Isn't Omega also FOR expanding the military? Is that a paradox or what?

Guess what. NOTHING HAPPENED!

Or did it? (Muwahahahahahaahahahah!)

Pfft. What a twat. I refuse to debate this subject or any other one with him anymore.

Quatre.

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

Yeah, Omega, why do you want a stronger military if you're afraid of it so much?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart

However, even I, tortured, twisted, morose little cynic that I am; even I must confess that I am uncomfortable with he himself becoming the focus of this thread or those like it. I think his ideas are largely the product of misinformation. But that doesn't preclude him from being an OK fellow when the rifles are safely stowed away and the topic drifts off the subject of killings and stones and eyes for eyes and onto nice things like clouds and starships and magazines.

------------------
"I finally see that what we thought was a fun way to celebrate our love was really an expression of hostility and disrespect toward Jesus."
--
Bill Metz, in The Onion
****
Read chapter TWO of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Now with 30% more plot.

Jordan:

"The support of the Fairness Doctrine

This is a bad thing?"

We're not discussing the merits of the program. We're discussing the constitutionality. I can guarentee you that you can't find a sentence anywhere in the constitution that authorizes the existence of the 'Fairness Doctrine,' and as it's the government regulating what you can and can't do with your private property, it is therefore unconstitutional.

"Since when did banning bullets that can tear through kevlar vests become a bad thing?"

Oh, yes, the so-called "cop-killer" bullets, that have never been used to kill a law enforcement officer, ever, anywhere.

"Bill Clinton, a man who commited a crime and thus, according to the constitution, should have been removed from office

What crime would that be? Sex with an intern?"

Oh, you're one of the ones that never got it. Listen to me very carefully: IT WASN'T ABOUT SEX. It was about perjury, which, last I checked, was a crime.

"The DNP inniated attempt in the Senate to dictate what isles food products would be placed in in
supermarkets

Huh? As if they could."

Whether they could or not is irrelevant. They tried, and as the law would have been unconstitutional, this would show that they have no regard for said document.

"90% of the programs that FDR implemented

Some of which YOU will be the recipent of when you get elderly."

This is relevant to their constitutionality how?

"The FCC regulates frequencies for TV, radio, other electronic media. How is the FCC a bad thing?"

Again, not discussing their merits. Only their constittionality.

re: Elian

Law enforcement officers entered a family's home without their permission, without ID'ing themselves, and without a valid warrant. They abducted a child from his legally appointed guardians, after they had specifically been told they could not do so, BY A COURT. They broke the law. Period.

"It could. If your kid gets ill and you deliberatly let the kid die while you're busy praying over him/her, then yep, that's murder."

So it's murder to let your child die, but it's not to actively kill him/her?

"Well, you seem to know that if the Republicans got their way, everything would be skittles and care bears in the country."

Did I say that?

"Would this not qualify as circular reasoning? "I believe he used drugs because I believe he used drugs."

Evidentially you missed him saying that he was involved in a "youthful indiscression"."

This has what to do with drugs? He could easily have been refering to his DUI, or the time he stole a Christmas wreath as a college prank. You make unwarranted assumptions.

"It's not the country China I have a problem with. It's the dictator, Jiang Zamen.

Who happens to be the duly appointed leader of China."

Funny, last I checked, they weren't a democracy. Would you say that Sadaam Housein was the duly appointed leader of Iraq? They "appointed" themselves.

"I would disagree. It is an analogous situation, in that it is two beings living in symbiosis. What affects one nesecarily affects the other. Does one Siamese twin have the right to decide for BOTH to die, unilaterally? Does a mother have the right to end her child's life, again, unilaterally? Seems like an analogous situation to me.[/i]

So why the hell did you bring up the issue of Siameese twins if it had no bearing?"

Did you even read what you just quoted me as saying?

"I challenge ALL conservatives here to tell me that while abortion may be bad, state executions aren't."

Because abortion ends an innocent life, whereas execution ends an incredibly guilty one.

Tora:

"You neglect the fact that whatever happens to push one twin to the edge, must also happen to the other twin as well."

What if one twin was born with some brain damage or something like that that lead him to be clinically depressed? What if one had a GF that left him? Siamese twins are, in fact, two different people, you know. Your statement does not apply.

JK:

"And do you conveniently forget our military? Or is that what you're afraid of?"

Can you honestly say that you trust EVERY politician and EVERY general and EVERY soldier, beyond a shadow of a doubt, not to try and take your freedom away? I didn't think so.

"Oh, right, gun free enviornment, NO ONE has any guns."

And just how do you suggest we create this Utopia? It's like communism. It's a dream that can never happen.

"Believe it or not, if you get mugged, the guy isn't going to pop you. He just wants your money, and then he'll be gone."

You're quite naive. I've read stories of pizza delivery guys (and, hey, isn't that your occupation?) going out to deliver a pizza. The one I'm specifically thinking of was robbed, then told to lie face-down in the ditch and count to 100. He got to about seven before they blew the back of his head off. He barely survived.

Just want your money, eh? Criminals also typically don't like witnesses.

"John Lott, now there's a reliable source. If I gave a resource as being a speech or report or book by FDR, or Hilary Clinton, you'd shoot it down in a minute, but you expect others to accept a book by John Lott as a reference? Come on ..."

Uh, Jeff... go look up the first name of the Senate majority leader, wudja? It might clear up some of your misunderstanding if you were better informed and didn't jump to conclusions so often.

Oh, and just so you know, I'd shoot anything those two said that I diasgreed with down on the lack of merit of their argument. This is opposed to you, who are reduced to attacking a person who, due to your own ignorance, you believe to be the source, even though you've never seen the information for yourself.

"Is that so, Omega? Where do you get your beliefs from? Your parents? How do they communicate with you? By ... speech, right?"

Oh, yes, my parents forced their beliefs on me. I feel so violated.

*/Sarcasm*

My parents forced nothing on me. It's MY belief. You can't force anyone to believe anything.

------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"

Considering they should have know that the country would grow in size, with all the land being explored, and all the room for population growth.

I am sure that if we really dug in deep, we would find that several things we take for granted here in the lovely US of A that are unConstitutional, since the are not written in said document.

Speed limits are probably unConstitutional.
The segragation of smokers and non-smokers in restaurants is probably unConstitutional.

You say?

------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.

Of course they gave it the ability to adapt. That's why they put in the thing about ammendments. Article IV, IIRC.

"Speed limits are probably unConstitutional."

How do you figure? The tenth ammendment states that all powers not granted by the constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or people. This means that unless the constitution specifically gives the federal government the power to do something, or disallows the states from doing it, then the states can do it, subject to their own constitutions and laws.

Thus, states and municipalities can apply speed limits, and owners of private restaraunts can segregate their customers however they darned well please.

Now somebody brough up the bit about why does snybody need high-end weaponry.

That's a good question, which I'll attempt to answer.

#1. The bad guys already have the stuff, and since its easy for them (especially the drug traffickers) to import, they don't have to worry about getting US-made stuff. In fact, now, they can buy it as old USSR surplus.

#2. It's not just the scumbag down the street you have to worry about. Despite our American 'but -we're- civilized, that could never happen here' mentality, some of us still believe -- with some reason, that we can't always put all our trust in the people who are supposed to be running things. Hell, it wasn't bandits that the Founders fought against, it was, as some would put it today, 'their legitimate government.'
Some of this has been borne out in recent actions. Note the rampant police corruption coming to light in Los Angeles. It's not so much the robbers in their neighborhood they worry about as it is the robbers among our legislature.

#3. Just in case the Fundies, or any other fanatical group at ANY end of the political spectrum, DO actually someday manage to wrest power by 'fooling most of the people some of the time,' I want my stand against them to mean something, and a guy with heavy weaponry can go out in a bigger blaze of glory than a rock-chucker.

((Edit: You know, that's funny. I sound like a Fundie up until point #3. Maybe I should tone down the rhetoric a little. ))

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

First: Yep, you're right.

------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.

Which would be a clear violation of the FIRST Amendment.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

"You keep saying it's not in the Constitution, as such, but neither are the things I have brought up."

Did you even look up the tenth ammendment? Yes, you're right, the FEDERAL government can't establish speed limits or segregate restaraunts. But it is stated that, unless it's specifically forbidden, which it isn't, the people and the states CAN.

The constitution is only the end-all be-all when it comes to the federal government.

Could someone verify this? I am under the impression that whoever initiated the raid HAD a warrant to take Elian into Custody. And was it the Guardians who were defiant and breaking the laws by not honouring the warrant?

Warrant or not, the actions undertaken by the INS to take Elian were not in the best interests of everyone involved. And Warrant or not, Elian's father is the one who should have full custody of Elian. The relatives were appointed legal guardians under the impression that the Father does not live in the country. I believe that the relatives should not have been appointed legal guardians in this case. So what happens if the Father was Canadian in this case?

And so we have a "reverse Elian" case going on in Cuba. I'm betting that Cuba will be happy to turn over the young child back to who should have primary custody, in this case, the father.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

Get a clue, brainstem.

Quatre.

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

I know you want to beat him at this, but the best way to do it would be at his game.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

No, they didn't. They had a SEARCH warrant, which would not be valid for abducting person. Even an arrest warrant wouldn't be, since Elian was not accused of commiting a crime. A court order was what was needed.

What's more, they waited until after the judge familiar with the case was off duty, and went to a magistrate to get the warrant. And they lied to him, saying that Elian was an alien, and that they didn't know where he was.

The warrant was not valid.

"And Warrant or not, Elian's father is the one who should have full custody of Elian."

This is irrelevant to the question at hand. The question was whether the abduction was legal. The answer is, as shown above, "no."