Bush Vindicated on NSA program!

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

There is a difference between dying for this country and dying for a country that is not ready for democracy and for geopolitical gains.

like Germany in 1917

[TheScatman]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Because I firmly believe the Axis could have conquered the United States

The terrorists are not going to conquer the US, and they are in no shape to significantly hurt our country

heck, China/Russia are a bigger threat, you don't see Bush violating the constitution to protect us agains them

What about other parts of the Constitution? I don't see you defending the 10th amendment or outlining a natural rights interpretation of the 9th

[TheScatman]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

justified, yes

Saving the Union in the 1860s or saving the World and United States in the 1940s

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."



I find it a little ironic that you are defending "saving the Union in the 1860's" by explitcitly denying Southern the right to "throw off such a government" and practice self-government as they see fit. I dont see how that meshes with a belief in the Constitution, as its really influenced by natural rights found in the Declaration

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by TheScatman

What about other parts of the Constitution? I don't see you defending the 10th amendment or outlining a natural rights interpretation of the 9th

[WickedLou9]

Hearing that just reaffirms my feelings that all of government is self serving. It's unconstitutional. If you don't think it is, you don't understand the constitution. period.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by TheScatman

What about other parts of the Constitution? I don't see you defending the 10th amendment or outlining a natural rights interpretation of the 9th

Nice red herring. This debate has nothing to do with those ammendments.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Excuses, excuses, and he isn't!

Can I send the second line to Howard Dean?

Yeah, remember when he said Saddam's capture wasn't going to make America safer, that crazy cook!

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by TheScatman

What about other parts of the Constitution? I don't see you defending the 10th amendment or outlining a natural rights interpretation of the 9th

The 10th amendment has been ruled for many decades to be moot, and natural rights are a fraud

The 10th amendment was a failure before it passed, the federalists took out the word "expressly" before delegated so it wouldn't have any teeth and could be vaguely applied

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by TheScatman

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."



I find it a little ironic that you are defending "saving the Union in the 1860's" by explitcitly denying Southern the right to "throw off such a government" and practice self-government as they see fit. I dont see how that meshes with a belief in the Constitution, as its really influenced by natural rights found in the Declaration

The declaration means absolutely nothing in US Law

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The 10th amendment has been ruled for many decades to be moot, and natural rights are a fraud

The 10th amendment was a failure before it passed, the federalists took out the word "expressly" before delegated so it wouldn't have any teeth and could be vaguely applied

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The declaration means absolutely nothing in US Law

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by lew

While true, "dying for your country" is open to interpretation.

In this case dying for the country is to directly spur the financial gain of our military-industrial complex. You cannot deny the billions being made quarterly by these war-profiteering companies, who are harbored and incubated by the insider-trading of contracts and entitlements.

Eisenhower was right, and we didn't heed his words of warning.