[smoothy]

Are you Obots out there comfortable with this bit of blasphemy? (The thread is "our president, right?)

[VIDEO] Newsweek editor Jon Meacham: "Now that he's gotten health care through, President Obama's approval rating is up five points, and this really could save his presidency. You know, it's fitting that this happened so close to Easter, the time of resurrection, and with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell trying to play the part of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas."
Host Bill Maher: "Except I wouldn't want to insult Obama by comparing him to Jesus."
— Bill Maher on his Real Time HBO show, April 1.

Hell, half of his followers DO believe he is Jesus.

[Wondergirl]

Hell, half of his followers DO believe he is Jesus.

Heck. Why stop at only half?

[smoothy]

Heck. Why stop at only half?

The rest are partisan democrats who's only loyalty is to the party. And will discount ANY evidence that their party is spreading lies and half-truths. They believe its dark out at 12:00 noon if their dear leader tells them it is.

[Wondergirl]

The rest are partisan democrats who's only loyalty is to the party. And will discount ANY evidence that their party is spreading lies and half-truths. They believe its dark out at 12:00 noon if their dear leader tells them it is.

Wow! There are several people on the Christianity board who don't understand what hyperbole is. I'll have to bring them over here.

[smoothy]

Wow! There are several people on the Christianity board who don't understand what hyperbole is. I'll have to bring them over here.

THen explain HOW democrtats can believe the Government, that couldn't run SSI, the VA, Medicare, or Medicaid. Can somehow run a health care system that not only saves money... but doesn't cut benefits or impose rationing... and STILL hire 16,000 IRS agents to assure payments are made... not to mention the massive ammounts of OTHER bureacrats needed... and do it more efficiently than the private sector does?


Because that's what Obama claimed... thats what they automatically believe, when NOBODY says it can be done... ever has been done... or can be done .and not even the CBO says it saves money. ( Didn't hear them touting the revised numbers did you? Only PRELIMINARY estimates) the same people who missed by a factor of 8 the cost of Medicare from their projections.

[Wondergirl]

THen explain HOW democrtats can believe the Government, that couldn't run SSI, the VA, Medicare, or Medicaid.

Hmmm, my SS check shows up exactly on time every month. The VA kept my manic-depressive uncle on track for years. Medicare -- tune in next year and I'll tell you what I think about that. Medicaid -- never had need for it, but some of my counseling clients survived because of it.

[excon]

It doesn't matter a lick that al Haramain is a well know AQ front organization who has a few members residing today in GITMO.

Hello again, tom:

Here's where you guys go wrong... Because, you think these are really bad guys, you don't need to apply the Constitution... You've used that excuse over and over again to justify ALL the really abhorrent stuff you've perpetrated on people.

As you may have read above, the Constitution isn't a guideline. IF these guys are so bad, I'm sure the FBI can lock them up using tried and true criminal investigative techniques. And, they could have done it WITHOUT violating ALL of our rights.

excon

[tomder55]

None of your rights were violated . Just wanted to demonstrate who you defend... People who repeatedly funded attacks and acts of war on the United States .They are enemies at war with us ,not citizens ho had their rights abused by a repressive government... get a grip !
Their so called charitible work is a front.

[excon]

none of your rights were violated . Just wanted to demonstrate who you defend....

Hello again, tom:

I've explained this before, but I don't mind explaining it again. Maybe one of these days, you'll get it... They took habeas corpus rights away from the terrorists. You say, it's only terrorists who lost their habeas corpus rights. You, still have yours...

But, let's examine that, shall we?

Habeas corpus rights are those which allow you to challenge your detention in court... Let's say the government designated YOU to be a terrorist, and swept you away. "Wait a minute", you say. "I'm an American". I have habeas corpus rights. But, if NO judge will entertain your petition, and if you're a terrorist with NO rights, NO judge will. Therefore, you in effect, don't have habeas corpus rights...

The part you don't understand about the Constitution is that if they deny rights to SOME, your rights may be next.

By the way, you don't have to remind me who I defend. I defend ANYBODY who's rights have been violated - not because I believe in their cause - but because their rights were violated, and I know, even if you don't, that if I don't defend them, my rights might be next. The fact is, those whose rights are routinely violated are the downtrodden, unpopular, poor, and generally NOT white, and I revel in their causes.

excon

[Catsmine]

Hello again, tom:

Here's where you guys go wrong... Because, you think these are really bad guys, you don't need to apply the Constitution... You've used that excuse over and over again to justify ALL the really abhorrent stuff you've perpetrated on people.

As you may have read above, the Constitution isn't a guideline. IF these guys are so bad, I'm sure the FBI can lock them up using tried and true criminal investigative techniques. And, they could have done it WITHOUT violating ALL of our rights.

excon

So what does the Constitution say about spies, sabotuers, and avowed enemies of the nation out of uniform? Those are the people we are referring to. We call them terrorists because we are fighting a supra-national enemy so there is no uniform, but they still commit espionage and sabotage inside this coiuntry.

[tomder55]

An enemy at war with the nation once inside the borders can conduct their war with the full consititutional protections of a citizen ? And you equate their right to conduct war against the country with a citizens rights to go about their day to day lives. Amazing

As for Obama;as a Senator ,he voted to amend FISA in ways that "legalized" the warrantless surveillance that Bush had approved(2008 FISA Amendments) ;demonstrating that the judges decision (if given the benefit of the doubt ) has more to do with technical aspects of FISA ,and not about the constitutional inherent obligation of the President to exert powers as CIC to conduct war against ALL enemies foreign and domestic.

BTW the reason the Obama justice dept lost the case is because they wanted to lose the case. They withheld key evidence from the judge after the judge's outrageous decision to give al-Haramain standing in the 1st place. I liken this to state AG's who disagree with a law the legislature passes ;so they offer a weak defense of the law guaranteed to lose so the AG can claim to have tried to defend the law.
The cynical Obots did a half-assed defense of the Bush adm. While at the same time Obama voted to amend the FISA act to allow him the same procedures Bush used to execute the war against jihadistan.

[excon]

An enemy at war with the nation once inside the borders can conduct their war with the full consititutional protections of a citizen ? amazing.

Hello again, tom:

What I find amazing is your total lack of understanding regarding who we are as a nation and what exactly we stand for. Beyond that, you don't understand our basic documents. THAT could be the CORE of problem you right wingers have...

The document in question is the Constitution of these great United States... In it, you'll find that the rights it recognizes are INALIENABLE. That means EVERYBODY has them - NOT just citizens...

Maybe if you truly UNDERSTOOD our founding documents we could come together... But, nooooo... You and smoothy DON'T want to understand 'em. That can be the ONLY conclusion, because the words are small, the sentences are short, and the meaning is clear.

excon

[speechlesstx]

The document in question is the Constitution of these great United States... In it, you'll find that the rights it recognizes are INALIENABLE. That means EVERYBODY has them - NOT just citizens....

The Constitution says nothing about inalienable rights.

[tomder55]

The constitution does not talk of inalienable rights. It is a governing document of the country and not the world . Perhaps if you understood the difference between the founding documents you would realize the only time unalienable rights are mentioned is in the Declaration of Independence and that the declaration goes on the say That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Now I think President Bush acted lawfully in this case and in constitutional compliance because he acted under the authority of Congress.
I take you back to the declaration of war following the 9-11 attack on the nation by AQ .

Congress passed a joint resolution declaration of war entitled "Authorization for Use of Military Force(AUMF)
September 18, 2001 Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
The language in the resolution was clear and unambiguous.

a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Surveillance against an organization that is now effectively disbanned worldwide(see United Nations Security Council Committee 1267 )for their support for ,and funding of AQ activities easily falls within the mandate Congress established.

[excon]

The Constitution says nothing about inalienable rights.

Hello again, Steve:

Correctamundo. Those are the words in the Deceleration of Independence. Those words are the reason we went to war to establish this great nation. They're also the words that guided the founders who wrote the Bill of Rights. Why wouldn't they be? Did we change our mind about those sentiments since we won the war? I don't think so.

In the first ten amendments to the Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, the rights of the people were spelled out. They didn't spell out (list) who the "people" were, though. That wasn't a mistake. Indeed, throughout the Bill of Rights, they specifically use words like "the people", "persons" and "the accused". The last one, "the accused" is pretty succinct - to ME anyway.

It doesn't say (like you wish it did), that CITIZENS who are accused... They COULD have chosen that word. But, they didn't. They could have even used words like voters, and/or taxpayers, and/or people who speak English, if they wanted it to say what YOU think it says. But, they didn't use those words. Was that an accident? Weren't they smart enough to envision this controversy? Did they make a mistake?

Nope, not at all. They were pretty smart guys, our founders. They used the exact words they wanted to use. The meaning is clear. The Constitution is NOT a guideline. It's meant to be followed exactly. There are NO exceptions.

excon

[speechlesstx]

It doesn't say (like you wish it did), that CITIZENS who are accused...

So you believe "the people" as stated in the United States Constitution and intended by the founding fathers includes foreign enemies at war with us? Amazing.

[excon]

So you believe "the people" as stated in the United States Constitution and intended by the founding fathers includes foreign enemies at war with us? Amazing.

Hello again, Steve:

Yes, I do... But, I don't know why you think our Constitutional Rights are a bar to imprisonment... We couldn't have become the worlds largest jailer if that were true.

Let me ask you this? Given your positions, you DON'T believe that our rights, as described by Thomas Jefferson, are "inalienable", do you? If that's so, why do WE have them, and the rest of the world doesn't? Were the founding fathers WRONG? Were they just libs just wanting to make some social justice? If you think that, does it mean your side is excluded from obeying the Constitution?

excon

[speechlesstx]

You're changing the subject again, ex. We were on who is meant by those specific words "the people." The opening words are "We the People of the United States," which does not include KSM.

[cdad]

You're changing the subject again, ex. We were on who is meant by those specific words "the people." The opening words are "We the People of the United States," which does not include KSM.

That is my thinking too. We the people is unfinished. It is meant to apply to the United States and not for governing others abroad. That's how it is independent of others.

(quote)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America


Ref:

Preamble to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[excon]

We were on who is meant by those specific words "the people."The opening words are "We the People of the United States," which does not include KSM.

Hello again, Steve:

So, THAT'S where you think the founders listed who the "people" are and who they're not?

Nahh. What they were doing is listing the people who were WRITING the Constitution. The complete sentence says: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That was the correct place to list who the authors were.

In the Bill of Rights, however, where our rights were specified and enumerated, these same men COULD have listed, like they did earlier, "the people of the United States" as the only people these rights apply to. But, they didn't.

So, are you saying, that anyone who is NOT a citizen is NOT entitled to ANY of our Constitutional protections??

excon