Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Round Table Knights Clan. Enjoy your visit!




Username:   Password:
Add Reply
President Reagan on the importance of patriotism; love of country & patriotism in America
Topic Started: Feb 6 2010, 11:14 PM (617 Views)
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-Uxhqs6rA4

What an incredibly stark contrast to Barack Obama's view of America.
Happy birthday Mr. President.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stoicblitzer
Member Avatar
Retired Knight
troll alert!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mercurius of Cappadocia
Member Avatar
King of the Round Table Knights
Lol... "an informed patriotism is what we want"...

from the people who call the current US president, in a time of war, a Nigerian muslim, tyrant, communist, nazi... depending on the day of the week.


oh well....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drowningpool
Member Avatar

Rahm Emanuel is teh ######
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Mercurius of Cappadocia,Feb 6 2010
05:37 PM
Lol... "an informed patriotism is what we want"...

from the people who call the current US president, in a time of war, a Nigerian muslim, tyrant, communist, nazi...  depending on the day of the week.


oh well....

You missed socialist. :D


Way to throw out the red herring... ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder said.

"Saturdays and Sundays, America in the year 2009 does not in some ways differ significantly from the country that existed almost 50 years ago. This is truly sad," said Holder.

US Attorney General Eric Holder
February 18th, 2009

From the man who would rather mirandize' terrorists than interrogate them.
This administration is so out of touch with mainstream America it's mind boggling.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mercurius of Cappadocia
Member Avatar
King of the Round Table Knights
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Feb 7 2010
01:55 AM


From the man who would rather mirandize' terrorists than interrogate them.

Yeah... that's what I mean.

:zzz:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drowningpool
Member Avatar

lol at mass being a red state
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Drowningpool,Feb 7 2010
04:34 AM
lol at mass being a red state

And you'd think that after that debacle the liberals in Washington would wake up.
They instead seem intent on going down with the SSTitanic aka universal healthcare and other avenues of social engineering. All the while they are ignoring the cries of the American voter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Mercurius of Cappadocia,Feb 7 2010
12:25 AM
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Feb 7 2010
01:55 AM


From the man who would rather mirandize' terrorists than interrogate them.

Yeah... that's what I mean.

:zzz:

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday he made the decision to charge the Christmas Day terror suspect in civilian court rather than the military system, with no objection from all the other relevant departments of the government.

You can use all the smileys you want merc, but that doesn't change reality here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
You would also need to put up a video in that Obama actually says things in stark contrast to this to make your commentary valid as anything other than personal opinion.

About what Reagan said, I do not expect the issue he outlined in his "peacetime" America would be a problem with the children of the 9/11 era. Of course memories of old struggles will be replaced with those of recent ones. There is plenty to draw that well-informed patriotism from today, without presidential encouragement.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Feb 7 2010
01:26 PM
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday he made the decision to charge the Christmas Day terror suspect in civilian court rather than the military system, with no objection from all the other relevant departments of the government.

You can use all the smileys you want merc, but that doesn't change reality here.

You'll have to explain it to me why it is bad that the US Attorney General wants a conviction that's entirely in accordance with the US legal system. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pete of Yorkshire
Member Avatar
Knight
becuase there not hung drawn and quatered infront of a jeering mob
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drowningpool
Member Avatar

The laws that are applied to US citzens are different from that of people from other countries. Trying them is saying they are equal to our citzen status or someshit?

Or is he? heh i dont know, and dont care enough to look it up.

Meh there would be less potential problems if it is done under the military. But its all the same i guess, eether way they will be found guilty. No nonmuslim US citzen will find any of them not guilty.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Drowningpool,Feb 7 2010
04:19 PM
No nonmuslim US citzen will find any of them not guilty.

That ought to depend on the charge and the evidence, not that I'd expect to see any unreasonable ones. Anyways, everyone should get a fair trial not because they are citizens but because it is the right way. You can't very well protect democracy either by hacking away at its core institutions. Like Reagan said, freedom is fragile enough.

AFAIK the pant bomber is from Nigeria, not the US. But aliens do have rights in the US too, and they must have rights as well or no foreigner would set foot in the country.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Barrett of Maidstone
Member Avatar
Retired Knight
Chazz so great to have ure smell and face on these forums again!! :yuk:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drowningpool
Member Avatar

Dinadan of Logris,Feb 7 2010
01:37 PM
Drowningpool,Feb 7 2010
04:19 PM
No nonmuslim US citzen will find any of them not guilty.

That ought to depend on the charge and the evidence, not that I'd expect to see any unreasonable ones. Anyways, everyone should get a fair trial not because they are citizens but because it is the right way. You can't very well protect democracy either by hacking away at its core institutions. Like Reagan said, freedom is fragile enough.

AFAIK the pant bomber is from Nigeria, not the US. But aliens do have rights in the US too, and they must have rights as well or no foreigner would set foot in the country.

i didnt say they had no rights at all, jsut not the same as me.... cuz i be payin them taxes!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mercurius of Cappadocia
Member Avatar
King of the Round Table Knights
The US Constitution says "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

It does not say "no citizen"... it says "no person". And that's what it means... and even our current activist, conservative court has affirmed this...


But, no... citizens obviously have different rights than non-citizens... as laid out in the Constitution, where it grants citizens the right to vote, for example.....


Of course, the law never stopped a tyrant before....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drowningpool
Member Avatar

Ok, even still the crimes commited are still pretty big. an act of terrorism to me seems better suited under the military. Meh
A terroist cannot recieve a 'fair' trial here, period. That is just how we are... Everyone takes sides for their own... no matter who you are or where you are from...

Like you cant say Merc(i use merc cos i know din will never have one w/o using some jypci curse to get one) cannot sit there and say you can pass fair judgment without being biased if your wife was almost or was murdered...
Not to that degree but fact remains its us vs them. And that will be in the back the skull of whoever is in that courtroom.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vandal_Ares
Member Avatar

tehReal~ChaZZZy,Feb 7 2010
01:55 AM
"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder said.

"Saturdays and Sundays, America in the year 2009 does not in some ways differ significantly from the country that existed almost 50 years ago. This is truly sad," said Holder.

US Attorney General Eric Holder
February 18th, 2009

From the man who would rather mirandize' terrorists than interrogate them.
This administration is so out of touch with mainstream America it's mind boggling.

I really don't see what the problem is in those comments. If you put them in the context in which he was speaking in, he actually has a point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mercurius of Cappadocia
Member Avatar
King of the Round Table Knights
The Constitution doesn't say that due process must be carried out in the criminal justice system... military has it's own system of due process, well established in the Military Code.

But you have to have due process, one way or another.... the US has to give people rights... there is no way the Founding Fathers thought otherwise, any more than they thought a corporation should be given the same rights as people.

Without due process, you have no basis to determine if someone is a terrorist, for example.... torturing someone and getting him to confess does not equal the truth, and no judge in our country should accept it as evidence, even in a military tribunal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drowningpool
Member Avatar

sitting someone in jail to rot is not torturing??

I think i can take a bag to the face and a little water over my mind being warped by time... to me losing myself is more of a torture than waterboarding or any other form of torture...

using scare tactics to bully them into pleading for a lesser charge is due process??

Heh... no matter what angle you spin it nothing is what its ment to be.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Mercurius of Cappadocia,Feb 7 2010
11:07 PM
The Constitution doesn't say that due process must be carried out in the criminal justice system... military has it's own system of due process, well established in the Military Code.

But you have to have due process, one way or another.... the US has to give people rights... there is no way the Founding Fathers thought otherwise, any more than they thought a corporation should be given the same rights as people.


And that is where the proverbial line in the sand is drawn. Do we try these terrorists in criminal courts, or through a military tribunal?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mercurius of Cappadocia
Member Avatar
King of the Round Table Knights
Aside from yet another talking point the cons can't help marching to.... It should make no difference to you, so long as the US Constitution is being followed, along with the laws made by Congress, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice... and the Uniform Code of Military Conduct.

Richard Reid, during Bush's term, was marandized. Bush didn't say a word for 6 days.

Not a word out of you or Rush Limbaugh back then... of course. It's just partisan politics....


The FBI is capable, and they have jurisdiction.... If the FBI commits coercion to elicit a false confession, that is grounds for dismissal of the case. That's why we want due process....

The US military does not have jurisdiction on a commercial airline jet, and they don't have jurisdiction in your house, your property, your streets, etc....

The Founding Fathers did not want gov't soldiers marching around picking people off the streets at the whim of the Executive... and certainly not in violation of the laws enacted by Congress. That's why we need informed patriots....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Mercurius of Cappadocia,Feb 7 2010
11:07 PM
... and even our current activist, conservative court has affirmed this...




My oh my.
How quickly you pick up the Obama White House talking points. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dinadan of Logris,Feb 7 2010
05:52 AM
You would also need to put up a video in that Obama actually says things in stark contrast to this to make your commentary valid as anything other than personal opinion.

About what Reagan said, I do not expect the issue he outlined in his "peacetime" America would be a problem with the children of the 9/11 era. Of course memories of old struggles will be replaced with those of recent ones. There is plenty to draw that well-informed patriotism from today, without presidential encouragement.

president Obama recently made some comments in regards to this theat I've been searching for.

Didn't mean to ignore you Din.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dinadan of Logris,Feb 7 2010
05:56 AM
You'll have to explain it to me why it is bad that the US Attorney General wants a conviction that's entirely in accordance with the US legal system. :lol:

Well I suppose in Merc's world this is a very good thing... :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mercurius of Cappadocia
Member Avatar
King of the Round Table Knights
yeah... I'm for the rule of law.

;)


No chance in hell the Founding Fathers intended for the First Amendment to apply to corporations.... certainly not at the expense of the ability of citizens to have their voices heard in elections....


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Feb 9 2010
07:19 AM
Dinadan of Logris,Feb 7 2010
05:56 AM
You'll have to explain it to me why it is bad that the US Attorney General wants a conviction that's entirely in accordance with the US legal system.  :lol:

Well I suppose in Merc's world this is a very good thing... :D

Will you answer the question? :P

Why is it bad?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kay of Sauvage
Retired Knight
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Feb 9 2010
01:01 AM
Mercurius of Cappadocia,Feb 7 2010
11:07 PM
... and even our current activist, conservative court has affirmed this...




My oh my.
How quickly you pick up the Obama White House talking points. :D

Nice answer. Though, I don't remember the White House ever stating this "talking point"... Eh, but who cares. What's the point gathering facts when you can just believe even your own made up rationalizations?


If you had any type of consistent principles, you would be one of the loudest critics of Roberts and the Supreme Court. One of the few things Roberts made a point of stating in his confirmation hearings (in an era where nominees say very little) was about the importance of precedent. And now he makes it Supreme Court policy to disregard precedent.

Instead of being critical of the decision yourself, you make some red herring argument suggesting that to be critical of this decision could only be as a result of hearing some baseless talking point? My goodness... If you were actually thinking for yourself rather than getting your own set of talking points, and maintained the principles you've claimed in the past, you would be in agreement. But politics trumps facts and principles for you. :yuk:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kay of Sauvage
Retired Knight
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Feb 7 2010
08:23 AM
Drowningpool,Feb 7 2010
04:34 AM
lol at mass being a red state

And you'd think that after that debacle the liberals in Washington would wake up.
They instead seem intent on going down with the SSTitanic aka universal healthcare and other avenues of social engineering. All the while they are ignoring the cries of the American voter.

Generalize much? You've managed to gloss over what actually makes up the reality, and instead insert your own version of events as you wish would be the case.

Hardly anybody knows what health care reform means, what is proposed, or what it will do. All they have are little tidbits of talking points that start to create a perception of what it means. And despite not having much of the perceptions based in fact, people are on average ambivalent towards health care, and favor or oppose reforms based on the wording of the question and the information given beforehand. When more informed, the answer is increasingly in favor. But certainly this special election was not about health care.



What the cries of American voters are about are regarding the perception that Washington isn't doing anything. Especially in regards to the economy, but also regarding the fact that they seem to be bickering and not working together (and Republicans in congress have an extremely low approval to reflect this), among other perceptions driven by talking points. It's more of an information war than policy debate.

Republicans don't have much to stand on in the policy debate, but they are very effective in the information war. Hell, they've managed to poison the well by labeling all all media outlets other than Fox,etc. as being "liberal", they've actually fooled some people into blaming Democrats for the recession, and the myths about the nature of other policies and especially the constant character assassination of Obama have made it very difficult for reasoned debate to shine through on even the simplest of issues.


As far as the Massachusetts election wasn't actually about the appeal of the particular candidates running (which surely was the main thing here, because opinions on issues don't swing 20 points in a week), then it was nothing but influence of this (mis)information war regarding jobs and the economy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drowningpool
Member Avatar

Talk about living in denial, the most liberal seat in the country fell to the red based on "(mis)information" lmfao
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Mercurius of Cappadocia,Feb 9 2010
12:21 AM
yeah... I'm for the rule of law.

;)


No chance in hell the Founding Fathers intended for the First Amendment to apply to corporations.... certainly not at the expense of the ability of citizens to have their voices heard in elections....

What the founding fathers intended was to guarantee the freedom of expression. If McCain/Feingold was upheld the federal government would have had the ability to limit many different forms of expression including the publishing of books and other forms of media during election periods.

There was one line of questioning during the Supreme Court hearings regarding exactly this that imo led to the decision and doomed McCain/Feingold.

President Obama was absolutely wrong during his State if the Union speech when he said that the Supreme Court decision reversed a century of law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dinadan of Logris,Feb 9 2010
04:00 AM
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Feb 9 2010
07:19 AM
Dinadan of Logris,Feb 7 2010
05:56 AM
You'll have to explain it to me why it is bad that the US Attorney General wants a conviction that's entirely in accordance with the US legal system.  :lol:

Well I suppose in Merc's world this is a very good thing... :D

Will you answer the question? :P

Why is it bad?

In part due to various issues that came up with regards to sharing of information between the FBI and CIA during the investigation of the 1st World Trade Center bombing that happened during the Clinton administration.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Kay of Sauvage,Feb 9 2010
04:34 AM
Nice answer.

Of course it is.
It came from me. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Portcullis · Next Topic »
Add Reply

The Round Table Knights