Constitutional Rights are God given to ALL MANKIND

[Henia 11]

Like I said, we need a whole new breed of leaders...but I can say one thing for the Clinton era...gas was cheap, we were at peace, I had a very good paying position and little worries on the future... now? hmmm

Sorry to hear your having trouble finding a job. Personally I am making more money than I ever did under Clinton. The peace you speak about wasn't broken by Bush, the guys that crashed the jets into the world trade center and the pentagon broke that. As far as gas prices go I would say blame OPEC for that. When Clinton was Pres oil was $18 a barrel. Now it is $70. I doubt Bush had much to do about that.

I didnt say it was soley broken by Bush, but the whole Bush regime... and everything is connected, nothing is accidently....

What do you think of this quote?

[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.]

-- Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942

[GaryC 7]

I didnt say it was soley broken by Bush, but the whole Bush regime... and everything is connected, nothing is accidently....

9/11 happend just a few months after Bush took office. It was planned for and set into motion while Clinton was in office. Bush just had the bad luck of being pres when it happend. I don't think anything he did or didn't do caused it.

What do you think of this quote?

[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942

Ok, what has that to do with the subject at hand? Even though Hitler was the most evil ####### that ever lived I would have to agree with that statment. If your enemies have weapons then they can kill you.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Heracles 417]

Like I said, we need a whole new breed of leaders...but I can say one thing for the Clinton era...gas was cheap, we were at peace, I had a very good paying position and little worries on the future... now? hmmm

The ignorance and naiveness of the so many lefties never seems to amaze me.. One of many many things this country needs is for people to travel and live in 'developed' and advanced nations and see how we deal with real issues. Criminals in AUS don't have out-dated laws to hide under to protect their liberal rights, at the expense of the rights of honest and innocent people.

Your above comments clearly show your lack of economic knowhow..

The Sept 11 attacks were planned during the 'Clinton era'. So you either deal with that fact or simply play dumb.. Which option do you choose??

Don't even get me started about the good paying jobs during the clinton era #######.. Its this sort of constant arguing, this sort of ignorant third world attitude and the sort of constant focus on the wrong stuff (I.E E.G sports, Idols, rights for so-called minorities, the whole BS slave issue bla bla bla) that has contributed to the US fall in so many fields, which is seriously not even funny.

I seriously recommend an amendment requiring 1 American per family live in other 1st world countries like Australia, Canada, Japan, Europe, Dubai, Singapore, HongKong etc. I think most people would come back shocked how backwards the US is, especially in terms of infrastructure.

It just sad that so many people on the hard left would rather destroy the country and tie up politicians time in BS issues rather than accept someone elses opinion. I just returned to Melbourne, Australia (world's most liveable city) after 5 months for a trip and can't believe how a country renowned for the outback, Crocodile Dundee and it's crudeness is light years a head of any US city.

I think everyone on the right should just pack up and move to Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane, Gold Coast and screw the left.. Like EVERY other socialist and communist / liberal nation, their attitutude and 3rd world decisions will simply lead to their own demise..

[clloyd 0]

9/11 happend just a few months after Bush took office. It was planned for and set into motion while Clinton was in office. Bush just had the bad luck of being pres when it happend. I don't think anything he did or didn't do caused it.

Let's see what Tony Snow has to say:

Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn't stay the course, and that led to September 11th. And it's important to realize that terrorists are not simply inspired by American engagement in the world, but they have their own agenda and it is an agenda that if we turn around and look the other way, they're not going to ignore -- they will continue to build strength and they will continue to build adherence. And it is a vitally important debate to have.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

it has changed the whole world and especially the way ppl in America are thinking.

Agree with the second part, but terrorism obviously didn't begin in 2001 - its a phenomenon that goes back many hundreds of years and affects many countries the world over. While 9/11 changed perceptions for many, especially in the US, to suggest its a different world entirely is a bit of a logical fallacy.

"NSA call database

Main article: NSA call database

In May 2006, it was revealed that the Bush administration has also been compiling a database of telephone calls created by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) with the cooperation of three of the largest telephone carriers in the United States: AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. All three companies were paid to provide the information to the NSA. It is speculated that the database contains over 1.9 trillion call-detail records of phone calls made after September 11, 2001. The database's existence has prompted fierce objections from those who view it as constituting a warrantless or illegal search, however the collection of third party information has been authorized by the Patriot Act and upheld by the courts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_s...e_United_States

Pres Clinton claimed the same authority that Bush is. Why is Bush getting hammered while Clinton and other past presidents get a pass on it?

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

While Clinton is hardly spotless - the main reason GWB is criticised as much as he is has something to do with the way in which he has consistently sought to extend the power and influence of the executive, at the expense of other branches of government.

Essentially, this government have demonstrated via legislation like the Patriot Act, like the Iraq war etc that they want to exercise that increased power without any responsibility or accountability - which is something that people should be rightly suspicious of.

Similarly, Bush has displayed an odd penchant for digging in his heels on issues that seem to matter only to him. This shows how out of step he is with much of America - Republican, Democrat, Independent, or apolitical. As well as how little involvement he seems to have in setting an administrative agenda. In every decision that has been left (mostly) to him, his choices always seem to cause friction.

Harriet Miers?

Immigration reform?

Stem Cell veto?

Black eyes for him, his party, and his administration.

Edited September 5, 2006 by erekose

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Instead of some ppl here constantly yepping about the rights of a certain "group" of ppl being violated (which in my eyes is NOT the case) those ppl should sit down and think of the victims and families ......

Nat

a certain group you are talking about is the whole population of the United States. The government has swindled you with the incorrect assumption that the law enforcement tools were not in place prior to Sept 11th 2001 to prevent this attack--the fact is there were plenty of laws in force, bungled investigations, ineptness, and lack of leadership. It was a totally avoidable attack without the usage of laws and executive orders that completely dismantle our constitutional rights.

I think the families have been well compensated for their loss--about 2 million dollars per victim, and when I sit down and think about the victims and families I also think about the millions of other Americans that have died in wars and struggles in order to protect our freedoms--if we allow such laws as the Patriot Act and other black-handed executive orders to continue then the 3,000 victims of 9/11 and the millions of soldiers, activists, and statesmen in our nation's history have certainly died in vain--for what reason was it to defend this great land from tyranny and domination--only to have nonsensical, invasive, and unconstitutional laws imposed upon the very families whom have given the ultimate sacrifice to defend our rights and freedoms, by this most politically and civically immoral administration.

Exactly! If we let the erosion of our freedom and liberty continue, then we've effectively declared defeat.

[GaryC 7]

While Clinton is hardly spotless - the main reason GWB is criticised as much as he is has something to do with the way in which he has consistently sought to extend the power and influence of the executive, at the expense of other branches of government.

Essentially, this government have demonstrated via legislation like the Patriot Act, like the Iraq war etc that they want to exercise that increased power without any responsibility or accountability - which is something that people should be rightly suspicious of.

Similarly, Bush has displayed an odd penchant for digging in his heels on issues that seem to matter only to him. This shows how out of step he is with much of America - Republican, Democrat, Independent, or apolitical. As well as how little involvement he seems to have in setting an administrative agenda. In every decision that has been left (mostly) to him, his choices always seem to cause friction.

Harriet Miers?

Immigration reform?

Stem Cell veto?

Black eyes for him, his party, and his administration.

I suppose it all comes down to your political leanings. Bush hasn't grabbed for any more power that other presidents during war time. Lincoln jailed a congressman for criticizing his war effort. FDR spied on everybody and imprisoned honest Japanese people. Lets face it, Bush has done nothing that other presidents has done in the past. But since the first election was SO close the ones that didn't like him made him out to be someone that didn't deserve to be president. After that anything that went wrong was Bush's fault, anything that went right he had no credit in. He has been the subject of some of the most outlandish consperacy theories imaginable. Bush has made some mistakes but given the extraordinary circumstances that were thrust upon him I think he has done well. He is dealing with issues that other presidents have just put of for another time. That "other time" is now. He has the countries best interests at heart and is sticking with his convictions. Weather you agree with him or not it is wrong to put your political motivations above the safety of our country. Debate is fine, undercutting his efforts because you dont like him isn't.

Exactly! If we let the erosion of our freedom and liberty continue, then we've effectively declared defeat.

As I have already posted above, Bush isn't doing anything that other presidents have done. Our freedoms and liberties survived that and they will survive this.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I suppose it all comes down to your political leanings. Bush hasn't grabbed for any more power that other presidents during war time. Lincoln jailed a congressman for criticizing his war effort. FDR spied on everybody and imprisoned honest Japanese people. Lets face it, Bush has done nothing that other presidents has done in the past. But since the first election was SO close the ones that didn't like him made him out to be someone that didn't deserve to be president. After that anything that went wrong was Bush's fault, anything that went right he had no credit in. He has been the subject of some of the most outlandish consperacy theories imaginable. Bush has made some mistakes but given the extraordinary circumstances that were thrust upon him I think he has done well. He is dealing with issues that other presidents have just put of for another time. That "other time" is now. He has the countries best interests at heart and is sticking with his convictions. Weather you agree with him or not it is wrong to put your political motivations above the safety of our country. Debate is fine, undercutting his efforts because you dont like him isn't.

So, once again, we're back to 'criticism is unpatriotic'. You seem to think that supporting policies which sidestep, or otherwise undermine the constitution and the country's founding values is somehow necessary to 'securing the country'.

Its interesting that you use the 'war time' rhetoric which is so popular with this government - the fact is we are not embroiled in a global conflict that has be imposed on us by a specific nation or world power, as was the case in WW2, hence the comparison that is continuously being trotted out is inaccurate. We are in war which is being defined and redefined by the president and his administration - there is no clear enemy, other than what we are being told and the rhetoric of fear which they seem to base it on (based on their shameless exploitation of 9/11) seems to serve the sole purpose of justifying an indefinite period of conflict with no clear goal.

Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 - that should have been a wake-up call for the country that what may have started out as legitimate defence (i.e. Afghanistan) is turning out to be something more sinister altogether, and is simply being used as a means for materialistic and imperialist expansion not untypical of the European powers of the 18th century while at the same time underminig. Criticism (or rather, scrutiny) of such a policy is entirely right and proper.

It's good that you refer to previous president's at least - historical comparisons always have relevance to the present. But do you consider that perhaps Lincoln jailed a congressman for criticizing the war effort, perhaps FDR was wrong for spying on everybody and imprisoning honest Japanese people? At what point should we not 'learn' from history?

Bush claimed in an interview the other day that "history will judge him". I say it already has - Iraq and Katrina.

Edited September 5, 2006 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

So, once again, we're back to 'criticism is unpatriotic'. You seem to think that supporting policies which sidestep, or otherwise undermine the constitution and the country's founding values is somehow necessary to 'securing the country'.

Its interesting that you use the 'war time' rhetoric which is so popular with this government - the fact is we are not embroiled in a global conflict that has be imposed on us by a specific nation or world power, as was the case in WW2, hence the comparison that is continuously being trotted out is inaccurate. We are in war which is being defined and redefined by the president and his administration - there is no clear enemy, other than what we are being told and the rhetoric of fear which they seem to base it on (based on their shameless exploitation of 9/11) seems to serve the sole purpose of justifying an indefinite period of conflict with no clear goal.

Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 - that should have been a wake-up call for the country that what may have started out as legitimate defence (i.e. Afghanistan) is turning out to be something more sinister altogether, and is simply being used as a means for materialistic and imperialist expansion not untypical of the European powers of the 18th century while at the same time underminig. Criticism (or rather, scrutiny) of such a policy is entirely right and proper.

It's good that you refer to previous president's at least - historical comparisons always have relevance to the present. But do you consider that perhaps Lincoln jailed a congressman for criticizing the war effort, perhaps FDR was wrong for spying on everybody and imprisoning honest Japanese people? At what point should we not 'learn' from history?

Bush claimed in an interview the other day that "history will judge him". I say it already has - Iraq and Katrina.

I never used the Unpatriotic word thank you. Please don't put words in my mouth. Whether you think Iraq has anything to do with 9/11 or not is besides the point. We are in a war on terror. Congress authorized Bush to take whatever steps he deemed necessary to fight that war. Now that the terror attack has faded into history people are now going back to the same old political end fighting. I feel that the safety of the country should rise above the political frey. Instead of blaming Bush for all the ills of the last few years we should come together and try to solve them. You really can't say the Dems have done anything constructive to help Bush out. Only accusing him of lying and cheating. What Bush is doing may be wrong or it may be right but you can't say that he has had any help from the other side.

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

i'm still waiting for someone to explain how the us constitution gives rights to all mankind, as stated in the title of the op.

[GaryC 7]

Lets try this, instead of criticizing why don't the dems suggest alternatives? Now you have to admit that just pulling out of Iraq is not the right thing to do at this point. It wouldn't be fair to the Iraq people. If you don't like the NSA wiretaping why don't the dems suggest some other way of doing it? If they don't like any part of the war on terror why don't they offer an alternate suggestion? They just sit back and wait for Bush to take an action and then pounce on him for their own political gain. That isn't constructive. If the Dems win back the White House in 2 years what will they do? I haven't seen any plan yet. Their whole plan is to run on what they see as Bush's abuses and not on their own plan. That isn't putting the country first, that is putting themselves first.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You implied my criticism was unpatriotic, which is a view you (and others) have expressed before.

Whether you think Iraq has anything to do with 9/11 or not is besides the point.

Is it? I think it is very much the point - because it calls into question the entire policy of the so-called war on terror. As I said, is it about fighting terrorism, or has 9/11 simply become a golden ticket - a means of justifying military action and aggressive foreign policies that would previously been considered 'distasteful'.

If Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was in fact ideologically opposed to fundamentalist religious extremists (after Moqtada Al Sadr only rose to power after Saddam killed his father) and his regime kept those elements very much under control, the question becomes why did we remove him? A brutal dictator to be sure, but hardly a major cog in the machinery of Al Qaeda or equivalent groups, which we are supposed to be fighting.

So here it is - I'm not entirely sure what is mean't by the war on terror - which seems to me to be curiously vague and purposefully undefined. If Iraq fits that description, and Bush has claimed that it forms part of the War on Terror - what are the limits and goals of this policy? Seems far from clear to me - but clearly as we have seen - a war can be justified on the basis of the slimmest of justifications by claiming that anyone who opposes it, is either unpatriotic or a terrorist sympathiser. Doesn't make sense to me. How about you?

Similarly why is the response for any criticisms of the president to turn on the failings of the 'other side'? This is, IMO symptomatic of how stale political debate in this country has become - that people still think there two sides, rather than broad political elite who, aside from superficial cosmetic differences are much the same and are governed by (and represent) much the same interests.

Edited September 5, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

You implied my criticism was unpatriotic, which is a view you (and others) have expressed before.

Whether you think Iraq has anything to do with 9/11 or not is besides the point.

Is it? I think it is very much the point - because it calls into question the entire policy of the so-called war on terror. As I said, is it about fighting terrorism, or has 9/11 simply become a golden ticket - a means of justifying military action and aggressive foreign policies that would previously been considered 'distasteful'.

If Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was in fact ideologically opposed to fundamentalist religious extremists (after Moqtada Al Sadr only rose to power after Saddam killed his father) and his regime kept those elements very much under control, the question becomes why did we remove him? A brutal dictator to be sure, but hardly a major cog in the machinery of Al Qaeda or equivalent groups, which we are supposed to be fighting.

So here it is - I'm not entirely sure what is mean't by the war on terror - which seems to me to be curiously vague and purposefully undefined. If Iraq fits that description, and Bush has claimed that it forms part of the War on Terror - what are the limits and goals of this policy? Seems far from clear to me - but clearly as we have seen - a war can be justified on the basis of the slimmest of justifications by claiming that anyone who opposes it, is either unpatriotic or a terrorist sympathiser. Doesn't make sense to me. How about you?

Similarly why is the response for any criticisms of the president to turn on the failings of the 'other side'? This is, IMO symptomatic of how stale political debate in this country has become - that people still think there two sides, rather than broad political elite who, aside from superficial cosmetic differences are much the same and are governed by (and represent) much the same interests.

well which is it? either he was involved or not.

[GaryC 7]

You implied my criticism was unpatriotic, which is a view you (and others) have expressed before.

Whether you think Iraq has anything to do with 9/11 or not is besides the point.

Is it? I think it is very much the point - because it calls into question the entire policy of the so-called war on terror. As I said, is it about fighting terrorism, or has 9/11 simply become a golden ticket - a means of justifying military action and aggressive foreign policies that would previously been considered 'distasteful'.

If Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was in fact ideologically opposed to fundamentalist religious extremists (after Moqtada Al Sadr only rose to power after Saddam killed his father) and his regime kept those elements very much under control, the question becomes why did we remove him? A brutal dictator to be sure, but hardly a major cog in the machinery of Al Qaeda or equivalent groups, which we are supposed to be fighting.

So here it is - I'm not entirely sure what is mean't by the war on terror - which seems to me to be curiously vague and purposefully undefined. If Iraq fits that description, and Bush has claimed that it forms part of the War on Terror - what are the limits and goals of this policy? Seems far from clear to me - but clearly as we have seen - a war can be justified on the basis of the slimmest of justifications by claiming that anyone who opposes it, is either unpatriotic or a terrorist sympathiser. Doesn't make sense to me. How about you?

Similarly why is the response for any criticisms of the president to turn on the failings of the 'other side'? This is, IMO symptomatic of how stale political debate in this country has become - that people still think there two sides, rather than broad political elite who, aside from superficial cosmetic differences are much the same and are governed by (and represent) much the same interests.

I still haven't seen anyone propose any alternatives. Before we went into Iraq the dems all went up to the mic and said we had to take out Sadam. They did it because the polls said it was what the people wanted. Congress authorized the action. You can't claim that "Bush lied" because the dems were saying that Sadam had to go before Bush was elected. But when the dems saw a chance to make political points by criticizing Bush and the war it was though the got amnesia. It was though they never got up to the podium and said that we needed to take Sadam out. Now Bush bashing seems to be the order of the day. No proposals of their own. No effort to help him out. Just pure political trashing designed to regain their power. They are completely without any political morals.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

well which is it? either he was involved or not.

It would seem not.