Like it or not, the PA must be Constitutional, so what is the problem? You are welcome to your opinion, but you wouldn't like it if I reduced it to your postion being one of wanting to make it easier for enemies of America to kill her innocent citizens right at home.
Every time gun opponents want to legislate new gun laws, gun lobbyists always assert why not enforcing the existing laws. I think the same logic should be applied here. We have enough security measures that are not related to PA but just as effective. We should stick to these existing ones but reject the ill-served PA.
well 80% of the wealth in this nation also belongs to the YOUR almighty top 20% wage earners so I guess they cannot sacrifice anymore because they can't feed thier families.. but I bet at least 80% of the hard work and sweat to run this nation and blood to fuel YOUR war comes from the low to middle class..
Bill of Rights. Constitution. That was 8th grade U.S. History. Thanks. You are now dismissed from further discourse regarding U.S. civil liberties.
what does being a sovereign nation have to do with the leader being a dictator? aren't there other dictators in this world? so who's next one YOUR going to get rid of? is that why YOU decided to wage YOUR war against them? and who again put Saddam and his sons in that position? three decades of doing nothing seems a long time...
no they can't, so they'd rather turn a question of vital national, and not incidentally personal, security into yet another partisan football. and one the question of racial profiling, if 19 red-haired irishmen had flown airplanes into the WTC you can bet we'd be profiling red-haired irishmen. but they didn't, arabs did, so that's who we should be looking for in the first instance. then again, if they ever start offering 72 pints of guinness to celtic martyrs perhaps we'll have to adjust our thinking...
Are you familiar with how our income tax system works in this country? There is a graduated scale in which the higher wage earners pay more in taxes. Please research this. Thanks in advance.
I am on record. We will live to regret the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and whatever the next steps are in the game... The pawns are all arguing, America is in checkmate and the Chess Masters are getting more power... We take our sides and debate one another while the enemy relentlessly seizes control, sometimes he wear a Democrat Hat, sometimes he wears a Republican Hat. He goes by the name Conservative and he switches to his alter ego Liberal. He does not love America, her people or her constitution. He controls her money, her media and her military... what more does he need? Ahhh yes, he needs your laziness and comfort. Because as long as you are comfortable you will do nothing. Well never mind it is too late. ... so debate away. I don't know but I would not be shocked one bit to learn that Homeland Security and the principles of the Patriot Act were in planning prior to 9/11. It would make a great research for some of the brilliant minds here, I am too tired.
so what you are saying the rich are unfairly being overtaxed? and without the BUsh's tax cuts they cannot survive? I am familiar with the fact the the more you earn, the grater your tax rate is.. can you show us that graduated scale so we see if it is as unfair and disproportionate as you said it is? thanks in advance. how about facts on what percentage of your almighty all powerful top 20% earners are now in Iraq doing the fighting?
Not really. This was already discussed in the thread about Will's article. If his goal really was to kill as many of us as he could, all of his attacks would not be in strategic points of symbolic value ie: NYC or London. It's pretty clear by the attacks that their aim is not to "spread terror from north to south, east to west" or to kill as many Americans as they can. They could easily carry out mass attacks in smaller cities all over America where security would be much more relaxed, but it wouldn''t hit home strategically. I agree with you though that his goal is not to force our government to curb our civil liberties. But why should we allow that to happen as a result? Shouldn't we stand firm to our core principles? It's funny because on the one hand, the Bu****es like to ignore all possible causes to the conflict and spit out that "freedom will always triumph over terror" or that "they hate us for our freedoms", but then they are the first to sacrifice those liberties which they proclaim to be so dear. It can't go both ways.l
Pretty sure the true islamic teachings dont offer all those virgins for the magical post-jihad g*ngbang....so the 72 pints thing was, at worst, mocking a bunch of extremist idiots, and at best, really really funny (and I'm part Irish)
I challenge the describer "sovereign" when the nation is under the dominating rule of a terrorist. Yes, there are others. I don't know the gameplan. I was taught that if I make a mistake I should endeavor to correct it. What about you?
here's the definition of sovereign. Saddam or no Saddam, Iraq was a sovereign country before YOUR war. NOUN: 1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as: 1. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch. 2. A national governing council or committee. 2. A nation that governs territory outside its borders. 3. A gold coin formerly used in Great Britain. ADJECTIVE: 1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state. 2. Having supreme rank or power: a sovereign prince. 3. Paramount; supreme: Her sovereign virtue is compassion. 4. 1. Of superlative strength or efficacy: a sovereign remedy. 2. Unmitigated: sovereign contempt. [/QUOTE] I was taught that if I make a mistake I should endeavor to correct it. What about you?[/QUOTE] really? I was taught that two mistakes does not make things right. Do you agree?
Did the people of Iraq function in a sovereign nation? Did they govern themselves or did they just bow to Saddam's power? No doubt Saddam was a sovereign but he deserves to die...
Well the IRA composed of many red haired Irishmen have attacked our close allies the Brits several times so perhaps we should be profiling red haired Irishmen too. The main problem I have with profiling is that it exposes a major loophole in our security strategy. While the terrorists who have attacked us have primarily been Arabs its a known fact that there are many Al Qaeda members who are black Africans, Southeast Asians, Caucasians (actually from the Caucasus) and Slavs. The capture of that American kid in Afghanistan shows that there could even be white Americans in Al Qaeda. If we focus on a narrow profile we open up a big blind spot to terrorists who don't fit the profile. If I recall correctly there have been reports that Al Qaeda and related groups is already aware of this and has been working on recruiting non-Arabs. While profiling makes sense given the history of our enemy but at the same time it needs to be balanced out with the problems of creating a big blind spot in our security strategy along with potentially alienating Arabs as a whole who we will need to help us root out the terrorists in their midst.
