FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Never mind - I misread someone's post.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

BonoVoxSupastar said:


That's all fine and dandy if you applaud someone becoming a monster to defeat a monster.

But the constitution doesn't allow it. That's something you haven't seemed to ever understood.

If you're scoring at home.

Allowed by the constitution:

Killing terrorists -- No
Killing babies -- Yes
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

INDY500 said:


If you're scoring at home.

Allowed by the constitution:

Killing terrorists -- No
Killing babies -- Yes

And the IQ level of this thread takes yet another sack! :happy:


:|
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

INDY500 said:


If you're scoring at home.

Allowed by the constitution:

Killing terrorists -- No
Killing babies -- Yes

It also gives you the freedom of speech in order to make such an idiotic statement. :up:
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

AchtungBono said:


The only thing I understand is that the U.S. was brutally attacked on 9/11 and 3,000 people were murdered.......and their murderers must be dealt with viciously.

How can the U.S. ever hope to fight the war on terror with one arm tied behind its back??

So not allowing torture or the holding of prisoners without habeus corpus is one arm behind your back? Please.

AchtungBono said:


If you or your family were threatened, you'd make damm sure they were safe and sound using any means necessary to provide for their safety - and so would I.

I would do anything in my power, correct. But if I broke the law doing so I'd expect to do time.


AchtungBono said:

I've said on more than one occasion that the constitution was drafted in the 18th century and must be updated and revised to meet 21st century conditions and threats.

The constitution has been changed and modified, they are called ammendments.

AchtungBono said:

While we're on the subject......tell the victims of the Nebraska mall shooter how wonderful the constitution is.....it's a great thing the right to bear arms.....where anyone can buy a gun and go on a rampage whenever they want - hallelujah and god bless America.......

Oh your hero would be telling you to 'shut up' right now. O'Reiley would be very upset.

It's funny how you support "any means necessary" and torture yet no guns.

AchtungBono said:

With all due respect to the constitution, we aren't living in the same world as the founding fathers were. We face new challenges and greater dangers and I'm sure Al Quaida would have made mincemeat out of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had they been around at that time.

Well you've never been a fan of our constitution to begin with, be honest. You don't like our free speech, you don't like a lot of things.

Why would AlQuaeda have made "mincemeat" out of George Washington? That doesn't even make sense. If anything our revolution was much closer to terrorist warfare than our armies of today. :huh:
 
Can we not refer to other posters and their comments as idiot, please. And I probably am one for leaving this thread open, but please stay on the topic of Fox refusing to run the CCR ad.

Also please keep in mind that there's this great function called ignore, for people you already know from experience you're just going to lose your patience with to no avail.
 
I would never refer to another poster as being an idiot, for I think INDY is quite intelligent, although this comment was knee jerk at best, but I apologize for using the word 'idiotic'.
 
Can we not call a spade a spade? :shrug:

If something's dumb, it's dumb. There's no point in caching it in PC language to avoid hurt feelings. And if someone's feelings are hurt because someone they've never met says that something they said online is "idiotic", then they've got really thin skin to begin with.

Personally, if I were to say something irredeemably stupid, I would hope that someone calls me on it rather than pussyfoot around it for the sake of politeness. That's all I'm getting at. I know nobody here's a genuine idiot, and I respect you all, but I'm not here to feel warm and fuzzy at all times. Genuine debate that people can learn from and expand their worldview requires antagonism to a certain extent.

That's all, I guess.

Carry on.
 
Last edited:
I apologize as well. As a Fox News viewer I may have used language (terrorist, unborn child) that viewers of other news channels may not be comfortable with. So allow me to change my wording.

Allowed by the constitution:

Killing misguided international criminals -- No

Woman's right to choose -- Yes
 
INDY500 said:
I apologize as well. As a Fox News viewer I may have used language (terrorist, unborn child) that viewers of other news channels may not be comfortable with. So allow me to change my wording.

Allowed by the constitution:

Killing misguided international criminals -- No

Woman's right to choose -- Yes

Doesn't matter the words. The whole premise of your "argument" is worthless.

Who and where did anyone say anything about killing terrorists? Is that what you are wishing for, that we just walk into Gitmo and slaughter them all?

At least if you're going to continue along this line of "debate" then use the talking points people are using...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

AchtungBono said:
Since when is saving lives against the constitution? You don't know what kind of information the government is obtaining thru these methods that have prevented countless attacks from happening again in the U.S. .

Bottom line - You fight fire with fire and terrorism with terrorism because that's the only language the terrorists understand.
You don't fight terrorism by gentle persuasion.....only by brute force.

I APPLAUD the U.S. government for going after the terrorists using their own methods, and I applaud President Bush for doing his job.

Seriously, do you listen to yourself?

Everything you said PROVES the point they were making in the ad.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

AchtungBono said:
The only thing I understand is that the U.S. was brutally attacked on 9/11 and 3,000 people were murdered.......and their murderers must be dealt with viciously.

How can the U.S. ever hope to fight the war on terror with one arm tied behind its back??

If you or your family were threatened, you'd make damm sure they were safe and sound using any means necessary to provide for their safety - and so would I.

I've said on more than one occasion that the constitution was drafted in the 18th century and must be updated and revised to meet 21st century conditions and threats.

With all due respect to the constitution, we aren't living in the same world as the founding fathers were. We face new challenges and greater dangers and I'm sure Al Quaida would have made mincemeat out of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had they been around at that time.

I agree with some of what you are saying here. But here's the problem:

1) We are currently in a war with a country. A country did not attack us on 9/11.

2) A majority of the people we torture had nothing to do with 9/11.

3) The consitution should be revised in some respects (i.e.: taking the religion out of it). But not to allow us to use cruel and unusual punishment.

4) Fighting terrorism with terrorism solves nothing. Why do you think terrorists attack the US? How do you think we defeated enemies before?
 
INDY500 said:
Killing misguided international criminals -- No

Woman's right to choose -- Yes

Let me revise your wording again:

Killing or torturing criminal suspects - No

Woman's right to choose - Yes
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

AchtungBono said:


The only thing I understand is that the U.S. was brutally attacked on 9/11 and 3,000 people were murdered.......and their murderers must be dealt with viciously.

How can the U.S. ever hope to fight the war on terror with one arm tied behind its back??

If you or your family were threatened, you'd make damm sure they were safe and sound using any means necessary to provide for their safety - and so would I.

I've said on more than one occasion that the constitution was drafted in the 18th century and must be updated and revised to meet 21st century conditions and threats.

While we're on the subject......tell the victims of the Nebraska mall shooter how wonderful the constitution is.....it's a great thing the right to bear arms.....where anyone can buy a gun and go on a rampage whenever they want - hallelujah and god bless America.......

With all due respect to the constitution, we aren't living in the same world as the founding fathers were. We face new challenges and greater dangers and I'm sure Al Quaida would have made mincemeat out of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had they been around at that time.

BVS - as always, this post is NOT intended to insult or offend you (or anyone else) - just to get my point across.

After reading this and your other posts on similar subjects, I can only come to the conclusion that you are completely ignorant of the principles the United States was founded on. There is room for improvement in the Constitution, but allowing torture, rendition, indefinite imprisonment without charges and other tactics of questionable legality that you've been praising here completely goes against many of the core principles my country was built on.

And I hate to be so blunt about it, but if you disagree with that, you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
phillyfan26 said:


Let me revise your wording again:

Killing or torturing criminal suspects - No

Woman's right to choose - Yes

Here's my point. I don't think either of these issues are addressed in the constitution.

Roe v Wade withdrew from the States the power to legislate with respect to abortion. There is no language in the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution that indicates this is what it's drafters intended.

Similarly, you can argue that the U.S. is bound in it's treatment of captured enemy combatants and foreign terror - sorry - criminal suspects, because of it's stated support of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights or the Geneva Conventions, but not the U.S. Constitution. Neither the Bill of Rights nor habeas corpus rights extend beyond our borders or to foreign prisoners of war.

But, in both cases, I realize there are some that read more into the Constitution than I do.
 
The key being suspects, Indy. Criminal or terror is irrelevant. Suspects is the key word.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

AchtungBono said:
Since when is saving lives against the constitution?

It's not. Who ever said it was?

No, what we're criticizing are the METHODS that we use to save lives.

AchtungBono said:
Bottom line - You fight fire with fire and terrorism with terrorism because that's the only language the terrorists understand.
You don't fight terrorism by gentle persuasion.....only by brute force.

All I have to do is look in a history book to see that that line of thinking is wrong. War is nothing more than a vicious cycle. All it does is lead people to hold grudges, the side that loses has to pick up the pieces for god knows how long, and innocent people are punished because of the actions of a few people. Wars may give people short-term resolutions, but the long-term effects are never good. If war solved things, we wouldn't be fighting each other anymore, we'd have gotten everything hammered out eons ago.

You cannot fight terrorism with more terrorism. They attack us, we attack them, they get angrier and attack us back, we get even angrier than that and attack them back...do you see where I'm going here?

In order to fight the fire you use water. And no, we don't need to be "gentle" in dealing with them. I don't know when people got this idea that diplomacy meant gentleness and hugs and flowers. We can still be just as tough with diplomatic methods.

As for this:

If you or your family were threatened, you'd make damm sure they were safe and sound using any means necessary to provide for their safety - and so would I.

You're absolutely right. I would fight back. But here's the difference: I'm going after the person(s) DIRECTLY responsible for threatening my family. War doesn't allow for that. If we could find a way to go after the actual people who attacked us on 9/11, that's one thing-I'd be fine with that, as they deserve to be punished. But we don't. Instead, we start a war, and that drags innocent people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack into it, and they get hurt/killed as a result. Meanwhile, the people who actually were involved with the crime don't get caught (so, uh, how much longer 'till we find Osama again?).

Not to mention, if I used illegal means to deal with someone who threatened my family or myself, I would expect to be punished for my crimes. And this administration needs to be held accountable for its crimes.

Angela
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Moonlit_Angel said:


if I used illegal means to deal with someone who threatened my family or myself, I would expect to be punished for my crimes. And this administration needs to be held accountable for its crimes.

Angela
Or...given credit that no addition attacks have occurred within our borders.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

INDY500 said:

Or...given credit that no addition attacks have occurred within our borders.

Who's to say we would have been attacked in the past few years?

If anything, Bush's actions have created more enemies.

You're saying the ends justify the means ... and that's wrong. There are plenty of means to getting everything resolved, and war shouldn't be. It can't be.

We fought a war with a nation, when we were attacked by groups of people, not nations. It doesn't add up.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

INDY500 said:

Or...given credit that no addition attacks have occurred within our borders.

Oh yes I love this argument. I ate a magic jelly bean when I was a kid and haven't got cancer yet, it's probably the jelly bean.
 
INDY500 said:
Neither the Bill of Rights nor habeas corpus rights extend beyond our borders or to foreign prisoners of war.

So that makes it okay to anything we want to them?

I'm sure if you were arrested in some foreign country without charges you wouldn't say "well, habeas corpus doesn't apply...oh well".

:crack:
 
Last edited:
Actually, this discussion is getting interesting and Mrs. S. provided a good catalyst with the Fox decision for a discussion on what we really think (or feel) about the Constitution. Is it a document that we pull out only to parade in front of the world when we need some good PR? Is it outdated? Do we send parts of it to the recycle bin and if so, what parts? Do we bear responsibility for it by living up to it? It's not a perfect document. But it's a strong one, and one we have invited the world to judge us by. Without it, without protecting it, without practicing it, we become something other. Maybe the discussion is are we better or worse as that something other.
 
Back
Top Bottom