Secret trials for terrorists, says US judge

I lied as much as you did when you said that's what I had to do to make it go away. Has it gone away yet? Having said that, I repent of saying it and I should've carried on with the argument.

Listen, being "pro-life" does not mean being globocop to the world or shall we rather say, select parts of the world. Ron Paul is consistently pro-life and consistently non-interventionist as that is the position of our forefathers and that is the constitutional position. We should not be the lapdog of the United Nations or any other entangling alliance.

Having a conversation or debate does not mean saying "your arguments are silly", and the other person saying,"no your arguments are silly", "no your arguments are silly"...that's called Romper Room. If you weren't so silly you'd recognize this and repent of these ridiculous tactics.

Yes I was and yes I did. I'd prove it again to you but I doubt you'd read close enough or listen enough to see it.

Allow me to assist you, I am correct in my argument. When someone declares their world view, that world view has an impact on their decisions, especially when it is about matters of law and about legal decisions. Thinking leads to doing.

I still don't know what you're talking about so we can drop this one if you'd like.

Then why do you keep using their unconstitutional decisions as grounds for proving that they are constitutional? Grab a spine and pick a side.

Well, here's the problem and there's really no getting around this...you're not funny. These are serious times and someone with as backwards a world view as you've got, should get serious about things and listen to people rather than using ad hominem's to defend the indefensible.

Your scenario is not an equivalent analogy, if all things are equal then I'll go with the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one. However, behaving illegally and unethically in order to possibly prevent the 12 terrorists groups is not acceptable. If they are all guilty and all under surveillance then arrest 'em all and try them all speedily and publicly. If you've got nothing on them, then you've got nothing on them. If we abided by the Constitution to begin with, we wouldn't have a terrorist problem anyway. Choose the lawful path and let God work it out. You don't kill terrorism by becoming a terrorist and when you behave unlawfully, you are no better than the people you are trying to defend against.

"What if what they really want is for us to herd our children into stadiums like we're doing? And put soldiers on the street and have Americans looking over their shoulders? Bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit? Because if we torture him, General, we do that and everything we have fought, and bled, and died for is over. And they've won. They've already won!" - Anthony Hubbard, The Siege
​

You've placed yourself on the side of security above liberty and if those with your world view win out, we will neither have security nor liberty.

 

I was trying to figure out what debating with PL is like and "trying to catch a greased pig" nails it. I think I'll abstain from pork for awhile.

 

Or Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

 

What is your argument that the preemptive Use of Military Force is a conservative position?

 

What did Iraq do to the United States of America in 1991 that caused us to make war against them?

 

Oh I do and it was just as unconstitutional for us to be involved with them in 1991 as it was to be involved in 2003. I believe the conservative position would've been to stay out of that mess, why do you believe it was a conservative position to get involved?