Gitmo lawyers back Obama

Leafless · February 20, 2008

I love the U.S., admire it, and think it's the world's greatest democracy. I think its founding fathers were brilliant visionaries that, along with its British cousins, shaped the most successful and positive human society ever. But I understand you would be lost without your standard "you hate America" argument.
But the debate over gitmo is soon to be moot anyway, because all three potential presidents are firmly opposed to torture and will shut it down. Fortunately they, too, believe that the U.S. is better than those countries with secret trials and secret prisons and torture.

There will always be prisons and enemy combatants.

But I suppose due to an overabundance of rights there is always the option of destroying all evidence before it even gets to the point of incarcerating anyone.

Is this what the system and people like you are advocating??

BubberMiley · February 20, 2008

Do you think the Bill of Rights was overabundant?

Leafless · February 21, 2008

Do you think the Bill of Rights was overabundant?

Depending on what party is in power.

Look what happened in Canada and the original 'Bill of Rights' in the hands of the Liberals.

I fail to see the link between U.S. Bill of Rights and murderous enemy combatants in a prison in Cuba.

BubberMiley · February 21, 2008

I fail to see the link between U.S. Bill of Rights and murderous enemy combatants in a prison in Cuba.

How about alleged murderous enemy combatants? And why are they in Cuba, other than to deliberately circumvent the laws and principles of America? Perhaps you throw around the "hate America" tag so liberally because it strikes close to home.

Rue · February 21, 2008

I knew you identified yourself as unpatriotic by your internet name “Leafless,” meaning you do not accept the Canadian symbol as your own. The rest of your description, however, surprised me, as I didn’t realize you were so self-aware.

Geez I thought it meant he was a nudist.

Shakeyhands · February 21, 2008

Depending on what party is in power.
Look what happened in Canada and the original 'Bill of Rights' in the hands of the Liberals.

Oh my god... what did they do?

Leafless · February 21, 2008

Oh my god... what did they do?

Like I said in another thread they created the religion of liberalism complete with their own set of custom commandments being the Charter.

Now we know why the feds want full separation of church and state.

They don't want any competition.

BubberMiley · February 21, 2008

Didn't the founding fathers of the U.S. create the original religion of liberalism with their bible, the Constitution, and its commandments, the Bill of Rights? I can see who the real American-hater is.

Edited February 21, 2008 by BubberMiley

bush_cheney2004 · February 22, 2008

Didn't the founding fathers of the U.S. create the original religion of liberalism with their bible, the Constitution, and its commandments, the Bill of Rights? I can see who the real American-hater is.

No..."liberalism" pre-dated the "founding fathers" by many years, in the form of people like John Locke. The Americans executed such ideas in the form of a new republic (rebelling from the throne).

BubberMiley · February 22, 2008

No..."liberalism" pre-dated the "founding fathers" by many years, in the form of people like John Locke. The Americans executed such ideas in the form of a new republic (rebelling from the throne).

And Hobbes predated Locke, but the U.S. was the first real-world country built on the principles of liberalism. To say that Americans executed these ideas by rebelling from the throne is a complete misunderstanding of Hobbes' and Locke's political philosophy. Liberalism introduced the idea that it is morally correct and human nature to act in one's own personal self-interest. Locke even introduced the concept that it might be morally correct in some instances for individuals to rebel against the throne. America is the embodiment of Hobbes and Locke, and its Constitution defines the nation.

To criticize the concept of liberalism and constitutional rights is to criticize the concept of America itself.

Leafless · February 22, 2008

To criticize the concept of liberalism and constitutional rights is to criticize the concept of America itself.

Moral liberalism or progressivism currently defines the U.S. political system.

What we are talking about is EXTREME LIBERALISM the kind of liberalism you support and what currently dominates Canadian government.

But even this definiton does not accurately include the type of undemocratic, discriminatory state social control Canada is currently experiencing under an obvious totaliatarian type government.

Extreme Liberalism is the variation of Liberalism that equally emphasizes strong NonConformance and strong Independence.
People in this category will tend to have strong opinions about loosening the moral order (gay rights, ecology, drug legalization,...) and favoring individual initiatives (lower taxes, less corporate and environmental regulations, ...).

http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.as...reme_Liberalism

BubberMiley · February 22, 2008

I think anybody who considers interest in ecology to be extremist is an extremist himself.

Leafless · February 23, 2008

I think anybody who considers interest in ecology to be extremist is an extremist himself.

I doubt that very much!

During the past two decades, radical environmental and animal rights groups have claimed responsibility for hundreds of crimes and acts of terrorism, including arson, bombings, vandalism and harassment, causing more than $100 million in damage. While some activists have been captured, ecoterror cells - small and loosely affiliated - are extremely difficult to identify and most attacks remain unsolved. Although it has been overshadowed by Islamic terrorist threats since September 11, ecoterrorism remains one of the country's most active terrorist movements.

http://www.adl.org/Learn/Ext_US/Ecoterrorism.asp

BubberMiley · February 23, 2008

I'm not surprised that you would try to paint everyone who is interested in ecology as a terrorist, just as you would portray every Muslim as one.

But those who would destroy god's green earth are the real terrorists.

And those who oppose constitutional rights and liberty are the real anti-Americans.

Leafless · February 23, 2008

I'm not surprised that you would try to paint everyone who is interested in ecology as a terrorist, just as you would portray every Muslim as one.

That is an incorrect, unfair and an extreme statement.

We are talking extreme liberalism, are we not?

But those who would destroy god's green earth are the real terrorists.

Well, you can blame unregulated human breeding and their irresponsible governments as a primary reason for that one. IMO, earth is destined for the garbage can anyways, but this should be discussed in the proper thread.

And those who oppose constitutional rights and liberty are the real anti-Americans.

That is a matter of opinion relating to rights being abnormally doctored to include undesirable aspects relating to the NORMAL functioning of a society.

BubberMiley · February 23, 2008

Now we know why the feds want full separation of church and state.

The separation of church and state is also a principle on which the U.S. was founded. And since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is simply an imitation of the U.S. Bill of Rights (although the U.S. bill has more teeth in that there is no notwithstanding clause), your campaign against liberalism and the Charter is ultimately a campaign against U.S.-style democracy. I can see why you go around accusing everyone of being anti-American. It's to deflect attention from your own extremist, anti-American sentiments.

Leafless · February 24, 2008

The separation of church and state is also a principle on which the U.S. was founded.

Give me a break, the U.S. is not comparable to our anti-Christian Canadian federal government. This is specially relating to the Liberals.

The Conservatives are making headway in this area by publicly making reference in the way of public prayer relating to our majority Christian God.

God and power are firmly linked in the US political scene
The most unpredictable presidential race for a generation is well under way in the US, and so far, issues of personal faith have never been far from the headlines.

In the last election, President George W Bush, a born-again Christian, won the support of the vast majority of evangelicals, while his Democratic opponent John Kerry talked as little as possible about his own Catholicism.

But in the crowded field of candidates this time, it is the Democrats who are finding it easier to describe how their faith in Jesus informs their political beliefs and experience.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=614_1185141103

And since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is simply an imitation of the U.S. Bill of Rights

Our Charter is an socialistic IMPOSED undemocratic, discriminatory piece of legislation unlike the U.S. Bill of Rights.

your campaign against liberalism and the Charter is ultimately a campaign against U.S.-style democracy.

Your idea of democratic concerns mocks the meaning of democracy under our form of government.

Canadian citizens were EXCLUDED from the process that created our OWN Charter.

I can see why you go around accusing everyone of being anti-American. It's to deflect attention from your own extremist, anti-American sentiments.

I am pro-American and always have been.

You are making allegations that are totally unfounded.

Use quotes to back your unfounded allegations as you are only making yourself appear silly and incompetent, coupled with your troll like characteristics.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Leafless

BubberMiley · February 24, 2008

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is clear on the separation of church and state. This amendment is part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, a brilliant document on which our Charter was founded.

Other than the fact that the Charter is not as "imposing" as the Bill of Rights because it allows for provinces to opt out, how is it different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendme...es_Constitution

I, like many, believe that the Constitution of the U.S. defines that country. You have accused me of being anti-American many, many times for simply criticizing its current administration. I believe that criticizing the foundations of western democracy is a far more anti-American sentiment than being anti-war.

margrace · February 24, 2008

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is clear on the separation of church and state. This amendment is part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, a brilliant document on which our Charter was founded.
Other than the fact that the Charter is not as "imposing" as the Bill of Rights because it allows for provinces to opt out, how is it different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendme...es_Constitution

I, like many, believe that the Constitution of the U.S. defines that country. You have accused me of being anti-American many, many times for simply criticizing its current administration. I believe that criticizing the foundations of western democracy is a far more anti-American sentiment than being anti-war.

You are so right Bubbermiley, people who would take away ours and American freedoms are pretty scarry.

Leafless · February 24, 2008

You are so right Bubbermiley, people who would take away ours and American freedoms are pretty scarry.

LOL!

The U.S. does not incorporate undemocratic EXTREME LIBERALISM like Canada does.

Canada compared to the U.S. is next to Cuba, with Cuba being a country Canada should have black listed but never did.

I wonder why?

BubberMiley · February 24, 2008

U.S. does not incorporate undemocratic EXTREME LIBERALISM like Canada does.

How is the charter undemocratic and extremely liberal in comparison to the Bill of Rights? You still haven't indicated how they are in any way different.

bush_cheney2004 · February 24, 2008

How is the charter undemocratic and extremely liberal in comparison to the Bill of Rights? You still haven't indicated how they are in any way different.

Ummm...one is only 26 years old?

BubberMiley · February 24, 2008

Ummm...one is only 26 years old?

That doesn't make it different. There are actual differences, but none warrant the overblown hyperbole that it is a document of extreme liberalism in comparison to its U.S. counterpart. One might say, however, it is more democratic in that it allows elected governments to use the notwithstanding clause to override it.

bush_cheney2004 · February 24, 2008

That doesn't make it different. There are actual differences, but none warrant the overblown hyperbole that it is a document of extreme liberalism in comparison to its U.S. counterpart. One might say, however, it is more democratic in that it allows elected governments to use the notwithstanding clause to override it.

But it does make it different.....the US Bill of Rights were actually amendments to the constitution, not an afterthought imported more than 100 years later. The "extreme" liberalism stems from not the Charter itself, but liberal interpretation via so called "Charter Politics". We saw this for same gender marriage....an issue that was reviewed and rejected (excluding sexual orientation) when the Charter was orginally drafted.

Edited February 24, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

BubberMiley · February 24, 2008

The U.S. Bill of Rights' guarantee of equality could be subject to the same interpretation for same-sex marriage as the Charter. Hence, the calls among conservatives to amend the constitution to include an explicit definition of marriage. In that respect, the documents are very much the same, and the perceived problems of "extreme" interpretation are not based so much on the Charter itself than the political climate we live in.