Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

That someone would even ask this question

malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 7:08:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

You can't yell "burning cross" in a crowded something or other.

That being said, they obviously should be able to freely assemble, as long as that assembly is not for the purpose of inciting violence.

Quiet mockery is always a better way to stamp out a stupid idea than prohibition is, but some ideas are cancerous and must be cut off at the source.

The rights enumerated in the constitution were never meant to be absolute.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 7:17:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

The Constitution is a worthless rag to trample on. It's not a holy document, and it has been extremely tyrannical for many years.

In fact, a very intelligent individual found a flaw in the Constitution that permits dictatorship. http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 7:19:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 7:08:26 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

You can't yell "burning cross" in a crowded something or other.

That being said, they obviously should be able to freely assemble, as long as that assembly is not for the purpose of inciting violence.

Quiet mockery is always a better way to stamp out a stupid idea than prohibition is, but some ideas are cancerous and must be cut off at the source.

The rights enumerated in the constitution were never meant to be absolute.

You are making your own assumptions based off of well... Virtually nothing. The basic constitutional rights were not meant to be tampered with. Even members of the AQ can't be killed or persecuted simply for being AQ, they can only be persecuted individually for committing crimes. Just because you morally disagree with something doesn't mean that it should be outlawed.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 7:23:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 7:17:58 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

The Constitution is a worthless rag to trample on. It's not a holy document, and it has been extremely tyrannical for many years.

In fact, a very intelligent individual found a flaw in the Constitution that permits dictatorship. http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com...

It sickens me that you even think this. We are a constitutional republic, you are amazingly idiotic. Since we are indeed a constitutional republic, the constitution is what we use to guide our policy and limit it so that the government can not trample on your basic rights. For someone who benefits from the freedoms the constitution grant you, to say it's a worthless rag really makes me despise you and think you are worthless swine. I am usually relatively civil, but that you even think this is truly the lowest form of anti-Americanism. Just because the constitution shows one contradiction doesn't mean we should get rid of it and let the gov't violate our basic rights.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 7:35:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 7:19:03 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:08:26 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

You can't yell "burning cross" in a crowded something or other.

That being said, they obviously should be able to freely assemble, as long as that assembly is not for the purpose of inciting violence.

Quiet mockery is always a better way to stamp out a stupid idea than prohibition is, but some ideas are cancerous and must be cut off at the source.

The rights enumerated in the constitution were never meant to be absolute.

You are making your own assumptions based off of well... Virtually nothing. The basic constitutional rights were not meant to be tampered with. Even members of the AQ can't be killed or persecuted simply for being AQ, they can only be persecuted individually for committing crimes. Just because you morally disagree with something doesn't mean that it should be outlawed.

Quick show of hands -
who believes that Madison proposed and wrote out the rights in the Bill of Rights believing them to be absolute?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 8:19:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The First Amendment gives the KKK a Constitutional right to assembly, but there are limits to that right and there are responsibilities that attach to that freedom. They will be accountable for their actions and if they incite violence they should be criminally and civilly prosecuted. If they are irresponsible and cause harm then we open up a can of Morris Dees on them...and bankrupt them again.

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

Yep, there are some pathetic people out there.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 8:33:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 7:17:58 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

The Constitution is a worthless rag to trample on. It's not a holy document, and it has been extremely tyrannical for many years.

In fact, a very intelligent individual found a flaw in the Constitution that permits dictatorship. http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com...

How does your shameless self-promotion illustrate that anyone found this flaw? You wrote a meandering, pointless article about a nonexistent proof.

He said he could prove it, but no one has any evidence of what the proof was or what the argument even entailed...only that it existed.

The fact that you're a wikipedia editor is exactly the reason why wikipedia should be excluded as an academic source.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 8:36:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 7:23:43 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:17:58 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

The Constitution is a worthless rag to trample on. It's not a holy document, and it has been extremely tyrannical for many years.

In fact, a very intelligent individual found a flaw in the Constitution that permits dictatorship. http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com...

It sickens me that you even think this. We are a constitutional republic, you are amazingly idiotic. Since we are indeed a constitutional republic, the constitution is what we use to guide our policy and limit it so that the government can not trample on your basic rights. For someone who benefits from the freedoms the constitution grant you, to say it's a worthless rag really makes me despise you and think you are worthless swine. I am usually relatively civil, but that you even think this is truly the lowest form of anti-Americanism. Just because the constitution shows one contradiction doesn't mean we should get rid of it and let the gov't violate our basic rights.

I am not Anti-American; rather, I am anti-government. The very existence of government violates my natural rights.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 8:39:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 8:33:51 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:17:58 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

The Constitution is a worthless rag to trample on. It's not a holy document, and it has been extremely tyrannical for many years.

In fact, a very intelligent individual found a flaw in the Constitution that permits dictatorship. http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com...

How does your shameless self-promotion illustrate that anyone found this flaw? You wrote a meandering, pointless article about a nonexistent proof.

He said he could prove it, but no one has any evidence of what the proof was or what the argument even entailed...only that it existed.

The fact that you're a wikipedia editor is exactly the reason why wikipedia should be excluded as an academic source.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I neither wrote the article that I linked to nor claimed claimed to have created it, so I have no idea why you think I wrote the article and why you think that I am a Wikipedia editor.

The flaw is that the self-amendment process can wipe out all of the Article V protections and install a dictatorship.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 8:44:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would say that they should be able to freely assemble if they were just racist. But because they are a recognized violent hate group they are not. You can't really deny someone the right to assembly just because they are a bigot. You can on the other hand if the group is known for violent action like the KKK.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 8:46:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 8:39:40 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:33:51 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:17:58 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

The Constitution is a worthless rag to trample on. It's not a holy document, and it has been extremely tyrannical for many years.

In fact, a very intelligent individual found a flaw in the Constitution that permits dictatorship. http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com...

How does your shameless self-promotion illustrate that anyone found this flaw? You wrote a meandering, pointless article about a nonexistent proof.

He said he could prove it, but no one has any evidence of what the proof was or what the argument even entailed...only that it existed.

The fact that you're a wikipedia editor is exactly the reason why wikipedia should be excluded as an academic source.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I neither wrote the article that I linked to nor claimed claimed to have created it, so I have no idea why you think I wrote the article and why you think that I am a Wikipedia editor.

The flaw is that the self-amendment process can wipe out all of the Article V protections and install a dictatorship.

Amendment can wipe out anything, by amending it.

If it's a flaw in the constitution, it's a flaw in all law, because all laws can be amended.

If that's what he "proved" it's not terribly clever, nor is it in any way unique or groundbreaking.

The legislature can amend the law today to make murder legal, and we'd become a chaos state...whooptie friggin doo.

(Sorry...I figured the idiot who wrote that thing would be the only one proud enough of it to share it with anyone...I'm wrong sometimes...it happens to the best of us.)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 9:00:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 8:44:07 AM, rogue wrote:
I would say that they should be able to freely assemble if they were just racist. But because they are a recognized violent hate group they are not. You can't really deny someone the right to assembly just because they are a bigot. You can on the other hand if the group is known for violent action like the KKK.

You can persecute individuals who are violent in the group, but not the group as a whole.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 9:39:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 7:19:03 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:08:26 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

You can't yell "burning cross" in a crowded something or other.

That being said, they obviously should be able to freely assemble, as long as that assembly is not for the purpose of inciting violence.

Quiet mockery is always a better way to stamp out a stupid idea than prohibition is, but some ideas are cancerous and must be cut off at the source.

The rights enumerated in the constitution were never meant to be absolute.

You are making your own assumptions based off of well... Virtually nothing. The basic constitutional rights were not meant to be tampered with. Even members of the AQ can't be killed or persecuted simply for being AQ, they can only be persecuted individually for committing crimes. Just because you morally disagree with something doesn't mean that it should be outlawed.

I disagree. Members of Al Qaeda have demonstrated allegiance to an organization that easily fits the moniker of "rebellion", to the extent that these Al Qaeda members are American. In a state of rebellion, writs of habeas corpus can be and currently are suspended, IMHO.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 9:43:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 7:17:58 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

The Constitution is a worthless rag to trample on. It's not a holy document, and it has been extremely tyrannical for many years.

It's funny that I agree with this to a large extent (not the source). The question becomes - WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

That's when you begin to prize the Constitution for what it is.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 2:17:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 9:39:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:19:03 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:08:26 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

You can't yell "burning cross" in a crowded something or other.

That being said, they obviously should be able to freely assemble, as long as that assembly is not for the purpose of inciting violence.

Quiet mockery is always a better way to stamp out a stupid idea than prohibition is, but some ideas are cancerous and must be cut off at the source.

The rights enumerated in the constitution were never meant to be absolute.

You are making your own assumptions based off of well... Virtually nothing. The basic constitutional rights were not meant to be tampered with. Even members of the AQ can't be killed or persecuted simply for being AQ, they can only be persecuted individually for committing crimes. Just because you morally disagree with something doesn't mean that it should be outlawed.

I disagree. Members of Al Qaeda have demonstrated allegiance to an organization that easily fits the moniker of "rebellion", to the extent that these Al Qaeda members are American. In a state of rebellion, writs of habeas corpus can be and currently are suspended, IMHO.

Hebeas Corpus does not relate to your freedom of assembly. I was wrong though, if you associate yourself to any group the US identifies as "terrorist", you can be persecuted. Although this goes back to the argument that not all "terrorist" groups are bad, consider this quote that I use quite a lot, it will open your eyes to the truth about "terrorism"

""When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties."

-Marquis de Lafayette-
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 3:30:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 2:17:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:39:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:19:03 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:08:26 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

You can't yell "burning cross" in a crowded something or other.

That being said, they obviously should be able to freely assemble, as long as that assembly is not for the purpose of inciting violence.

Quiet mockery is always a better way to stamp out a stupid idea than prohibition is, but some ideas are cancerous and must be cut off at the source.

The rights enumerated in the constitution were never meant to be absolute.

You are making your own assumptions based off of well... Virtually nothing. The basic constitutional rights were not meant to be tampered with. Even members of the AQ can't be killed or persecuted simply for being AQ, they can only be persecuted individually for committing crimes. Just because you morally disagree with something doesn't mean that it should be outlawed.

I disagree. Members of Al Qaeda have demonstrated allegiance to an organization that easily fits the moniker of "rebellion", to the extent that these Al Qaeda members are American. In a state of rebellion, writs of habeas corpus can be and currently are suspended, IMHO.

Hebeas Corpus does not relate to your freedom of assembly. I was wrong though, if you associate yourself to any group the US identifies as "terrorist", you can be persecuted. Although this goes back to the argument that not all "terrorist" groups are bad, consider this quote that I use quite a lot, it will open your eyes to the truth about "terrorism"

""When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties."

-Marquis de Lafayette-

Out of curiousity, what terrorist actually thinks they are a force for evil? All terrorists (or as they likely call themselves, "freedom fighters" or "crusaders") view their actions as good, pure, just, and necessary. Or do they go around and hatch evil schemes and refer to themselves as attempting to destroy good, like they do in children's cartoons.

Also, malcomnxy, in college, you can't use Wikipedia as a source, as the page can be edited at any point, making its citation moot. For some people, this was a real source of compaint, which suggests these people shouldn't have been in college.
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 3:48:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 3:30:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/28/2013 2:17:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:39:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:19:03 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:08:26 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

You can't yell "burning cross" in a crowded something or other.

That being said, they obviously should be able to freely assemble, as long as that assembly is not for the purpose of inciting violence.

Quiet mockery is always a better way to stamp out a stupid idea than prohibition is, but some ideas are cancerous and must be cut off at the source.

The rights enumerated in the constitution were never meant to be absolute.

You are making your own assumptions based off of well... Virtually nothing. The basic constitutional rights were not meant to be tampered with. Even members of the AQ can't be killed or persecuted simply for being AQ, they can only be persecuted individually for committing crimes. Just because you morally disagree with something doesn't mean that it should be outlawed.

I disagree. Members of Al Qaeda have demonstrated allegiance to an organization that easily fits the moniker of "rebellion", to the extent that these Al Qaeda members are American. In a state of rebellion, writs of habeas corpus can be and currently are suspended, IMHO.

Hebeas Corpus does not relate to your freedom of assembly. I was wrong though, if you associate yourself to any group the US identifies as "terrorist", you can be persecuted. Although this goes back to the argument that not all "terrorist" groups are bad, consider this quote that I use quite a lot, it will open your eyes to the truth about "terrorism"

""When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties."

-Marquis de Lafayette-

Out of curiousity, what terrorist actually thinks they are a force for evil? All terrorists (or as they likely call themselves, "freedom fighters" or "crusaders") view their actions as good, pure, just, and necessary. Or do they go around and hatch evil schemes and refer to themselves as attempting to destroy good, like they do in children's cartoons.

Also, malcomnxy, in college, you can't use Wikipedia as a source, as the page can be edited at any point, making its citation moot. For some people, this was a real source of compaint, which suggests these people shouldn't have been in college.

You are completely losing my point. Terrorism can easily be confused with insurrection, and since the orgin of this is about the KKK (A domestic group), the subject is more about insurrection. Insurrection is not bad in any way or form, the founding fathers were insurrectionists, you probably know this. Nelson Mandela was an insurrectionist.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 4:35:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 3:48:50 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:30:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/28/2013 2:17:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:39:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:19:03 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:08:26 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

You can't yell "burning cross" in a crowded something or other.

That being said, they obviously should be able to freely assemble, as long as that assembly is not for the purpose of inciting violence.

Quiet mockery is always a better way to stamp out a stupid idea than prohibition is, but some ideas are cancerous and must be cut off at the source.

The rights enumerated in the constitution were never meant to be absolute.

You are making your own assumptions based off of well... Virtually nothing. The basic constitutional rights were not meant to be tampered with. Even members of the AQ can't be killed or persecuted simply for being AQ, they can only be persecuted individually for committing crimes. Just because you morally disagree with something doesn't mean that it should be outlawed.

I disagree. Members of Al Qaeda have demonstrated allegiance to an organization that easily fits the moniker of "rebellion", to the extent that these Al Qaeda members are American. In a state of rebellion, writs of habeas corpus can be and currently are suspended, IMHO.

Hebeas Corpus does not relate to your freedom of assembly. I was wrong though, if you associate yourself to any group the US identifies as "terrorist", you can be persecuted. Although this goes back to the argument that not all "terrorist" groups are bad, consider this quote that I use quite a lot, it will open your eyes to the truth about "terrorism"

""When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties."

-Marquis de Lafayette-

Out of curiousity, what terrorist actually thinks they are a force for evil? All terrorists (or as they likely call themselves, "freedom fighters" or "crusaders") view their actions as good, pure, just, and necessary. Or do they go around and hatch evil schemes and refer to themselves as attempting to destroy good, like they do in children's cartoons.

Also, malcomnxy, in college, you can't use Wikipedia as a source, as the page can be edited at any point, making its citation moot. For some people, this was a real source of compaint, which suggests these people shouldn't have been in college.

You are completely losing my point. Terrorism can easily be confused with insurrection, and since the orgin of this is about the KKK (A domestic group), the subject is more about insurrection. Insurrection is not bad in any way or form, the founding fathers were insurrectionists, you probably know this. Nelson Mandela was an insurrectionist.

So, please clarify the difference, then.
KKK uses terror to get people to do what they want (burning crosses to get people to move), while the founding fathers encouraged war, which is itself terrorfying.

The only distinction between these I see is foreign or domestic.
And, isn't the IRA considered terrorists? The Unibomber, or the OK city bomber?
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 4:37:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 2:17:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:39:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:19:03 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:08:26 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

You can't yell "burning cross" in a crowded something or other.

That being said, they obviously should be able to freely assemble, as long as that assembly is not for the purpose of inciting violence.

Quiet mockery is always a better way to stamp out a stupid idea than prohibition is, but some ideas are cancerous and must be cut off at the source.

The rights enumerated in the constitution were never meant to be absolute.

You are making your own assumptions based off of well... Virtually nothing. The basic constitutional rights were not meant to be tampered with. Even members of the AQ can't be killed or persecuted simply for being AQ, they can only be persecuted individually for committing crimes. Just because you morally disagree with something doesn't mean that it should be outlawed.

I disagree. Members of Al Qaeda have demonstrated allegiance to an organization that easily fits the moniker of "rebellion", to the extent that these Al Qaeda members are American. In a state of rebellion, writs of habeas corpus can be and currently are suspended, IMHO.

Hebeas Corpus does not relate to your freedom of assembly. I was wrong though, if you associate yourself to any group the US identifies as "terrorist", you can be persecuted. Although this goes back to the argument that not all "terrorist" groups are bad, consider this quote that I use quite a lot, it will open your eyes to the truth about "terrorism"

""When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties."

-Marquis de Lafayette-

Habeus corpus is an essential right. If you can be imprisoned without trial, that essentially means the government can imprison you for any reason and not be held accountable. How can you assert your rights to assembly without habeus corpus?

I'm not defending the government's justifications on the war on terror, but I have to concede that it is justifiable under the Constitution.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 4:41:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 8:36:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:23:43 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:17:58 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

The Constitution is a worthless rag to trample on. It's not a holy document, and it has been extremely tyrannical for many years.

In fact, a very intelligent individual found a flaw in the Constitution that permits dictatorship. http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com...

It sickens me that you even think this. We are a constitutional republic, you are amazingly idiotic. Since we are indeed a constitutional republic, the constitution is what we use to guide our policy and limit it so that the government can not trample on your basic rights. For someone who benefits from the freedoms the constitution grant you, to say it's a worthless rag really makes me despise you and think you are worthless swine. I am usually relatively civil, but that you even think this is truly the lowest form of anti-Americanism. Just because the constitution shows one contradiction doesn't mean we should get rid of it and let the gov't violate our basic rights.

I am not Anti-American; rather, I am anti-government. The very existence of government violates my natural rights.
Lets begin by saying that there is no such thing as natural rights.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 4:58:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 7:17:58 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

The Constitution is a worthless rag to trample on. It's not a holy document, and it has been extremely tyrannical for many years.

The mind of a collectivist Liberal at work. Who needs a document born out of the Enlightenment Era enshrined with fundamental principles and rights outlined? Instead, let's let the minds of men, rulers and mobs alike, rule our personal lives.

In fact, a very intelligent individual found a flaw in the Constitution that permits dictatorship. http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com...

I don't see it. Show me where in the Constitution.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 5:17:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

On a moral level, I see no problem with censorship of hate-based assemblages -but on a practical level there are social ramifications to doing so that do not justify the costs. You are correct though, to preclude the KKK from publicly assembling would violate their rights to free speech, expression and assembly.
Tsar of DDO
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 6:11:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 5:17:06 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

On a moral level, I see no problem with censorship of hate-based assemblages -but on a practical level there are social ramifications to doing so that do not justify the costs. You are correct though, to preclude the KKK from publicly assembling would violate their rights to free speech, expression and assembly.

I understand where you are coming from, and morally I think they are a despicable bunch of people. But where does it stop, if the government can persecute groups that commit "hate speech", and there they are allowed to create and expand upon the definition of hate speech, they can manipulate it to the point that anyone who speaks out against the gov't would be committing "hate speech". So there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the constitution is that line.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 6:12:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 4:41:12 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:36:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:23:43 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:17:58 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:49:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Proves that people think the constitution is just some worthless rag that can be trampled on. It's pathetic really.

The Constitution is a worthless rag to trample on. It's not a holy document, and it has been extremely tyrannical for many years.

In fact, a very intelligent individual found a flaw in the Constitution that permits dictatorship. http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com...

It sickens me that you even think this. We are a constitutional republic, you are amazingly idiotic. Since we are indeed a constitutional republic, the constitution is what we use to guide our policy and limit it so that the government can not trample on your basic rights. For someone who benefits from the freedoms the constitution grant you, to say it's a worthless rag really makes me despise you and think you are worthless swine. I am usually relatively civil, but that you even think this is truly the lowest form of anti-Americanism. Just because the constitution shows one contradiction doesn't mean we should get rid of it and let the gov't violate our basic rights.

I am not Anti-American; rather, I am anti-government. The very existence of government violates my natural rights.
Lets begin by saying that there is no such thing as natural rights.

+1

Yes, tmar is right. Your point is nonsensical, because no country is an anarchy, so no matter where you live, you will personally think your rights are being violated.