Barack Obama this week pushed back hard on Sarah Palin’s attack line at the GOP convention that “al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.”
It was an easy, cynical applause line. But Obama called out Palin on substance, telling a rally that the rights of captured suspects were “the foundation of Anglo-American law,” and arguing that the principle “says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, ‘Why was I grabbed?’ And say, ‘Maybe you’ve got the wrong person.’”
He went on: “The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It’s because that’s who we are. That’s what we’re protecting. Don’t mock the Constitution. Don’t make fun of it. Don’t suggest that it’s not American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up. It’s worked pretty well for over 200 years.”
90 Comments
What Palin really meant to say, “We have to destroy our Constitution because terrorists want to destroy our Constitution.”
Who is the terrorist then?
She’s as stupid as she is scary. She’s more like Bush than McCain is.
I took the measure of Sarah Palin in her interview with Charlie Gibson.
I found her self aggrandizing and imperious. She is george bush to another power.
Shoot them in the head in the field, read them their rights when you have time.
Obama is an idiot.
Did we read the Germans, or the Japanese, their “rights” when we captured THEM on the battlefield?
Does ANY country on Earth grant full criminal defense rights to those captured on the battlefield, trying to kill them?
Actually, those captured on the battlefield, OUT OF UNIFORM, Can be “shot in the head” — as SPIES!
Read the Geneva Convention, you wimps.
If you make it harder for the United States to hold prisoners, you will only encourage the United States to take fewer prisoners.
TAKE NO PRISONERS = SHOOT THEM!
“Actually, those captured on the battlefield, OUT OF UNIFORM, Can be “shot in the head” — as SPIES!”
God helps that you’d never be caught in the middle of combat as one of them fleeing civilians…
Yep! Shoot them all! Let Buddha sort the True Followers out later on the Judgment Day…
“Did we read the Germans, or the Japanese, their “rights” when we captured THEM on the battlefield?
Does ANY country on Earth grant full criminal defense rights to those captured on the battlefield, trying to kill them?”
Truth is that many were taken from their homes, not just on the battlefield. You listen to too much conservative talk radio.
Franklin…if your so enthusastic about this useless war…why haven’t you or your’s signed up for duty? Maybe you need to walk the talk instead of cheering from the sidelines.
Mary – Do you really expect him to give up his day job as blog shill?? His masters might like that!
“If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, ‘Why was I grabbed?’ And say, ‘Maybe you’ve got the wrong person.’”
“the government” meaning the US government has an obligation to protect her own citizens. The above quote by Obama is base deception since the people he is referring to are not even governed or protected by the US constitution.
It’s a terrible price to pay for freedom if we allow our constitution to interpreted in such a way as to allow foreigners legal protections in their effort to take away our freedom.
Typical liberalism:
1.) decide what liberals want.
2.) claim that the “Constitution” requires what liberals want.
As stated, above, the Constitution does not cover the entire world. “Citizens of the World” do not HAVE a “Constitution”.
Those who are not United States Citizens may be treated differently than those who are United States Citizens.
Those who are captured on foreign soil may be treated differently from those who are captured on American soil.
Those who are captured, out of uniform, may be treated differently than those who are captured, in uniform.
The Constitution clearly recognizes treaty obligations.
A TREATY is the “Supreme Law of the Land” — and in war time, the treaty, not the Constitution, dictates these matters.
Obama pretends to be a “Constitutional Scholar” –
Obama is an idiot!
What’s evident so far is that Palin has no lack of self-confidence, even when she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Although the neocons with whom she’s in training so as to “reform America” (aren’t these people running the White House now?) packed her full of buzz words in the last ten days, her interview with Gibson last night was painful to watch. Her delivery is a bit uneven, probably because she’s winging it, not unlike a college student appearing in front of an adviser for an initial thesis consultation. If the high office to which she aspires were not so important, it would have been comical to observe the dynamic last night when Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine, and she clearly had no idea what he meant. So then you had Gibson trying to get through it without making her look like the novice that she is. No doubt the media today will take an agnostic view of the matter, and pretend that Palin held up reasonably well. The problem with having such a foreign policy beginner in this case is that McCain is 72 years old. So it’s not at all out of the question that Palin could end up running things. The media will probably try to say that she’s a “quick study” and that she’s picked up a lot in “ten days.” Which brings me to my point: she’s obviously been in training since early September of 2008. Putin, on the other hand, is a world class chess player who knows all the tricks. It’s one thing to be a quick study, and quite another to be a major maestro of the realm.
But never mind all that. Mock the constitution? You bet. Look at the campaign that McCain and Palin are running. Each day is a case study in sleazy, race-baiting ads. Willful distortion of reality in the Bridge-to-Nowhere narrative. We’re “winning” in Iraq with McCain starring as the hero and Obama as the villain, even though the situation is too complex to define in terms of “winning” and “losing.” Again: willful distortion of reality.
And if all that’s not enough, throw in Palin’s totalitarian propensity as evidenced by the book banning story. You see, Palin knows best. It’s her way or the highway, and this is who Republicans want to put in charge of the FBI.
Sounds like fun to me. Leave it to the GOP to ante up this cycle with an even worse offering.
For me taking down terrorists is the number one issue in this country, it must be done. Playing nice will not work. They have no rights they are killers wanting to destroy our way of life. I belive the military people will vote close to 100% against this wimp and loser.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
Note how the wefu will use these words to prove that the United States is a Christian nation, but ignores them when arguing that some people have no rights.
“It’s a terrible price to pay for freedom if we allow our constitution to interpreted in such a way as to allow foreigners legal protections in their effort to take away our freedom.”
Excuse me, but how was “our freedom” threatened by the Iraqis? Saddam Hussein was in enough deep doodoo just trying to keep control over his enemies in his own country…he was never a threat to us.
Although the neocons with whom she’s in training so as to “reform America” (aren’t these people running the White House now?) packed her full of buzz words in the last ten days,… — Royall
——
Bears repeating!
And this is change. Uh huh.
“For me taking down terrorists is the number one issue in this country, it must be done. Playing nice will not work. They have no rights they are killers wanting to destroy our way of life. I belive the military people will vote close to 100% against this wimp and loser.”
If you’re serious about what you say, then you’ll know we need to focus on Afganistan and Parkistan…Iraq was a wasted effort in the fight against terrorism. It was just an excuse to settle a vendeta against Hussein by Bush and try to control the oil and power, nothing more.
Obama has committed to increasing forces in Afganistan…that’s where we need to be if we’re serious about the war on terror.
Yes if they are combatants and engaged in fighting I
have no problem with their deaths or for that matter
firing missles into known camps or strongholds of
terrorists. But what do you do with the Gitmo folks
hold them there forever on the taxpayers dime. It was interesting to note that Osama’s driver got off
with a lighter sentence than recommended due to lack
of evidence. How do we convince people (countries and terrorists) that our way is the right and just
way when we dont follow our own and international
laws and treaties? The Bush adminstration has run
roughshod over our own laws and international laws
cue to Cheney’s desire for power after being thrown
under the bus during Watergate.
If possible, here’s a movie you don’t want to miss, right and left both. Afterward, we can talk.
Taxi to the Dark Side
The film, directed by Alex Gibney, won the 2008 Oscar for “Best Documentary Feature.” Taxi to the Dark Side is the profoundly disturbing and tragic story of Dilawar, a 22-year-old Afghan taxi driver and father of two, who was falsely accused of a rocket attack against U.S. forces in 2002, detained at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, tortured, and ultimately murdered. Dilawar died alone and humiliated, shackled by his wrists to the ceiling of his cell.
But Mr. constitutional student Obama can’t tell us when babies get human rights. The “rights” topic in total is above his pay grade.
#
Predestined
Posted September 12, 2008 at 9:45 am | Permalink
If possible, here’s a movie you don’t want to miss, right and left both. Afterward, we can talk.
Taxi to the Dark Side
The film, directed by Alex Gibney, won the 2008 Oscar for “Best Documentary Feature.” Taxi to the Dark Side is the profoundly disturbing and tragic story of Dilawar, a 22-year-old Afghan taxi driver and father of two, who was falsely accused of a rocket attack against U.S. forces in 2002, detained at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, tortured, and ultimately murdered. Dilawar died alone and humiliated, shackled by his wrists to the ceiling of his cell.
———————-
Although tragic, you progress Liberals act like this didn’t happen under the Taliban rule in Afghanistan
You need to stop “asshatting” the exceptions. If it happened in reality, condemn it, make sure it doesn’t happen again and move on.
I doubt the legitimate nature of the film though.
If you think the War on Terror has borders like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, you don’t get it and it’s really not even worth trying to have a realistic discussion with you regarding it.
When she said she and mccain would achieve victory in the war, gibson should have asked her to define it.
People who do not believe the following words from our Declaration of Independence…. (ie terrorists)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
….Do not deserve legal protection in their attempt to to take those unalienable rights away from those who do.
Terrorists do NOT believe that all men are endowed by unalienable rights, that is the reason they are trying to destroy America. Giving terrorists legal protection in their effort to destroy that which they believe is wrong (all men having unalienable rights) is to undermine the very notion that all men have unalienable rights.
Amazing, this monarchist mentality of some, who think the basic rights of man don’t apply when someone is a dam ferner. That’s obvious bigotry, period.
Don’t try to argue that it’s an antisceptic legal argument. If that argument had any validity (and by the way, the most conservative Supreme Court in 70 years disagrees with you), it would be acceptable, say, for the police to mow down resident aliens on sight as a means of population control.
There is an obvious differences between the privileges of citizenship (i.e. voting, holding office, and in general participating in governance), and the basic rights of human beings–particularly those who are captured abroad and involuntarily subject to US jurisdiction.
These clowns would have us believe (unsurprisingly) that the Bill of Rights is a laundry list of special favors granted to the home team. Of course that’s wrong not only historically not only because the Founders never intended such a thing but that they made clear at the outset they were not “creating” rights at the outset. The Ninth Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
In Obama’s case, he was simply referrred to the most bedrock principle of our Bill of Rights, which in fact predates it by 566 years: the principle of habeas corpus.
Simply put, the King cannot capture you, and throw in a dark hole without telling you why and giving you a chance to prove you didn’t do it.
Under modern Constitutional jurisprudence, that’s called “due process.” And ignoring that, off the battlefield (amazing how you people keep talking about a completely irrelevant situation), thousands of miles from any military theater of operation, under the uncontested jurisdiction of the friggin’ US military, how could due process not apply?
Because if it can be ignored in that situation, than there is no reason it can’t be ignored in American courtrooms either.
P.S. By the way, Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla were American citizens. Padilla was captured in Chicago (gee, have we managed to wrest the East Side from Taliban control yet? :roll: ). They were treated in the same unconstitutional way by the Bush administration (without missing a beat), so that pretty much destroys your bigoted arguments about foreigners having no rights.
Oh, and let’s not forget Obama’s attack on the Constitution.
Obama has mocked the 2nd Amendment, SEVERAL TIMES!
“beber
Posted September 12, 2008 at 9:02 am | Permalink
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
As has been pointed out repeatedly, this is not part of the law of the land (THe COnstitution)
How can Obama be expected to take an oath to Uphold and Defend the Constitution, since he doesn’t support the 2nd Amendment?
How can anyone be President of the United States when they do not believe you have a right to the most basic Freedom – The right to defend your life?
Since Obama does NOT support the 2nd Amendment and your Right to Defend your Life, what other sections of the US Constitution will Obama choose to ignore, or to attack?
Yes, LJ, those phrases from the Declaration of Independence are not a part of the Constitution. The ideas expressed therein are, however, indirectly (at the least) recognized within the language of the Ninth Amendment as posted by Rage above.
Franklin, IMHO a treaty is not the “supreme law of the land” in a time of war. The Constitution speaks to a treaty, once properly ratified, becoming a part of the law of the nation, but does not elevate a treaty (or a series of treaties) above the Constitution, which applies even in times of war.
Obama opposes your right to defend your life in your own home!!!!!!!!!!!
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Standing Guard: Barack Obama’s Slippery Oratory
To understand Barack Obama on the Second Amendment, you have to know about the clash of character between the then-Chicago state senator and an ordinary citizen who exercised his right to armed self-defense in violation of a local gun ban.
That citizen was a 52-year-old resident of Wilmette, Illinois, who, on Dec. 28, 2003, woke to find that, during the night, his home had been invaded by a career criminal; a thief who stole household items, keys and the homeowner’s car.
The victim, Hale DeMar, described his fear in a letter to the Chicago Sun- Times: “For me, the seconds until I found my children still safely tucked in their beds were horrifying . . . The police were called and in routine fashion they came, took the report and with little concern left, promising to increase surveillance. Little comfort, since the invader now had keys to our home and our automobiles. The police informed me that this was not an uncommon event in east Wilmette and offered their condolences . . .” Not 24 hours after the first burglary, the thief returned. Using DeMar’s house keys, the man entered the home, this time setting off the alarm system, automatically notifying the security company. Given the previous night’s lackluster response by police, DeMar was prepared, armed with a handgun–legally purchased years before and kept in a safe. But under Wilmette’s gun ban, that firearm in the home was illegal.
DeMar confronted the criminal, and believing his children were in danger, shot the burglar, who then fled the home.
“Until you are shocked by a piercing alarm in the middle of the night and met in your kitchen by a masked invader as your children shudder in their beds, until you confront that very real nightmare, please don’t suggest that some village trustee knows better … “If my actions have spared only one family from the distress and trauma that this habitual criminal has caused hundreds of others, then I have served my civic duty and taken one evil creature off of our streets, something that our impotent criminal justice system had failed to do, despite some thirty odd arrests, plea bargains and suspended sentences.” The burglar, who was arrested after driving DeMar’s stolen SUV to a hospital, had an extensive criminal record.
Cook County prosecutors ultimately declared DeMar’s use of a firearm to be justified. But Wilmette village officials pressed nonetheless to prosecute him for illegal possession of his handgun–a charge punishable by a huge fine and jail time. A town official was quoted in Reason magazine saying, “We need to set the example that we’re trying to protect our citizens.” And he said, DeMar–by possessing a legally purchased handgun–“is endangering innocent civilians.” The outcry of the Illinois public was heard all the way to the state capitol.
As a result, the Illinois House and Senate passed legislation in May 2004 to protect citizens who use handguns in self-defense in their homes or businesses despite local handgun bans.
The House accepted the DeMar selfdefense bill by a vote of 86-25 and the Senate moved the legislation on a 38-20 vote.
And here lies the seminal moment for state Senator Barack Obama. When Obama turned thumbs down on the bill, he voted against the most basic element of the Second Amendment– the right of defense of self and family– the reason that millions of Americans own firearms.
When the governor vetoed the bill, Obama once again voted against a citizen’s right to self-defense. Despite his vote, the veto override passed the Senate and the House by overwhelming majorities, thereby enacting this bill into law.
Now, fast forward to today’s slippery oratory of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama just three years from being an unknown state senator–now morphed by the media into a spellbinding u.s. senator seeking to be president of the United States.
Using words like “protecting sportsmen,” Obama is now saying that he believes in the Second Amendment … but with almost universal exceptions, all of which he lists under the heading of “common sense gun safety laws.” “Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like endorsing the D.C. gun ban, which outlaws armed self-defense in the home–now being challenged before the u.s. Supreme Court. Obama, who as president would be in the position to nominate justices to that high court, has declared that the d.c. ban doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.
“Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? In a “1998 National Political Awareness Test,” he pledged to support a “Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons”–meaning most handguns and many rifles and shotguns that you and I own.
“Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like demanding that the federal government preempt the 40 hard-won state laws creating Right-to-Carry.
Here’s how the Chicago Tribune put it: “Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed.” “Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like the draconian proposals funded to the tune of $18,000,000 by the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation while Obama was an activist member of its board of directors.
Obama’s alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he’s out to destroy it.
http://www.nraila.net/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=286
Before his dizzyiing swing to the right, McCain said something along these lines about his oposition to torture:
“This is about us, not about them.”
Too bad he can’t stick by those “maverick” words.
Jose Padilla was tried and convicted in civiliian courts after three years confinment in a military prison. The confinement was done because of his links with the jihad that is actively attemmpting to overthrow the US.
Lincoln was not so much concerned with protecting the constitutional rights of those who were trying to divide the country. He was a bit preoccupied with saving the very country which formed the constitution gave it its power to protece civil liberties.
The Constitution of the United States is a worthless piece of paper without the power of United States of America to enforce it.
Protect the US Constitution by protecting the United States.
The confinement was done because of his links with the jihad that is actively attemmpting to overthrow the US.
False. That was never even alleged.
“Don’t suggest that it’s not American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up. It’s worked pretty well for over 200 years.”
_________________________________________________
Laughable on the face of it really.
Republicans or Democrats have failed to follow the Constitution since Abraham Lincoln took the states right away and turned the power over to the Federal Government.
We’ll be glad to see Barack Obama or John McCain shrink the size of government and restore this once great Republic.
They won’t though, so don’t buy into this talk of Constitution. The Republicrats left it long ago.
It’s probably time to start looking at other candidates and not just the ones that the media think are the best.
Chuck Baldwin appears to fit the mold for real conservatives.
Ralph Nadar seems to fit the Democratic role well too.
It will be good to see the one party system that charades as a two party system crumble in the next few elections.
Remember when Bill Clinton said he drew great influence and philosophical ideals from, Carol Quigley, Who wrote, “Tragedy and Hope”.
This is the same, Carol Quigley, who stated, “The Argument that the two parties should represent apposed ideals and policies, one perhaps the right of the right, and of the left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctranaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shift in policy.”
That tells us exactly what is going on and why things don’t change.
Protect the US Constitution by protecting the United States.
. . .by indiscriminately imprisoning people for indefinite periods of time (most of whom, we now know, had nothing to do with it), by send hundreds of thousands overseas to overthrow a country that had nothing to do with it, and sending National Guard troops (arguably the states’ first line of defense against actual attack) overseas.
Oh, and by completely foregoing any real steps to make this country safer.
#
Franklin
Posted September 12, 2008 at 8:12 am | Permalink
Actually, those captured on the battlefield, OUT OF UNIFORM, Can be “shot in the head” — as SPIES!
Read the Geneva Convention, you wimps.
If you make it harder for the United States to hold prisoners, you will only encourage the United States to take fewer prisoners.
TAKE NO PRISONERS = SHOOT THEM!
====================================================
Ain’t that just like a so-called “Christian.” Shoot em and let God sort em out. Don’t matter if they’re innocent or guilty: TAKE NO PRISONERS = SHOOT THEM!
Yep, these “Christians” know no moral code, other than the lunacy perpetrated by the “moral majority.” Go get em, Wango’tard, load your gun with garlic and holy water and kill them infidels.
One of the things making this country so great is a person is innocent until proven guilty. Every other country, you are guilty until proven innocent. Apparently, those with the right-wing, neo-con view, would like to change that basic right.
Which pleases me to no end the founding fathers were way smarter than all the neo-con right-wingers out together.
Neo-Conservatives are a very unique bunch. They use very illogical arguments to justify their means. I have never seen anything like it.
Personally, I would like to see all four candidates thrown into a media free-for-all, having to answer any and all questions asked them. Only then, IMHO, would we see if there is a real leader amongst them. Orchestrated debates, with pre-arranged questions, are useless. Give em NO time to study for the answers, and see what really happens.
Laughable on the face of it really.
Wrong. IF you’re really going argue for 50 states (as opposed to one nation), tell the full story.
In some respects, the 13th Amendment was the most overreaching change ever made to our constitution, as were the 14th and 15th. Perhaps they made government more powerful (well, resisting the secession by force did that), but I rather like the idea of having uniform constitutional support for my basic rights when I cross a state line. Are we one nation, or just 50 states?
Rights of course don’t come from the government but, as we’ve seen recently with the marriage amendments, it’s all too easy for mob with torches at the state level to take them away.
At any rate, putting the toothpaste back in the tube is a pipe dream that ignores the intervening history and the realities of the modern world.
Neo-Conservatives are a very unique bunch. They use very illogical arguments to justify their means. I have never seen anything like it.
Agreed.
Give em NO time to study for the answers, and see what really happens.
Seems McCain offered that to Obama through, forget the name, town hall meetings? Obama respectfully declined.
Good call. McCain had it first though.
I always viewed the Consituition and Bill of Rights as pertaining to Americans.
Rage spews:
Simply put, the King cannot capture you, and throw in a dark hole without telling you why and giving you a chance to prove you didn’t do it
Yeah, explain the ‘King’ concept to a bunch of Islamic anarchists who the United States is the Great Satan and we are either to be converted (purged of our democratic idealism) and/or killed.
You’re living in a dream world Ragey where democratic osmosis doesn’t go two directions but only uni-directional and the other direction of impermeable resistance.
Uh, Berry, pal, she was mocking you. Not the Constitution. Get over it.
Geez this guy is petty and thin skinned.
…..and panicked.
#
Austrian_Economist
Posted September 12, 2008 at 11:10 am | Permalink
Neo-Conservatives are a very unique bunch. They use very illogical arguments to justify their means. I have never seen anything like it.
——————–
And for good reason. Neo-conservatism has its roots in the Democratic Party. :)
I finally agree with the One on something.
All enemy combatants should have a trial….
Like Nick Bergs “trial”….
Is that what he means?
You have to be careful to not confuse the radicals with moderates of any religion.
There are good Muslims too.
Putting sanctions on an entire country of people is awful. How many innocent Iraqi’s died because of the sanctions we put on their country.
A couple hundred thousand?
Go in, destroy the radicals that mean harm, but by no means should you get into nation building.
Iraq was a PNAC pipe dream that became a bloody reality. PNAC’s influence on Foreign Policy is very disturbing.
Iraq was a PNAC pipe dream that became a bloody reality. PNAC’s influence on Foreign Policy is very disturbing.
Yep, and yep.
How many innocent Iraqi’s died during Saddam Hussein’s rein?
Overthrowing the Hussein Government (if you can call it that) was doing exactly what you say – destroying radicals who mean us harm.
Thanks for your support!
Mr_Kia
Posted September 12, 2008 at 11:38 am | Permalink
How many innocent Iraqi’s died during Saddam Hussein’s rein?
Overthrowing the Hussein Government (if you can call it that) was doing exactly what you say – destroying radicals who mean us harm.
Thanks for your support!
_________________________________________________
America stood by and watched Stalin kill 40 million people. What about Polpot?
Please bring something better to this argument. It was a civil war in Iraq and Hussein supported one side over the other.
He was a dictator, but God did not choose America to police the world.
Quit drinking the neo-con kool-aid. Iraq was not a threat to America and never attacked us.
Ever heard of just war?
You Wilsonians are as illogical as his 14 points.
Mr_Kia
Posted September 12, 2008 at 11:38 am | Permalink
How many innocent Iraqi’s died during Saddam Hussein’s rein?
Overthrowing the Hussein Government (if you can call it that) was doing exactly what you say – destroying radicals who mean us harm.
Thanks for your support!
________________________________________________
America begins supporting the side fighting Hussein. We give them weapons and training. Now they are using the same weapons and training to fight us today.
If you don’t find that absurd, then you and I will never get to the same place ideologically.
Oh yeah, America put Hussein into power.
How can you not see how messed up this is?
This is mercantilistic warfare and nothing more. America wants control of natural resouces and plans to use your tax dollars to build its empire. All empires fall. They always have.
What kind of country do you want to leave to your childrens, children?
Libs
I can find quotes, from Obama, which indicate that the “Bush Doctrine” has to do with the President not talking to hostile heads of state without precondictions.
There have been SEVERAL different interpretations of what the “Bush Doctrine” is or means.
The idea that America can make preemptive military strikes is only one definition.
I guarantee you that I can find 10 Gaffes, by Obama and/or Biden, for every time Palin is simply accused of a “mistake” —
It was not a mistake to ask what Gibson meant, since there is no clear definition of what the “Bush Doctrine” means (since the term is actually used as a slur, and is not exact at all!)
#
Austrian_Economist
Posted September 12, 2008 at 11:59 am | Permalink
Oh yeah, America put Hussein into power.
How can you not see how messed up this is?
This is mercantilistic warfare and nothing more. America wants control of natural resouces and plans to use your tax dollars to build its empire. All empires fall. They always have.
What kind of country do you want to leave to your childrens, children?
——————
Mercantile warfare? How simplistic.
Anyone with half a brain knows that the complexities of the Middle East are more that mercantilism.
It is an area surrounded by several oceans and seas. It is an area that influences several continents and their countries. It has been the trade route and the route of civilization cultures that influence every country in the world.
Saddam Hussein was slipping his foot in the door of merciless dominance of the Middle East. Only the blind cannot see that. If unchecked, Hussein would have gained control of the minor oil states, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc. and eventually taken over Saudi Arabia and possibly Iran.
What kind of country did you want to leave your children, when most of the dominate energy source would be held captive by a cruel dictator?
Hey Royal, what is the Royal for? Royal pain the in butt? I think you left wing dems listen too much to tv MSM. It was so obvious that Charles Gibson didn’t know what he was talking about? What do you think of the Bush doctrine? Why wasn’t he specific in his question? Is it because he didn’t know what the Bush doctrine was?
She forced him to be more specific and he couldn’t do it. I actually heard Charles Gibson studdering and stammering by the time they were through. He tried so hard to trip her up and he failed. Maybe you need to listen to it again but without the prism of your precious media telling you what was said.
Wouldn’t World War II in Europe fall under the same definition of the “Bush Doctrine”?
How’s Democracy working out for Austria?
Pros and Cons please.
VT
Sorry, I disagree, a TREATY can, absolutely, control this country, regardless of any other state or any other Act of Congress, a Treaty can even trump the Constitution:
“Supremacy Clause
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Supremacy Clause is the common name given to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. ”
The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it.
While the Supremacy Clause specifically says that “all Treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land”, Certain treaties are regarded as “self-executing,” that is, independently enforceable, while others are not considered enforceable as domestic law unless Congress has enacted implementing legislation, or “non-self-executing.”
Treaties must comply with the Constitution. However, the treaty-making power of the President is broader than the law-making power of Congress. The Supreme Court ruled in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) that pursuant to a treaty with Britain, the United States President, with approval of the Senate, could regulate the hunting of migratory birds, even though Congress had no independent authority to pass such legislation.
There’s been some debate (and fear) as to whether or not some of the basic principles of the United States Constitution, such as the country’s system of government or Bill of Rights could be affected by an ambitious treaty. Since the constitution states that a treaty has supremacy over “any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding,” it has been argued that the potential for abuse is present. In the 1950s a constitutional amendment known as the Bricker Amendment was proposed in response to such fears; it would have mandated that all US treaties not conflict with the existing powers granted to the US government. Subsequent legal precedents, notably, Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955) and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), ultimately established some of the limitations sought by the Bricker Amendment.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
“Saddam Hussein was slipping his foot in the door of merciless dominance of the Middle East. Only the blind cannot see that. If unchecked, Hussein would have gained control of the minor oil states, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc. and eventually taken over Saudi Arabia and possibly Iran.” — the wefu
Please, I’m not going to go all over this again. It’s obvious that the wefu have that gene discussed yesterday about children unable to learn from mistakes. But while I’m at it, what kind of superpower is it that can’t make its own shoes?
“I guarantee you that I can find 10 Gaffes, by Obama and/or Biden, for every time Palin is simply accused of a “mistake” — the wefu
Because Obama and Biden have been on the national scene long enough to be quoted about 10,000 times more. It all comes down to experience.
beber
Palin is FAR more experienced than Obama.
Obama was a radical, a political hack Marxist, assigned to aggitate and organize Black churches into liberal causes, and thereby deliver votes in the Dirty Chicago Machine.
Obama has NEVER made an important management decision, in his entire life.
The only “Executive Experience” Obama has, is running a left wing foundation, giving money to leftist and terrorist groups, while reporting to terrorits William Ayers.
Mercantile warfare? How simplistic.
Anyone with half a brain knows that the complexities of the Middle East are more that mercantilism.
It is an area surrounded by several oceans and seas. It is an area that influences several continents and their countries. It has been the trade route and the route of civilization cultures that influence every country in the world.
Saddam Hussein was slipping his foot in the door of merciless dominance of the Middle East. Only the blind cannot see that. If unchecked, Hussein would have gained control of the minor oil states, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc. and eventually taken over Saudi Arabia and possibly Iran.
What kind of country did you want to leave your children, when most of the dominate energy source would be held captive by a cruel dictator?
________________________________________________
I see, you think that America has to control Oil because that is the only energy source that our industrious country can survive on.
You know that it was innovation that made America great, not industry. We have gotten lazy and not been creative.
I will tell you this again. No where in the bible did America get chosen to police the world.
I find it almost arrogant that you think its America’s job to police the world. Quit acting like God chose us to liberate the world.
Mr_Kia
Posted September 12, 2008 at 12:12 pm | Permalink
How’s Democracy working out for Austria?
Pros and Cons please.
________________________________________________
Wow….just…..wow
#
Austrian_Economist
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:11 pm | Permalink
I see, you think that America has to control Oil because that is the only energy source that our industrious country can survive on.
You know that it was innovation that made America great, not industry. We have gotten lazy and not been creative.
I will tell you this again. No where in the bible did America get chosen to police the world.
I find it almost arrogant that you think its America’s job to police the world. Quit acting like God chose us to liberate the world.
—————————-
The first Gulf War involved the majority of the world, because they did not want to get cut off from oil by having a dictator control the region. The second Iraqi war remove the problem entirely.
Tell me, where are those non-internal combustion engines at? I don’t see them on the highway in great quantities. Have you seen those commercial airliners flying on batteries? How about an electric combine, so they can thresh several thousand acres of wheat? Seen any of those around?
Are the Autobahns in Germany filled with electric cars? Or are they filled with BMW’s, Mercedes, Fiats, Volvos, Volkwagesn?
How about the Autostrada in Italy. Lots of alternative fuel cars there? Great Britain?
No, I find your arrogance of some sort of fantasy that hasn’t happened yet to be more troubling. There are no alternative source energy vehicles on the road in any great abundance.
What would like the world to do? Sit around and do nothing for about 30-50 years, while some vehicle is design that actually works?
Or, we can live in reality and utilize the vehicles we have while researching for alternatives.
How old are you? Did you just crawl out of Kindergarten and not know what is real and what is fantasy?
Mr_Kia,
Do you remember in school when they taught you about Economics? Surely you remember that there are three schools, Keynesian, Monetarist, and Austrian.
Only if you got a government controlled education were you taught that Keynesian was the only school of Economics.
Grow your mind:
http://www.mises.org
“Austrian_Economist” –
I suspect Mr_Kia really wanted to know about your kangaroos.
;^)
I thought the discussion was about the spread of Democracy not* Economic theory?
Fine, maybe I’m wrong about Oil and alternative fuel. Maybe we will all die without it. It is almost as important as water.
I still want you to tell me why you think God chose America to liberate the world?
Why didn’t we help the Russian people during Stalin’s reign? It is a double standard. Look at the facts and you’ll see that we just wanted Hussein to not get control of more oil.
This is hardly something to starve and murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s over. No one life if worth more than you and I getting cheaper gas.
Quit supporting a foreign policy that allows us to kill innocent people. It is immoral.
Mr_Kia
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
I thought the discussion was about the spread of Democracy not* Economic theory?
_________________________________________________
You’re the one who didn’t know what Austrian Economics were.
I was just helping you out with your comment about Austria’s economy. It seems you were lacking a little intellectual knowledge there.
Two million dollars says the US Government is abusing its powers and arresting and holding citizens in violation of the US Constitution. Two million dollars says that merely ACCUSING someone of being a terrorist, and violating their rights, does not MAKE them a terrorist.
Guess who won that two million dollar bet?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-10-patriotact-lawsuit_N.htm
#
Austrian_Economist
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:29 pm | Permalink
Fine, maybe I’m wrong about Oil and alternative fuel. Maybe we will all die without it. It is almost as important as water.
Roger that, you were wrong.
I still want you to tell me why you think God chose America to liberate the world?
What kind of straw man question is that? Did you get that out of the Enquirer or some British Newspaper Rag?
Why didn’t we help the Russian people during Stalin’s reign? It is a double standard. Look at the facts and you’ll see that we just wanted Hussein to not get control of more oil.
I dunno, the purges and a lot of things done, were done in secret, no one really knew what was happening in the Soviet Union. Europeans and the rest of the world sat on their thumbs as well, why blame evil that happens in the world on Americans? You need to learn to think first before you write.
This is hardly something to starve and murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s over. No one life if worth more than you and I getting cheaper gas.
More arm flailing and reactionary statements based on illogical conclusions as indicated in your previous posts. Try not to evoke emotionalism into an argument that requires calm demeanor and study.
Quit supporting a foreign policy that allows us to kill innocent people. It is immoral.
Mindless emotionalism. For a person who has studied at an institute of higher learning, you haven’t applied critical thinking to problem solving. Try working on your discussion skills before you go on your crusade of chastising the United States on its policies. Do come back when you feel confident in your abilities. Or, you can continue to make a fool of yourself.
#
thomaswitt
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
Two million dollars says the US Government is abusing its powers and arresting and holding citizens in violation of the US Constitution. Two million dollars says that merely ACCUSING someone of being a terrorist, and violating their rights, does not MAKE them a terrorist.
Guess who won that two million dollar bet?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-10-patriotact-lawsuit_N.htm
———————-
Cool, that’s one case – an old case as well. The government screwed that up for sure.
Got any others or are you a roll of “one.”
(chortles)
Troll,
Jose Padilla is a US citizen, born in the United States, seized on US soil, and held incommunicado for three years by the US government. Every time the Bush Administration was close to losing in a US court, they moved him to some other jurisdiction (sometimes over the VERY vocal objections of the presiding AMERICAN judges). When he was finally tried, it wasn’t even on the charges he was originally seized for – remember Ashcroft’s Moscow announcement about “dirty bombs?” The ONLY reason he finally got a real trial was because the Bush Administration finally ran out of places they could move him to without it being even MORE painfully obvious they were violating this guy’s Constitutional rights.
Padilla may be a criminal, but he’s a US citizen, and deserves the same rights as any of us. The Bush Administration, and their lackeys and ass-kissers, are who mock the Constitution. They should all be ashamed.
#
thomaswitt
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
Troll,
Jose Padilla is a US citizen, born in the United States, seized on US soil, and held incommunicado for three years by the US government. Every time the Bush Administration was close to losing in a US court, they moved him to some other jurisdiction (sometimes over the VERY vocal objections of the presiding AMERICAN judges). When he was finally tried, it wasn’t even on the charges he was originally seized for – remember Ashcroft’s Moscow announcement about “dirty bombs?” The ONLY reason he finally got a real trial was because the Bush Administration finally ran out of places they could move him to without it being even MORE painfully obvious they were violating this guy’s Constitutional rights.
Padilla may be a criminal, but he’s a US citizen, and deserves the same rights as any of us. The Bush Administration, and their lackeys and ass-kissers, are who mock the Constitution. They should all be ashamed.
——————
Again, old news.
Two now, you’re on a roll!!! Zounds!
Got anything else or have the big bad “G-men” come to take away your constitutional rights?
(chortles)
Austrian_Economist
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:32 pm | Permalink
Mr_Kia
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
I thought the discussion was about the spread of Democracy not* Economic theory?
_________________________________________________
You’re the one who didn’t know what Austrian Economics were.
I was just helping you out with your comment about Austria’s economy. It seems you were lacking a little intellectual knowledge there.
————————————————–
Democracy is a form of Government.
Regular
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
#
Austrian_Economist
Posted September 12, 2008 at 1:29 pm | Permalink
Roger that, you were wrong.
I built an engine that runs on aftershave. I am sure you are waiting for someone else to do that for you. How about you read and go do one yourself?
What kind of straw man question is that? Did you get that out of the Enquirer or some British Newspaper Rag?
I ask because you say it is OK for the innocent to die because we had to stop Hussein from getting Oil.
I dunno, the purges and a lot of things done, were done in secret, no one really knew what was happening in the Soviet Union. Europeans and the rest of the world sat on their thumbs as well, why blame evil that happens in the world on Americans? You need to learn to think first before you write.
Exactly. People sat and watched USSR crumble from within. No invasion was necessary. Socialism always fails.
More arm flailing and reactionary statements based on illogical conclusions as indicated in your previous posts. Try not to evoke emotionalism into an argument that requires calm demeanor and study.
Illogical? Human Beings starved and died because America enforced a world government resolution.
Mindless emotionalism. For a person who has studied at an institute of higher learning, you haven’t applied critical thinking to problem solving. Try working on your discussion skills before you go on your crusade of chastising the United States on its policies. Do come back when you feel confident in your abilities. Or, you can continue to make a fool of yourself.
Your arrogance is your weakness. Please continue to make fun of me. I never said I knew everything, but your act as if you do. I knew that Woodrow Wilson believers still existed, I just find it odd that they jumped from the Democrat party to the Republican party.
Please note, American people are good for the most part. It is the Government that is evil. Most people just want to live their lives. There is a difference between government and the people they represent.
Austrian_Economist,
Please learn how to use separators, quotes or indentations.
Trying to read comment at 2:19 was like making sense of alphabet soup.
Regular,
I suggest that you leave the Neo-Conservatives. They are illogical and their reign is soon coming to an end.
There is a seat right next to me in the conservative movement that Ron Paul revived again. Come join me and let’s share ideas.
Regular
Posted September 12, 2008 at 2:23 pm | Permalink
Austrian_Economist,
Please learn how to use separators, quotes or indentations.
Trying to read comment at 2:19 was like making sense of alphabet soup.
________________________________________________
Sorry man. I need to learn how, I just get lazy when it comes to things like that. I’m not sure how to make my words in bold font.
The points were valid if you could read them.
Hey, not too shabby Obama. Good point. “specially given that you were not even born or raised in the USA.
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” Barry Goldwater
Awww, I thought Hawaii WAS in the USA…
Gosh, McCain was not born in the USA, either! hrmm
The lies, they just keep coming…
I read that young Obama – born in the USA (Hawaii) lived with his step dad and mom in Indonesia from about age 6 to age 10. Then they moved back to Hawaii.
So how does living in Indonesia for four years translate to not being raised in the USA? From 5th grade on, he went to good old American schools in American Hawaii. College in LA and New York.
Yep, he was in Indonesia with mum and dad for 3 – 4 years… Is that a problem?
Lies or just ignorance? The inability to Google a simple biography? Just make up things that are not true… it seems ti be the Republican tactic of the day…..
Crikey.. 70% of our oil use is for transportation. European cars average 50% percent better mileage.
Republicans have repeatedly voted against bills that forced American car companies to increase our efficiency. EVEN THOUGH American-brand cars in Europe also enjoy 50 & 60% better gas mileage.
No one is demanding a magic car… Just some common sense. Stop the waste.
The USA was not founded for just the Kochs
John McCain was born in 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Now fess up.. WHO was not born in the USA???
Again, a typical Randy Scholfield left liberal DimLib thread.
When will this idiot ever learn? His paper is about to go under with lost readership and lost advertising but they just keep him on.
Hey Randy, are you trying to establish some socialistic safety net for yourself when you are no longer employed?
What a loser of a writer.