• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Jimi Hendrix - say it isn't so....Un-American?

Motokid said:
According to the Constitution, the President can not declare war. Period. It has to be an act of Congress. The fact that congress gave the President permission to invade Iraq is in direct defiance of the constitution. There has been no amendment. Unless I missed that somewhere...
Click to expand...

Think what you want, Motokid. I'm not going to argue this. Bush was right in what he did, and did it with the approval of Congress. Even most Democrats on the hill won't argue that point.
 
Robert said:
These aren't just foreigners, novella. These are people sworn to murder as many people as they can in the name of Allah. Some of the foreign combatants believed to be less dangerous were let go, and were killed trying to kill American soldiers, Iraqi policeman or setting off bombs in a public place like a crowed market. These aren?t men sitting passively in jail, trying to convince their jailers that they don?t deserve to be there. They continue to threaten the life of the prison guards and their families if they?re ever released, and attack the guards at every opportunity. These are not people that you want to see set free, novella.
Click to expand...

Then why are they not tried and convicted of any of this?
There has been quite a few people stuck in that place for years now, and so far (to my knowledge) not a single one of them has been convicted of anything. Yet many have been released.

All in the name of freedom eh?
 
novella said:
These generalizations don't apply to every one of the prisoners. I'm not advocating 'setting them free.' I'm asking why you are so sure they are guilty if they have not yet had a trial.
Click to expand...


Actually, they do. And for the sake of discussion, who would you have put them on trial?
 
Zolipara said:
Then why are they not tried and convicted of any of this?
There has been quite a few people stuck in that place for years now, and so far (to my knowledge) not a single one of them has been convicted of anything. Yet many have been released.

All in the name of freedom eh?
Click to expand...


All in the name of protecting innocent people. Who would you have put them on trial? What law covers this?
 
Robert said:
Think what you want, Motokid. I'm not going to argue this. Bush was right in what he did, and did it with the approval of Congress. Even most Democrats on the hill won't argue that point.
Click to expand...

Of coarse the Democrats won't argue it....every single one of them is gulity of a direct violation of the Constitution. They are all in the same bucket of slime. If one is guilty then they all are guilty...so hey....lets just say we're all not gulity...

Congress has never, formally, Declared War on Iraq. So the War with Iraq is Un-Constitutional. There is no arguement. No matter if it's the right thing to do or not....the way it was started, and continued to this day, is in direct violation of the very thing we're supposed to hold as the essence of our country. That's a very scarey thing isn't it?
 
Motokid said:
Of coarse the Democrats won't argue it....every single one of them is gulity of a direct violation of the Constitution. They are all in the same bucket of slime. If one is guilty then they all are guilty...so hey....lets just say we're all not gulity...

Congress has never, formally, Declared War on Iraq. So the War with Iraq is Un-Constitutional. There is no arguement. No matter if it's the right thing to do or not....the way it was started, and continued to this day, is in direct violation of the very thing we're supposed to hold as the essence of our country. That's a very scarey thing isn't it?
Click to expand...


We’re just going to have to except the fact that we don’t agree on this, Motokid. Time to more on.
 
Jimmy Hendrix is imprisoned at Gitmo? :eek:



"Ther must be someway out of here, said the joker to the thief......" :D :D
 
The British thought the Americans were cowards when we used guerilla tactics in the Revolutionary War because we didn't line up and fight them face to face. So, what is this thing we call "cowardice"? It seems kinda relative, good one minute, bad the next. One might say that cowardice when used for self preservation is an American trait, but that's hard to say because I have yet to find a satisfactory definition for the qualities that belong to a person labeled as American (other than a person belonging to the citizenry of the United States or any other North or South American country), and I don't think you'll find a more specific definition because humans are humans wherever you go. Terms like un-American just break people down into two groups: people who think a certain way and people who don't. That's why politicians use it so much. It's vague and divisive.
 
RitalinKid said:
The British thought the Americans were cowards when we used guerilla tactics in the Revolutionary War because we didn't line up and fight them face to face.
Click to expand...
Slight aside: Actually the idea that the British army stood in neat lines whilst the Americans hid out of view isn't a 100% acurate depiction of what happened. As many American officers had previously held that rank in the British army, the tactics of both sides were much closer than is generally thought.
 
Robert said:
We’re just going to have to except the fact that we don’t agree on this, Motokid.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that removing Saddam from power, and hopefully the face of the earth was the wrong thing to do. I'm not saying the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam is a bad thing either.

What scares me is the way our government did it.

If I watch my neighbor murder his wife my duty is to call the police. If, however, I decide to get my gun, walk over there, ring the doorbell, and blow his brains out when he opens the door, I am guilty of a crime. It does not matter if my state has the death penalty and my neighbor would have been put to death after a trial and conviction. What I did may have had the same end result, but it was not the right thing to do.

Stepping around, over, or completely ignoring the Constitution is something that should not be overlooked. It scares me. And, I'm sure it does nothing but fan the flames of hatred towards our country.
 
Motokid said:
I'm not saying that removing Saddam from power, and hopefully the face of the earth was the wrong thing to do. I'm not saying the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam is a bad thing either.

What scares me is the way our government did it.

If I watch my neighbor murder his wife my duty is to call the police. If, however, I decide to get my gun, walk over there, ring the doorbell, and blow his brains out when he opens the door, I am guilty of a crime. It does not matter if my state has the death penalty and my neighbor would have been put to death after a trial and conviction. What I did may have had the same end result, but it was not the right thing to do.

Stepping around, over, or completely ignoring the Constitution is something that should not be overlooked. It scares me. And, I'm sure it does nothing but fan the flames of hatred towards our country.
Click to expand...


I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree that Mr. Bush stepped around, over or ignored the Constitution.
 
Zolipara said:
So what you want is blind obedience to a few men regardless of what they do?
Click to expand...

See, had you actually read my post you would not have come to this conclusion...

What I want is for people to obey the law.

The draft was signed into law by Congress during the Civil War, and enabled the US Government to wage war, and obligated the citizens to serve.

There are provisions in the law for "conscientious objection", as well as other opportunities for deferment from the draft. If you object, it is your obligation to take the steps necessary to submit your claim to your local draft board for consideration.

Enlisting to avoid jail time, then claiming to be gay are not the acts of a "conscientious objector", but of a coward who should be tried as a draft dodger. (max penalty is $250,000, and 5 years in jail).

Of course I don't think you should blindly follow anyone. Even if you agree with them. That would be ridiculous. I do think that you should obey the laws as they are written while you are doing what you can to change them.
 
It seems to me strange this discussion is so heated.
OK, JH has not behaved as a hero should.
But who can say that he/she does everything right?

What I do not like about life is that there are people considered by the society to be able do as they wish, and others, who must abide by all the laws there are. And as far as I see it, in different countries are different quantities of people that are thought by the public to be above the law. In Russia we have lots & lots of such people.
In USA there are far less quantity of such, so this discussion is really about whether JH could be considered to be inside or outside the circle of those "priviliged citizens".
 
I don't recall Motokid ever spawning a "heated" thread.
(see what I did there? that was sarcasm!) :D

I suppose it is a fact of life that some will be treated differently than others based on social status, wealth, and/or influence. Not sure that Democracy, Dictatorship, Monarcy, or Anarcy would change that. I think it's just a "people" thing.
 
Jimi was not "Jimi" when his acting won him his freedom. He was just a black guy in the army, sporting quite the package (according to the folk lore), admitting to excessive masturbation and homosexual cravings....

There was nothing close to "special treatment because of who he was". It was 1962 when all that went down. He was just as Joe Nobody as any of us.
 
leckert said:
I don't recall Motokid ever spawning a "heated" thread.
(see what I did there? that was sarcasm!) :D

I suppose it is a fact of life that some will be treated differently than others based on social status, wealth, and/or influence. Not sure that Democracy, Dictatorship, Monarcy, or Anarcy would change that. I think it's just a "people" thing.
Click to expand...

OK, so until that is changed, and all the people are equal before the law, that's pretty senseless to expect everybody to respect laws, or ways of governments, etc?
For example, it is my nature not to behave as told, if the person who tries to discipline me doesn't behaves in the same way himself...
Really, I think this a better way to justice, than vice versa: "OK, our president Mr. Putin tried to fool us and not to pay his taxes in full, but I as a law-abiding citizen will pay all my taxes".
Pfui.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top