I doubt that either of us would agree. I certainly know I wouldn't! I posed three specific questions, and you haven't answered a single one of them.

---The Constitution is a prop? Maybe I do need a tin foil cap.

For politician you bet! and the tin foil? its almost a certainty

Again I ask.... HOW is the Constitution a "prop" for Ron Paul or any other politician?

Please explain to me how abolishing our freedoms and liberties, granted by the Constitution of the United States makes us safer?

Just who do you consider "our" and "us". Our and Us means everyone right? (this is a loaded question) If you can explain who does not get total protection from the government intrusions that you are eluding too without limiting the freedoms of someone, you'll explain why this loss of freedom / liberty hysteria is nothing more than asshattery

Wrong! Our and US refers to United States Citizens which are the ONLY ones given RIGHTS under the Constitution. Although illegal immigrants, visitors, war prisoners, etc., may ENJOY some of those protections, MOSTLY ordained by treaties, they do NOT, and never HAVE HAD any of the Constitutional Rights afforded our own citizenry.

WE the citizens, are the ones who are SUPPOSED to get total protection from the government intrusions, and though that may "limit" the freedom of someone who wants to rape or kill, it does NOT abridge their RIGHT to do so.... because they HAVE NONE! I understand the concept that "My rights stop where YOURS begin," but that is not the issue here. The President does NOT have the right, for instance, to wiretap Americans without a warrant, JUST because he claims to be protecting the citizens RIGHTS to safety and security. In this case HIS (or the government's) rights END where MINE begin!

What are you (and they) going to replace it with?

Replace it? Who said that? There were amendments to the constitution for a reason.There have also been times in this country's history where there were limits places on the constitution and there were broader powers given to the government to protect the citizens of the country.

Please give an example of any time in history when limits were placed on the Constitution. Or for that matter.... a time when broader powers were given to the President to secure the nation. If you refer, perhaps, to the internment of Japanese American citizens during WWII.... THAT was unconstitutional, and reparations have been awarded and paid.

Gas rationing? Prohibition? Sexual Predator laws? These can ONLY be considered a limit to ONE Constitutional right, and that is the one about "Pursuit of Happiness." And that one, at best, is nebulous and unquantifiable. Besides.... One's right to the pursuit of happiness ENDS where the public welfare rights BEGIN.


Something more socialist? Or more fascist? Whatever it is, I am sure there will be NO second amendment. And I especially want you to obey the “new law,” and happily forgo your previous second amendment rights.

The second amendment didn't enter my mind in this topic, nor does it matter to this discussion unless you think that "joe six pack" is going to be able to end the problems that we face as a world and nation. They CAN'T!

I suppose I am to blame for introducing the Second Ammendment into the discussion, but I did so simply as an example of how I MUST ADHERE to the Constitution, because I am NOT ABOVE IT!! And neither is (or should be) our President.

And I agree entirely that "Joe Six Pack" (i.e: the armed populace... what USED to be called the Militia) will not, nor cannot, SAVE the Union! Which is why I see no reason that reasonable men would object to limited gun control for the better good of the people.

However, it is pertinent to the discussion in that, it is a Constitutional right, and Ron Paul is..... according to YOU...... using the document as some type of "prop." The explanation of which, I am STILL awaiting!

I did not attack the first part of your post (top of page 2) about Dubya being qualified to fly an F-102..... although, I COULD! Have YOU or anyone you KNOW ever seen him do so?

I did not attack the third part of the same post concerning (IIRC) the reason Republicans don't "woo" the Black vote, because I somewhat agree, although that is NOT the official, nor rational, reason given for their lack of appearance at the debates. To me, this is a non-issue.

I specifically asked you to explain the MIDDLE part of that post, because it made no sense to me, and though I am no big fan of Ron Paul, I just wanted to understand your point of view.

Now.... I have specifically addressed, in detail, most of your questions, statements and babblings. I would appreciate you doing the SAME for me.... unless of course..... you have NO IDEA what you are talking about and cannot DO SO!

I don't personally care WHAT you think of Ron Paul. [I am not necessarily a supporter] I'd just like to understand WHY you think it.... or at least..... WHAT you meant by the three statements that I questioned. Is that too hard of a task for you?

If you can't rationally explain your contentions, as I am often forced to do, then you probably shouldn't be making them.... and perhaps it is YOU we need to wear the tin foil hats for protection against.

 

Fozzy



Again you are trying to avoid answering, or changing the subject, but, illegal aliens are indeed afforded certain rights under our Constitution, but not ALL rights afforded to the legal citizens of the United States.
The Supreme Court has ruled that although “illegal” they above all are considered “persons.” Thus being a “person” they fall under certain protections of the Constitution. This can become rather confused in the administration and arguments of “criminal law” and “administrative law.”
At the border, agents have every right to question, search, deny entry and otherwise use any means at their disposal to determine a persons’ identity. Once inside the country, on our soil, then persons, legal or illegal, are afforded some rights, a couple being the right to a speedy trail, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. (keyword is unreasonable.) Rights which they are denied, for example, are the right to vote and the right keep and bear arms.
Outside the Constitution, we also have other laws. Such as DOT, ATF, INS (now known as the BCIS under the Dept. of Homeland Security.) Considering the head of the BCIS is appointed by the President, and then when the laws of the BCIS are not being enforced, this seems to be a problem created more by the administration’s priorities rather than the protections provided a “person” under the Constitution. So if you believe that our sovereign borders are not being adequately protected against terrorists, instead of in favor a continuous supply of cheap labor for corporate America, I would consider contacting President Bush.

** note: BCIS agents DO have the right to question and demand identification, state law enforcement officials can question and demand identification when they believe a crime is being or about to be committed. “just cause.” or “probable cause”

 

So again you either miss the point by accident or on purpose.

HOW does an agent of the US Government even ASK ANYONE if they are a citizen if this citizen is doing absolutely nothing illegal at the time? What does a citizen look like? This is more of the same kookery from the same old sources. You want the government to keep you safe from all enemies foreign and domestic, yet you want to hold them to some strange ideal that we live in the 18th century. All of this weak kneed drivel about wiretaps and all this "listening to poor little Americans" is pure BS. If the call is coming from offshore and from a hostile area.. then you damn well should expect for it to be listened in on.

 

Fozzy

Jezzz, just what is your point? Do you know? Everyone answers your questions and ramblings, then you ask another inane and non-sequential question.
Quit asking more questions to avoid answering the questions originally posed to you. If you don’t have any idea what your point is, or if you have no idea what you are talking about, please, just say so, then we can all move on to more rational discussion.
OK, lets try one more time. Let me attempt to dissect you writings.
1.) HOW does an agent of the US Government even ASK ANYONE if they are a citizen if this citizen is doing absolutely nothing illegal at the time?
** I believe I already answered, it is called “just” or “probable cause.” If any officer of the court, from any jurisdiction, has “just” or “probable cause” to believe that a crime has been committed, is about to be committed (conspiring) , or is being committed, they have the right to question anyone and demand identification. However, what is termed as “racial profiling” is illegal.
2.) What does a citizen look like?
** Loaded question. Assuming you are speaking of “Americans,” Americans come from many different countries and cultures and comprise peoples of many different races. Therefore a citizen can be anyone.
3.) Although not a question, more of a rambling , the latter part of your “statement” you are referring to the Patriot Act, I assume.
** The Patriot Act had nothing to do with the questions posed to you.

OK. Your turn to answer.

 

Under Fozzy's logic, we should expect every conversation overseas to be monitored. So my wife's sister lives in Berlin. She's a US citizen. So we should "expect" our conversations to be recorded simply because we're speaking to someone overseas? What's next? Do we start monitoring conversations in certain areas of the US the admin "thinks" there might be a threat?

Our country has become so paranoid and afraid after 9/11, that the terrorists accomplished EXACTLY what they intended. That is what terror does. It infects a country with fear and governments begin to errode civil liberties to "combat" terror. 475 days until Bush goes bye-bye. Then we can get some common sense in office and the fear mongers out.

 

Yeah.. thats what it means.. maybe to you moon bats...

 

I went to the store the other day to buy a bolt for our front door, for as I told the storekeeper, the governor was coming here. "Aye," said he, "and the Legislature too." "Then I will take two bolts," said I. He said that there had been a steady demand for bolts and locks of late, for our protectors were coming.

- Henry David Thoreau

 

Another example of common sense law proposed by Dr. Paul

The We the People Act is a bill initially introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) on November 17, 2005. The bill, designated H.R. 4379, was immediately referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The Judiciary committee referred H.R. 4379 to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on February 6, 2006.[1]

On June 29, 2006, Rep. Paul introduced the Act again in the 2nd session of the 109th Congress, this time with five cosponsors. The bill was designated H.R. 5739 and was immediately referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.[2]

Paul introduced the bill again in the 110th Congress, on January 5, 2007, with two co-sponsors. It was referred immediately to the House Judiciary Committee. [3]

[edit] Legal analysis

If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, and would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts. The legislation would be immune to any constitutional challenge other than to the Act itself.

 

Immune to constitutional challenge?

Sounds like Mr. Ron Paul(mr constitution) is trying to get around the constitution.

What's wrong with the supreme court hearing these cases? That's what they're there for.

 

I'm still waiting for the text in the Constitution that says anything about illegal aliens...