Who is a Hypocrite

[bball]

What is the "War on Terror"?

It is a catch phrase utilized by politicians and media talking heads to invoke feelings of safety in the general population; while in reality, nothing is being done. Lots of debate and speeches, while as a nation, we remain reactive to the problem instead of proactively engaging the issue. Proactive solutions aren't popular when dealing with hate, of any variety. Historically, we wait, out of fear of offending, or being second guessed by those that reside upon the elite moral high ground...PC is the real terrorism

 

[Margonme]

What is the "War on Terror"?

It is a catch phrase utilized by politicians and media talking heads to invoke feelings of safety in the general population; while in reality, nothing is being done. Lots of debate and speeches, while as a nation, we remain reactive to the problem instead of proactively engaging the issue. Proactive solutions aren't popular when dealing with hate, of any variety. Historically, we wait, out of fear of offending, or being second guessed by those that reside upon the elite moral high ground...PC is the real terrorism

Then we both agree - Rhetoric!

 

[dun]

What is the "War on Terror"?

The same as the War on poverty, war on drugs, etc. Hyperbole

 

[Nesikep]

I personally believe that if you want to claim rights for yourself, you ought to be morally obliged to extend those same rights to anyone else, regardless of who or where they are..

I'm all for holding people accountable for their actions, and don't think a terrorist should be spared capital punishment... I also think 'modern' court cases take FAR too long... but I think there should be a (short) trial.
The ability to declare anyone an enemy of the state and remove their constitutional rights is a slippery slope that could be seriously abused, and I'm a little scared of that... governments are not good at limiting their scope

 

[dun]

I personally believe that if you want to claim rights for yourself, you ought to be morally obliged to extend those same rights to anyone else, regardless of who or where they are..

I'm all for holding people accountable for their actions, and don't think a terrorist should be spared capital punishment... I also think 'modern' court cases take FAR too long... but I think there should be a (short) trial.
The ability to declare anyone an enemy of the state and remove their constitutional rights is a slippery slope that could be seriously abused, and I'm a little scared of that... governments are not good at limiting their scope

Well said!

 

[TexasBred]

No political message in my statement.
Wartime enemies have no constitutional rights.

Constitutional lawyer are you now?? I must have missed the part where we declared war on anyone.

Sir I have never claimed to be a lawyer. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I 've already stated in my introduction I have worked the majority of my life in Alzheimer's and dementia care. Your welcome to call anytime you need anything.

https://www.rt.com/usa/187512-us-war-isis-iran/

Yet you say "Wartime enemies have no constitutional rights". Sounds like you're trying to practice law to me. I don't need your help for anything boots.

 

[TexasBred]

As much as it pains me to say, as an American he deserves his day in court. The cops needed to shoot him behind the ear and this debate wouldn't be needed. The cops can kill boy's with BB guns that don't shoot back, but not a terrorist?

That most recent shooting involved a kid with a gun that looked like a semiautomatic pistol. Even had a laser. Law means nothing to you anyway.

 

[Rafter S]

I personally believe that if you want to claim rights for yourself, you ought to be morally obliged to extend those same rights to anyone else, regardless of who or where they are..

I'm all for holding people accountable for their actions, and don't think a terrorist should be spared capital punishment... I also think 'modern' court cases take FAR too long... but I think there should be a (short) trial.
The ability to declare anyone an enemy of the state and remove their constitutional rights is a slippery slope that could be seriously abused, and I'm a little scared of that... governments are not good at limiting their scope

Well said!

+1

 

[Boots]

Constitutional lawyer are you now?? I must have missed the part where we declared war on anyone.

Sir I have never claimed to be a lawyer. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I 've already stated in my introduction I have worked the majority of my life in Alzheimer's and dementia care. Your welcome to call anytime you need anything.

https://www.rt.com/usa/187512-us-war-isis-iran/

Yet you say "Wartime enemies have no constitutional rights". Sounds like you're trying to practice law to me. I don't need your help for anything boots.

I assure you sir practicing law was not my intention. I was just trying to join in the conversation with everyone else.
I am sorry if I have offended you.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

Don't rights granted under the Constitution of the United States apply only to the citizens of the United States?

 

[backhoeboogie]

Don't rights granted under the Constitution of the United States apply only to the citizens of the United States?

Absolutely.

I looked up treason today. I read atleast a dozen different sources. It seems to me that we are drawing a mighty fine line between treason and freedom of speech. So fine that we are overlapping.

If not read the Miranda rights, he still should receive due process, for his crimes.

 

[SteppedInIt]

Don't rights granted under the Constitution of the United States apply only to the citizens of the United States?

Nope. Unalienable rights existed long before the constitution.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

Don't rights granted under the Constitution of the United States apply only to the citizens of the United States?

Nope. Unalienable rights existed long before the constitution.

So when I visit Iran or North Korea all I have to do is point that out and I'm good to go?

 

[True Grit Farms]

Don't rights granted under the Constitution of the United States apply only to the citizens of the United States?

Nope. Unalienable rights existed long before the constitution.

So when I visit Iran or North Korea all I have to do is point that out and I'm good to go?

TT, you get killed there if your an American.

 

[skyhightree1]

Don't rights granted under the Constitution of the United States apply only to the citizens of the United States?

Nope. Unalienable rights existed long before the constitution.

So when I visit Iran or North Korea all I have to do is point that out and I'm good to go?

Is kimchi Korean ? If so bring me some of that back its pretty tasty.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

If he swore allegiance to the united states and its laws, then attacked the united states, he has commited treason.

If he never swore allegiance, nor is a natural born citizen, he is a foreign combatant.

One has inalieable rights under our constitution, one does not.

One deserves a civilian trial, the other a military.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

Nope. Unalienable rights existed long before the constitution.

So when I visit Iran or North Korea all I have to do is point that out and I'm good to go?

TT, you get killed there if your an American.

Impossible, I have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[skyhightree1]

Nope. Unalienable rights existed long before the constitution.

So when I visit Iran or North Korea all I have to do is point that out and I'm good to go?

TT, you get killed there if your an American.

Not true Dennis Rodman goes

 

[Commercialfarmer]

I personally believe that if you want to claim rights for yourself, you ought to be morally obliged to extend those same rights to anyone else, regardless of who or where they are..

I'm all for holding people accountable for their actions, and don't think a terrorist should be spared capital punishment... I also think 'modern' court cases take FAR too long... but I think there should be a (short) trial.
The ability to declare anyone an enemy of the state and remove their constitutional rights is a slippery slope that could be seriously abused, and I'm a little scared of that... governments are not good at limiting their scope

Well said!

+1

+ another

 

[Jogeephus]

Preface:  I do not in any form or fasion support terrorist.

Many on here preach Constitutionalism.   How do you feel about  Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire, talking about the bombing suspect in New York? Her statement was that she wanted to make sure he didn't receive his Miranda rights.

He is a United States citizen, and we are a society based on a Constitution that contains a Bill of Rights. How do you feel about taking away his rights because of the charges against him?

You cannot play both sides.  Either you support the Constitution or you don't.  Now, let's watch to see who is a hypocrite

You can still support the constitution while denying or delaying reading someone their miranda rights.

https://leb.fbi.gov/2011/february/the-p ... to-miranda