posted on January 4, 2003 01:33:50 PM new
--and neither do you.
When did upholding the Bill of Rights become a bad thing? It has, you know. Why are people in this country in such a hurry to turn their backs on the very things our founders fought so hard for?
In another thread Linda refers to "ACLU type issues." Those are Bill of Rights issues which give EVERY American certain protections. We may not like the fact that people who do bad things, or things we personally don't approve of, get those same protections, but the fact remains that they are entitled to them. If we begin denying those rights to some, it is a short step to losing them for everyone else.
I will be the first to say that the ACLU can & does carry things to extremes sometimes & that I roll my eyes when I hear of some of the things they take up as a Rights issue. BUT: they have also fought for & protected important issues. They have successfully protected our rights several times when the government or others tried to infringe upon or ignore those rights.
There are some that will argue that because of 9-11, we should allow the government to curtail our Bill of Rights. That security is more important than our rights. That's not the kind of America I want, agreeing with Benjamin Franklin on this issue: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
posted on January 4, 2003 01:58:47 PM new
When we begin to discriminate in the use of justice, it will not be guraranteed to anybody. Linda also stated in the shoe bomber thread that Reid should have been shot on sight based on his intentions to bomb the plane. The American judicial system should not be based on knee jerk revenge. Trial and due process is an American guarantee that can only be preserved if it is applied to everyone, equally.
posted on January 4, 2003 02:03:56 PM new
Since Linda's name is being brought up I'll respond. Do I believe our constitution is based on great values? Yes, but I also see those same values being stretched to the limits. Overboard.
The subject of our forefathers and what they meant when they wrote our constitution always amuses me. Everyone puts their 'take' on what they meant exactly. It's all up for debate and that's why these issue usually end up in the USSC....because not everyone see's the same issue the same way.
One example I'll share is the people from NAMBLA. The ACLU supports their right to have an internet site that 'teaches/guides' people on how to approach young children, to teach them to 'love'. They support sex between the young children and adults. So...the ACLU is fighting to defend their rights. WHAT IN THE WORLD FOR? So more can learn easy ways to molest children? Where do the rights of people to raise their children in safer environments come into play? Are the rights of the guilty or law breakers more important that our rights to raise our children in safe environment? I seriously doubt our forefathers would have supported child molester's rights.
posted on January 4, 2003 02:05:03 PM new
I (at least) realize that you were not invoking the name of Linda to try to shunt her into here, but just use her as an example and that you meant for all of us to participate. Therefore, my usual two cents.
First, Bunni, for the last thirty years our public education has diminished the importance of participation in government and the Bill of Rights. I don't know the reasons why. Consumerism has replaced politics as the focus of the everyday working person. And our political parties and politicans have made sure to take full advantage of that fact by driving in every wedge that they can between the government and the people.
For instance, how else do you explain that Trent Lott has been given the Chair seat on the House Rules Committee? A horribly important position of authority, not as much as Senate Majority Leader, but still enough to block passage of any civil rights measures that he doesn't like. And the outcry from the American people? Dead silence!
And why is that?
It's like Bush says, "In this Time of War, Tight Pockets Sink Corporations -- so spend, Spend, SPEND!" Look at the news and so much of it now revolves around new products. It's to the point where so many news stories are cleverly disguised product advertisments that there is no real news left.
Yes. And when we are all totally impoverished and the Rich own *every*f-ing*thing* in America and have every last damned dime, Americans will STILL be moaning and groaning for products that they can't have but wish that they did!
The Bill of Rights? Who needs it? Our Blind Faith and Blind Patriotism will protect us, not the Bill of Rights! There's a War On -- didn'tja know? No one has ANY civil rights when there's a WAR-ON or when the Prsident has his own WAR-ON. And this is a WAR-ON that will NEVER END! NEVER! EVER! NEr, Ever again will we have our Bill of Rights! What's the matter with you all? There's a frick'n WAR-ON!!!
posted on January 4, 2003 02:11:46 PM new
What? Iraq? A WAR is when the other guy has a chance to fight back! This will just be a MASSACARE! Notice that Bush NEVER picks on someone who can fight back? C-O-W-A-R-D! If Bush ever did pick on, say China or Russia, then there'd be a WAR-ON, because we'd be getting our troops killed in battles, our jets shot down, our ships sunk, and our cities annihilated! That's a REAL WAR-ON!
posted on January 4, 2003 03:18:08 PM newThe subject of our forefathers and what they meant when they wrote our constitution always amuses me. Everyone puts their 'take' on what they meant exactly.
The only reason the Constitution was even ratified was becasue the the Bill of Rights was added. That's how important they were. And should still be. "What they meant"?!? Read the bill of rights--the answer is there for you to see.
Thomas Jefferson:
"The general voice from north to south... calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modifications of these suited to the habits of all the States. But if such cannot be found, then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of habeas corpus, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies in all cases, than not to do it in any. The few cases wherein these things may do evil cannot be weighed against the multitude wherein the want of them will do evil." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.
"It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1788.
James Madison:
"It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community any apprehensions, that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled." James Madison proposing Bill of Rights to the House, June 8, 1789.
BTW, it was Madison who propesed the original 12 amendments, 10 of which were adopted as the Bill of Rights.
John Adams:
"Adams modeled the Massachusetts’ Declaration of Rights to a large degree after George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776. Adams wrote that all men were “born equally free and independent” with certain “natural, essential, and unalienable rights.” Among those rights he sought to guarantee were “freedom of speaking” and “liberty of the press.” Adams sought to protect the rights of the accused, as well, by instituting prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures and by codifying the right to trial by jury."
One example I'll share is the people from NAMBLA.
And that is one of the cases I spoke about. Do I support NAMBLA? No, I don't. But they should be curtailed legally. They are still entitled to trial by jury. And covered by free speech.
There are a lot of people who say things I violently disagree with. Who espouse views that are diametrically opposed to mine. But I uphold their right to say them. If I didn't, I might one day find myself being shut down for saying things others don't agree with. It's a slippery slope. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 4, 2003 03:46:43 PM new
Bunni - I can appreciate and respect that you feel differently than I and millions just like myself. You asked but don't seem to want to hear the answer about your perception that so many are willing to give up their rights.
Reid was convicted. He pled guilty. The issue of whether he has or does't have a radio is only the liberals pressing the line of what are his 'rights'. This has absolutely nothing to do with him being granted a fair trial. Nothing.
Just like how all the other prisoners have rights to continually file court greavences. Tying up our court systems over whether or not they're going to eat peanut and butter sandwiches. It's all being take to outragious limits.
And we do to appear to be in agreement that there are many American's who believe a little flexibility is needed when dealing with the new issues that have presented themselves since 9-11. You call that giving up their rights....others just don't agree.
On NAMBLA....they are promoting sex with young children and the ACLU is defending their right to do so. Sorry to hear you agree. I don't.
posted on January 4, 2003 04:55:40 PM new
Actually, Linda, there is a lot of interesting history about Adults having sex with Children and how it has been viewed and tolerated in written human history. Of course, with the modern viewpoints that we have, the idea of even looking into the factual history for public consumption is likely to get one burned at the stake by both Conservatives and Liberals alike. While this branch of mental illness is nothing that I am interested in investigating, I do believe that Bunni is right and that the ACLU are right. Realize that there was a time when Christian views were seen by the public as being just as obscene and many were killed in the arena for it. That if early Christians had not chanced torture and death and being treated less than lepers for trying to get their message out, it might have well be today's morals to see Adults having sex with Children as being morally and ethically Right. It is better to get these sorts of ideas out of the closet and into the open air and into the public to discuss it in the open air, rather than trying to suppress it where it will just fester. Better to have it around as an educational lesson than to try to silence their voice, because that ALWAYS backfires and makes it worse (see Mien Kemphf circa late 1920's - early 1930's).
Is society better off being shielded by government from ideas that are odd or obscene? That's only true if you are a small child and need to be taken care of in that way by the state. The rest of us Adults can deal with it as it comes, thank you, without the use of government to silence any ideas. We can do that on our own, each and every one of us. Except those that need to be taken care of because they are, at heart, imbecilic and wayward and unable to care for themselves or to wipe their own bottoms without someone in authority to come and do it for them.
posted on January 4, 2003 11:25:04 PM new
drkosmos, that is a very interesting point: humans have inaliable, fundamental rights, corporations do not. I have said so before here in the RT.
"Jefferson and Madison proposed an 11th Amendment to the Constitution that would "ban monopolies in commerce," making it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, banning them from giving money to politicians or trying to influence elections in any way, restricting corporations to a single business purpose, limiting the lifetime of a corporation to something roughly similar to that of productive humans (20 to 40 years back then), and requiring that the first purpose for which all corporations were created be "to serve the public good."
"The amendment didn't pass because many argued it was unnecessary: Virtually all states already had such laws on the books from the founding of this nation until the Age of the Robber Barons. "
Wouldn't it have been great if that Eleventh Amendment could have been added? Think of all of the misery and human suffering that would never have happened. Surely, Stana had a hand in making sure that it didn't pass, as suffering and other terrible things are his domain.
Think now about where you have also heard this same arguement, that laws are already on the books. "Why do XXX need Special Rights?" some people often query. "Every law that they need is already on the books in every state," they argue. It is bad enough that government and idnustry are constantly shrinking our rights and at the same time, expanding theirs ten-fold. It should be the other way around: people are not to be srutinized and controlled, government is and industry is.
posted on January 5, 2003 11:32:42 AM new
Borillar, I guess without Helen and Ken here, you feel you must be even more outrageous and provocative than ever in order to "keep the ball rolling." So I will avoid taking offense at your lunatic ravings that somehow the federal government is restricting our innate right to commit pedophilia.
Laws against sexual perversion have been around much longer than the written word, not just in the last year. Finding exceptions merely demonstrates an aberation.
posted on January 5, 2003 01:01:13 PM new
That's certainly a low blow coming from you, twinsoft. But I guess that you're used to blowing low.
All I did was to turn your own tactics that you use on me and others here on yourself. That you can only respond with insults, lies, and distortions shows just how little you really are.
posted on January 5, 2003 01:30:43 PM newBut I guess that you're used to blowing low.
A little "homophobe" joke of your own? If rational argument fails (and it always does with you) stoop to sexual insults.
posted on January 5, 2003 01:57:56 PM new
Borillar,You always have to go there...If you get your butt burned, dont blame it on someone else.
Actually, Linda, there is a lot of... interesting history about Adults....
having sex with Children and how it..
has been viewed and tolerated in....
written human history.
Its not interesting to many women,and men,
Keep digging that hole,Borillar...Keep digging.
posted on January 5, 2003 05:01:57 PM new
I'm not digging any hole, junquemama. Just because you feel that the government should tell us what we can and can't read doesn't mean that the majority of the population also feels that way. If we choose to deny NAMBLA their book, then we also will have to remove all of Leonardo DaVinci's works from our art and phylosphy and history books, as he was a pedophile who kept two young boys as his lovers. You'll also have to get rid of almost all of the ancient Greek phylosophy and parts of the Bible while you're at it, as there was an awful lot of pedophillia going on back then as well. And I could site one thjing after another that fits into the same category of that one concept that we all need to be protected from in your mind. We know where you want it to start, but no one knows where it will stop. So, anyone digging a hole here, it's you for wanting to censor everyone' else's reading choices in life.
posted on January 5, 2003 05:32:22 PM new
And, the fact that you may read that book is not an indication that you approve of the practice of pedeophilia or that you will be persuaded to become a pedophile.
posted on January 5, 2003 06:29:41 PM new
Borillar, you began your attempt to normalize homosexuality and pedophilia long before I joined the discussion in either thread. Hence my comment.
I understand that without your buddies here to propagate your nonsense, you feel the need to be even more extreme and anti-social. Really, I do admire your dedication to this forum ... at least, your definition of it.
Rest assured, I don't take anything you say seriously, least of all your recent rash of nonsense. I imagine what you know of human sexuality you learned from "Readers' Letters To Penthouse."
posted on January 5, 2003 08:31:39 PM new
Borillar,This isnt about censorship of any book.
Nice move tho,twist what I say, to match the tone of the thread, and be back on subject.
Its your imput on pedophiles at any givin chance,You are the first one to expand on the subject.
I dont go along with your silly premise of pedophiles are mis-understood.
So, anyone digging a hole here,.....
it's you for wanting to censor everyone' else's reading choices in life.
posted on January 5, 2003 09:39:21 PM new
>Borillar, you began your attempt to normalize homosexuality and pedophilia long before I joined the discussion in either thread. Hence my comment.
I'm not exactly certain what you mean about "normalize".
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
normalize
SYLLABICATION:
nor·mal·ize
PRONUNCIATION:
nôrm-lz
VERB:
Inflected forms: nor·mal·ized, nor·mal·iz·ing, nor·mal·iz·es
TRANSITIVE
VERB:
1. To make normal, especially to cause to conform to a standard or
norm: normalize a patient's temperature; normalizing relations with
a former enemy nation. 2. To make (a text or language) regular and
consistent, especially with respect to spelling or style. 3. To remove
strains and reduce coarse crystalline structures in (metal), especially
by heating and cooling.
INTRANSITIVE
VERB:
To become or return to normal: waiting for diplomatic relations to
normalize.
The only thing that I've done differently than most people is to talk about it without the knee-jerk responses that some people feel are socially acceptable opinions. Instead of immediately condeming peope marked as targets by the ignorant, I have tried to view these subjects as rationally as possible. That pedophillia is clearly mental illness and should be treated as such and that homosexuality may have its roots, so to speak, in science rather than superstition, these are things that I am certainly guilty of trying to talk about on here. That I have deviated from the mob mentality acceptable to so many on here is just to bad for all of you. I don't hold with it and I'm happy to say that I'm clearly a cut above the rest of you who so enjoy the mob mentality for it. That I refuse to ban any books, no matter how much I personally would like to see every copy destroyed on earth means that I have a more civilized mind, rather than a Dark Ages mentality.
>Borillar, I guess without Helen and Ken here, you feel you must be even more outrageous and provocative than ever in order to "keep the ball rolling." So I will avoid taking offense at your lunatic ravings that somehow the federal government is restricting our innate right to commit pedophilia.
>Hence my comment.
Really? You can't see how insulting that you were? What snide observations that those were? As if I ever need assistance n anything at all on here? LOL!
>I understand that without your buddies here to propagate your nonsense
Another insult.
> least of all your recent rash of nonsense. I imagine what you know of human sexuality you learned from "Readers' Letters To Penthouse."
And more insults. And you feel that I shouldn't be allowed to return it in kind? What double-standard thinking it is that you have!
twinsoft, when nearly everyone else on here slammed you as being just another jackass, I didn't join in and I couldn't believe that you were one -- at least until you had proved it to me. That honeymoon is over and your place is revealed.
posted on January 5, 2003 10:33:59 PM new
What a sad statment about our country: that the Bill of Rights is to be overturned, shunned & ignored because some people do bad things. Rather than going after such people with the legal system, some folks would rather that everyone should have their rights curtailed. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 5, 2003 10:55:37 PM new
bunni - I'd like to explain further my thoughts on the NAMBLA issue. To me it's not about denying anyone/group their freedom of speech.
To me, they've stepped over the line. Their website and now their 'bulletins' promote an illegal position. It is illegal for adults to have sex with minors. On their website and in their bulletins they don't just speak about their feelings, or share a common belief that sex with children is okay. They are encouraging/promoting illegal behavior. They spell out how to gain a child's attention, how to 'work' them until they get what they want. Then they guide them on what to do when arrested, and if convicted, they encourage other child molesters to visit and support their 'brothers'.
So to me, and many others, this is crossing the line from being only a free speech issue into being almost like a hate crime. Not a hate crime against gays and blacks, but against our children. I would no more support any person who uses their free speech rights to incite abuse of a homosexual, black, etc. That's when free speech crosses the line. And just like the KKK, they have a right to free speech but there have been times when they have had to pay civil claims for what their 'speech' caused to happen to another person.
I sure am not trying to argue...just explain further how I see this differently than most free speech challenges. IMO, the water becomes muddy and it's not just a clear right to free speech. It endangers our children, and to me, our children's rights come before those who are promoting breaking the laws and violating our children.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 5, 2003 11:13 PM ]
posted on January 6, 2003 07:38:53 AM new
Read the newspapers,or watch "Most Wanted",
everyone of the pedophiles,were someone that the family, or single Mom knew.These are not strangers,These are good old boys,and next door neighbors,These are kindly old men down the street,Or the new boyfriend who is very attentive.The sole purpose of being around you, is to molest your kids,and possibly kill them later(most do)so they cant be identified. All of this, takes a lot of cunning,and patience,And every bit of it takes a whole lot of mental process for a molester to pull off their game.Mental illness does not fly, as an excuse,for the actions of a molester.You have to have a high IQ ,to be able to destroy 150 lives in your life time,always one step ahead of the police.
Women need to read up on these creeps,so they dont fall victim to them.
Pedophiles dont stop after being caught,Once out of jail,They go right back to their desires,Rapeing kids.
There is no cure for their sick agenda,and they have no remorse.
And how the hell our rights, got entertwined with a Pedophile,is totally insane.
