Pray For Our Country

[Danny Dingleberry 0]

You also get flamed when you have a whopping 160 posts and you're calling other people stupid,just saying

You say the darndest things

[Sportsmack 0]

You say the darndest things

Ummmmmmm...okay? and you reach reeeeeeaaaalllllyyyyyyyyy far to come up with jokes. Congrats bud!

[Potomophobia 17]

Yeah...... I have been blind for a while now. But I realize that we need to kill and/or imprison forever anyone who dares to think or speak differently than we do. Charges? We don't need no stinking charges!!! Legal System???? Screw that.... we are defending the Greatest Country In The World!!! And if you don't believe that.... we will kill you.Why I am voting Republican: http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/Kill em all....... Let God sort it out.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Why do you have to bash Family Circus?....

Oh man, you kill me! Hilarious.

[Sal Paradise 57]

you should look up voltaire

hey he don't need no fancy liberal faggot telling him how to think!

"LOL @ you thinking that...a. We care what terrorists and "enemy combatants" who TERRORIZE and COMBAT us think of usb. That if they were treated to a freakin suite at the Ritz instead of a prison cell that they would be any more inclined to "recommend having a friendly relationship with America." These people don't give an eff about us...hence they terrorize us. Most are born and bred to hate us and anything we stand for. And don't go giving me the "we make them hate us" speech. If I really need to explain this to you, then wow...just wow.

ok boss, I'm really stupid. I mean REALLY stupid. I have absolutely no clue why terrorists hate us and want to kill us. please explain to me, in detail, cause you know, I'm stupid, just why terrorists are doing what they're doing.

[hblask 1]

I was never under the impression that Guantanamo was some sort of US civilian prison and acted as such. Were you?

And yet, Bush and pals think it's OK to imprison US citizens there without a trial. Hmmm.....

I reject the premise of your argument. The declaration of independence spoke to "all men", but the basis of our laws is the Constitution, which begins with "We the People". I will once again repeat that I'm down for military tribunals for these people and such. I do not support indefinite confinement for anyone not convicted. I support this ONLY because I don't believe in the "War On Terror" (it's not really a war), so as we're not expecting an official "surrender", we can't just hold people indefinitely.You called me xenophobic earlier so I assumed you were talking about my reference to illegal aliens who I hold have no constitutional rights either.

Yes, that's correct. People who believe that some humans, who happen to have born across an imaginary line, deserve less respect and legal protection, by virtue of their race or skin color, than those born on this side of the imaginary line, are xenophobes. That's pretty much the definition of the word.The US cannot expect to be respected when it treats *anyone* as less than human. Period.

[hblask 1]

That says the people of the united states... not citizens. Being a citizen allows you certain civil rights, but all natural/human rights covered in the constitution apply to the people of the united states.

I would go further than that as say that all natural/human rights covered in the constitution apply to all people of the world. Read some history! The notion of our founders is that when it comes to govt vs individuals, it's not a fair fight. Therefore, it is the duty of the govt to go out of the way to respect the rights of all people. We obviously can't control what people do in other countries, but the idea is that this country will recognize humans as humans, and treat them appropriately, regardless of where they happen to live, or where they were born (as in the case of the US citizens in Guantanamo). Bush and Co apparently decided they know better, that a few bureaucrats should be able to decide who deserves to be treated like a human and who doesn't. The criteria seems to be race and religion.Yeah, nice American values there.

[hblask 1]

Ridiculous, totally two different situations. The only thing they have in common is the Supreme Courts appalling rulings in Boumediene v. Bush and Korematsu v. United States.

Hmmm, imprisoning people living in the US without a trial, without a crime, without access to lawyers, without due process, based on racial profiling. Hmmm, yeah, they are completely different.Oh wait.... how? The fact that a few foreigners are included in the mix? That makes it OK?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

hey he don't need no fancy liberal faggot telling him how to think!ok boss, I'm really stupid. I mean REALLY stupid. I have absolutely no clue why terrorists hate us and want to kill us. please explain to me, in detail, cause you know, I'm stupid, just why terrorists are doing what they're doing.

I love the "born and bred" part, as if terrorists were border collies, born and bred to heard sheep. I wonder what traits the terrorist breeders look for in mating pairs? Probably broad shoulders, to be able to strap more tnt under their robes, and doe-like eyes to make them seem more trustworthy.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

I love the "born and bred" part, as if terrorists were border collies, born and bred to heard sheep. I wonder what traits the terrorist breeders look for in mating pairs? Probably broad shoulders, to be able to strap more tnt under their robes, and doe-like eyes to make them seem more trustworthy.

Bwahahahahahahaha....good one.

[ricardob 0]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. What is xenophobic about thinking non-citizens of a nation do not enjoy the rights of its citizens? Imaginary lines? No sir, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Talk to Europe and about 1,000 wars that were fought, in part, over those lines. No xenophobia at all. Where did you "less human"? Who said anything in such a general term as "humans"?

You think because european countries have fought amongst themselves for thousands of years over borders makes war not bad? The european union was created to prevent those wars because the aftermath of that is always huge destruction; the fact that it has grown into a much bigger project which allowed borders to be completly opened and yet all the imaginary lines mantained through trust and diplomacy and the belief that together we are stronger, should be proof enough that war is never good.We don't live in the middle ages where most people never knew anything that happened outside of their country, sometimes outside of the city they lived in. We live in a very small world, where one event on one side of the world can affect the economy of a country on the other side and because of that countries can't just do whatever they want thinking it won't have any effect. It's a dangerous precedence to keep people imprisioned without trial.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Yes, that's correct. People who believe that some humans, who happen to have born across an imaginary line, deserve less respect and legal protection, by virtue of their race or skin color, than those born on this side of the imaginary line, are xenophobes. That's pretty much the definition of the word.

If you want to apply "xenophobe" to anyone who thinks sovreignity should be respected and that the world's peoples have divided themselves based on culture, race and societal preference since the beginning of time, be my guest. You are absolutely some sort of crazy humanist-utopian who can't even logically get to his point. If borders are just "imaginary lines" and everyone in the world has CIVIL rights in every other country, what is the point of having different countries? Sadly, while you'll say "there isn't", you would lose that vote among the world's peoples. Nations have risen because of the will of their peoples.Instead of ranting nonsense, you should simply state "I believe going wherever I want in the world is a human/natural right, as is no imprisonment without fair trial." I would disagree with you but respect your concise opinion. If you really believe all that "imaginary line" stuff and that people who think you shouldn't have rights under the US Constitution if you're not a citizen are "xenophobic", then I suggest freezing yourself until Klingons attack a few hundred years from now, forcing us to unify as humans and learn one language.

I would go further than that as say that all natural/human rights covered in the constitution apply to all people of the world. Read some history! The notion of our founders is that when it comes to govt vs individuals, it's not a fair fight. Therefore, it is the duty of the govt to go out of the way to respect the rights of all people. We obviously can't control what people do in other countries, but the idea is that this country will recognize humans as humans, and treat them appropriately, regardless of where they happen to live, or where they were born (as in the case of the US citizens in Guantanamo). Bush and Co apparently decided they know better, that a few bureaucrats should be able to decide who deserves to be treated like a human and who doesn't. The criteria seems to be race and religion.Yeah, nice American values there.

Wrong. The US was formed separate from the world because its citizens could enjoy freedom and self-determination. It was not formed to be some sort of nebulous area for people to just come in and set up shop as they please. And, there are no "american" values if there are no borders, remember? You have to stay with your own line of thinking here.

The notion of our founders is that when it comes to tyrant monarchsvs individuals, it's not a fair fight.

FYP

You think because european countries have fought amongst themselves for thousands of years over borders makes war not bad?

I never said that, I said that the wars prove those borders aren't imaginary. And don't fool yourself Riiiiicardoooo, the EU isn't there for any reason other than economic benefit (except for the countries that are being hurt by it).

[hblask 1]

If you want to apply "xenophobe" to anyone who thinks sovreignity should be respected and that the world's peoples have divided themselves based on culture, race and societal preference since the beginning of time, be my guest. You are absolutely some sort of crazy humanist-utopian who can't even logically get to his point. If borders are just "imaginary lines" and everyone in the world has CIVIL rights in every other country, what is the point of having different countries? Sadly, while you'll say "there isn't", you would lose that vote among the world's peoples. Nations have risen because of the will of their peoples.

I'm not even sure where you are going with this. This isn't about sovreignity; this is about basic human dignity. The notion that it is somehow moral to treat people as if they were less than human because they were born somewhere else is very, very sad.

Instead of ranting nonsense, you should simply state "I believe going wherever I want in the world is a human/natural right, as is no imprisonment without fair trial." I would disagree with you but respect your concise opinion. If you really believe all that "imaginary line" stuff and that people who think you shouldn't have rights under the US Constitution if you're not a citizen are "xenophobic", then I suggest freezing yourself until Klingons attack a few hundred years from now, forcing us to unify as humans and learn one language.

Again, I'm not sure what point you are getting at. Are you saying that people born out of the US *are* less than human, less deserving of basic human rights?

Wrong. The US was formed separate from the world because its citizens could enjoy freedom and self-determination. It was not formed to be some sort of nebulous area for people to just come in and set up shop as they please. And, there are no "american" values if there are no borders, remember? You have to stay with your own line of thinking here.

You are very wrong on this. People did not risk their lives to travel across the sea to form a nation that treated people as poorly as the one they left. They had higher goals than that -- a nation in which humans were treated with dignity and respect. GW fails.

[gobears 0]

America's prisons for terrorists often held the wrong menLink to story above. Money quotes from story belowAn eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.From the moment that Guantanamo opened in early 2002, former Secretary of the Army Thomas White said, it was obvious that at least a third of the population didn't belong there.So far, the military commissions have publicly charged only six detainees — less than 1 percent of the more than 770 who've been at Guantanamo — with direct involvement in the 9-11 terrorist attacks; they dropped the charges in one case. Those few cases are now in question after the high court's ruling Thursday.About 500 detainees — nearly two out of three — have been released.Detainees at Guantanamo had no legal venue in which to challenge their detentions. The only mechanism set up to evaluate their status, an internal tribunal in the late summer of 2004, rested on the decisions of rotating panels of three U.S. military officers. The tribunals made little effort to find witnesses who weren't present at Guantanamo, and detainees were in no position to challenge the allegations against them.

[ricardob 0]

I never said that, I said that the wars prove those borders aren't imaginary. And don't fool yourself Riiiiicardoooo, the EU isn't there for any reason other than economic benefit (except for the countries that are being hurt by it).

Hmm...you read a lot about it, do you?You seem to have really misguided ideas about some of these issues.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I'm not even sure where you are going with this. This isn't about sovreignity; this is about basic human dignity. The notion that it is somehow moral to treat people as if they were less than human because they were born somewhere else is very, very sad.

I think we're getting closer to at least understanding each other. I don't think that NOT giving illegal aliens and captured POW'sAmerican civil liberties and rights is a violation of HUMAN rights, unless we could agree on some universal human/natural rights that are being violated at this time (for instance, if we picked up someone who was never an insurgent/terrorist and held them at Guantanamo, I absolutely believe their human rights were violated.)Voting rights, habeus corpus, mandatory healthcare allowances, social security, driver's licenses, etc. are NOT what I consider human rights, but American civil rights. If you are not an American, you do not have rights to those things. If you disagree, then we disagree, but at least we're not shelling each other with accusations of being stupid.

Again, I'm not sure what point you are getting at. Are you saying that people born out of the US *are* less than human, less deserving of basic human rights?You are very wrong on this. People did not risk their lives to travel across the sea to form a nation that treated people as poorly as the one they left. They had higher goals than that -- a nation in which humans were treated with dignity and respect. GW fails.

Again, I'll re-emphasize that this nation was not created to simply be a nebulous destination for whomever wanted to come. If you want to come be an American and enjoy our freedoms, there are processes through which to do so. Notwithstanding the fact that there is a lot less room than there was in 1776 I wrote that so you can't come back with "oh but the process takes awhile."I hold that America treats illegal aliens, POW's and the like still much better than 99% of the nations out there, especially the ones we tend to get into fights with.

[hblask 1]

I don't think that NOT giving illegal aliens and captured POW's; American civil liberties and rights is a violation of HUMAN rights, unless we could agree on some universal human/natural rights that are being violated at this time (for instance, if we picked up someone who was never an insurgent/terrorist and held them at Guantanamo, I absolutely believe their human rights were violated.) Voting rights, habeus corpus, mandatory healthcare allowances, social security, driver's licenses, etc. are NOT what I consider human rights, but American civil rights. If you are not an American, you do not have rights to those things. If you disagree, then we disagree, but at least we're not shelling each other with accusations of being stupid.

I don't think denying voting rights or SS or driver's licenses is violating basic human rights, but habeus corpus IS a basic human right, along with free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to self-defense. These are things that NO government has a right to deny. Yes, I know they do, but it is immoral and appalling.

Again, I'll re-emphasize that this nation was not created to simply be a nebulous destination for whomever wanted to come. If you want to come be an American and enjoy our freedoms, there are processes through which to do so. Notwithstanding the fact that there is a lot less room than there was in 1776. I wrote that so you can't come back with "oh but the process takes awhile. I hold that America treats illegal aliens, POW's and the like still much better than 99% of the nations out there, especially the ones we tend to get into fights with.

Actually this country *was* founded as a place for people to come to escape oppressive governments and enjoy the fruit of freedom. It wasn't until much later that immigration restrictions were enacted, and those were in response to racism/xenophobia. The specific *others* that were targeted have changed throughout the years. It's currently people with brown skin that the xenophobes dislike. Nobody complains about illegal aliens from Canada or France or Germany, it's only the brown-skinned ones that are a threat. And if your brown skin originates in the middle east, well then you need to be locked in a military camp forever and denied basic human rights.

[KramitDaToad 0]

(for instance, if we picked up someone who was never an insurgent/terrorist and held them at Guantanamo, I absolutely believe their human rights were violated.)

How do you propose an 'innocent' demonstrate that that are being illegally detained without habeus corpus?

[Heimdal77 0]

I haven't read the whole thread but the start is probably enough for what I want to add to this nice discussion:First of all, I'm French so in theory not a big Bush fan... Nevertheless, I really think that most of you are too eager to forget what he's done for your country and to blame him for what he's done the wrong way. I was not opposed to the war in Irak simply because getting rid off a f@ckin dictator is something I'm always glad for. I'm sorry it's always the US who do the job and have their soldiers killed but I'm really thankful for all you've done in the last century. You're more or less the last defender of western values which are more and more challenged all around the world.And you probably should be thankful too to have had someone as President to have the courage to do what he did. He made a lot of mistakes, right. BUt he didn't make only mistakes, and someone else might have done worse.True: there weren't arms of mass destruction over there but anyways Hussein financed gloabl terrorism (mere example: he used to send thousands of dollars to the families of the f@ckers who blew themselves in Israel). This sucker's out: good point. The problem is that, like most countries in this region, people can't stand each other when they don't belong to the same ehtnic group or religious group.We europeans are responsible for that in a way because we split these countries at the time of colonization without any knowledge of the people's beliefs and desires (we probably couldn't care less at the time). Bush is not responsible for that.As for Guantanamo, could you please explain to me how the f@ck the people there can be innocent? They were captured while being trained in Afganistan with Al Qaida? Of course some of them haven't killed anybody... yet but man, come on! In France, we've had lots of terrorist bombings in the subway in the 80's and the 90's. It's probably gonna happen again soon. I prefer to have those soon-to-be-active-terrorist detained in Guantanamo than in the Parisian subway.The main problem with our democracies is that we reject all forms of violence (which is good) even when it is addressed to people whose main objective is to destroy us (which is not good): how the f@ck do you want to convince an Islamist that we could leave in peace side by side. You simply can't. So what do you do next: just pray that he's gonna open his eyes and see that we're not the Evil he thinks we are? Play bingo: it's easier to win.Bush-bashing is a fashion. You don't judge a President when he's still there. You judge his actions when years have passed and when you have all the elements to judge his actions.Bush senior was seen as a bloody assh@le in France just ten years ago. Now, everyone agrees around here to say he was a great President. The same thing goes for Reagan. That's very funny right?There were probably errors in this text as English is not my first but hopefully you got my point!

[hblask 1]

I haven't read the whole thread but the start is probably enough for what I want to add to this nice discussion:First of all, I'm French so in theory not a big Bush fan... Nevertheless, I really think that most of you are too eager to forget what he's done for your country and to blame him for what he's done the wrong way. I was not opposed to the war in Irak simply because getting rid off a f@ckin dictator is something I'm always glad for. I'm sorry it's always the US who do the job and have their soldiers killed but I'm really thankful for all you've done in the last century. You're more or less the last defender of western values which are more and more challenged all around the world.And you probably should be thankful too to have had someone as President to have the courage to do what he did. He made a lot of mistakes, right. BUt he didn't make only mistakes, and someone else might have done worse. True: there weren't arms of mass destruction over there but anyways Hussein financed gloabl terrorism (mere example: he used to send thousands of dollars to the families of the f@ckers who blew themselves in Israel). This sucker's out: good point. The problem is that, like most countries in this region, people can't stand each other when they don't belong to the same ehtnic group or religious group.We europeans are responsible for that in a way because we split these countries at the time of colonization without any knowledge of the people's beliefs and desires (we probably couldn't care less at the time). Bush is not responsible for that.As for Guantanamo, could you please explain to me how the f@ck the people there can be innocent? They were captured while being trained in Afganistan with Al Qaida? Of course some of them haven't killed anybody... yet but man, come on! In France, we've had lots of terrorist bombings in the subway in the 80's and the 90's. It's probably gonna happen again soon. I prefer to have those soon-to-be-active-terrorist detained in Guantanamo than in the Parisian subway.<The main problem with our democracies is that we reject all forms of violence (which is good) even when it is addressed to people whose main objective is to destroy us (which is not good): how the f@ck do you want to convince an Islamist that we could leave in peace side by side. You simply can't. So what do you do next: just pray that he's gonna open his eyes and see that we're not the Evil he thinks we are? Play bingo: it's easier to win.Bush-bashing is a fashion. You don't judge a President when he's still there. You judge his actions when years have passed and when you have all the elements to judge his actions.Bush senior was seen as a bloody assh@le in France just ten years ago. Now, everyone agrees around here to say he was a great President. The same thing goes for Reagan. That's very funny right?There were probably errors in this text as English is not my first but hopefully you got my point!

Worst joke account ever?

[gobears 0]

As for Guantanamo, could you please explain to me how the f@ck the people there can be innocent? They were captured while being trained in Afganistan with Al Qaida?

About 500 detainees — nearly two out of three — have been released based on the McClatchy news link I posted above. So I guess that they were innocent after all as otherwise why would the US be releasing them?All the Supreme Court did was to require that our government prove that someone is guilty in a fair proceeding before we jail them indefinitely or execute them.It's interesting that in the UK, there is a big debate over increasing the amount of the time terrorism suspects can be held without being charged with a crime from 28 days to 42 days. The US has held people for years in limbo.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I don't think denying voting rights or SS or driver's licenses is violating basic human rights, but habeus corpus IS a basic human right, along with free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to self-defense. These are things that NO government has a right to deny. Yes, I know they do, but it is immoral and appalling.Actually this country *was* founded as a place for people to come to escape oppressive governments and enjoy the fruit of freedom. It wasn't until much later that immigration restrictions were enacted, and those were in response to racism/xenophobia. The specific *others* that were targeted have changed throughout the years. It's currently people with brown skin that the xenophobes dislike. Nobody complains about illegal aliens from Canada or France or Germany, it's only the brown-skinned ones that are a threat. And if your brown skin originates in the middle east, well then you need to be locked in a military camp forever and denied basic human rights.

Come on, immigration restrictions? Even back in the day you still had to go through Ellis Island. Do you honestly believe we should have open borders? I understand why you feel it's a xenophobia thing. I don't think it is as much..while many harbor xenophobia and bigotry in some form or another, Irish, Italians, etc were ostracized at times they were mass-immigrating, and they were doing so (mostly) legally. You just can't argue around crossing the border without permission, etc.

How do you propose an 'innocent' demonstrate that that are being illegally detained without habeus corpus?

I don't propose that, and I hope you've caught my numerous posts saying that I think those detained because of the war on terror should be given swift and transparent tribunals. "Habeus Corpus" is an American institution, but I think you and hblask are talking in more general terms of the human right not to be detained without fair trial, which I agree with.

[hblask 1]

Come on, immigration restrictions? Even back in the day you still had to go through Ellis Island. Do you honestly believe we should have open borders?

1) Ellis Island began processing immigrants in 1892, which is 116 years after our country began. That's 116 years of world-leading economic growth and world leading innovation.2) I think that all legislative attempts to bypass the law of supply and demand is doomed to fail at a great human and economic cost. How to fix it from where we are now is a serious problem, especially since the racism and xenophobia that lie behind immigration policy have not been eliminated.

[Loismustdie 0]

Once again, one side is holding people in rooms, one side will willingly lop off your head on live T.V., it's fairly easy to see that one side handles themselves a bit better when it comes to the detainee issue.

[Sportsmack 0]

Once again, one side is holding people in rooms, one side will willingly lop off your head on live T.V., it's fairly easy to see that one side handles themselves a bit better when it comes to the detainee issue.

/thread