ahhh, the good ol' 9th US Circuit of Appeals does it again

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Pers

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: Corn

But don't claim to understand their hardships, and pretend you're concerned for them.

Freedom Loving conservative != Christian fundamentalist.....except, of course, to closed minded bigots like SuperTool. He can wallow in his ignorance, it fits him like a glove.

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment.

As a non-theist whose Libertarian leanings put 80% of his views in agreement with the Republican party, I'm often classified as a "Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist Neo Conservative," despite the fact I'm pro-gay, pro-choice, and pro-drug.

Most of the so-called "conservatives" I associate with share a diverse set of views that defy the label "Neo con" or "fundamentalist."

I would suggest to all of you that before you try to shove someone into category just because of one of their beliefs tends to be that of one of the larger two parties, you ask yourself whether one belief of many constitutes qualification for that label.

How about you do the same for the Arab community before you go into their COUNTRIES bombing them, for what turns out to be mere speculation rooted from obvious racism.

Until then, do the rest of us a favor and shut up. No one likes hearing a bunch of over-privileged snobs complain anyway.

Racism? Racism?

First of all, the correct term would be Xenophobia. Regardless of what terminology you use, the implication is the same - You think I hate people with dark skin.

First of all, you don't even know what my racial makeup is, so it seems like it would be pretty difficult to accuse me of hating a people when, for all you know, I could be one of those people.

Secondly, you have the gall to assume you know ANYTHING about my thought processes? I'm an advocate of equality for every man and woman on the planet, regardless of race. I don't factor race into a single decision I make. To me, the color of one's skin is as irrelevant to politics as hair color - It's a genetic trait which doesn't change the fact that one is a human being.

As a libertarian, I believe everyone in the world has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so long as exerting one's free will does not impose on the free will of another person's right to those same freedoms.

I supported the war on the Iraqi regime for several reasons, among the most central that being the fact that Saddam and his cronies were standing in the way of the freedoms of 26 million Iraqis.

This was not a case of "keep darkie down," it was a case of "take down the despot who is keeping his own people down."

Now, are you going to resort to personal attacks, or are you going to apologize for making invalid assumptions and insulting me?

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Second: How much freedom do you enjoy when our president wasn't even really elected by a popular vote, instead selected by the Supreme Court.

The President was elected IAW the laws of this country. Get over it.

I have come to question my own voice in this grand old republic many fools mistake for a democracy.

Your posts pretty clearly depict who the fool is.

How much freedom do you enjoy when your country initiates an illegal war, without anyone, but the president and his fellow cronies having a say in it?

There was nothing illegal about the war and I guess the Congress is part of the "cronies". The rest of your post is even less worthy of a response as hard to believe as that it is.

... ownzed.

no i didn't

i don't know what IAW means first of all. I'm assuming "In accordance with?"

That's like me saying bush is smart. I mean i can say it, but it's not even worth the time taken to prove it.

Bush wasn't elected. WE can debate this all we want = neither side is gonna change their mind on the issue.



The second part was another insult. I'm crying inside, i really am.


and for the last part: Congress gave up their powers to the unelected elitest president. The war's power act of 1964? restricted military use by the president (attempting to prevent an imperialist president - guess that didn't work too well.) Congress being over run by the GOP (greedy conservatives) would obviously allow for the leader of their party to do whatever he pleases. As for the democrats who also voted in favor of giving up congress' power and handing it over to the pres. They just did it out of fear from idiots like yourself. Imagine how stained their political record would have been (at the will of the same republicans that ruined Clinton's image) had they voted against this "patriotic" bill.

and he left an entire segment of my post ignored. heh


no one got owned.

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: Pers

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: Corn

But don't claim to understand their hardships, and pretend you're concerned for them.

Freedom Loving conservative != Christian fundamentalist.....except, of course, to closed minded bigots like SuperTool. He can wallow in his ignorance, it fits him like a glove.

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment.

As a non-theist whose Libertarian leanings put 80% of his views in agreement with the Republican party, I'm often classified as a "Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist Neo Conservative," despite the fact I'm pro-gay, pro-choice, and pro-drug.

Most of the so-called "conservatives" I associate with share a diverse set of views that defy the label "Neo con" or "fundamentalist."

I would suggest to all of you that before you try to shove someone into category just because of one of their beliefs tends to be that of one of the larger two parties, you ask yourself whether one belief of many constitutes qualification for that label.

How about you do the same for the Arab community before you go into their COUNTRIES bombing them, for what turns out to be mere speculation rooted from obvious racism.

Until then, do the rest of us a favor and shut up. No one likes hearing a bunch of over-privileged snobs complain anyway.

Racism? Racism?

First of all, the correct term would be Xenophobia. Regardless of what terminology you use, the implication is the same - You think I hate people with dark skin.

First of all, you don't even know what my racial makeup is, so it seems like it would be pretty difficult to accuse me of hating a people when, for all you know, I could be one of those people.

Secondly, you have the gall to assume you know ANYTHING about my thought processes? I'm an advocate of equality for every man and woman on the planet, regardless of race. I don't factor race into a single decision I make. To me, the color of one's skin is as irrelevant to politics as hair color - It's a genetic trait which doesn't change the fact that one is a human being.

As a libertarian, I believe everyone in the world has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so long as exerting one's free will does not impose on the free will of another person's right to those same freedoms.

I supported the war on the Iraqi regime for several reasons, among the most central that being the fact that Saddam and his cronies were standing in the way of the freedoms of 26 million Iraqis.

This was not a case of "keep darkie down," it was a case of "take down the despot who is keeping his own people down."

Now, are you going to resort to personal attacks, or are you going to apologize for making invalid assumptions and insulting me?

I never called you a racist. I simply categorized you into a group that demonstrate traits of a racist. If you feel that this stereotype doesn't apply to you, then i apologize. Otherwise, if you think this war was intended to liberate Iraqi's, do us a favor and never vote again. Your political insight is hardly worth taking into any consideration. 26 million IRaqi's weren't free before, but are even more screwed now, thanks to Uncle Sam. NOt only have we robbed them of their dignity and pride, we have tainted their image of us (once again). WE never learn, do we? How much better off is Iraq now that they hve a western influence sabotaging any hope of a stimulated economy (off oil sales)? Anyway - no matter how sympathetic you are and how much you would like to contribute to the humanitarian cause - you will continue to see the world in two different shades - the good vs. the evil. America Good - all opposers evil..

 

[AndrewR]

no i didn't

i don't know what IAW means first of all. I'm assuming "In accordance with?"

That's like me saying bush is smart. I mean i can say it, but it's not even worth the time taken to prove it.

Bush wasn't elected. WE can debate this all we want = neither side is gonna change their mind on the issue.



The second part was another insult. I'm crying inside, i really am.


and for the last part: Congress gave up their powers to the unelected elitest president. The war's power act of 1964? restricted military use by the president (attempting to prevent an imperialist president - guess that didn't work too well.) Congress being over run by the GOP (greedy conservatives) would obviously allow for the leader of their party to do whatever he pleases. As for the democrats who also voted in favor of giving up congress' power and handing it over to the pres. They just did it out of fear from idiots like yourself. Imagine how stained their political record would have been (at the will of the same republicans that ruined Clinton's image) had they voted against this "patriotic" bill.

and he left an entire segment of my post ignored. heh


no one got owned.

Your opinion. You did.

The most amusing part about this entire thread is the assertion that even the Democrats' actions in supporting the resolution authorizing the use of force were the fault of the conservatives.

It's all the fault of the conservatives! Global warming, Zionism, terrorism, global poverty, global overpopulation, drug addition, censorship, genocide, ethnic cleansing, budget deficit, corporate fraud, gas guzzling vehicles, etc., etc.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Pers

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: Pers

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: Corn

But don't claim to understand their hardships, and pretend you're concerned for them.

Freedom Loving conservative != Christian fundamentalist.....except, of course, to closed minded bigots like SuperTool. He can wallow in his ignorance, it fits him like a glove.

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment.

As a non-theist whose Libertarian leanings put 80% of his views in agreement with the Republican party, I'm often classified as a "Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist Neo Conservative," despite the fact I'm pro-gay, pro-choice, and pro-drug.

Most of the so-called "conservatives" I associate with share a diverse set of views that defy the label "Neo con" or "fundamentalist."

I would suggest to all of you that before you try to shove someone into category just because of one of their beliefs tends to be that of one of the larger two parties, you ask yourself whether one belief of many constitutes qualification for that label.

How about you do the same for the Arab community before you go into their COUNTRIES bombing them, for what turns out to be mere speculation rooted from obvious racism.

Until then, do the rest of us a favor and shut up. No one likes hearing a bunch of over-privileged snobs complain anyway.

Racism? Racism?

First of all, the correct term would be Xenophobia. Regardless of what terminology you use, the implication is the same - You think I hate people with dark skin.

First of all, you don't even know what my racial makeup is, so it seems like it would be pretty difficult to accuse me of hating a people when, for all you know, I could be one of those people.

Secondly, you have the gall to assume you know ANYTHING about my thought processes? I'm an advocate of equality for every man and woman on the planet, regardless of race. I don't factor race into a single decision I make. To me, the color of one's skin is as irrelevant to politics as hair color - It's a genetic trait which doesn't change the fact that one is a human being.

As a libertarian, I believe everyone in the world has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so long as exerting one's free will does not impose on the free will of another person's right to those same freedoms.

I supported the war on the Iraqi regime for several reasons, among the most central that being the fact that Saddam and his cronies were standing in the way of the freedoms of 26 million Iraqis.

This was not a case of "keep darkie down," it was a case of "take down the despot who is keeping his own people down."

Now, are you going to resort to personal attacks, or are you going to apologize for making invalid assumptions and insulting me?

I never called you a racist. I simply categorized you into a group that demonstrate traits of a racist. If you feel that this stereotype doesn't apply to you, then i apologize. Otherwise, if you think this war was intended to liberate Iraqi's, do us a favor and never vote again. Your political insight is hardly worth taking into any consideration. 26 million IRaqi's weren't free before, but are even more screwed now, thanks to Uncle Sam. NOt only have we robbed them of their dignity and pride, we have tainted their image of us (once again). WE never learn, do we? How much better off is Iraq now that they hve a western influence sabotaging any hope of a stimulated economy (off oil sales)? Anyway - no matter how sympathetic you are and how much you would like to contribute to the humanitarian cause - you will continue to see the world in two different shades - the good vs. the evil. America Good - all opposers evil..

I don't believe in good, evil, or morality for that matter. Do you have any more misconceptions about me you'd like to try on for size? Perhaps call me a chauvinist or a rich kid? I'd love to dispel those beliefs.

As for the 26 million Iraqis - Under Saddam Hussein, they NEVER had a chance to enjoy freedom. Ask the tens of thousands of Afghani female children who, for the first time in years, are allowed to attend school, if the American liberation from the Taliban was a good or a bad thing.

With Saddam removed, they have a CHANCE to be a free and prosperous people. That in of itself is a huge accomplishment. Do you deny that? What's your reasoning?

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Pers

I never called you a racist. I simply categorized you into a group that demonstrate traits of a racist. If you feel that this stereotype doesn't apply to you, then i apologize. Otherwise, if you think this war was intended to liberate Iraqi's, do us a favor and never vote again. Your political insight is hardly worth taking into any consideration. 26 million IRaqi's weren't free before, but are even more screwed now, thanks to Uncle Sam. NOt only have we robbed them of their dignity and pride, we have tainted their image of us (once again). WE never learn, do we? How much better off is Iraq now that they hve a western influence sabotaging any hope of a stimulated economy (off oil sales)? Anyway - no matter how sympathetic you are and how much you would like to contribute to the humanitarian cause - you will continue to see the world in two different shades - the good vs. the evil. America Good - all opposers evil..

It's not often we get to see this much ignorant bullshyt compressed into so few words. Nice job.

 

[Corn]

"Operation Iraqi Freedom"

Excuse me, but what the fsck does that have to do with a discussion regarding the 9th circuit court of appeals decision to shred the constitution? What the fsck does that have to do with *anything* discussed in this thread?

And about the last part, i REALLY must be a moron.

Well, you were bound to say something that's factually correct and that I completely agree with!

 

[SuperTool]

There is a difference between a freedom loving conservative and a freedom loving libertarian. One is an oxymoron, and the other isn't.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Corn

Iran

I guess you missed the two bolded words in the following quote:

....but where is the freedom loving conservative male supposed to go......

Iran doesn't quite work...but thanks for playing.

Freedom loving conservative is an oxymoron. You are free to do as you please, just so long as the religious right approves of it. Iran will do just fine.

Freedom loving liberal is too in the context that you can do anything that you want no matter what the consequences (on paper that is because if you happen to offend someone or do somehting that disagrees with someone elses point of view you will not be permitted to do so, In other words you cant do a darn thing) And in the defence of others feelings and point of view your right to have one at all will be banned, outlawed, and indoctranated all the while re-defining words and meanings as the left see's fit to attain its agenda of a communist state.

So there

The right and the left, who needs em?

 

[DigDug]

A reading of the constitution will reveal that an individual's right to bear arms is far from expressly granted. You knock the 9th circuit like they are some 10th grade drop-outs when their analytical ability and intelligence (as with all federal court appointees) could run circles around you and your whole family.
If the 9th circuit is reversed often, it's because objective reevaluation of legislation isn't the true pursuit of the legal system. Bush v. Gore, is a shining example of the hand of political pressure upon the supposed independence of the Court. If not, please explain to me how the die-hard state's rights adovcates of the court (Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist) ruled effectively eviscerated the 10th amendment in one fell swoop.

 

[Corn]

If not, please explain to me how the die-hard state's rights adovcates of the court (Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist) ruled effectively eviscerated the 10th amendment in one fell swoop.

"State rights" end where they violate the constitution. Seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices determined the selective recount, as well as the varying standards to determine legitimate votes were a violation of equal protection.

Of those seven justices who determined the recount was unconstitutional, only five acted according to that which they were charged: Upholding the constitution. In a disgusting display of partisanship, the two liberal justices who also determined the recount was unconstitutional went against the principles for which they were appointed and voted along party lines! Disgusting! :disgust:

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: BlipBlop
A reading of the constitution will reveal that an individual's right to bear arms is far from expressly granted. You knock the 9th circuit like they are some 10th grade drop-outs when their analytical ability and intelligence (as with all federal court appointees) could run circles around you and your whole family.
If the 9th circuit is reversed often, it's because objective reevaluation of legislation isn't the true pursuit of the legal system. Bush v. Gore, is a shining example of the hand of political pressure upon the supposed independence of the Court. If not, please explain to me how the die-hard state's rights adovcates of the court (Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist) ruled effectively eviscerated the 10th amendment in one fell swoop.

They are reversed often because of their blatant disregard of the intent of the founders of this nation.

And for your other issue, they didn't eviscerate anything, they merely bound Florida to the laws that they initially set out, as well as what Corn stated. if anything, the Florida Supreme court eviscerated their own state congress.

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: BlipBlop
A reading of the constitution will reveal that an individual's right to bear arms is far from expressly granted. You knock the 9th circuit like they are some 10th grade drop-outs when their analytical ability and intelligence (as with all federal court appointees) could run circles around you and your whole family.
If the 9th circuit is reversed often, it's because objective reevaluation of legislation isn't the true pursuit of the legal system. Bush v. Gore, is a shining example of the hand of political pressure upon the supposed independence of the Court. If not, please explain to me how the die-hard state's rights adovcates of the court (Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist) ruled effectively eviscerated the 10th amendment in one fell swoop.

There analytical ability is matched easily by the pies my BlackAngus herd leaves behind. It also appears you are reading a constitution other than the one I have memorized.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Just another example of the liberals shredding the constitution and taking away our freedoms. Ashcroft has got nothing on these nanny state fascists.

Last time I checked the nannies were not locking people up without charge or trial . . . just an observation. I agree the Supreme Court should hear a few 2nd Amendment cases. The pro-gun people have gotten crazy. I think people should be free to buy/sell/own whatever weapons they like. Of course being part of the fascist nanny state I would probably tax it heavily.

Regardless, I think concealed carry should be banned and businesses/localities should have the right to prohibit firearms (concealed or otherwise).

 

[RyanM]

In the last two years, the violent crime rate of Detroit has dropped 50%.

Two years ago this July, the State enacted a law that gave anyone with no criminal history and a clean bill of mental health the ability to obtain a CCW.

Coincidence?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yes . . .

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

How about some information on the Detroit CC statute and crime stats?

FBI finds Detroit crime stats unreliable 2001
Commander Dennis Richardson told the Free Press last month that the department may be overreporting some crime categories by 10 percent or more.

Richardson and Napoleon insist that the department has overreported crime, unlike other departments that have deliberately underreported crime to make cities appear safer.

Crime has dropped in Detroit since they stopped overreporting crime. Coincidence?

In 1999, the most recent year for which verified data are available, Detroit police made 1,152 murder arrests -- with just 415 killings. That's almost three arrests for every homicide. Experts say the number of murders and arrests should be about equal. Detroit has reported similar numbers to the FBI for years.

Minister Ashcroft would be proud.

Police Chief Benny Napoleon and Deputy Chief Sidney Bogan, in a series of interviews, say it's sometimes necessary -- and is the department's policy -- to take homicide witnesses to headquarters for questioning even if they don't want to go. Napoleon says a substantial portion of the people arrested for murder are witnesses.

Minister Ashcroft is getting a woody.

Napoleon, in an interview, says he didn't tell the FBI the numbers are accurate. Rather, he states, he said they are as accurate as the city can make them.

Future Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee . . .