Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, in:

Let's take them one at a time.

YOUR right to due process of law is what the Fifth Amendment is about. The cornerstone of that amendment is habeas corpus... That is the right of ANY prisoner to challenge his detention....

Then the dufus comes along and says HE, and HE alone can designate somebody to BE an enemy combatant, and ENEMY COMBATANTS don't have ANY habeas corpus rights. In other words, they don't have a right to challenge their imprisonment...I'm sure all that makes you warm and fuzzy, until you realize that the dufus could designate YOU to be an enemy combatant, meaning that YOU, an American citizen (who theoretically HAS habeas corpus rights), wouldn't be able to challenge YOUR detention....

The above paragraph is indisputable.

Now, of course, you're going to say, well MY government wouldn't do that to ME... But, if our founders believed that, they wouldn't have been SO intent on making SURE the government wouldn't do that to its people, and that's why they wrote those amendments like they did.

Next.

You, as an individual sovereign citizen of this great nation of ours, enjoy every single right the Constitution says you do. But, you don't have them because they're popular - they're not. You don't have them because a majority of the citizens say you do. You don't have them because the politicians like or dislike them...

You have them because you are a citizen. Therefore, if EVERY politician said that YOU shouldn't have your First Amendment rights, they would be WRONG. If EVERY male citizen said that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, they would be wrong. If EVERY citizen said black people shouldn't be allowed to eat in the same dining room as whites, they'd be wrong.

If you have the right to marry, then so does EVERYBODY else, no matter HOW unpopular the cause, and no matter HOW many politicians don't like it. You do know, that NONE of the hard earned rights, that we have belatedly bestowed upon certain groups of people were NOT popular ideas when those movements began...

I'm gonna stop now. That's a lot for you to digest.

excon

---

BURP: :)

There is a lot of "ifs" and "theoretical" there. Then there is your definitive statement. Following that; IF Joe average can marry Jane, then it should be Joe's right to marry Julie and Ann and Fido the dog and some other guy and throw in some 12 year old - right? Who cares if it is popular or not, or if it is not legal; by golly the founder's of the constitution wanted me to be able to do these things because it is my right :p


G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

BURP: :)

IF Joe average can marry Jane, then it should be Joe's right to marry Julie and Ann and Fido the dog and some other guy and throw in some 12 year old - right? Who cares if it is popular or not, or if it is not legal;

---

Hello again, in:

You're excused...

Your argument went into stupid mode, but I'm used to that from you guys... I guess you're saying if you're granted the right to marry the same sex, that means you'll also have to right to marry a dog... Is that what you think??

Stupid, stupid, stupid...

I'm assuming that TODAY you have the RIGHT to make love to your wife... Ergo, you must have the right to make love to a rock, or your next door neighbor...

Stupid, stupid, stupid...

But, I expect nothing other than that from those people who don't understand the Constitution, and are afraid... I stand by my statement to George... You guys know NOTHING about freedom or liberty.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

until you realize that the dufus could designate YOU to be an enemy combatant, meaning that YOU, an American citizen (who theoretically HAS habeas corpus rights), wouldn't be able to challenge YOUR detention....

---

Hello again, in:

Let me make sure I understand you... As remote as the possibility might be, IF the government DID arrest you and DID designate you to be an enemy combatant, you'd be OK WITHOUT your habeas corpus rights??

Sure you'd be... In a pigs eye! Like all good wingers, you talk a good story, but when the rubber meets the road your WALK don't match your TALK. If you were arrested, you'd be the FIRST one screaming for a lawyer, as well you should. When one of your family members gets involved with drugs, for example, all of a sudden you're not so tough on crime... I know how you guys operate.

So, you'll pardon me, if I don't believe you'd willingly give up ANY of YOUR rights, and you shouldn't. But, please don't diminish the damage the dufus did to the Constitution and freedom, by embracing the following refrain:

I didn't stand up for freedom, because they weren't coming for me... I didn't stand up for freedom when they came for my neighbor. When they finally came for me, there wasn't anybody left to stand up for me.

excon

PS> Your post is also an affront to the founding fathers who experienced FIRST hand what the government is capable of doing, and that's WHY they wrote what they did...

You seem incredulous at the mere suggestion that your government might violate your rights.. That's incredulous to me.

excon

Umm, what does all this have to do with Sarah Palin?

Has anyone other than me noticed that when the lefties have no answer for an argument they change the subject?

Hello gal:

It's MY thread, and I'll take where I want it to go. You're welcome to take me on, point for point. But, you'd rather talk about me.

Besides, the first time I don't have a cogent answer for anything, is the day you'll see pigs fly.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Umm,, what does all this have to do with Sarah Palin?

Has anyone other than me noticed that when the lefties have no answer for an argument they change the subject?

---

You're righty friend George derailed it at post 114.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

But, I expect nothing other than that from those people who don't understand the Constitution, and are afraid.... I stand by my statement to George... You guys know NOTHING about freedom or liberty.

---

By my calculations the gay community made a huge mistake in gunning for nothing less than redefining marriage, and in fact a few are beginning to recognize this. Regardless of what you see as a constitutional liberty, they're blowing it themselves with their in-your-face approach to both the politics and their public behavior. And Lambert's stuff is clean as the pure driven snow compared to what goes on - in public - at the Folsom Street Fair and Up Your Alley in Sodom and Gomorrah (San Francisco).

In response to citizen complaints the perverts in SF asked for "public sex tents." You think the American people are pushing back now, just imagine if they saw for themselves what goes on in full public view at these gay sex fairs. Is that the kind of liberty you're referring to, or do the people of this country have a right to set a few community standards?

Hello again, Steve:

You mistake my support for gay marriage to include support for every dingbat faggot or every off the wall San Francisco politician.

Just because a guy is an a$$, DOESN'T mean he isn't entitled to enjoy the same rights YOU do.

excon

Palin's a birther - 'nuff said.

All she said was it was legitimate to ask questions about his birth certificate. Perhaps she thinks so because they used the birth of her son as a issue against her.

No doubt ;like you ,the Press will target her single observation taken out of context and use it for all it's worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

All she said was it was legitimate to ask questions about his birth certificate.

---

Hello tom:

No, tom. It's not legitimate at all - especially after those questions have been answered, and answered, and then answered again.

She's a birther, huh? Not surprising... How do you like her now, Steve?

excon

From her Facebook page today

Quote:

---

Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I've pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.

- Sarah Palin

---

Hello tom:

Come on, tom. Admit it. You're a birther too.

excon

Not at all. Do I have to produce my submission during the campaign again ? I made a slam dunk case against the proposition.

BTW she has also chimed in on Climategate on Facebook :

Quote:

---

The president's decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe's call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan

Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I've never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man's activities for the earth's cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won't change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.

Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public's worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a "sin" against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in "restoring science to its rightful place."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

All she said was it was legitimate to ask questions about his birth certificate.

---

Hello tom:

Well, as it turns out, she said just a touch more than you alluded to. Here's what she ACTUALLY said.

-----------------------

HUMPHRIES: Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?

PALIN: Um, I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think enough members of the electorate still want answers.

HUMPHRIES: Do you think it's a fair question to be looking at?

PALIN: I think it's a fair question, just like I think past associations, past voting records, all of that is fair game.

---------------------

Yup. She's a birther.

excon

Actually here is the complete relevant transcript.



Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?

I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue 'cause I think there are enough members of the electorate who still want answers.

Do you think it's a fair question to be looking at?

I think it's a fair question, just like I think past associations and past voting record — all of that is fair game. You know, I've got to tell you, too: I think our campaign, the McCain/Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area. We didn't call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were and perhaps what their future plans were. And I don't think that that was fair to voters to not have done our jobs as candidates and as a campaign to bring to light a lot of the things that now we're seeing made manifest in the administration.
I mean, truly, if your past is fair game and your kids are fair game, certainly Obama's past should be. I mean, we want to treat men and women equally, right? Hey, you know, that's a great point, in that weird conspiracy-theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn't my real son. And a lot of people say, “Well you need to produce his birth certificate! You need to prove that he's your kid!” Which we have done. But yeah, so maybe we could reverse that and use the same [unintelligible]-type thinking on them.
...
To tell you the truth .I'm more interested in his college records and perhaps reading some of his college era thesis papers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I mean, truly, if your past is fair game and your kids are fair game, certainly Obama’s past should be.

---

So what part of his past and his birth certificate contains questions that need to be answered?

Nothing ;but the nut jobs tried to make a case that her son Trig was actually the son of her daughter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So what part of his past and his birth certificate contains questions that need to be answered?

---

What part of that quote says there are questions that need to be answered? The question is, is his past fair game or not, or does that only apply to the right?