Well Iowans, if nothing else you're entertaining!

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/20#post_3448795
I can only answer by suggesting that you read the constitution of our land. Just this and that qualification, should not be acceptable. But apparently it is. Once you allow an out for "this", then you can expect an out for "that" in the future.
If that is ok with you, fine; but then don't be a hypocrite by showing outrage of perceived violations of the constitution in other topics posted in this forum just because those "violations" are put on by the other party.
Its not about what you or I are ok with. Its about upholding our country's founding laws. Otherwise, its ok to tear it down and start over, modify it at will (at the convenience of government). Isn't that what you guys are constantly trying to say that the other side does? Where exactly is the limited government in allowing government to bypass the law of the land just to make it easier to find terrorists? Do you really trust government that much? If so, then you should be for big government.
There are some valid issues that can be raised with the "Patriot" act. That thing Obama just signed is really bad. I do not believe (particularly the interning Americans) is congruent with my conservative principles. But you can't equate half the stuff the republican party does with conservatism. IMO their is an internecine battle inside that party right now for control. Between the conservative and the much more liberal power currently running the Republican party.
HOWEVER, realistically, I think you're worries are misconstrued. I'm not worried so much by a law, written as a reaction to an issue of national defense that may skirt some civil rights. When we have much more pressing issues in place. Quite frankly, I think you're nitpicking when there are much more pressing actual problems, vs. the hypothetical ones you just posed.
For instance, I think we should worry about unelected bureaucrats, enforcing their regulations not passed by congress...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/09/supreme-court-hears-case-dream-house-stopped-by-epa/
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/20#post_3448847
If you really think humans aren't adversely affecting the global climate than I don't know what to tell you. That's one of those things you either believe or you don't. However, as an avid scuba diver myself, and someone who knows a little about reefs, I can tell you first hand that SOMETHING is bleaching and killing them. If you want to call it a happy coincidence, that's your choice, but it also makes you look like an idiot.
Lastly, I would much rather you call me "Duncan Hines", as their cakes are much tastier.
And come on Darth, it's all junk science that says cupcakes cause fat people. I bet Al Gore told you that, and we all know how trustworthy that guy is!
I didn't know people actually still believed that? Are you serious? There is sooo much evidence to the contrary, that any policy influence of the global warming hoax should be ended...

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/20#post_3448865
That thing Obama just signed is really bad. I do not believe (particularly the interning Americans) is congruent with my conservative principles. But you can't equate half the stuff the republican party does with conservatism. IMO their is an internecine battle inside that party right now for control. Between the conservative and the much more liberal power currently running the Republican party.
HOWEVER, realistically, I think you're worries are misconstrued. I'm not worried so much by a law, written as a reaction to an issue of national defense that may skirt some civil rights. When we have much more pressing issues in place. Quite frankly, I think you're nitpicking when there are much more pressing actual problems, vs. the hypothetical ones you just posed.
"That thing that Obama signed is really bad"? Didn't Republicans author "that thing"? LOL And didn't the Republican led congress just pass it through before it went to Obama?
Also, as long as these laws enacted that skit civil rights (constitutional rights) are effecting someone else's rights, then it may not be a concern to you. However, what if we ever get to a place that those (unconditional) laws enacted start to turn on you and yours? Say it won't happen? Really? Adherence to the constitution, not government enacted laws to skit it, is the law of our land. They are there to protect us from a tyrannical government. That is a hypothetical problem that all of our founding fathers thought of, stdreb27, over 200 years ago; and fought to preserve for us via our constitution.
The Republicans have pushed through laws in the past decade that have eroded away at American constitutional rights. Yet, when Mitt or Newt takes the nomination, all of you conservatives on here will vote for one of them--politicians who represent more of the same.
What pressing issues are more important then laws enacted that suppress Americans' constitutional rights?? Oh, the economy. Republican and Dems both had a heavy hand in demolishing that as well. But its ok to vote for more of the same.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/20#post_3448795
I can only answer by suggesting that you read the constitution of our land. Just this and that qualification, should not be acceptable. But apparently it is. Once you allow an out for "this", then you can expect an out for "that" in the future.
If that is ok with you, fine; but then don't be a hypocrite by showing outrage of perceived violations of the constitution in other topics posted in this forum just because those "violations" are put on by the other party.
Its not about what you or I are ok with. Its about upholding our country's founding laws. Otherwise, its ok to tear it down and start over, modify it at will (at the convenience of government). Isn't that what you guys are constantly trying to say that the other side does? Where exactly is the limited government in allowing government to bypass the law of the land just to make it easier to find terrorists? Do you really trust government that much? If so, then you should be for big government.
Where in the constitution are any rights granted to someone overseas? Now holding a US citizen without charges I have an issue with unless you can prove they are aligned with a foreign government or group.

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/40#post_3448991
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/20#post_3448795
I can only answer by suggesting that you read the constitution of our land. Just this and that qualification, should not be acceptable. But apparently it is. Once you allow an out for "this", then you can expect an out for "that" in the future.
If that is ok with you, fine; but then don't be a hypocrite by showing outrage of perceived violations of the constitution in other topics posted in this forum just because those "violations" are put on by the other party.
Its not about what you or I are ok with. Its about upholding our country's founding laws. Otherwise, its ok to tear it down and start over, modify it at will (at the convenience of government). Isn't that what you guys are constantly trying to say that the other side does? Where exactly is the limited government in allowing government to bypass the law of the land just to make it easier to find terrorists? Do you really trust government that much? If so, then you should be for big government.
Where in the constitution are any rights granted to someone overseas? Now holding a US citizen without charges I have an issue with unless you can prove they are aligned with a foreign government or group.
I'm talking about American citizens and on this land, not overseas.

 

[nihoa]

this thread is well and seriously out of hand now. might as well stir the pot a little more and ask if there is any hypocrisy regarding all this talk about freedom? we hear all the time the criticisms of other countries lacking freedoms or american freedoms threatened at home yet there are groups who wouldnt bat an eye at refusing a womans right to choose or a homosexual couples right to marry. refusing a group the same rights as others based on religious opinion seems to be no different in mentality than what you see in many vilified parts of the world. the difference obviously is the degree of harshness but the point is still there.

 

[cipher43]

Beth you should read this if you think that just the Republicans signed the bill. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/27/senate-clearing-way-extend-patriot-act/%7cdate/
and yes I know that since you must be a Democrat based on your comments toward Republicans, The Fox News link will cause a new debate.
With that said here is a link from CNN that you will probably prefer to read
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-27/politics/congress.patriot.act_1_lone-wolf-provision-patriot-act-provisions-fisa-court?_s=PMOLITICS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/40#post_3448988
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/20#post_3448865
That thing Obama just signed is really bad. I do not believe (particularly the interning Americans) is congruent with my conservative principles. But you can't equate half the stuff the republican party does with conservatism. IMO their is an internecine battle inside that party right now for control. Between the conservative and the much more liberal power currently running the Republican party.
HOWEVER, realistically, I think you're worries are misconstrued. I'm not worried so much by a law, written as a reaction to an issue of national defense that may skirt some civil rights. When we have much more pressing issues in place. Quite frankly, I think you're nitpicking when there are much more pressing actual problems, vs. the hypothetical ones you just posed.
"That thing that Obama signed is really bad"? Didn't Republicans author "that thing"? LOL And didn't the Republican led congress just pass it through before it went to Obama?
Also, as long as these laws enacted that skit civil rights (constitutional rights) are effecting someone else's rights, then it may not be a concern to you. However, what if we ever get to a place that those (unconditional) laws enacted start to turn on you and yours? Say it won't happen? Really? Adherence to the constitution, not government enacted laws to skit it, is the law of our land. They are there to protect us from a tyrannical government. That is a hypothetical problem that all of our founding fathers thought of, stdreb27, over 200 years ago; and fought to preserve for us via our constitution.
The Republicans have pushed through laws in the past decade that have eroded away at American constitutional rights. Yet, when Mitt or Newt takes the nomination, all of you conservatives on here will vote for one of them--politicians who represent more of the same.
What pressing issues are more important then laws enacted that suppress Americans' constitutional rights?? Oh, the economy. Republican and Dems both had a heavy hand in demolishing that as well. But its ok to vote for more of the same.
I'm a Republican and I can guarantee you if Newt gets the nomination you wont see a vote from me. I would rather keep Obama in there than get that corrupt piece of work in there.

 

[cipher43]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/40#post_3449037
this thread is well and seriously out of hand now. might as well stir the pot a little more and ask if there is any hypocrisy regarding all this talk about freedom? we hear all the time the criticisms of other countries lacking freedoms or american freedoms threatened at home yet there are groups who wouldnt bat an eye at refusing a womans right to choose or a homosexual couples right to marry. refusing a group the same rights as others based on religious opinion seems to be no different in mentality than what you see in many vilified parts of the world. the difference obviously is the degree of harshness but the point is still there.
You are 100% correct. Everyone holds a double standard and I mean EVERYONE. Yes the level of double standard varies in each person but we as humans are flawed that way. I could list examples but I would be here all day!

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/40#post_3448988
"That thing that Obama signed is really bad"? Didn't Republicans author "that thing"? LOL And didn't the Republican led congress just pass it through before it went to Obama?
Also, as long as these laws enacted that skit civil rights (constitutional rights) are effecting someone else's rights, then it may not be a concern to you. However, what if we ever get to a place that those (unconditional) laws enacted start to turn on you and yours? Say it won't happen? Really? Adherence to the constitution, not government enacted laws to skit it, is the law of our land. They are there to protect us from a tyrannical government. That is a hypothetical problem that all of our founding fathers thought of, stdreb27, over 200 years ago; and fought to preserve for us via our constitution.
The Republicans have pushed through laws in the past decade that have eroded away at American constitutional rights. Yet, when Mitt or Newt takes the nomination, all of you conservatives on here will vote for one of them--politicians who represent more of the same.
What pressing issues are more important then laws enacted that suppress Americans' constitutional rights?? Oh, the economy. Republican and Dems both had a heavy hand in demolishing that as well. But its ok to vote for more of the same.
I don't think I'm necessarily debating that, I'm just pointing out, that, there are ACTUAL things happening that our government is doing to ordinary people. Vs a hypothetical worst case scenario that you're proposing... You're getting all worked up over something that is already legal... They just defined it... Which is why I although I don't agree with it, I do not think it is the HUGE issue you're making it out to be. there are other more impending dooms...
And imo the crap coming down the pipe now, from the Obama administration, far far outweigh some of the stuff you've mentioned...

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/40#post_3449073
I don't think I'm necessarily debating that, I'm just pointing out, that, there are ACTUAL things happening that our government is doing to ordinary people. Vs a hypothetical worst case scenario that you're proposing... You're getting all worked up over something that is already legal... They just defined it... Which is why I although I don't agree with it, I do not think it is the HUGE issue you're making it out to be. there are other more impending dooms...
And imo the crap coming down the pipe now, from the Obama administration, far far outweigh some of the stuff you've mentioned...
Stdreb, you haven't pointed out yet what you think is more important then preserving the constitution. Please detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher43
Beth you should read this if you think that just the Republicans signed the bill. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/27/senate-clearing-way-extend-patriot-act/%7cdate/
and yes I know that since you must be a Democrat based on your comments toward Republicans, The Fox News link will cause a new debate.
With that said here is a link from CNN that you will probably prefer to read
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-27/politics/congress.patriot.act_1_lone-wolf-provision-patriot-act-provisions-fisa-court?_s=PMOLITICS
Cipher, I love how so many will just pigeonhole people. I'm not a Dem, nor have I ever been a Dem.
I also know that congress signed off on both the Patriot Act as well as the NDAA. Obviously, or it would not have become a law. My point is that the Republicans, the alleged champions of limited government and the Constitution, authored both those unconstitutional laws.

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/40#post_3449089
Stdreb, you haven't pointed out yet what you think is more important then preserving the constitution. Please detail.
You're missing the point, it isn't as matter of preserving the constitution. I'm simply pointing out that, there are ACTUAL infringements of our rights going on, and ACTUAL undermining of our country going on.
This being said, you're worried about hypothetical worst case senarios for some laws actually having passed congress, when we really need to be worrying about actual infringements. That is why you percieve the supposed hypocracy. Sure there are flaws with the patriot act, sure I don't like a law on the books that give government the right to inter people without due process. BUT the constitution allows them to write whatever the crap they want, and then there is this other consitutional thing called checks n balances, where if something actually is harmed by this legislation then they go to court where this other branch of government can say well, that isn't consitutional. And it gets struck down...
The real issue facing america today isn't some law that defines internment of Americans, or allows Law enforcement more leway in investigating national security issues. The real issue is a 15 trillion dollar deficit, a President that is ignore current laws that he just doesn't agree with, unelected boards dictating where and when companies can build new plants, government arbitrarily shutting down oil production. These are TODAYS issues, Widespread internment of Americans isn't going to happen in the next 2 years, all these other ethings are already happening...

 

[cipher43]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/40#post_3449089
Cipher, I love how so many will just pigeonhole people. I'm not a Dem, nor have I ever been a Dem.
I also know that congress signed off on both the Patriot Act as well as the NDAA. Obviously, or it would not have become a law. My point is that the Republicans, the alleged champions of limited government and the Constitution, authored both those unconstitutional laws.
My pigeonhole on you was merely a guess and I guess I was wrong. But as the saying goes "when you hear hoofbeats think horses not zebras"
My overall point was that both groups put that back in so its not just the evil Republicans. As far as I'm concerned they are both a bunch of corrupt people that are too busy throwing out far right or far left statements during election time and then being complete morons the rest of the time. The past 2 presidents have had a hard time (others have too but these are the ones that come to mind first). When Bush was president the Dems blocked things he said he would do and then both sides said that anything that went wrong was because of the other side and now that Obama is in there the Republicans are doing the same thing and once again they are both blaming the other side. Instead of them complaining about the other group why don't they make some sacrifices on each side and actually help the country for once instead of sending us deeper into the abyss.

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher43 http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/40#post_3449097
As far as I'm concerned they are both a bunch of corrupt people that are too busy throwing out far right or far left statements during election time and then being complete morons the rest of the time.
We are in total agreement here. I argue about the Rep here more because most of the folks that talk in these forums are Republican voters. So, really, I debate with them to add some diversity to the conversations, otherwise, the only thing you will generally get at SWF are conservatives beating liberals and dems up. My view is that both leave a lot to be desired. Actually, both parties seem to have one thing in common--corruption to the core of their being and a great love of expanding government powers at the expense of American citizens.

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/40#post_3449096
You're missing the point, it isn't as matter of preserving the constitution. I'm simply pointing out that, there are ACTUAL infringements of our rights going on, and ACTUAL undermining of our country going on.
This being said, you're worried about hypothetical worst case scenarios for some laws actually having passed congress, when we really need to be worrying about actual infringements.
There is nothing in our Constitution that allows congress to pass laws that supersede their powers granted to them by the Constitution. Basically, we are to rollover and allow them to do whatever they want because they are protecting us afterall? Or, its not such a big deal right now, so lets worry about it when it becomes a big deal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/40#post_3449096
The real issue facing america today isn't some law that defines internment of Americans, or allows Law enforcement more leway in investigating national security issues. The real issue is a 15 trillion dollar deficit, a President that is ignore current laws that he just doesn't agree with, unelected boards dictating where and when companies can build new plants, government arbitrarily shutting down oil production. These are TODAYS issues, Widespread internment of Americans isn't going to happen in the next 2 years, all these other ethings are already happening...
My point is that if you give an inch, an arm will be taken. Well, an inch was given, and an arm, and now the body is being whittled away at. Do you think that this started with the Obama Administration? Americans have allowed infringements due to fear and ignorance. Why should Obama follow the laws? Can he see that its ok to ram things through that Americans don't support or that violates laws. I think he can.
Haven't we rolled over enough?
Quote:
Originally written by B. Franklin
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserves neither liberty nor safety.

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/40#post_3449170
There is nothing in our Constitution that allows congress to pass laws that supersede their powers granted to them by the Constitution. Basically, we are to rollover and allow them to do whatever they want because they are protecting us afterall? Or, its not such a big deal right now, so lets worry about it when it becomes a big deal?
My point is that if you give an inch, an arm will be taken. Well, an inch was given, and an arm, and now the body is being whittled away at. Do you think that this started with the Obama Administration? Americans have allowed infringements due to fear and ignorance. Why should Obama follow the laws? Can he see that its ok to ram things through that Americans don't support or that violates laws. I think he can.
Haven't we rolled over enough?
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this. I'm just saying, there are some things that are being abused now, and well, interning Americans isn't one of them. And we need to put out the fire before we start worrying about a rusty pipe that hasn't quite started leaking yet... And well you're screaming about the rusty pipe, and ignoring the fire...

 

[reefraff]

Congress passes a law that says the government can tap a phone call that is to or from a foreign country and the person on the other end of the line is a suspected terrorist. It's a constitutional grey area whether or not that is allowable. Unless or until someone is actually damaged by the practice we won't know if it's constitutional because nobody has standing to take it to court. We do know the FISA wiretaps are legal because SCOTUS said they were.
Anyone following the case where the EPA told someone they can't build a house on their own land? People buy their 1/2 acre lot in a residential area, get the local building permits and start work. EPA dirtbags come along and tell them they are disturbing wetlands and must stop and rehabilitate to property by placing non native species of plants and basically turning the dry lot into a wetlands LOL!
It's in the Supreme Court right now. The EPA isn't trying to prove the lot is or was a wetlands. The EPA is arguing that once they make the determination that the lot is a wetlands the owner of the lot does not have a right to fight that determination in court. That type of bull is what we need to be afraid of.
Another example. Arizona passes a law that would make it a state crime to be in violation of federal immigration laws. There are already many state laws that enforce federal crimes but that's OK. However the Justice department sues the state and ties the law up in court. This very same Justice department released a memo saying it wouldn't not enforce the federal law regarding marijuana as long as people are following a states medical marijuana laws which are in direct contradiction to federal law. OH, and Utah passed a law that created a guest worker program, granting state work Visa's to illegals. Justice department doesn't have an issue with that either.
We got bigger problems that the government trying to catch terrorists.

 

[beth]

For goodness sakes, we will be fighting terrorists as long as we are the most powerful country in the world. So, in the trash can USA constitution because we have to fight terrorists. Aren't most if not all the terrorists of 911 dead or in jail now? I think so. Maybe fighting terrorists has become a means for enhancing government power over American citizens.
All the stuff you guys seem to be more concerned about are also constitutional rights being trampled on, but because they are the violations that interest you, then its a big deal.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/40#post_3449193
For goodness sakes, we will be fighting terrorists as long as we are the most powerful country in the world. So, in the trash can USA constitution because we have to fight terrorists. Aren't most if not all the terrorists of 911 dead or in jail now? I think so. Maybe fighting terrorists has become a means for enhancing government power over American citizens.
All the stuff you guys seem to be more concerned about are also constitutional rights being trampled on, but because they are the violations that interest you, then its a big deal.
BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS I HAVE NOT HEARD OF A USA CITIZEN BEING PROSECUTED OR OTHERWISE BEEN A VICTIM OF THE PATRIOT ACT. I would be more concerned about the detaining deal because they can supposedly hold you without ever giving you your day in court. If someone ever is caught up in a patriot act sting they can protect their rights in court.

 

[beth]

Reef, by the very nature of the PA which mandates secrecy, the American public may never ever know what privacy rights have been violated. Its not just about arresting Americans, which we may here about, it is about surveillance as well. Tools the PA gives law enforcement to use, and, yes, have the opportunity to abuse as well.
But if you guys are ok with all that, then I'm not going to argue with you about it.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/389799/well-iowans-if-nothing-else-youre-entertaining/40#post_3449208
Reef, by the very nature of the PA which mandates secrecy, the American public may never ever know what privacy rights have been violated. Its not just about arresting Americans, which we may here about, it is about surveillance as well. Tools the PA gives law enforcement to use, and, yes, have the opportunity to abuse as well.
But if you guys are ok with all that, then I'm not going to argue with you about it.
Well as I said under the PA evidence unrelated to terrorist activities is not admissible in court. I just don't see it as a harm at this point. If the government tried to use the evidence by statute it has to be thrown out.

 

[darthtang aw]

both sides erode and violate the constitution in my eyes.....just one does it to higher degree.
i grow vastly iritated when i hear of people stating if x and x are my only choices i am not voting. i will stay home.......how in the hell did we get to where we are in the first place? because half the country stays home. there are usually 5 people on the presidential ballot. pick one. if you dislike the current guy...vote him out atleast...a non vote is akin to passive agreeance. if hou dont vote...you are saying you are fine with how things are...because the less people that vote...the more likely things wont change. if you want a third party...vote for a third party.....maybe if more people would do this instead staying home and bitching about things....crap might change for the better.
darth (gary johnson in 2012) Tang