well here we go back
- Thread starter msman825
- Start date
- Tagged users None
"opening our mail without a warrant"
In an emergency and if need be for foreign intelligence they never have needed a warrant. The U.S Postmaster General said that the day after he(President) signed the bill so get your facts straight it has never been illegal and the government has always had that right.
Progressives don't= Democrat/ Progressive = Socialist
Progressives are UN-American look the term up. That was started by Communist/Socialist in the 50's while being hunted by anti-communist politicians to hide the fact they didn't like capitalist society and were infact communist. Communism and Socialism is UNamerican as you can get, those political ideologies do not mix with a country with a constitution and is a capitalist society.
As far as Jose Padilla your correct either charge him or let him go, as he is an American and has the protection of the constitution. There is noway you can give foreign fighters captured overseas constitutional rights like these same progressive want to do. Hell we held thousands of Germans for years with out charges after WW2. These same progressive you hail want to give your social security checks and allow illegal aliens rights you or I don't even have.
The problem with the war is they should have never allowed our troops to be held back, and should have allowed these young men and women do what they are trained to do kill and destroy with out political interference. Those that commit illegal acts in the heat of war need to be punished as well.
As for Gay marriage they still have the right to get married just like you or I, they aren't being denied that right. They just can't get married to the same sex, just like you or I, where is the discrimination in that? Seems to me that puts us on the same level.
When it comes to which laws are followed i.e pot, the stricter laws apply. Here in the state of Michigan it is illegal to buy a hand gun at a dealer unless you are 21. Federal law states you have to be 18, because in the state of Michigan the law stated 21 that law is the one applied. When it come to controlled substances the same is true wither or not a state passes a law making it legal or decriminalizing it.
"I would certainly vote for republicans in the future if I felt like they held true conservative principles and ideas like my grandparents had."
I am the same way except the other side of the coin.....The problem with most of the Republicans is they were elected in '94 to help change Washington and instead signed on to what the problems they were hired to change. SO both parties have lost their way and passed on what foundations our for fathers have built. The thing we truly need is a viable third party to keep both parties honest, but they control the purse strings and the laws to make that a viable option. I will tell you this though at this pace both parties will eventully crumble and there will be noway to hold back a viable third party.
In an emergency and if need be for foreign intelligence they never have needed a warrant. The U.S Postmaster General said that the day after he(President) signed the bill so get your facts straight it has never been illegal and the government has always had that right.
Progressives don't= Democrat/ Progressive = Socialist
Progressives are UN-American look the term up. That was started by Communist/Socialist in the 50's while being hunted by anti-communist politicians to hide the fact they didn't like capitalist society and were infact communist. Communism and Socialism is UNamerican as you can get, those political ideologies do not mix with a country with a constitution and is a capitalist society.
As far as Jose Padilla your correct either charge him or let him go, as he is an American and has the protection of the constitution. There is noway you can give foreign fighters captured overseas constitutional rights like these same progressive want to do. Hell we held thousands of Germans for years with out charges after WW2. These same progressive you hail want to give your social security checks and allow illegal aliens rights you or I don't even have.
The problem with the war is they should have never allowed our troops to be held back, and should have allowed these young men and women do what they are trained to do kill and destroy with out political interference. Those that commit illegal acts in the heat of war need to be punished as well.
As for Gay marriage they still have the right to get married just like you or I, they aren't being denied that right. They just can't get married to the same sex, just like you or I, where is the discrimination in that? Seems to me that puts us on the same level.
When it comes to which laws are followed i.e pot, the stricter laws apply. Here in the state of Michigan it is illegal to buy a hand gun at a dealer unless you are 21. Federal law states you have to be 18, because in the state of Michigan the law stated 21 that law is the one applied. When it come to controlled substances the same is true wither or not a state passes a law making it legal or decriminalizing it.
"I would certainly vote for republicans in the future if I felt like they held true conservative principles and ideas like my grandparents had."
I am the same way except the other side of the coin.....The problem with most of the Republicans is they were elected in '94 to help change Washington and instead signed on to what the problems they were hired to change. SO both parties have lost their way and passed on what foundations our for fathers have built. The thing we truly need is a viable third party to keep both parties honest, but they control the purse strings and the laws to make that a viable option. I will tell you this though at this pace both parties will eventully crumble and there will be noway to hold back a viable third party.
but the germans were considered pow's and thus had legal rights under the geneva conventions.
i dont' care if they are citizens or not, they are human beings, and they deserve the right to know what they are being held for and then either be charged or let go. perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if i felt the executive branch were competent, but they clearly are not.
British monarchs (amongst others) held people in the tower without charging them, the United States of America should not.
i dont' care if they are citizens or not, they are human beings, and they deserve the right to know what they are being held for and then either be charged or let go. perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if i felt the executive branch were competent, but they clearly are not.
British monarchs (amongst others) held people in the tower without charging them, the United States of America should not.
The Geneva conventions weren't adopted till 1949, so they didn't have protections under those international laws.
Do you honestly think those scumbags in Guantanamo don't know why they are being held? They are terrorist, even under Geneva conventions now if your not in a military uniform you don't have Geneva rights.
We killed 100's of German spies right there on the spot during WW2, why? Because the enemy you don't kill today might be the enemy that kills you tomorrow. That was one of the major points in Saving Privet Ryan, when the German, the one soldier let go came back and killed him and his friend.
Do you honestly think those scumbags in Guantanamo don't know why they are being held? They are terrorist, even under Geneva conventions now if your not in a military uniform you don't have Geneva rights.
We killed 100's of German spies right there on the spot during WW2, why? Because the enemy you don't kill today might be the enemy that kills you tomorrow. That was one of the major points in Saving Privet Ryan, when the German, the one soldier let go came back and killed him and his friend.
actually the first geneva convention was in 1864,
the one dealing with pow's was in 1929:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention_(1929)
don't start taking moral lessons about war from movies
some of the people in guantanamo are certainly terrorists, but since NO ONE being held there has been convicted of anything, we dont' know;
can you honestly say you are certain that all those there are guilty?
we were paying northern alliance tribes to get us terrorists, and they obliged; we have already admitted we locked up a few erroneously, i'd say there are likely more
Thank for the clarification....I went to the actual site for the Geneva conventions and the one enacted in '49 was the one that came up in a search.....
It's not about moral lessons from movies, and just because it was a movie doesn't mean it's not the truth ask anybody who has served. You don't or can't allow your enemies to get away to fight again that is not a safe policy to follow look how many service men died in Vietnam taking over territory that we had already held in our control.
They have to be vetted out in the process and it is a long process much safer then any of our boys ever been through. Some of the ones we let go have already been found in Iraq and other places committing terrorism. So the safest thing to do is hold them and release as you go through the process, convictions or not.
I also want to state that I do respect everyones opinion and wither we agree or not does not reflect what I think of anybody here.....
It's not about moral lessons from movies, and just because it was a movie doesn't mean it's not the truth ask anybody who has served. You don't or can't allow your enemies to get away to fight again that is not a safe policy to follow look how many service men died in Vietnam taking over territory that we had already held in our control.
They have to be vetted out in the process and it is a long process much safer then any of our boys ever been through. Some of the ones we let go have already been found in Iraq and other places committing terrorism. So the safest thing to do is hold them and release as you go through the process, convictions or not.
I also want to state that I do respect everyones opinion and wither we agree or not does not reflect what I think of anybody here.....
Last edited:
ficklefins
Super Duper Moderator
There is only one way to solve this. Everybody send me your best zoa frag. The frag I like the best will win this debate.
Ok, begin...
Ok, begin...
I believe that sending 20k more troops is justified. We're at the point of no return. This war is diffrent in the fact that it is now a bit of a policing job. So i believe 20,000 would help. Im sick of hearing people on tv and in the papers proclaiming that the US is losing the war.
crap!!
What war there was was EASILY won by the US military. The Iraqi army was destroyed and disbanded and the dictator was chased, found, and executed.
That's a win by anyones standards. The fact that Bush tied the "war" sucess to the rebuilding process doesn't mean crap to me. Bush never had a plan for withdraw and thus without a clear mission the military is bogged down doing something it wasn't built to do: BUILD.
The US military kicks butt like no other, it doesn't rebuild. That much we've figured out.
What the US is losing is the SELF-IMPOSED "rebuilding effort". The US came in kicked some butt and then decided(stupidly) to rebuild everything in an effort to make a stable democracy and ally.
That part has failed miserably. Thats just one Marines opinion.
crap!!
What war there was was EASILY won by the US military. The Iraqi army was destroyed and disbanded and the dictator was chased, found, and executed.
That's a win by anyones standards. The fact that Bush tied the "war" sucess to the rebuilding process doesn't mean crap to me. Bush never had a plan for withdraw and thus without a clear mission the military is bogged down doing something it wasn't built to do: BUILD.
The US military kicks butt like no other, it doesn't rebuild. That much we've figured out.
What the US is losing is the SELF-IMPOSED "rebuilding effort". The US came in kicked some butt and then decided(stupidly) to rebuild everything in an effort to make a stable democracy and ally.
That part has failed miserably. Thats just one Marines opinion.
i am not opposed to more troops, it has been obvious for a while that the country is falling apart from lack of security; i think 20k is a bit weak and if bush had said somewhere closer to 50k i might not think he is still doing just enough to lose.
the military didn't fail here, they did there job and took the country. but the military force required to police iraq would have been somewhere between 300-400k. for some reason or person we didnt have that many troops deployed, so without security our state department development projects have mostly not even been followed through on, plus a millenia old religious tension was re-ignited by friends at al qaeda, and this whole thing has cost us about 3000 lives and half a trillion dollars.
thats what really gets my pipes to smokin, the 3000 lives and half a trillion dollars. We should have just wiped there butt out from the start. By now the dust would be settlin over there. I hope this time they do what they should have done from the very start. real fast like. dont lolli gag around.:violent3:
jessiesgrrl
Hasslehoff is NOT Hot!
Add a one whole heartedly agreeing Air Force opinion...
Yup yup, kill people, break things we do well. Civil Engineering built stuff we needed to kill and break more efficently...Oh yeah, and some of us healed soldiers so they could break more stuff and kill more people aiming guns at my boys...
And for the record, the minute Kerry called Vietnam vets babykillers, he lost all right to be called a Vietnam vet. A**hole.
:D
Laurie
jessiesgrrl
Hasslehoff is NOT Hot!
revhtree
Owner Administrator
Staff member
Super Moderator
Ultimate Member
Reef Squad
Partner Member 2026
Excellence Award
Photo of the Month
R2R App User
Article Contributor
Hospitality Award
Article Administrator
Industry Professional
My Aquarium Showcase
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 54,388
- Reaction score
- 120,961
I will say this. The media is sooooooooo bias and if you believe all the crap they publish then I can see where all the anger stems from. The media has been against Bush from day one so of course every negative thing is going to come out. The media wants a liberal democrat and thats the bottom line.
there are certainly left leaning media, but to say they have been against bush since day one is way oversimplification and simply not true. the media gave bush a complete pass on the lead up to this war, taking everything said at face value, and drumming up the wmd calls for them.
the problem with the media today is that they don't ask hard questions.
and if you want to talk bias, fox news is so much further right than cnn is left.
One of the problems of the media is that they do not report the news any more. It always more of an editorial then actually reporting the news. If I was against the war I wouldn't print anything about the stuff that is being rebuilt which there is. What they also don't tell you is the fact the most of what you see nightly is a 50-100 square mile of Iraq. There are 18 providence I believe in Iraq and 4-5 of them are having major problems with violence. Of course the ones with violence are the ones that is going to be shown on the news because that is news worthy. How interesting or important is a new school being built in Kirkuk? Not really eye grabbing. The media of yesteryear although had it's issues was more of "here is whats happening" make your own decisions. I don't think Fox is more conservative then CNN is liberal, it's just more apparent that there is a conservative slant to them because there are no other news channels that have a conservative slant.
Similar threads
New Posts
-
-
-
-
mom and pop type business to buy generic coral from?- Latest: Williamson’s Reef
-
Random chemistry pun of the day #5: it’s those dang atoms again- Latest: Randy Holmes-Farley
