English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

There is not one right in the Bill of Rights that has not been railroaded out of DC under the Bush administration, with, little public outcry. Disgraceful.

2007-06-10 02:13:03 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

17 answers

It seems it has become government policy.
I cannot believe the citizens cannot put aside partisan politics and stand up for their rights together. A little agreement like on the proposed immigration bill. The majority of the citizens, repubs and dems were against it and put partisan hate aside and emailed and called senators and congressional members. Why cannot they come together on the destruction of the Constitution? The 'abduction' of Habeus Corpus is plain to anyone willing to open their eyes. It does not stop there. Read all the Executive Orders Bush has signed since 2001. You will get a look at how with one order, Martial Law can be implemented with a signature and the US will be a police state.

2007-06-10 02:41:07 · answer #1 · answered by citizenjanecitizenjane2 4 · 0 2

no longer except you communicate approximately 5 years in the past to be "new". it extremely is an previous Republican suggestions-set: Make you afraid, so which you would be extra compliant. The Republican mantra has constantly been- Oooh (gay marriage companions and adopters, flag burners, Communists, Castro, Socialists, Marzists, Leninists, Democrats, Liberals, Mexicans, French 'Srrender Monkeys', women, infants, everybody who isn't white, wealthy and male, the Ayatollah, Saddam, Osama, Iran - p.c.. your own boogy guy du jour) are gonna injury this usa, are gonna thoroughly forget approximately "kinfolk Values" (despite meaning; better halves returned to being homemakers and childraisers, as a replace of salary earners, i assume) and are gonna trample the form into the floor decrease than the heels of their Imperialist boots. marvel! mutually as they have been waving THIS hand around, distracting us by potential of telling us a BJ is by some potential anti-American, they have been employing the different hand to take those very comparable rights far flung from us! And our Republican (until eventually 7 months in the past) Congress enable them to DO IT.

2016-10-08 22:12:44 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Imagine all your life you have had whatever you wanted and did work hard to get an education .
With no obstacles in your way or even the occasional helping hand from family and friends that obstacle removed for you ,its not a great leap to feeling like you can do anything .
This leads to your will being done .
What was it I heard God said . Thy will be done and man says your will be done .
So in the grand scheme of things a little thing like the constitution or bill of rights is just and impediment to getting what they want done .
Since they have all read the history books it is those people who have risen against and in opposition to current regulations and thinking that get mentioned .
Certainly at this point vanity kicks in and the need to be acknowledged in history is an overriding force in following or changing the current rules to suite your needs without the will of the people being needed .
Side stepping the people in favor of your own agenda is certainly a way to get in the books .

2007-06-10 02:26:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

It's more a characteristic of the neo-cons, not every Republican. What worries me is not Bush, who has been thoroughly exposed, but future Presidents will be able to cite his power-grabbing as a precedent. In other words, they can start with the powers Bush arrogated unto the office, and build on that. It bodes ill for the future. That's why impeachment is absolutely necessary - we need to confirm exactly what laws have been violated, and establish that those violations are not Presidential prerogatives.

2007-06-10 02:35:46 · answer #4 · answered by Who Else? 7 · 0 2

The tactics of silencing opposition are not always as overt as the Stalinist PATRIOT Act and its Third Reich modeled successor, the PATRIOT Act II. Often, silencing the citizenry is subtle and effective. Instilling fear goes a long way in censoring those that have the truth to let out, but much to lose from the institutionalized oppression of censors. People fear losing their jobs, position within a community, friends, family, etc. It takes little effort and even less courage to shut down a newsletter like The Watchman through implied fear and institutionalized intimidation.

While holding the Bill of Rights in abeyance, the neo-con P.C. crowd use the people's flag, the red, white and blue, to muffle the critics' voices. How simple it is to place Old Glory over the evidence of this administration's lies, malfeasance, high crimes and misdemeanors and their subversion of the Constitution. In the words of Robert Byrd,

As long as there is a forum in which questions can be asked by men and women who do not stand in awe of a chief executive and one can speak as long as one's feet will allow one to stand, the liberties of the American people will be secure.

Perhaps, when one turns 85 and has spent 51 years in Washington, 45 years in the United States Senate, their exists a feeling of confidence in using the privilege of free speech and the judgment in favor of speaking out,

The American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing international law, under false premises.

Make no mistake about it, the cabal, that is the petro-banking- finance corporate profiteers that have orchestrated the coup d'etat that put the evil of two lessers into the White House, want The Watchman to remain silent. They want the good citizen to be a quiet citizen. The "patriotic" citizen should not speak out against the emperor. That's what the empire wants and that is what they want the people to believe. Simply put, the truth about this administration is dangerous to it. It is, that which portends to put an end to the Bush family assets of evil. These assets go back to Prescott Bush. I leave it to the reader to research the connection between Prescott Bush and the Nazi regime, the fortune that was made as a consequence of the relationship. A good starting point is the Google search engine. Just do a search at www.google.com under "Prescott Bush Nazi UBC 1942"

2007-06-10 02:17:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 5

you have to be kidding right? to be able to see what you do at a public libary destroys your rights? look at what democrats have done jailed Americans for being Asian, the 1994 telephone act that allows every wireless phone to be taped. taking away peoples freedom of speech, the fairness docturne,silence the church , rico act used againtist protesters. before you throw stones check history and get your facts straight.

2007-06-10 02:42:44 · answer #6 · answered by rap1361 6 · 3 0

It is statements like this that are disgraceful. Could you name all the rights in the Bill of Rights and tell us how the Bush administration violated them? I am eager to see if there is more to your question than ignorant name calling.

2007-06-10 02:18:55 · answer #7 · answered by A Person 5 · 2 3

your hallucinating...LoL

Yet the Fairness Doctrine was not a violation of my 1st amendment? And Hillary has already said she will re-instate it should she somehow make it to the white house.

Yea...yet again, you have proven that democrats think anything that contradicts their point of view is a violation of their rights.

2007-06-10 02:44:29 · answer #8 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 1 0

Well, I see you have a ton of BS and hyperbole but not concrete facts. Jery how do you find?

We find the poster guilty of posting crap and being a dembot for Michael Moore.

2007-06-10 03:15:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Only if you consider the Constitution to be inviolate. See, the republicans think that there are circumstances which allow or actually demand that we ignore some of its provisions. Like times of national tragedy. There are others, like times of war, which make adherence inconvenient, and to their way of thinking ill-advised.

Why do you think they refer to "the war on terror" and repeatedly refer to 9/11. It's because they want to create a climate psychologically which says the rules don't apply to this situation. In fact, in so doing they blur what is the greatness of the country, a rule of law more important than any circumstance.

2007-06-10 02:26:22 · answer #10 · answered by webned 6 · 1 4

fedest.com, questions and answers