Well as you would of known, The Democrates were the only ones to vote against the bill to stop Flag burning. Democrate = anti-American. The democrates believe that destroying the American Flag is okay. What do you expect from a bunch of yellow-backed, homosexual, no nuts girly men. When are the democrates going to start acting like Americans. They claim that it is a constitutional right, but the right to bare arms isn't. Pu$$ies. They make me sick. Grrrrrr.... :x
Neither the democrats nor the republicans are worth squat. They are too busy "defending" America and lining their pockets and are slowly scrapping the constitution to justify any of their ideas. That makes me mad. I would sooner tolerate a flag burner than bush and his cronies. They should be protecting the constitution instead of changing it as they please.
They justify anything they do by saying it helps protect us from terrorists. These idiots should realize they will not ever get rid of the terrorists and are just wasting time and money. If they really wanted to get rid of the terrorists, the middle east would be a mirror by now. But no, they are just going to play around with these people until it is will be impossible to do anything.
Maybe bush could ride the first nuke down? Hmmmm is my displeasure showing?
At least the Republicans don't try to make America a socialist state. I am a Constitutionalist. My only problem with Bush is his position on the Illegal Immagration problem.
I do have one other problem with Bush. I don't think we should be friendly with any Arabs what so ever.
Quote from: dallanta on 06-28-2006 -- 11:46:23
Neither the democrats nor the republicans are worth squat. They are too busy "defending" America and lining their pockets and are slowly scrapping the constitution to justify any of their ideas. That makes me mad. I would sooner tolerate a flag burner than bush and his cronies. They should be protecting the constitution instead of changing it as they please.
They justify anything they do by saying it helps protect us from terrorists. These idiots should realize they will not ever get rid of the terrorists and are just wasting time and money. If they really wanted to get rid of the terrorists, the middle east would be a mirror by now. But no, they are just going to play around with these people until it is will be impossible to do anything.
Maybe bush could ride the first nuke down? Hmmmm is my displeasure showing?
I do agree that the Constitution is slowly being ground under by the slow wheels of "progress", that we are being stripped of what out forefathers carved out for us. As for the war on terror, there may never be an end but what we have now is an opportunity to severly hamper their opperations. Unfortunately we can't turn that area of the globe into a glass factory as much as I would like to see it done.
Now I'm not very knowledgeable to the details of this whole thing, from Clinton's inept handeling of terrorist attacks during his time in office, to Bush charging after those who toppled the Twin Towers. I do know that if we give up too soon, that will be a red flag for those terrorist organizations they will interperete as weakness on our part. We hang in a delicate balance as far as strategy. When is too soon and when is too long?
I would like to know why you don't like Bush if you don't mind. My curiosity is peaked.
He just don't like Texans. :-D
LOL, I am a Texan, he is not!
Basically, here is my problem with bush.
He takes it for granted that he has the authority to do pretty much what he wants. He is not backing off, he admits no wrong, he says that he does have that authority and congress just whines about it. There is no check and balance on bush. They read into the constitution what they want and ignore what they do not accept.
There are the wiretaps, the searches without warrants, eavsdropping, financial monitoring, the port authority deal that fell through, the North American Union with bush, fox, and that guy from canada, and let us not forget the fatherland security, just to name a few recent ones. In this one, bush agrees to provide support to "secure mexicos' SOUTHERN border". What the %^^% He does not seem to care what the american people think. His actions have made it clear to me that he is not to be trusted. Yeah I know. If you have nothing to hide it is not a problem. Many governments around the world have used that argument to justify their actions, even years ago in germany.
So what is your suggestion on monitoring the financial movements of the torrorist? What about the terrorist communications? How do you suppose to monitor them when you don't know who they are? Number one it is impossible to monitor everyone. Unless your calling a suspect terrorist number I don't think you have anything to worry about. Bush is not concerned with you calling Dominos and ordering a large pizza. To obtian a warrent for every suspect call would be impossible and to late in some matters. So your suggesting that we do nothing to monitor suspected terrorist phone calls? The same with finances. I don't think Bush cares who your mortgage payments are going to. They are targeting suspected terrorist. The rules of war have changed. We would not be independent from England if we did not change the rules of war during the revolution. I will agree with you about the whole border problem and it makes me mad too, but you have got to get real with the whole terrorist monitoring deal. I am sure that if Bush didn't intercept a communication and the transfer of money that led to another 9/11 you would blame him for that too. You can't have your cake and eat it too. His policy on immigration makes me sick, but I back him 100% on the war on terror. I hear people complain about how he is conducting the war, but none of you can give a solution you just complain. If you have a better way we are all ready to hear it. We all hear the complaints , but no solution. No offense, but it sounds like the typical libral mantra to me. Complain, but have no better solution. The thought of you tolerating flag burning at all is sad to me. This whole thing sucks, but we cannot let it continue. If it was your family that was killed on 9/11 I bet your tune would be different.
I have to agree with Coup on how the President has conducted the war on terror, and he is right- the rules have changed. The enemy isn't lining up and marching across a field of battle. They're small, nimble, wired for high-tech, and financed well. That means we have to play the game differently than we've ever done it before. If the government listens in on a telephone conversation and it saves thousands of lives, that's fine with me. Banking data? Fair game if you're plotting to kill Americans. Like Coup said, they're only targeting the bad guys when they get enough evidence to say "He's a bad guy. Let's track his stuff." Do they have the ability to track all my bank transactions and telephone calls? Sure they do, but they don't.
Flag burning, well, that's a different issue. Although it makes me sick when I see it happen, and I find the act of desecrating the flag morally reprehensible, I still see it as a form of free speech. I may not approve of the way they protest, but I will defend their right to do it. Cindy Sheehan is an idiot, but she can say what she wants. Jesse Jackson can't find his butt with both hands, but he can say what he wants. Most folks on this site are offended by Coup's love of sheep, but he can say what he wants. Flag burning, however offensive, is their way to protest whatever they feel is wrong in their lives, and as much as I hate it, I have to let them have their say, just as they have to let me have mine.
Hey, Bradley's not offened for my affection for sheep.
You got me there, I do not have any solution. Yeah, maybe bush is doing the only thing he can, however, I do not trust them to limit or curtain any of our freedoms at all. That is what the Constitution and Bill of Rights is all about. It is not to protect us from foreign armies or terrorists. It is there to state our freedom and to protect our freedom from anyone, and the includes the politicians. If we only follow the constitution when things are nice and cool, then it might as well be scapped entirely because that is not what it is for.
Actually I am glad I do not have a solution. If I did, I would not be able to get the government to listen to me and that would make me crazy, or crazier.
OK, you guys win, partially. This evening I find myself taking bushes side. That is scary for me. The supreme court decision on gitmo is amazing! Too bad they cannot tell the troops not to take any more prisoners. Not sure exactly where they are going with this, but if they have to put them on trial in our courts, then we are screwed. So, it is dam.. if we do and dam.. if we don't.
Hey see! My sea of glass idea is sounding better.
ok, guess I better have my metamucil and calm down
The real problem with the Supreme Courts ruling is that the prisoners will actually be eligable for bail. If you get one of these terrorist in front of a libral judge they will grant it. I doubt this will happen, but who would have thought that the courts would stop them from being brought before a military tribunal? We are getting screwed by the left! The left is so ignorant.
Not being a lawyer, I'm confused as to how the U.S. legal system has any jurisdiction over prisoners of war. I always thought military courts handled that stuff, so I'm curious as to what authority the civilian courts have in this area... If GWB is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the buck stops with him when it comes to anything military, right? I would think the War Powers Act would give him a say in the proceedings of military tribunals...
The argument is that they are not prisoners of war.
...must be a new definition of POW that I'm not aware of!
It will come to a head when people march on Washington and take the screwed up Supreme Court Justices out physically and lock them up. Man that would be nice.
I read a statistic one time that raised my eyebrows: we have more lawyers in Boston alone than in the entire country of England...
Like the guy said, "Let's shoot all the lawyers..." Personally, I'd start with John Edwards and work my way down from there, but I fear the Remington Arms Co. couldn't make ammo fast enough to meet my needs.
Feedback is pouring in from GOP congressmen about the Supreme Court decision handed down today on the Hamdan case concerning terrorist detainees and Guantanamo Bay, which the AP reported earlier today:
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying in a strong rebuke that the trials were illegal under U.S. and international law.
(Here's the deeper analysis, straight from the Court.)
Reactions appear to be mixed...
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.):
Following the July 4th recess, I will introduce legislation, in consultation with the Administration and my colleagues, that authorizes military commissions and appropriate due process procedures for trials of terrorist combatants. To keep America safe in the War on Terror, I believe we should try terrorists only before military commissions, not in our civilian courts. In response to today's Supreme Court decision, Congress should work with the President to update our laws on terrorist combatants to respond to the new threats of a post-9/11 world. Since this issue so directly impacts our national security, I will pursue the earliest possible action in the United States Senate.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.):
The Court's decision will impede our nation's ability to wage the War on Terror and reveals a frightening lack of understanding about the enemy that we face. We are fighting a transitional network of terrorists with an ideology that calls for the death of Western civilization, not an army. Congress will work with the President to reach an effective solution to this setback.
Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Jon Kyl (Ariz.) released a joint statement:
We are disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision. However, we believe the problems cited by the Court can and should be fixed.
It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts. It threatens our national security and places the safety of jurors in danger. For those reasons and others, we believe terrorists should be tried before military commissions.
In his opinion, Justice Breyer set forth the path to a solution of this problem. He wrote, "Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary."
We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions. Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute.
Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), a member of the Judiciary Committee and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee's Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee:
This is a blockbuster decision, and it will take some time to determine the consequences of what the Court said today. But they've opened the door to a legislative remedy, and as Congress plays a key role in this debate, we'll work with the administration to reach a solution.
We're not talking about simple criminals—these detainees include the most violent terrorists in the world. And let's not forget who we're talking about in this particular case: Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan and is charged with delivering weapons and ammunition to al Qaeda, providing logistical support to bin Laden's bodyguards and participating in weapons training.
The Court does not call into question the U.S. government's power to detain terrorists while hostilities continue. This is critically important because we can't allow terrorists to simply return home and restart their war plans. Guantanamo will remain open so long as it is in the national security interests of the United States.
Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.):
This decision is very disappointing. We're in the middle of a war on terror and we must have the ability to try terrorists using military commissions. It would be completely inappropriate and extremely harmful to our national security if we had to try terrorists in civilian courts.
It's not exactly clear at this point what this decision will mean but it appears to lay out a path for Congress to enact legislation, authorizing military commissions to try terrorists in the future.
Folks need to understand that the Court, however misguided its decision may be, did not call into question the government's power to detain terrorists while hostilities continue. This is critically important because we can't allow terrorists to return home and resume their plan to kill Americans. Guantanamo must remain open so long as it is in the national security interests of the United States.
You know what i really hate that is very disrespectful to the Flag? When sports stars drap the flag around them like a f-cking cape. That is a form of disrespect according to the United States Flag Manual. :x
I agree with ya Dawg...especially when they have it draggin on the track, field, etc.
It is a shame that so many take our flag as a rag to be worn or used to make political statements.
Well, on the positive side...
My family and I here in Perth, went to the US in June to attend my son's graduation from Quantico as a USMC Warrant Officer and catch up with other relatives in America. My wife, an Australian citizen, was really impressed with how homes and businesses were so patriotic and flying the red-white-and blue everywhere. Having been away for years...so was I. Great to see...And it was quite a sight! God bless America!
My mother is here for a visit, and to help us get things organized in the new house. She was impressed that even though we haven't unpacked half the boxes yet, the flags were the first thing to go up. There's one on the house and one on the garage, even an Air Force flag in honor of my nephew, who has done three stints in the Iraqi sandbox...
My family is on its 3rd generation of people serving in the military, so patriotism is second-nature to us. I was impressed at the surge of flag-flying after 9/11, and I see a lot of "stars" in the windows these days, parents of kids serving in Iraq now. Freedom isn't free, and it's heartwarming to see that, as a country, we are still willing to pay the price, even halfway around the world. I never got to serve in a shooting war; the Cold War was exciting enough for me. I admire the guys and gals that put their butts on the line every day to make the world a safer place for me and my family and neighbors. ...and I take great offense at those who would disparage their efforts on our behalf. As a calibration tech, I was a very tiny part in the overall mission of the USAF 20 years ago, but, tiny as it was, the planes didn't fly if I didn't do my job, and I took great pride in that fact. In a small way I defended my country, and flying the flag reminds me of the kids that took my place after I left...