Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
[Presidential Election Thread] All Hail the Liberty Rooster.
Posts
Yes, slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
No, they aren't necessarily. Shryke provides a good summary of why not.
Yes, I am. Words have meanings, and I think stripping the civil liberties of people based on their nationality is wrong.
I would say this is the perfect example of an appropriate use of a slippery slope argument. It may not be conceivable to you or me today that an elected official would assassinate a regular old American citizen because of political/ideological differences, but by allowing small holes in the fabric of the bill of rights now, you pave the way for larger violations in the future.
Well, you don't get to pick which party you trust with various powers. If you trust Obama with the power, you trust all future Presidents with it.
I think we can all agree that most people who use slippery slope arguments don't do it correctly, though.
The AUMF, for one.
Well, yes, that's sort of my point.
I'm guilty as fuck of doing it wrong from time to time.
Oh, so now it’s OK for the targeted assassination of US citizens if their outside US boarders? Or is it outside US boarders and in a place the US can’t get to easily?
I want to know what the technicality is here for subverting the Bill of Rights.
It's not a question of "do you trust Obama with the power", it's "do you trust any future president with the power".
If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.
Again, that's the point...
Further Discussions of the Kenyan Muslim Socialist Usurper: The Obama Thread
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
That said, man I'm still uncomfortable with giving people the power to determine that a US citizen needs to be executed without having to go through a trial. Did they even do a trial in absentia, or whatever the legal term is for that?
I know, Spool, I know *pats head, hands you an ice cream*
Here's the thing-there is a word you keep using in reference to the Fifth Amendment that does not appear in it. That word is central to your argument, and the fact that it is not in the text is why your assertions are fatally flawed.
That word?
The actual, honest-to-God text of the Fifth Amendment says:
So, not only is there an exception for people who present a public danger, it also says nothing about a fair trial. "Due process" can mean a fair trial; it can also mean "I have a plethora of sensitive intelligence confirming his crimes, and no way to arrest or detain someone who is a threat to the people of the United States."
Point me to what, exactly, is being subverted, here.
Glenn Beck's head is exploding somewhere.
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
Which is a lot longer then you seem to think. Tell me was FDR wrong when he assassinated Americans who defected to the Nazis? We know it happened.
What's different now? You could argue that the definition of "Wartime" has grown out of control and you'd be right. It requires defining.
But your base argument that Assassinations, american citizens or not, are unconstitutional is flawed and your presumption that because Obama assassinated a known Terrorist in a "warzone" there isn't anything protecting you from being assassinated is silly.
My Band "The Wicked Girls" http://soundcloud.com/the-wicked-girls/sets
It is strange to me that several people seem to assume that a group you started one a document with the phrase "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" would later right a legal document stating "Yeah our people have rights but do whatever you like with those other people, fuck'em".
My Band "The Wicked Girls" http://soundcloud.com/the-wicked-girls/sets
Eh, the whole slavery thing makes it believable.
There is no flaw. An American citizen cannot be deprived of life without due process. For criminal matters this means a public trial.
"It is strange to me that several people seem to assume that a group you started one a document with the phrase "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" would later right a legal document stating "Yeah our people have rights but do whatever you like with those other people, fuck'em".
That's because you obviously haven't read the Bill of Rights. Those pertain particularly to American citizens.
There is a quote feature dude. The fifth amendment certainly doesn't.
My Band "The Wicked Girls" http://soundcloud.com/the-wicked-girls/sets
The NBC/WSJ poll released today shows a steady race with Obama +6, almost identical to the results from the last two months. Gallup and Rasmussen (R+3 R+1) don't match that or the Q and PPP polls released yesterday or most other polls over the last few months, but that's been linked to oversampling white dudes and incredible bias respectively.
FoxNews has Obama up 2/6 in FL/OH and even Rasmussen has him +4 in OH.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I used the quote feature earlier in the thread "dude". I didn't that time because I was quoting two posts and wanted to save space. And yes. The Fifth Amendment, being a part of the Bill of Rights, pertains specifically to American citizens.
You could make the argument that the US is unable to confer rights onto citizens of other countries. I mean the US Constitution is the supreme law of our country, but has no legal standing in any other nation right?
Actually, the first part you bolded seems to be referring to people who are serving in the armed forces of the US. Not to people who are fighting against us.
EDIT: Screw it. I am not trying to sort thru all those quotes.
Are you serious? It's the next Amendment.
Actually, I have read the Bill of Rights. Have the entire text of the Constitution on my phone, even. And the funny thing is, the terms "American" and "US citizen" don't appear once. "Person" does, lots of times, but a person can be of any nationality.
Your argument is built on a flawed premise. If you keep asserting it, I will just keep pointing out the flaw.
I see this argument all the time and it's so ridiculous. What is your claim, that the Bill of Rights is meant to apply to the entire world? I suppose the U.S. is allowed to set bail prices in Spain, huh?
The sixth amendment covers the rights inherent in criminal prosecutions, not the situations in which criminal prosecutions are necessary.
steam profile
No, but it can set rules for itself governing how it behaves towards a group of people which is what the fucking Bill of Rights is doing in the first place.
The administration's stated policy is the president can literally order the killing of anybody at any time.
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
After due process.
due process =/= criminal trial
what 'due process' is involved, then?
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around