Rug Burn Junky on 25/9/2006 at 05:56
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
Our constitution applys to our citizens and no one else.
Please just trust me on this one: You're wrong.
Briareos H on 25/9/2006 at 06:15
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
...
Do they still make people like that circa 2006 ? I thought the trend had shifted around the nineties.
Shug on 25/9/2006 at 06:41
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
And where would your sorry asses be without us? Oh that's right you'd be New Germany or something.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
SlyFoxx on 25/9/2006 at 06:41
Quote:
Considering all the crap thats flying around about that poor Arar fella, saying stuff like that is poor in both timing and taste, Slyfoxx.
yeah , that did suck if what I have read is true. we're not perfect....I said that before. War is hell and all that.
Quote:
RBJ......Please just trust me on this one: You're wrong.
Well if you could point that one out to me that would be great. But I fail to remember the line in the constitution where it applys to the rest of the world. Again, if you could point out the particular line I would be happy to change my view here.
Quote:
Briareos H......Do they still make people like that circa 2006 ? I thought the trend had shifted around the nineties.
If you have a point to make, I'm all ears....your quote box was a bit empty.
Rug Burn Junky on 25/9/2006 at 07:13
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
Well if you could point that one out to me that would be great. But I fail to remember the line in the constitution where it applys to the rest of the world. Again, if you could point out the particular line I would be happy to change my view here.
It applies to anyone within the borders of the United States, citizen or not, and also generally applies to actions taken by the government of the United States, whether within our borders or not (though actions taken (i) outside of our borders, (ii) by our government, (iii) against non-citizens will depend on a number of factors, and must be analyzed on a case by case basis).
Now, if you'd like to continue to assert your original, simplistic statement, be my guest.
However, as I initially said, you are wrong.
dlw6 on 25/9/2006 at 09:46
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
Could you provide an example besides the Waco fiasco?
Ruby Ridge is the other example. ATF suspected the owner of the house had sold a sawed-off shotgun, so they shot half his family with snipers. Both events occurred under the leadership of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno's socialist utiopia.
Don
Convict on 25/9/2006 at 11:30
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
And just show me one example of where socialism really works. It's a utopian fantasy.
Isn't Norway or one of those Scandinavian countries rated as the best place in the world to live? I am not a socialist but it seems to be working there at the moment. Having said that I think because of the aging of the population (low birth rate and longer life spans) and the massive increase in expenditure on health (especially considering ever more expensive treatments) etc that will occur then I think they will find socialism unworkable in the future.
Jonesy on 25/9/2006 at 11:34
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
Again, if you could point out the particular line I would be happy to change my view here.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I see no mention of Citizen here.
Backing up on the statement:
Quote:
It applies to anyone within the borders of the United States, citizen or not, and also generally applies to actions taken by the government of the United States, whether within our borders or not (though actions taken (i) outside of our borders, (ii) by our government, (iii) against non-citizens will depend on a number of factors, and must be analyzed on a case by case basis).
Paz on 25/9/2006 at 11:38
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
yeah
I'm not impressed by this informal use of language, nor by the lack of a capital letter. You should have begun with "Yes" or "I concur, good sir".
HELP, HELP, I'M A LOST COMMA. SOMEONE ADOPT ME AND USE ME CORRECTLY.
This is far too vague. What does "that" refer to? Be more precise in future please.
The choice of phrase, again, is puzzling. One can only wonder about the experience of sustained torture being described as having "sucked", placing it on a par with disappointment in a recent television show.
Fuck you, I hate clowns. This is a disgraceful tactic.
Blatant confusion.
This seems quite unlikely.
Social constructivism holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community. Constructivism views all of our knowledge as "constructed," because it does not reflect any external "transcendent" realities (as a pure correspondence theory might hold). Rather, perceptions of truth are viewed as contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender are socially constructed. Giambattista Vico was among the first to claim that history and culture were man-made. Vico's epistemological orientation gathers the most diverse rays and unfolds in one axiom--verum ipsum factum--"truth itself is constructed." Hegel, Garns, and Marx were among the other early proponents of the premise that truth is socially constructed.YEAH TAKE THAT. IN YOUR FACE WITH MY FAT WIKI QUOTE!
Oh yes we are.
(
http://www.imageafter.com/dbase/images/nature_characters_humanparts/b1eye01.jpg)
Have we realised yet.
This is not actually a useful way to engage in discussion.
Scots_Taffer lollers
Sorry, got a bit distracted there with an in-joke. Anyway, yes. This POINT COUNTER POINT POINT COUNTER POINT POINT COUNTER POINT is not actually a proper way to discuss things, really.
In fact it's quite silly and usually leads debate into tiny little areas no bigger than a baby mouse, rather than focusing on broader ideals or concepts.
In all, I hope this experience has been useful.
's the way, uh-huh uh-huh I like it.
Thief13x on 25/9/2006 at 12:19
Quote Posted by Jonesy
"..."
I see no mention of Citizen here.
Backing up on the statement:
ffs do either of you mind giving us a
pragmatic example of these "atrocities" instead of playing on a word that was perhaps absent in a document written 300 years ago? Did we snag Saddam up and drag him over to our court?
I think if anyone could have played that card it would have been somone who was the victim of one of his war crimes.
Quote:
the US seems to go out of its way to kill people in their home.
The lack of undocumented accusations in this thread is really starting to bother me.
Quote:
I find it odd that people have to work into old age (75+), just to afford the price of life
What slyfoxx said. It wasn't too long ago that there was no such thing as Social Security. If you havn't planned for your future and saved something why should the government be entitled to bail you out? Take some fucking responsibility, go to college, get a job, and (
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14836425/) live within your means and maybe you won't be begging the government for more social security to pay of debts from 30 years ago. Because contrary to popular oppinion, to survive, you don't need a plasma tv, a 2006 honda civic, an alienware laptop, or even a pda phone! shocking I know...but 20 years ago no one had any of it
