Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 56 of 56
  1. #51  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,079
    Dude... you automatically fail for invoking Jefferson to defend the Federal Government stomping out State Rights.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #52  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    1,618
    Nice touch SV. You hit him back with his own Jefferson! I'm sure he didn't expect that. :D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #53  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by KhrushchevsShoe View Post
    Except the comparison to Nazi Germany is apt, despite its use in leftist circles.
    godwins law dumbass.
    You cant run around the country pulling people over because they might be illegals then asking them to show identification to prove they arent. That's just not what the USA is supposed to be about. We have ideas like 'innocent before proven guilty' and search and seizure, ideas revolutionary for their time, but now staples of a set of freedoms that we've grown far too accustomed to.
    Trouble is - that your claim is utterly false. The law does not allow for people to be pulled over just because the cop thinks they might be illegals - what it allows is that if in the process of dealing with another criminal act - say SPEEDING - the cops are allowed to ask the perp to prove their citizenship status. Stop spreading misinformation and lies.
    Sure, it isnt expressly written in the constitution that you cant pull somebody over and ask if they are from this country or not; but that's not because of lack of a intent, more like lack of ingredients. Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson, someone the right seems to hold very dearly, coming out and agreeing with these policies? No, of course not. Because its counter to all the reasons we grew up loving this country.
    Jefferson would stand firmly behind this law.
    There's the old saying "sacrifice freedom for security and you lose both" that everyone loves. It adds credence to the oft-ridiculed cliche that freedom isn't free; a motto some like to poke fun at but do admire in principle. It's always been the moral to our story, that we make no sacrifices in our principles against our enemies because it lowers ourselves to their level. That was supposed to be our identity, but its not anymore.
    So you think for the sake of freedom we should allow anyone who wants - to cross our border at will? And you think that that is freedom??
    We are terrified of these invisible enemies nowadays: terrorism, communism, socialism, illegal immigrants.
    Terrified? Invisible? Seems to me that they are quite visible.

    We've grown xenophobic of outside influences like the United Nations, European Union and International Criminal Courts.
    How can you be xenophobic about organizations? You really should look up what terms mean before you use them.
    We see ourselves as #1 and as a consequence, everyone else as a challenger.
    That would be because that is the case.
    We complain tirelessly about the outsourcing of jobs, while at the same time ignoring the years of policy that enouraged it.
    No dude- YOUR side complains about outsourcing of jobs.

    We go to war in two countries across the globe for marginal reasons.
    are you fucking serious?
    But this is the crux of it, we've rarely let the threat of an international problem influence our domestic freedoms.
    And well we shouldn't.
    This is a step towards it. An incredible step towards watering down our only cultural identify (freedom) for the sake of security.
    Bullshit. The only people who face any kind of issue from this law are those who speak with foreign accents. And the truth of the matter is - immigrants already have to carry proof of their immigration status. If there are citizens who are second generation and cannot speak the language without sounding like foreigners - then maybe they need to look at how they are living and we should question if they actually are - AMERICANS.

    A step we all thought we were too strong and principled to take. The law passed in Arizona, whether it is redundant with federal law or not, has done more to destroy what America is about than 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf spill, the wars, and the '08 crisis put together. We got scared into believing all the horror stories are true, that this is a battle where America is at stake. Of course we got the enemy confused. Like always, its never been the outside power as much as its been ourselves. Our own capacity to lower ourselves has always been our greatest enemy, and the greatest enemy of any democracy.
    What ridiculous fucking drama.
    It is what doomed post-WW1 Germany, and eventually it is what will doom us. The only way it will work is if we are complicit and from the looks of it we are.
    No you stupid fuck. What doomed post WWI Germany was SOCIALISM.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #54  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,309
    We are terrified of these invisible enemies nowadays: terrorism, communism, socialism, illegal immigrants.
    Terrorism is an invisible enemy? So I guess those towers falling in Manhattan was just a horrible nightmare? Illegal immigration is an invisible enemy? So, I'm dreaming this as well:
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/30...izona-rancher/
    http://www.newsweek.com/2008/02/24/i...to-mexico.html
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15984485/
    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul...idnap-20100718

    Invisible indeed. Tell that to the families of those who are kidnapped.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Lager View Post
    Nice touch SV. You hit him back with his own Jefferson! I'm sure he didn't expect that. :D
    hehe thanks! :D Unfortunately, he's not the only one, I've seen other leftists trying to claim Jefferson's mantle for their own. More than likely it's over the wall of separation between the church and the government letter, which they try to use as a way to "prove" that the founding fathers detested organized religion. Yes, Jefferson was a Unitarian Christan, but he was in no way an anti-theist. In fact, if one reads the short letter...
    Mr. President

    To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

    Gentlemen

    The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

    (signed) Thomas Jefferson
    Jan.1.1802.
    ...we see that was is enumerated in the Constitution is no different from what he said here, that the government shall not set an official religion. And his anti-federalist views puts him about the furthest away from Mr. Shoe and the rest of the liberal gang. I challenge someone to find similar quotes and ideas on DU:

    "A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

    "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. "

    "Money, not morality, is the principle commerce of civilized nations."

    If Jefferson had a DU account today, he'd be banned in all of 15 seconds. :)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #56  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by KhrushchevsShoe View Post
    The Wehrmacht and SS were two very different entities in Nazi Germany. Look back at the Nuremberg trials for the distinction. You may not really know what you're talking about, but that makes my job here easier.

    I dont blame the guy driving a Panzer IV around in southern Russia for the Holocaust or pre-war rights abuses. He was a soldier and his job was to fight for his country. He had no control over the politics and what was going on. He had a job to do and he did it. Look at somebody like Erwin Rommel.
    Yes, by all means, let's look at Rommel, who was personally a superb and chivalrous officer who did not tolerate war crimes among his subordinates, but whose victories brought huge swaths of Europe under the control of his regime, and ultimately enabled the atrocities committed by it. He also swore the oath of allegiance to Adolph Hitler, which meant that even as the war became a lost cause, he continued to fight for Adolph, buying Germany the time to continue murdering civilians throughout their conquered territories. Even the most honorable foes fought for a monstrous regime, and your casual comparison between the United States and Nazi Germany is disgusting. Typical, but disgusting.
    Quote Originally Posted by KhrushchevsShoe View Post
    Either way you slice it, maybe you should be more concerned with the status of civil liberties in this country than your own image.
    I'm not worried about my "image." I know who and what I serve and I have nothing to apologize for. My point is that you either can't tell the difference between real evil and policies that you disagree with, or you are so consumed by hatred for those who don't share your politics that you have no problem comparing us to mass-murderers. It's a despicable tactic, and you usually don't sink this low, but I suppose that with the election so close, and the left in such deep trouble with the electorate, anything goes, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by KhrushchevsShoe View Post
    Probably, I dont know. I dont really care about you, you come off as being a wildly emotional idiot who enjoys getting mad at people on the internet.

    But for fun prove to me you aren't a racist. Guilty until proven innocent, just like that law they tried to pass in Arizona.
    Guilty until proven innocent of racism has always been the left's standards, unless you happen to vote the right way. Then, a former KKK exalted cyclops can become a progressive icon. In fact, you don't care about racism, just power. You want illegals welcomed so that you can overcome the collapse in support for your agenda by creating millions of new voters who will be dependent on the largess of the state, i.e., Democratic voters. The law in Arizona doesn't impose a standard of guilt. It demands probable cause for all interactions and only requires asking about immigration status when a suspect in another crime cannot produce documentation. Since legal immigrants are required by federal law to carry their ID at all times (I know this because my wife is an immigrant), the lack of ID in such cases is already a crime on the federal books.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •