19 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFBad guys lose their rights, Americans or not. In the early days of the detention program, yes, a few guys got fingered that shouldn't have been. The fact that Obama has neither closed Camps Delta and X-Ray, nor ordered the prisoners held there tried in civilian court, nor released them, ought to attest to the assertion that these guys cannot be released without exposing people of the world to grave danger.
These assertions of yours did not apply to people arrested or captured in the so-called War On Terror. If those prisoners were born with sovereign, sacrosanct rights that are inseparable from them, as you claim, I don't recall your government recognizing those rights that you say "everyone" has. More to the point here, I haven't heard any criticism from either y ...[text shortened]... our own government on this matter. If you were consistent then you would be more convincing.
19 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe NDAA is clearly outrageous and should be condemned. But it is merely codifying what were the equally condemnable de facto powers claimed and used by the executive in, say, 2006, 2007 and 2008 during which time you did not criticize them at all, not even once, even though you could have. What changed in 2008?
The government can detain me indefinately without due process and you want more examples?
Originally posted by FMFBingo. He was remarkably silent when his own Republican party was involved.
The NDAA is clearly outrageous and should be condemned. But it is merely codifying what were the equally condemnable de facto powers claimed and used by the executive in, say, 2006, 2007 and 2008 during which time you did not criticize them at all, not even once, even though you could have. What changed in 2008?
What's interesting is that when Bush tried the shoe bomber in the civilian judicial system neither Democrats nor Republicans criticized him for it. But when Obama did the same for the underwear bomber the Republicans went apesh** and Fox News had a week long orgasm. That's just one of many examples of double standards.
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by SoothfastPunishment for violating rights does not itself violate rights if the punishment is appropriate. This is justice. This process is what gives natural rights their power.
I'm trying to sort this out. In Sasquatchistan governments cannot grant rights, but they routinely take them away...
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI understand that in the context of the current discussion, but Sasquatch has routinely wailed and moaned about how Obama, the Democrats, "libtards", and federally-employed gremlins under his four-poster feather bed with the Hello Kitty comforter are constantly trying to take away his rights.
Punishment for violating rights does not itself violate rights if the punishment is appropriate. This is justice. This process is what gives natural rights their power.
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFActually, this should be the start of a rather substantial thread, but I see it has gone all to hell. Individual rights are at odds with collective rights, as the collective over time, ignores even the existence of individuals. The individual becomes "just parts" of the whole.
Perhaps you could kick this discussion off properly by listing some of the individual rights covered by the Bill of Rights that have vanished "in this era of collectivism of Obama and company".
The current initiative (repeated from time to time) to overstep the 2nd amendment, allegedly to promote group or collective security is sitting out there in front of us. Rights don't go away all at once. They are generally hacked up a bit at a time.
The 1st amendment rights, have been twisted beyond recognition, largely to accommodate what various groups see as collective rights.
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672Please don't sully a fine institution from Alabama witch champions Austrian economics, with Obama. As far as I know Obama matriculated at Columbia and then Harvard. If he went to Auburn as a fan, then he is a jerk, as everyone knows great football is at Tuscaloosa, not Auburn.
I think a better summation of the liberal position that Obama champions is the abandonment of individual rights for the good of the collective. And of that summation, there can be no doubt that that is precisely how he, this idiot from Auburn University, and the rest of their ilk feel. They have stated as much.
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by SoothfastIt is a bit contradictory. Though it can be argued, and was the view of the framers, that rights predated the Constitution, or any government, the truth is that if they aren't reaffirmed by a government willing to enforce them, rights are not real. Kings ruled by "divine right", but what gave them that right was really the sword, not any divine being.
I'm trying to sort this out. In Sasquatchistan governments cannot grant rights, but they routinely take them away...
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194011
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by whodeyWe have collective rights to a system of justice and order which allows us the reasonable opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
In this era of collectivism of Obama and company, what exactly are our collective rights? I know what my individual rights are that are covered by the Bill of Rights, but what are my collective rights?
It seems to me that there are no collective rights, much in the same sense that corporations should not be treated like individuals. What concerns me thou ...[text shortened]... collectivism, while watching our individual rights vanish in the process. What are we becoming?