I got to ask..You keep saying we've lost
the bill of rights.
Exactly how many rights have you personally lost?
No one else seems to notice any difference. If anything,
No one I've asked shares your view that we've lost any freedoms.
Interesting question. I'm white, 49, healthy
I'm going to need it less than most (hopefully).
Since I 'got mine," maybe I should let the other guy "get his?"
Hey I know, let's run thru the Bill of
Rights real quick and check on their health.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Bush is using MY taxes to fund Invisinble Cloud Being insanity that caused 9-11.
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Ari Fliesher told Bill Maher "Watch
what you say," for telling the truth.
Also, librarians can go to prison if they talk to certain library customers.
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
Yesterday in New York, protest organizers
were denied a permit to assemble.
The reason? There were too many people, up to 500,000 were expected.
We've been denied the right to assemble, because too many of us are angry.
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
Bush loves guns (and killing) almost as much as he loves tax cuts, so yes,
The Second Amendment, so far, is still in effect.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace....
Bush has dragged us into a never-ending war, so III doesn't count
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause
has made a mockery of the Fourth Amendment.
He can f-ing EXECUTE you if he feels like it.
Do you STILL think we have a Bill of Rights?
No person shall be held ...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law;
plank in the Constitution devoured by the Greedy Oil Monster
There are THOUSANDS of
SUSPECTS being held without bail, without being arraigned by a judge to see if there is probable cause,
without attorneys and without even a phone call to their family. Do you think they manage the immigration
rolls with more or less competence than they handled eligibility rolls of black voters in Jeb Bush's Florida?
...and you can't see a difference between that and Clinton's America?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury, ...informed of the nature the accusation;
...witnesses, ...have Counsel for his defence.
washout by the BFEE goons. It's an abortion of justice on the most
massive scale imaginable,
but we don't talk about it, because "then the terrorists would win," if we upheald the Constitution.
Amendment VII includes the phrase the right of trial by jury shall be preserved
In Bush's America, there is no right
to a trial by jury.
In Bush's America, you have the right to be jailed on the government's whim.
In Bush's America, you have the right to be executed on the government's whim.
And please, don't say, "But Bush hasn't done any of that."
How would you know?
I'm so old, I remember when the GOP was against a federal government of tyranny and secrecy.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted..
Being executed on the government's whim sounds cruel and unusual to me.
Can you make a case that it doesn't?
This one has to do with funding women's sports equal to mens - let's skip that one.
The powers ...not delegated to the United States are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.
Tenth - Bob Dole's all-time favorite.
Remember that pitiful campaign Bob ran in 1996?
He kept The Tenth on a car in his jacket
so he could whip it out whenever he wanted to talk
about the powers of the states, which we all know is code talk for "I Wish I Was in Dixie."
The next Republican for president didn't
feel that same way about The Tenth Amendment.
He got his father's friends to go before a hardly-impartial Supreme Court and asked them
to overturn the Tenth Amendment and appoint the Bush boy in opposition to the voters' wishes.
let's do a re-cap.
#1.you lost on three counts, but we'll say that's just one down
#2 has changed, but only to get more guns in people's hands,
#3 is a peacetime amendment, doesn't apply,
#4 was a mockery, I should get double for that, but that makes two we've lost
#5 due process, you don't even get a trial, so that's three fallen Amendments
#6 speedy, public trial - no chance, that makes four lost Amendments
#7 trial by jury for common lawsuits, not applicable
#8 cruel & unusual - that's five Dead Amendments
#9 women's basketball - who cares?
#10 states rights, that makes six of ten Amendments destroyed by Bush.
So I ask..
What is wrong with looking at those who would seek to harm or kill us if given the chance?
I have no probem with "looking at" suspicious
Jailing them until further notice by breaking four or five Amendments is what I don't like
We gotta be having a semantics problem. I don't want to let the guilty go free...
I'm saying ...they don't even get a trial They don't even get charged with a crime.
Bush can secretly execute them or secretly hold them until (if) he leaves office.
Is that America?.
Shoe bomber Richard Reid tried to blow up
an airliner full of people, and got life in prison.
What do you find wrong with that?
From what I've read, Reid is absolutely, positively and certainly
There were dozens of witnesses just a few feet away and - he confessed,
Since we know he's guilty, I say we turn him over to Bush and Ashcroft.
Let them murder someone who is guilty for sure.
The credibility boost for Bush would be enormous.
back to bartcop.com