• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Hutaree militia be waterboarded?

Should the Hutaree militia be waterboarded

  • I am for waterboarding Al Quaeda and Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 7 19.4%

  • I am for waterboarding Al Quaeda terrorists but not Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 3 8.3%

  • I am for waterboarding Hutaree terrorists but not Al Quaeda terrorists

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • I am against waterboarding Al Quaeda and Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 24 66.7%
  • Total voters
    36
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Nah, he wants to be snotty to me, I'll just point out factual information regarding his and his unwillingess to stand and fight for their beliefs. :shrug:


There was no argument. I was simply pointing out what Jefferson and our other foundng fathers position are on "shaking the tree of liberty"..... A couple of you mistook my point. You were smart enough to get my clarification. Catawba just wanted to continue being snotty.... So he gets what he gives shorty. :pimpdaddy:
Click to expand...

You know I love ya, boo. ;)
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
There was no argument. I was simply pointing out what Jefferson and our other foundng fathers position are on "shaking the tree of liberty".....
Click to expand...

What did he mean by that exactly? Most people completely mistake it.

Sorry if I missed your point before, I looked for it.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Please respond to post 96. You made a claim, I am asking you for proof.
Click to expand...

You are SUCH a bastard. ;)

For the record, it largely depends upon how one views government. I believe that all humans are endowed with inalienable rights, and that the proper role of government is to PROTECT those rights. Governments do not give rights to their citizens, but are expected to avoid INFRINGING on existing rights held by all men.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Please respond to post 96. You made a claim, I am asking you for proof.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed post 96.

Here is my response:

In general, most rights in the Constitution are expressed as limits on government power. Those limits are not conditioned on who they apply to. They simply limit the governmen'ts power to do certain things, to anyone, i.e. to deny rights. They are the law of the land, and apply to the land, not just to certain people within it. (Obviously, there are certain exception, such as only citizens being allowed to vote).

The 14th Amendment put this principle into the Constitution (along with saying that it applies to states too):

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

It very clearly says that due process and equal protection apply to all people, not just citizens. Only the "privileges or immunities of citizens" (privileges, as oppose to rights) can be withheld from non-citizens. Rights cannot be.

Now, I'm still curious about your "tree of liberty" interpretation. Most people completely misunderstand it.
 
misterman said:
Sorry, I missed post 96.

Here is my response:

In general, most rights in the Constitution are expressed as limits on government power. Those limits are not conditioned on who they apply to. They simply limit the governmen'ts power to do certain things, to anyone, i.e. to deny rights. They are the law of the land, and apply to the land, not just to certain people within it. (Obviously, there are certain exception, such as only citizens being allowed to vote).

The 14th Amendment put this principle into the Constitution (along with saying that it applies to states too):

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

It very clearly says that due process and equal protection apply to all people, not just citizens. Only the "privileges or immunities of citizens" (privileges, as oppose to rights) can be withheld from non-citizens. Rights cannot be.

Now, I'm still curious about your "tree of liberty" interpretation. Most people completely misunderstand it.
Click to expand...





You forgot this part where it defines the "jurisdiction" as people not in the US, are not in said jurisdiction.






As for my interpretation of Jefferson's tree of liberty, its pretty self explanatory. That when a government encroaches too far on the liberty of the people, that conflict will break out to defend said liberty.. How do you interprete it?
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
You are SUCH a bastard. ;)

For the record, it largely depends upon how one views government. I believe that all humans are endowed with inalienable rights, and that the proper role of government is to PROTECT those rights. Governments do not give rights to their citizens, but are expected to avoid INFRINGING on existing rights held by all men.
Click to expand...




women too? :ssst:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You forgot this part where it defines the "jurisdiction" as people not in the US, are not in said jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

That is only the definition of citizenship. It doesn't change the rest one bit.

As for my interpretation of Jefferson's tree of liberty, its pretty self explanatory. That when a government encroaches too far on the liberty of the people, that conflict will break out to defend said liberty.. How do you interprete it?
Click to expand...

That's not what Jefferson meant at all.

You have to read the whole letter to understand. Jefferson was saying that rebellion here and there is not a sign of weakness for a democracy. He clearly did not endorse the actual success of any and all rebellions. He said rebellion simply shows that the people still expect liberty and are willing to "warn" governments to respect it. He said the rebellions were usually the result of uninformed people who needed to be educated about the truth in order to be pacified. I find the parallels to the teabaggers very interesting in that regard.

And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
Click to expand...

Sidebar - Tree of Liberty Letter
 
misterman said:
That is only the definition of citizenship. It doesn't change the rest one bit.



That's not what Jefferson meant at all.

You have to read the whole letter to understand. Jefferson was saying that rebellion here and there is not a sign of weakness for a democracy. He clearly did not endorse the actual success of any and all rebellions. He said rebellion simply shows that the people still expect liberty and are willing to "warn" governments to respect it. He said the rebellions were usually the result of uninformed people who needed to be educated about the truth in order to be pacified.
Click to expand...



Thats what you got right.






I find the parallels to the teabaggers very interesting in that regard.
Click to expand...


And then you have to lower the discussion with rude vulgar smears..... Too bad. We were doing well....


Do you think you sound like an intellectual genius when you act like a mouth foamer with this vulgar name for patriotic Americans who in your mind "paralell" Jefferson's ideals of warning our government?



Sidebar - Tree of Liberty Letter
Click to expand...



The Atlantic? 0.O


"Thomas Jefferson: Radical and Racist, "


I stopped reading right there. FAIL
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Actually, no. I am saying that the 14th amendment states the rights in the USC only apply within its borders. ;)
Click to expand...

Okay, before we talk about that - do you agree that they apply to everyone within its borders, including non-citizens?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Do you think you sound like an intellectual genius when you act like a mouth foamer with this vulgar name for patriotic Americans who in your mind "paralell" Jefferson's ideals of warning our government?
Click to expand...

Oh, get over it. Fine, "tea partiers." Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities.

The Atlantic? 0.O
Click to expand...

First link I found. So what? You saying it's not accurate?
 
misterman said:
Oh, get over it. Fine, "tea partiers." Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities.
Click to expand...


No need to have a tantrum, You want to act vulgar, don't cry when the Good Reverend isn't all lolipop and puppy dogs with you. :pimpdaddy:



First link I found. So what? You saying it's not accurate?
Click to expand...


No, I think it takes a little liberty with context. :shrug:
 
misterman said:
That is my point. It's not a gotcha. Do you agree, or not? Just a yes or no will suffice.
Click to expand...




Again. You are playing a stupid gotcha game. If you read the 14th amendment you will see, that, yes it does. This is why GITMO existed in the first place....


If you are attempting to be clever. Please stop failing. ok?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
No need to have a tantrum, You want to act vulgar, don't cry when the Good Reverend isn't all lolipop and puppy dogs with you. :pimpdaddy:
Click to expand...

Fine. Bring it on. You have one free pass to use a bad name. Can you get back on topic now?

No, I think it takes a little liberty with context. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It's a verbatim quote of the entire letter, dude.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Again. You are playing a stupid gotcha game. If you read the 14th amendment you will see, that, yes it does. This is why GITMO existed in the first place....


If you are attempting to be clever. Please stop failing. ok?
Click to expand...

I asked you a simple question to move the debate forward. How you turned it into a trick is beyond me. Jeez.
 
misterman said:
Fine. Bring it on. You have one free pass to use a bad name. Can you get back on topic now?
Click to expand...



Its your call, act like a snot, I'll treat you like one. Post on the topic respectfully and civily, I will respond in kind.

Your call.. :shrug:


It's a verbatim quote of the entire letter, dude.
Click to expand...



I was refering to the link in the link, dude.


My interpretation stands. Yours is only a little off. :shrug:
 
misterman said:
I asked you a simple question to move the debate forward. How you turned it into a trick is beyond me. Jeez.
Click to expand...



And I uhm Just answered it, again. If you were REALLY trying to move the conversation foward as you claim, you would have, instead you posted this snotty retort.


Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom