Conyers says if 3 more congressmen sign onto HR 333, he'll begin Imp. proceedings

[red states rule]

Well, to be specific, you didn't indicate any specific liberty, you stated you would be okay with "any method" the government employed, which is a short-sighted, and if I may say, unpatriotic attitude.

Second, as for what liberties the government has stepped on in its WOT, the first two that come to mind are the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment, and the warrant provisions of the 4th Amendment. Those are two biggies. Oh, also the Right to Confront witnesses under the 6th Amendment.

Wow, that is 3 out of 10. Nice.

So now you want US Constitutional rights for foreign terrorists?

I do not understand how the left thinks the US can fight - and win - a PC war

 

[ReillyT]

So now you want US Constitutional rights for foreign terrorists?

I did say Americans (or legal residents of the US).

You are just disingenuous, and that is okay. I don't fault you for it. You seem to enjoy your time on the board and I won't begrudge you that.

 

[red states rule]

I did say Americans (or legal residents of the US).

You are just disingenuous, and that is okay. I don't fault you for it. You seem to enjoy your time on the board and I won't begrudge you that.

Originally Posted by ReillyT
Well, to be specific, you didn't indicate any specific liberty, you stated you would be okay with "any method" the government employed, which is a short-sighted, and if I may say, unpatriotic attitude.

Second, as for what liberties the government has stepped on in its WOT, the first two that come to mind are the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment, and the warrant provisions of the 4th Amendment. Those are two biggies. Oh, also the Right to Confront witnesses under the 6th Amendment.

Wow, that is 3 out of 10. Nice.


Where did you mention Amercians?

 

[ReillyT]

Where did you mention Amercians?

In the post below.

Americans have rights that need to be protected, regardless of the relative value of the American. That is part of the importance of the Bill of Rights.

What liberities are being taken away?

 

[red states rule]

In the post below.

So you posted the word Amercians after my post

Again, US citizens who are caught planning terrorists attacks are locked up - where is the problem?

 

[ReillyT]

So you posted the word Amercians after my post

Just read the thread again. You said terrorists. I said Americans. You said terrorists again.

Again, US citizens who are caught planning terrorists attacks are locked up - where is the problem?

If US citizens are locked up or spied upon in contravention of their civil rights and the Constitution, that is the problem. The Constitution matters. If you refuse to acknowledge this that this is a problem, you become the first person on this board (or ever, I think) to whom I can say "You are a bad and unpatriotic American."

 

[red states rule]

Just read the thread again. You said terrorists. I said Americans. You said terrorists again.



If US citizens are locked up or spied upon in contravention of their civil rights and the Constitution, that is the problem. The Constitution matters. If you refuse to acknowledge this that this is a problem, you become the first person on this board (or ever, I think) to whom I can say "You are a bad and unpatriotic American."

So while you defend the rights of terrorists, they kill as many Amercians as possible

BTW, you tossed in Amercians AFTER I said terrorists. You did not mention Amercians in your first post

 

[ReillyT]

So while you defend the rights of terrorists, they kill as many Amercians as possible

I defend the rights of Americans, which is something you are unwilling to do. That is why you are unpatriotic and un-American.

BTW, you tossed in Amercians AFTER I said terrorists. You did not mention Amercians in your first post

Review my initial post (28) where I specified "americans." You responded "terrorists" (33). I corrected you (35) with "Americans." You once again said "terrorists" (41). I can't believe I am having this dumbass conversation with you.

 

[red states rule]

I defend the rights of Americans, which is something you are unwilling to do. That is why you are unpatriotic and un-American.



Review my initial post (28) where I specified "americans." You responded "terrorists" (33). I corrected you (35) with "Americans." You once again said "terrorists" (41). I can't believe I am having this dumbass conversation with you.

Keep pushing for the rights of terrorists - you are in lockstep with your defeatest party

Whenever libs go back to the insults and personal attacks - they are losing

 

[ReillyT]

Keep pushing for the rights of terrorists - you are in lockstep with your defeatest party

Whenever libs go back to the insults and personal attacks - they are losing

Take it as an insult if you like. I call you un-American because you show no interest in violations of the rights of your fellow citizens, and no desire to protect the Constitution or the rights it grants us.

You can keep saying terrorists all you want. I am talking about American citizens and legal residents.

 

[red states rule]

Take it as an insult if you like. I call you un-American because you show no interest in violations of the rights of your fellow citizens, and no desire to protect the Constitution or the rights it grants us.

You can keep saying terrorists all you want. I am talking about American citizens and legal residents.

There are always some who will never get it

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1490715

 

[ReillyT]

There are always some who will never get it

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1490715

So you think our Constitutional rights should be protected if it polls well? You think that this makes you a good American. You say you are willing to let the government use "any method" to prevent terrorism, and you have no interest or concern that the government has deprived some Americans of their rights under the Constitution. It just isn't an issue for you, at all? What kind of citizen does this make you? What kind of American?

 

[red states rule]

So you think our Constitutional rights should be protected if it polls well? You think that this makes you a good American. You say you are willing to let the government use "any method" to prevent terrorism, and you have no interest or concern that the government has deprived some Americans of their rights under the Constitution. It just isn't an issue for you, at all? What kind of citizen does this make you? What kind of American?

An Amercian who wants to win thei war, protect our country from more attacks, and kill/capture the bastards who want to kill us

 

[ReillyT]

An Amercian who wants to win thei war, protect our country from more attacks, and kill/capture the bastards who want to kill us

You would dispose of the Constitution to do all this. Sickening. Just sickening.

Do you really care so little for what so many have for so long fought?

 

[red states rule]

You would dispose of the Constitution to do all this. Sickening. Just sickening.

Do you really care so little for what so many have for so long fought?

As you wrap your arms around the terrorists and protect their rights - they will kill you and your family

and the rest of the libs still alive, will blame Bush and America for the killings

 

[ReillyT]

You would dispose of the Constitution to do all this. Sickening. Just sickening.

Do you really care so little for what so many have for so long fought?

Actually RSR, I am just being overly dramatic at your expense. You have to appreciate it. You do it all the time.

I don't really think you are un-American. I do think that you are a short-sighted fool, but that is a different thing altogether. Just try to think a little harder about the ramifications of some of our (the government's) actions. No hard feelings.

 

[red states rule]

Actually RSR, I am just being overly dramatic at your expense. You have to appreciate it. You do it all the time.

I don't really think you are un-American. I do think that you are a short-sighted fool, but that is a different thing altogether. Just try to think a little harder about the ramifications of some of our (the government's) actions. No hard feelings.

and I do think you are a typical panty wearing liberal peacnik

 

[ReillyT]

and I do think you are a typical panty wearing liberal peacnik

In fact, I do prefer thongs.

Perfect, we understand each other. xoxoxox

 

[Ninja]

Doesn't sound like good news for the impeachment crowd. John must be getting annoyed with you guys:

Peace activist Sheehan arrested in Conyers' office

WASHINGTON — Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Monday at the Capitol for disorderly conduct, shortly after saying she would run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the California Democrat’s refusal to try to impeach President George W. Bush.

Sheehan was taken into custody inside Rep. John Conyers’ office, where she had spent an hour imploring him to launch impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Conyers, D-Mich., chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment effort would have to begin.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070724/NEWS07/70724006/1001

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

 

[Stephanie]

This is the Democrat party of today....

warning......large sagging breast....view at your own risk....

Topless Protest by Breasts Not Bombs and Code Pink at Hillary Clinton Campaign Launch

The Hillary Clinton for President Campaign celebrated the opening of its new San Francisco headquarters with a launch party that coincided with the Democratic presidential debate on July 23, 2007. The radical activist groups Breasts Not Bombs and Code Pink heard about the event and decided it would be a good opportunity to stage a surprise topless protest to publicize their anti-war message.

I heard about the planned party-crashing and made sure I was on hand to record what happened.

http://www.zombietime.com/hillary_sf...pless_protest/