucial to understanding the American Constitution and government.


No, what's crucial in understanding the Constitution is that the Bill of Rights was never intended to, nor by its express terms does it, apply to state governments. That portions of the Bill of Rights (note: only portions of it) now do apply to states can be attributed to those brilliant justices of the Supreme Court who are able to see beyond the mere limiting words of a constitutional text and therein delve further and discern what the Founders really meant to say (and apparently, this power has only been developed since the 1950s). In this way the Court was able, by fiat and usurpation of power properly left to elected representatives, to further the centralization of power in the federal government and increase the courts power to dictate public policy and overrule those legislative actions which do not comport with their "social vision."

The proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that the federal government may not infringe "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," but that state governments may do as they please, subject to the limitations of their own repective constitutions.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

SGladwell said:


> Then again, at the time of the founders the average sidearm was about 6' long, had a smooth bore, and fired a ball loaded by hand on top of a paper cartridge shortly before it was to be used. The founders had no idea that a weapon 6" long and firing a (well) bullet-shaped projectile with integrated propellant encased in metal and a long shelf-life would be both more accurate and more deadly than any sidearm available in their time. So maybe it's best to leave the founders out of things....)


Well, of course, that's why the founders provided us with an amendment process - to update the Constitution. I know you leftist/statist types prefer to rely on an unelected and unaccountable judiciary to effect your political aims - but the point remains, the Constitution may be amended to reflect that changes in technology and what we deem to be arms and how we think they should be regulated.



SGladwell said:


> Ah, yes, the classic loony-right argument.
> 
> I had lunch with a friend today. She's a biochemist, but despite that I love her.  I had never had occasion to visit her office before, but today I did and saw something on her wall that this discussion reminds me of: a poster with the words "I believe in God: everyone else better show me data."
> 
> ...


Well, if that was the loony right argument then surely yours is the stupid left argument - can we stop be insulting now?. It's quite clear that the intent of the 2nd amendment was not to protect the rights of recreational shooters or deer hunters, etc. but to allow citizens to defend themselves from the government. You know, as Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That technology may have changed and made an individual less capable of resisting a government doesn't effect that rationale that this is why the Amendment is there. Further, in the event of government tyranny, I quite like the idea that should the government come to take me, they may well kill me, but at least if I'm armed, I have a chance of taking one of them with me. The alternative is sheepish obeisance and a trip on railroad cars to extermination. Finally, I think in both the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, the US government assumed that the populations would largely welcome, or at a minimum, not resist, the US invading forces - and this is most certainly true. Of both populations, we are facing resistance in only a very, very small percentage of the general population. I suspect if the US had anticipated that the majority of the armed civilian population would fight the US, we may not have invaded in the first place - because the cost would have been too high. I would also remind you that the argument raised by the other poster does not contemplate a foreign invasion, but a tyrannical government. There's a lot to be said for a government that is a little afraid of its populace. I think a government would be hard pressed to raise up troops to go in among its armed populace, door to door, without facing a vast amount of desertion and a likely civil war. An absolute guaranty of victory is not needed; all that is needed is a recognition that should a government seek to abuse its people to such an extent that they are willing to take up arms, the cost of the government's actions are probably too high and they should not be taken.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> Doesn't GWB also remove our liberty through the Patriot Act, suspension of _habeas corpus_ and the NSA wiretaps? Which is more important to you, _habeas corpus_ or the right to own an assault rifle? These are topics for another thread, but I just wanted to point out that the removal of freedoms is shared by both parties.


When did Bush suspend habeas corpus and against whom did he suspend it?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> Where is the persecution? Oh you must mean the arguement to not using public schools and spaces to promote a specific religion.


Well that is part of the problem and, I think, what irritates most people - you just evidenced it here - it's the broadening interpretation of the clear constitutional language ("promoting" vis-a-vis "establishing"). The language states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - now in the historical context of the time (i.e., the establishment of the Anglican church in England and other official state churches throughout Europe) it's pretty clear language and only a sophist or a raging secularist would find things like a non-denominational prayer at a high school graduation or a nativity scene in a town square an "establishment" of religion. You may not like it - but, honestly, is the government really "establishing" a religion?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Rocker said:


> When did Bush suspend habeas corpus and agsint whom did he suspend it?


On Oct. 17, 2006 when he signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006 suspending _habeas corpus_ to persons "determined by the US" to be an enemy combatant in the Global War on Terror.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> On Oct. 17, 2006 when he signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006 suspending _habeas corpus_ to persons "determined by the US" to be an enemy combatant in the Global War on Terror.


As a result, Mr. Padilla can stay in jail forever without any charges ever being brought against him, and he never has to go to trial. He can in effect spend the rest of his life in prison without ever being able to defend himself. Let us not forget that he is an American citizen who was arrested in the US. I do not know if the man did anything wrong, and without a trial - no one will ever know....ever.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> On Oct. 17, 2006 when he signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006 suspending _habeas corpus_ to persons "determined by the US" to be an enemy combatant in the Global War on Terror.


Oh, so it wasn't George Bush who a la Abraham Lincoln simply suspended habeas corpus - it was an act of Congress and for a limited class of persons.

The Consitution does allow Congress the right to suspend the Writ


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Oh, so it wasn't George Bush who a la Abraham Lincoln simply suspended habeas corpus - it was an act of Congress *and for a limited class of persons.*
> 
> The Consitution does allow Congress the right to suspend the Writ


Ah, but who will be the next limited class of persons?


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Ah, but who will be the next limited class of persons?


_Everyone_ can be in the current limited class of persons since _anyone_ can be named as an enemy combatant. No need to make it complicated. The writ's been suspended for all. Who says King George isn't democratic?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Well, the court's don't work quickly - do they?. He was about to get hearing before the Supreme Court before he was handed over to civil authorities from the military. It's not clear whether his habeas corpus rights have been suspended - ironically - the courts are trying to determine that.

The problem is this person represents an unsetlled legal issue, i.e., citizen enemy combatant under the new Act so, he is stuck in the gears of the justice system as it grinds slowly in determining how the law is to be applied/interpreted - not unusual for a novel issue.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Doesn't GWB also remove our liberty through the Patriot Act, suspension of _habeas corpus_ and the NSA wiretaps? Which is more important to you, _habeas corpus_ or the right to own an assault rifle? These are topics for another thread, but I just wanted to point out that the removal of freedoms is shared by both parties.


Were you around during WWII? Many freedoms were removed during the war, but after the war they were back.

I'm sure the mafia would agree with you. They have been wire taped way way longer.

Why do you blame GWB for the Patriot Act? Didn't a bunch of Democrats contribute?

'I just wanted to point out that the removal of freedoms is shared by both parties.' I agree with you, but the Democrats are way worse.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I didn't say anything about giving tax dollars to the minority. What I said was the Bill of Rights exists to protect the individual rights of people who may be in the minority, because there is a danger that the majority could decide to have the government take all kinds of actions that would roll right over minority rights. As one example, it is easy to imagine (I don't know if there are poll results to back this up) that a majority of Americans would support a requirement that someone who does not believe in god is ineligible to hold elective office. It is the Constitution, and particularly the First Amendment and the religious test clause, that would prevent such a requirement from becoming law.
> 
> In case you have some opposition to the countermajoritarian effects of the Constitution it is worth keeping in mind that whoever you are, it is likely that you will at times be in a minority needing Constitutional protection.


Interesting, but back to the natvity scene. Even to this day there is prayer before the US Supreme Court, last I new. The point your missing, so thinking in error, is what they wrote is also understood correctly by what they did. So it is legal for the government to put up Christmas trees and sing Hark the Hearld Angels in government institutions, because that is what they did. And not every religion was ok in this country. Any religion if it was Christianity was ok- nothing else. While some went to far, what you said is not valid, according to history.

As far as other religions in the US today, I don't mind. And some of there holidays might be nice. And by putting them in the public arena is educational and should breed respect and tolerance, instead of the intolerance of today, created by the ACLU. It is over their head how their make believe 'do gooder' has caused damage instead of peace. They often pick fights when there are non and my tax money don't like paying for it.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Wow, this thread is completely exploded...

WELL DONE, Gentlemen!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> Were you around during WWII? Many freedoms were removed during the war, but after the war they were back.
> 
> I'm sure the mafia would agree with you. They have been wire taped way way longer.
> 
> ...


Look, I'm no Bush-basher, but I don't think that he has made a good decision here. Holding a US citizen indefinitely, without charge, is just not right. 
For example, let's say that a co-worker of yours is part of a secret organization that meets out in the woods of WA. These anti-corporation guys have come up with a plot to blow up a bunch of Starbucks since they feel Starbucks represents evil capitalism and corporate greed. They are all arrested before anything terrible happens. You are also arrested since the FBI has pictures of you eating lunch (without trans fat mind you :icon_smile_wink: ) at a restaurant with your co-worker. You are now held without charge, without legal counsel and for as long as it takes to determine that you are not an enemy of the state. Now, would that be fair? Or should the government first find real evidence against you before making the arrest, and then once you are arrested grant you your right as a US citizen to legal representation and a fair trial?

I thought of Starbucks since I am sitting here drinking one of their lattes this morning.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Extra points to the person that can name the Numetal group that contains a member who's father was in the Japanese internment camps in WWII. I greatly prefer Dubya over the two other choices the US had, but I disagree with many things Dubya does. I think we need to fight terror but it is not un-patriotic to question things or we will end up with internment camps again. Question mind you, not prevent thorough investigation and law enforcement.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Extra points to the person that can name the Numetal group that contains a member who's father was in the Japanese internment camps in WWII. I greatly prefer Dubya over the two other choices the US had, but I disagree with many things Dubya does. I think we need to fight terror but it is not un-patriotic to question things or we will end up with internment camps again. Question mind you, not prevent thorough investigation and law enforcement.


Mike Shinoda-Linkin Park


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Mike Shinoda-Linkin Park


:icon_cheers:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Look, I'm no Bush-basher, but I don't think that he has made a good decision here. Holding a US citizen indefinitely, without charge, is just not right.
> For example, let's say that a co-worker of yours is part of a secret organization that meets out in the woods of WA. These anti-corporation guys have come up with a plot to blow up a bunch of Starbucks since they feel Starbucks represents evil capitalism and corporate greed. They are all arrested before anything terrible happens. You are also arrested since the FBI has pictures of you eating lunch (without trans fat mind you :icon_smile_wink: ) at a restaurant with your co-worker. You are now held without charge, without legal counsel and for as long as it takes to determine that you are not an enemy of the state. Now, would that be fair? Or should the government first find real evidence against you before making the arrest, and then once you are arrested grant you your right as a US citizen to legal representation and a fair trial?
> 
> I thought of Starbucks since I am sitting here drinking one of their lattes this morning.


Your right about all of that. And what happened to the Japanese during WWII is terrible. Many Japanese lost everything and were never to this day compensated.

My refrence to the mafia is wire tapping. My personal thoughts of Bush is he has made a lot of mistakes I wouldn't have; he is slow way behind on many things in this war. What the press likes to tell us is not the unpleasent things that the Democrats have put in, so we just blame Bush and the Republicans. Plus, how many times have we heard of people put in prision that were let out that were caught killing our soldiers later?

But, I think a lot of the politicians have gone overboard.

What people do in shock is amazing.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> Your right about all of that. And what happened to the Japanese during WWII is terrible. Many Japanese lost everything and were never to this day compensated.
> 
> My refrence to the mafia is wire tapping. My personal thoughts of Bush is he has made a lot of mistakes I wouldn't have; he is slow way behind on many things in this war. *What the press likes to tell us is not the unpleasent things that the Democrats have put in, so we just blame Bush and the Republicans.* Plus, how many times have we heard of people put in prision that were let out that were caught killing our soldiers later?
> 
> ...


To be honest, I really don't have a problem with someone wiretaping my phone...I have nothing to hide. I realize that this is removing some of our freedoms, but with the ability of a terrorist to cause widescale destruction, something has to be done. I still feel they deserve representation and a fair trial.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> What the press likes to tell us is not the unpleasent things that the Democrats have put in, so we just blame Bush and the Republicans.


Like what, specifically? Or are you just making stuff up as usual?


----------

