NationStates Jolt Archive

Well out of the ass's (oops horse's) mouth...George Bush has admitted to breaking domestic laws - DEMOCRATIC LAWS - by illegally bugging his own people. Isn't the whole "war on terrorism" a fight to protect democracy? How can Bush say this when he goes against the very foundation of democracy? One more reason to get rid of that silly Patriot Act down there in the US. Impeach the guy already.

Don't ask me how he's gotten away with as much as he has so far, but I hope this might be the nail in his coffin. No one is above the law, and I think it's time people finally realized that. Of course, that's not going to happen; people are still going to be stupid and say, "Oh, but it's to stop terrorism!" Bulls***. Show me one instance that this has stopped terrorism that conventional means couldn't have done. "Oh, but saying something would jepordize the mission against terror!" You're right... it would jepordize *your* mission of terror. We know you don't want all those precious documents that catagorically state each and every crime the government's committed to shatter your pretty candyland world that you see on Fox News; otherwise, people might actually know the truth, and god-forbid that happens and all the "dirty liberals" establish a fair government.

Well out of the ass's (oops horse's) mouth...George Bush has admitted to breaking domestic laws - DEMOCRATIC LAWS - by illegally bugging his own people. Isn't the whole "war on terrorism" a fight to protect democracy? How can Bush say this when he goes against the very foundation of democracy? One more reason to get rid of that silly Patriot Act down there in the US. Impeach the guy already.

How many threads do we need on this topic?

Hol-ee Jeesus

What does the foundation of democracy have to do with international communications?

Well out of the ass's (oops horse's) mouth...George Bush has admitted to breaking domestic laws - DEMOCRATIC LAWS - by illegally bugging his own people. Isn't the whole "war on terrorism" a fight to protect democracy? How can Bush say this when he goes against the very foundation of democracy? One more reason to get rid of that silly Patriot Act down there in the US. Impeach the guy already.
Yeah! How dare he try to protect the American people! Him and that awful Abraham Lincoln, who did even more things against "democracy!" A pox on them both! :rolleyes:

The leaders of Congress, both Democrat and Republican were informed of this, but they never raised any concerns about it. The entire process is examined to protect our civil liberties, and until it is actually found unconstitutional by the Court, there is nothing wrong being done.

And how does spying on the international communications of people who are known to be involved with terrorists anti-democratic? It's not being used to silence political dissent, nor is it being used to rig elections.

The leaders of Congress, both Democrat and Republican were informed of this, but they never raised any concerns about it. The entire process is examined to protect our civil liberties, and until it is actually found unconstitutional by the Court, there is nothing wrong being done.

And how does spying on the international communications of people who are known to be involved with terrorists anti-democratic? It's not being used to silence political dissent, nor is it being used to rig elections.

Here. I posted this to another thread, but it bears repeating...

(An "Open letter to conservatives and libratarians", by a blogger names Darksyde


When discussing the pros and cons of government power, a lot us immediately think of terrorists. The Bad Guys, Crooks, or Religious Fanatics. Obviously most folks wouldn't have a problem with collecting information on really dangerous actors through wire taps or other surveillance methods. A lot of people would even understand the decision to torture suspects under extraordinary circumstances such as the ticking atomic bomb scenario.

But that entirely misses the crux of public concern with granting any agency such broad authority. Rule of Law, Due Process, and Oversight do not exist to protect the guilty. They exist to protect the public at large from abuses of power perpetrated against them by the powerful and to protect the innocent from mistaken arrest or intentional persecution.

That's the issue here.

Mechanisms exist to obtain secret wiretaps or run intel operations in the US, mechanisms exist to exonerate or pardon someone who is found to have tortured a nuclear bomb carrying madman. There are even provisions for immediacy during a holiday or some other set of circumstances where obtaining a legal warrant on the spot isn't practical.

So these motivations are simply not plausible justifications to encode into Law the 'right' to ignore or break any law a single individual sees fit, but we must insist on some minimal standard of oversight and due process to insure our own freedoms and safety. Nor are such concerns reasonable justifications to skirt basic rights and privileges which are underwritten by our most cherished articles of Freedom: The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.

That's the issue here.

Allowing anyone to break these laws means they can now spy on you and I. It means they can ship us off to be tortured. And we have no recourse, no oversight, no due process, no restriction on that decision or their treatment of us. So what ends up happening, and has happened, is people get rounded up in sweeps either by arbitrary allegation from a party who has a score to settle with the accused, or people get arrested who are completely innocent on as simple a screwup as having a similar sounding name as a known suspect (or checking out the wrong book, etc.).

Can you imagine? Arrested by secret police, carted off in the middle of the night with no charges filed or notice given, flown to some third-world shit-hole, and hooked up to a car battery with your feet in boiling water? No chance of due process, no trial, no requirement your family or employer is even notified what became of you: Because you had a similar sounding name to a bad guy or there was a neighbor down the street who was mad at you?

That's the issue here.

The individuals who wrote our Constitution were critically aware of the dicey balance between national security and freedom. They were acutely aware of the tendency for centers of power to grow in might. As best we can tell they were more worried about their own government in the long run than anything else. So they wrote the document including Bill of Rights. Holding as an opinion that an official can arbitrarily break the very articles he has sworn to defend is not only logically inconsistent in itself, it's a direct threat to our liberty more than that posed by any external enemy we currently face in the world.

That's the issue here

"9-11 changed everything" we're told? Does that really make sense? Our rule of law and constitutional chaperone of personal liberty survived presidential assassinations, two World Wars, the Holocaust, standing armies millions strong, and scads of thermonuclear tipped missiles pointed at our heads, and we're going to trash our traditions and Constitution because a cabal of religious fanatics with box-cutters trained in a stone-age country got lucky?

That's the issue here.

Lastly, any changes in policy enacted now in the panic of carefully coordinated fear campaigns will be inherited by subsequent administrations. Democrat, Republican, moderate, extremist, conservative, progressive, you name it, they'll inherit all of this. Do you trust them all, sight unseen, for the indefinite future?

Would you trust Bill or Hillary Clinton with the power to unilaterally spy, arrest, torture, or 'disappear' anyone they choose with zero oversight? Do you trust that no future administration of any political ideology would ever use even a portion of such power to further their own agenda, cover-up wrong doing, or to intimidate political foes?

That's the issue here.

The leaders of Congress, both Democrat and Republican were informed of this, but they never raised any concerns about it. The entire process is examined to protect our civil liberties, and until it is actually found unconstitutional by the Court, there is nothing wrong being done.

And how does spying on the international communications of people who are known to be involved with terrorists anti-democratic? It's not being used to silence political dissent, nor is it being used to rig elections.

The big debate is that no one outside of the government actually knows who is being investigated or the reasons for why they're being investigates. The government not only can simply declare someone a "terrorist" and then imprison them for an indefinite period, the government doesn't need to tell anyone or even get court permission. All they need to do is say "terrorism" and they've got all the power in the world. On top of all that, everyone involved in the matter is subject to a squelch order, so no one is allowed to talk about it, even if required by a court of law to do so.

Yeah! How dare he try to protect the American people! Him and that awful Abraham Lincoln, who did even more things against "democracy!" A pox on them both! :rolleyes:

Of course, under Lincoln we had an actual war in this country.

Oh, thank goodness we have Big Brother Bush around to protect us from things like making choices and having freedom. Don't forget, freedom means the freedom to take the consequences of your descisions, we don't need that sort of freedom in the USA. No thanks. Freedom from choice, freedom from speech, and freedom of a religion. Those are the freedoms for the USA, not You ese. :rolleyes:

The leaders of Congress, both Democrat and Republican were informed of this, but they never raised any concerns about it. The entire process is examined to protect our civil liberties, and until it is actually found unconstitutional by the Court, there is nothing wrong being done.

That's not the way it works. Things are wrong, so people bring them to the courts who then declare that they must be brought to an end. Unless the court is full of political cronies like Scalia, Thomas, and soon Alito.

Sending people to prison without access to defense council was wrong before the Supreme Court put a stop to it. Sending them to prison with useless defense council is still wrong, even though the Supreme Court hasn't put a stop to it.

Of course, under Lincoln we had an actual war in this country.

Oh, thank goodness we have Big Brother Bush around to protect us from things like making choices and having freedom. Don't forget, freedom means the freedom to take the consequences of your descisions, we don't need that sort of freedom in the USA. No thanks. Freedom from choice, freedom from speech, and freedom of a religion. Those are the freedoms for the USA, not You ese. :rolleyes:

What freedoms of yours have been curtailed by the evil Bush?

Okay maybe you did not get the memo....

This topic has already been done... and done... and done.... See how annoying repitition is? My God cant somone be original? Or are we all sheep that just listen and bleet whenever the shepard tells us what to think...

Now if you will excuse me kind sir I must ask the chisire cat on which way i should go... Wonderland is not an easy place to navigate and i wish to stay away from the queen of hearts..... *walks away*

The leaders of Congress, both Democrat and Republican were informed of this, but they never raised any concerns about it. The entire process is examined to protect our civil liberties, and until it is actually found unconstitutional by the Court, there is nothing wrong being done.

And how does spying on the international communications of people who are known to be involved with terrorists anti-democratic? It's not being used to silence political dissent, nor is it being used to rig elections.
well as i understand it from watching sunday morning tv...

we have an actual LAW that covers this exact situation. a law that the president chose to ignore

this law provides for a secret court that OKs warrants that allow for the surveillance of suspected terrorists.

if this law wasnt enough, the president has had plenty of time to request a new one from congress that would cover whatever is keeping the president from following this one.

he hasnt done that.

informing congress, getting an opinion from the justice department, getting personal messages from GOD or whatever else the president might have done does not meet the requirements of law

since we are a country of LAW, its bad of the president to not even try to follow the law no matter what his intentions.

that is what is wrong with it.

What freedoms of yours have been curtailed by the evil Bush?

Right to privacy (see above). Freedom of press (Howard Stern, anyone?). Right to peaceful protest (ever notice how there are never protesters near the media cameras? Bush pens up the protesters in "protest zones" that the media never sees.).

What freedoms of yours have been curtailed by the evil Bush?

Ask Keruvalia, I'm sure he'll tell you some of the things that the Patriot Act has put him through.

well as i understand it from watching sunday morning tv...

we have an actual LAW that covers this exact situation. a law that the president chose to ignore

this law provides for a secret court that OKs warrants that allow for the surveillance of suspected terrorists.

if this law wasnt enough, the president has had plenty of time to request a new one from congress that would cover whatever is keeping the president from following this one.

he hasnt done that.

informing congress, getting an opinion from the justice department, getting personal messages from GOD or whatever else the president might have done does not meet the requirements of law

since we are a country of LAW, its bad of the president to not even try to follow the law no matter what his intentions.

that is what is wrong with it.




but if the court is secret than how do we know about it :) unlesss...... OMG Somone told on the secret court! at least they dont know about the secret congress or secret Queen.....yet

oh and as to "The leaders of Congress, both Democrat and Republican were informed of this, but they never raised any concerns about it. "

we dont know if they had concerns or not. it turns out that these meetings are secret BY LAW and that BY LAW those congressmen are not alllowed to talk to anyone about what they heard not even other congressmen.

so how would we ever know what they thought about it?

What freedoms of yours have been curtailed by the evil Bush?

Why don't you take a look at the letter I posted. It's not about what's happend already anymore, it's about what the next steps are, and the excuses thrown out to justify it all. Get your head in the game!

but if the court is secret than how do we know about it :) unlesss...... OMG Somone told on the secret court! at least they dont know about the secret congress or secret Queen.....yet
huh?

we know the court exists because there is a law on the subject. we dont know (i suppose) how many warrants it has issued and on whom. (at least until someone gets arrested as a result of those warrants)

we know that bush did not take these particular instances to the secret court because he admitted it yesterday.

does that cover your question?

oh and as to "The leaders of Congress, both Democrat and Republican were informed of this, but they never raised any concerns about it. "

we dont know if they had concerns or not. it turns out that these meetings are secret BY LAW and that BY LAW those congressmen are not alllowed to talk to anyone about what they heard not even other congressmen.

so how would we ever know what they thought about it?



maybe they talked about the proper way to sit an egg in its dish Big end up or big end down..... damn liliputions

huh?

we know the court exists because there is a law on the subject. we dont know (i suppose) how many warrants it has issued and on whom. (at least until someone gets arrested as a result of those warrants)

we know that bush did not take these particular instances to the secret court because he admitted it yesterday.

does that cover your question?


all except for the secret queen.... I mean really does she have a king? Or is she just waiting to come out and decalre her great tea party? i wonder what evil she could be up to...

Yeah! How dare he try to protect the American people! Him and that awful Abraham Lincoln, who did even more things against "democracy!" A pox on them both! :rolleyes:

Yeah, I know. Every American should have absolute freedom. We should get rid of stop signs as well! They are signs of oppression and therefore UNDEMOCRATIC!!!!! Americans should be able to choose whether they want to stop or not. We should also get rid of traffic lights!! It's totaliatarian and must be eliminated. We should not stop at intersections because the government tells us to! It doesn't matter if it increases safety and reduces car accidents. It is still controlling our lives and is UNDEMOCRATIC!!!!!1111

You pricks need to shut the fuck up and look at the big picture. Freedom is Slavery. We have to give up some freedoms to protect others!
Remember 9/11? 4 planes were hijacked and 3,000 people died that day because we followed a flawed policy! We can not go back to those policies because it doesn't work anymore and we will risk another terrorist attack. That's a risk that we can not take. I don't want to see children lose their parents again. I don't want to see firefighters die in the service of their country again. And I definitely do not want to see any of those motherfucking terrorists killing innocent US civilians again.
Bugging people will make it easier for the United States to prevent another attack. We can now eavesdrop on suspected terrorists and hear about their plans. Also President Bush has only authorized these eavesdroppings around 30 times since 9/11. So out of 295,734,134 people, the government has eavesdropped on only 30ish. The government is not spying on your average Joe. They are spying on Al Qaeda suspects. So unless you are talking about how to make bombs over the phone, you won't be bugged. I would also like to point out that President Bush has briefed congressional leaders over a dozen times about these eavesdroppings. So it's not like they didn't know. If you are going to blame President Bush, then you will have to blame the entire Congress as well because they knew about this shit!
Also a 200 year old document can not apply to every fucking situation. Our founding fathers didn't have terrorists crashing planes into buildings. Times have changed and we therefore need to adopt.

*sits down*

Right to privacy (see above). Freedom of press (Howard Stern, anyone?). Right to peaceful protest (ever notice how there are never protesters near the media cameras? Bush pens up the protesters in "protest zones" that the media never sees.).

Right to privacy? Have you been wiretapped? Is your home bugged? Does the evil Bush bug your church?

Freedom of the press? The FCC regulates decency, and besides, Bush did not start the FCC.

Right to peaceful protest? The local governments are the ones who set up where and when you may protest. Did you know you have to usually get a permit in order to stage a protest? Talk to the city people.

Nice try though.

Yeah, I know. Every American should have absolute freedom. We should get rid of stop signs as well! They are signs of oppression and therefore UNDEMOCRATIC!!!!! Americans should be able to choose whether they want to stop or not. We should also get rid of traffic lights!! It's totaliatarian and must be eliminated. We should not stop at intersections because the government tells us to! It doesn't matter if it increases safety and reduces car accidents. It is still controlling our lives and is UNDEMOCRATIC!!!!!1111

You pricks need to shut the fuck up and look at the big picture. Freedom is Slavery. We have to give up some freedoms to protect others!
Remember 9/11? 4 planes were hijacked and 3,000 people died that day because we followed a flawed policy! We can not go back to those policies because it doesn't work anymore and we will risk another terrorist attack. That's a risk that we can not take. I don't want to see children lose their parents again. I don't want to see firefighters die in the service of their country again. And I definitely do not want to see any of those motherfucking terrorists killing innocent US civilians again.
Bugging people will make it easier for the United States to prevent another attack. We can now eavesdrop on suspected terrorists and hear about their plans. Also President Bush has only authorized these eavesdroppings around 30 times since 9/11. So out of 295,734,134 people, the government has eavesdropped on only 30ish. The government is not spying on your average Joe. They are spying on Al Qaeda suspects. So unless you are talking about how to make bombs over the phone, you won't be bugged. I would also like to point out that President Bush has briefed congressional leaders over a dozen times about these eavesdroppings. So it's not like they didn't know. If you are going to blame President Bush, then you will have to blame the entire Congress as well because they knew about this shit!
Also a 200 year old document can not apply to every fucking situation. Our founding fathers didn't have terrorists crashing planes into buildings. Times have changed and we therefore need to adopt.

*sits down*

Since you obviously didn't read this, here you go again.

"9-11 changed everything" we're told? Does that really make sense? Our rule of law and constitutional chaperone of personal liberty survived presidential assassinations, two World Wars, the Holocaust, standing armies millions strong, and scads of thermonuclear tipped missiles pointed at our heads, and we're going to trash our traditions and Constitution because a cabal of religious fanatics with box-cutters trained in a stone-age country got lucky?

Right to privacy? Have you been wiretapped? Is your home bugged? Does the evil Bush bug your church?

Yes, no, and yes. My computer's actions are constantly being monitored by the government. My home is technically not "bugged" (though it is indirectly through the monitoring of the computer). I don't go to church, but from what I hear from my friends who do go, Bush is often brought up as a topic.

Freedom of the press? The FCC regulates decency, and besides, Bush did not start the FCC.

Define decency. I think Howard Stern is extremely decent.

Right to peaceful protest? The local governments are the ones who set up where and when you may protest. Did you know you have to usually get a permit in order to stage a protest? Talk to the city people.

Nice try though.

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

OWNED

Why do people say

OWNED...

I dont think you can own anyone anymore... i think the Feds got rid of that and for good reasons.. now if you want to Own somone you cant but you can get a cat or dog and own them. than when you are at your computer and you say somthing snappy you can say to your cat or dog OWNED

....Remember 9/11? 4 planes were hijacked and 3,000 people died that day .....

More than 3,000 children are killed by swimming pools in America every year. You should give up your freedom to swim in order to prevent this. I don't want these children to die so young, I hope you won't be so selfish as to refuse my demands.

Why don't you take a look at the letter I posted. It's not about what's happend already anymore, it's about what the next steps are, and the excuses thrown out to justify it all. Get your head in the game!

Clear out your headgear.

What are the next steps btw?

"9-11 changed everything" we're told? Does that really make sense? Our rule of law and constitutional chaperone of personal liberty survived presidential assassinations, two World Wars, the Holocaust, standing armies millions strong, and scads of thermonuclear tipped missiles pointed at our heads, and we're going to trash our traditions and Constitution because a cabal of religious fanatics with box-cutters trained in a stone-age country got lucky?

By your logic, armies should still being using swords instead of guns. Sure the sword were useful for centuries. Why don't we use swords instead of guns? Because guns are more suitable. The same goes for the constitution. Even though it has been useful to us for the past 200 years, it just doesn't apply to our current situation. Even if they were just "lucky", we still have to prevent them from getting "lucky" again. The IRA once said, "Today we were unlucky, but remember, we only have to be lucky once." We can not allow them to get "lucky" again. I am not going to let someone die just because I wanted some privacy.

-snip-

Well then, we should investigate it and see if there is any wrongdoing here. If there is, we should follow the necessary legal procedure, and if not then we've lost nothing in terms of putting our fears to rest. I agree that the procedure of law should be followed to determine this action's legitimacy.

Yes, no, and yes. My computer's actions are constantly being monitored by the government. My home is technically not "bugged" (though it is indirectly through the monitoring of the computer). I don't go to church, but from what I hear from my friends who do go, Bush is often brought up as a topic.



Define decency. I think Howard Stern is extremely decent.



http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

OWNED

I don't follow.

Yes, no, yes? WTF does that mean. How is your computer constantly monitored. You shouldn't be looking at kiddie porn anyway.

Decency is in the eye of the beholder. If the citizens complain, then the FCC investigates. The FCC only investigates when citizens complain.

Bush visited my town, the protesters got the appropiate permit and were allowed to demonstrate, there was no Free-Speech zone. They were up close to the speech.

Owned? I think not as you still haven't proven your case. 3pts from halfcourt, nothing but net, swish, score it.

And how does spying on the international communications of people who are known to be involved with terrorists anti-democratic? It's not being used to silence political dissent, nor is it being used to rig elections.

The problem is that it can be. Without a need for a warrant, they can do literally anything they want with it.

There's a reason why our legal system is set up the way it is. There's a reason why in our constitution it requires that you need a warrant to search anything. It's because the minute you don't require it, they can do ANYTHING they want with it.

Without warrants, the law enforcement branches of our government are free to do ANYTHING. If they can search your home without a warrant, that means they can go into your house when you aren't around, and probably steal things from you without any legal reprucussions. It means that there is no checks and balances. We need courts to assure that one branch of government doesn't get out of hand.

By your logic, armies should still being using swords instead of guns. Sure the sword were useful for centuries. Why don't we use swords instead of guns? Because guns are more suitable. The same goes for the constitution. Even though it has been useful to us for the past 200 years, it just doesn't apply to our current situation. Even if they were just "lucky", we still have to prevent them from getting "lucky" again. The IRA once said, "Today we were unlucky, but remember, we only have to be lucky once." We can not allow them to get "lucky" again. I am not going to let someone die just because I wanted some privacy.

Well, then you are the personification of Ben Franklin's statement

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

(Don't know if that's the exact quote, but the idea is the same)

By your logic, armies should still being using swords instead of guns. Sure the sword were useful for centuries. Why don't we use swords instead of guns? Because guns are more suitable. The same goes for the constitution. Even though it has been useful to us for the past 200 years, it just doesn't apply to our current situation. Even if they were just "lucky", we still have to prevent them from getting "lucky" again. The IRA once said, "Today we were unlucky, but remember, we only have to be lucky once." We can not allow them to get "lucky" again. I am not going to let someone die just because I wanted some privacy.

Incidently 24,000 people died of starvation on 9/11 alone, if you put even some of the 'War on Terror' funding into feeding them I'm guessing there's be a lot less people trying to blow Americans.

As the great Robin Cook (R.I.P.) said: "We could strike a greater blow against terrorism by bringing peace to Palestine than by bringing war to Iraq"

More than 3,000 children are killed by swimming pools in America every year. You should give up your freedom to swim in order to prevent this. I don't want these children to die so young, I hope you won't be so selfish as to refuse my demands.

We can not ban swimming, but we can restrict it and make it safer. That's why we have lifeguards and areas that are off limits. If these children had absolute freedom, then the death toll would rise dramatically.
Also let's take cars for example. More than 40,000 people die from car accidents in America every year. We can't completely stop car accidents, but we can reduce it. That's why we have stop signs, speed limits, and traffic lights.
The same thing applies to our current situation. We can not completely prevent another terrorist attack, but we can try. That's why we are now bugging ONLY suspected Al Qaeda members! We have to give up some freedoms to ensure our security. Until the situation changes, it has to stay like that.

As the great Robin Cook (R.I.P.) said: "We could strike a greater blow against terrorism by bringing peace to Palestine than by bringing war to Iraq"

We could strike an even greater blow if we do both and then bring peace to Iraq.

I'm guessing there's be a lot less people trying to blow Americans.

As the great Robin Cook (R.I.P.) said: "We could strike a greater blow against terrorism by bringing peace to Palestine than by bringing war to Iraq"

Haha.

Robin Cook was a Jackson White. The Palestinian leadership and Hamas don't want peace.

Incidently 24,000 people died of starvation on 9/11 alone, if you put even some of the 'War on Terror' funding into feeding them I'm guessing there's be a lot less people trying to blow Americans.

Why should we? People need to toughen up and take care of themselves, without turning to Mama Welfare for support.

Well, then you are the personification of Ben Franklin's statement

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

(Don't know if that's the exact quote, but the idea is the same)

If I recall, Ben Franklin didn't live in a time where terrorists killed 3,000 citizens in one day. The world has changed and some of these statements no longer apply.
Also by Ben Franklin's logic, we should get rid of lifeguards, stop signs, speed limits, legal drinking age, and traffic lights because they take away freedom for security/safety.

Haha.

Robin Cook was a Jackson White. The Palestinian leadership and Hamas don't want peace.

But most of the Palestinians do and if they got peace then they wouldn't support Hamas or the current leadership anymore. Comprenez?

If I recall, Ben Franklin didn't live in a time where terrorists killed 3,000 citizens in one day. The world has changed and some of these statements no longer apply.
Also by Ben Franklin's logic, we should get rid of lifeguards, stop signs, speed limits, legal drinking age, and traffic lights because they take away freedom for security/safety.

Oh, why do you generalize so? Being a jerk about it doesn't make you right, it just makes you a jerk. Ben Franklin lived through a bloody revolution that established this country's independance. He knew about sacrifice for freedom, and that's why he said what he said, and he was a vastly wiser person than you are proving to be.

But most of the Palestinians do and if they got peace then they wouldn't support Hamas or the current leadership anymore. Comprenez?

How do you know this? Always seems like you see a big ole mess of them calling for the death of the Jews over there in Arabtown.

We can not ban swimming, but we can restrict it and make it safer. That's why we have lifeguards and areas that are off limits. If these children had absolute freedom, then the death toll would rise dramatically.
Also let's take cars for example. More than 40,000 people die from car accidents in America every year. We can't completely stop car accidents, but we can reduce it. That's why we have stop signs, speed limits, and traffic lights.
The same thing applies to our current situation. We can not completely prevent another terrorist attack, but we can try. That's why we are now bugging ONLY suspected Al Qaeda members! We have to give up some freedoms to ensure our security. Until the situation changes, it has to stay like that.

But liberties are already controlled in the same way as swimming, your liberties can be taken away to an extent if it is neccessary. The new laws take it to far, almost to the equivalent of banning swimming.

Incidently 24,000 people died of starvation on 9/11 alone, if you put even some of the 'War on Terror' funding into feeding them I'm guessing there's be a lot less people trying to blow Americans.

As the great Robin Cook (R.I.P.) said: "We could strike a greater blow against terrorism by bringing peace to Palestine than by bringing war to Iraq"

First don't try to give those bastards excuses excuses. Second food isn't the problem, the fact that the Islamic culture has basicly stayed the same for the past 1,500 years is. A lot of the starving people are not in the Mid east or muslim terrorists so how would feeding people in Cambodia (as nice as it is) help the war at all? They'd forget who geve them food or their government would tell them that it wasn't from the US, Iran does that all the time. And they'd simply forget it just like they forgot who stoped the slaughter of Muslims in Kosovo (it was us).

Of course that would be a much better plan than Iraq! I can't think of a rational plan that would be worse than Iraq. Of course getting Isreal and Palastine to stop killing each other is easier said then done.

Oh, why do you generalize so? Being a jerk about it doesn't make you right, it just makes you a jerk. Ben Franklin lived through a bloody revolution that established this country's independance. He knew about sacrifice for freedom, and that's why he said what he said, and he was a vastly wiser person than you are proving to be.

Alright let's say his statement is correct. We won't give up ANY freedom for security.

We will get rid of the airport checks, off-limit areas, lifeguards, stop signs, speed limits, legal drinking age, and traffic lights because they take away freedom for security/safety.

anti-Democratic? Well what did you expect, that he'll be anti-Republican? :)

anti-Democratic? Well what did you expect, that he'll be anti-Republican? :)

Quoted for truth.

anti-Democratic? Well what did you expect, that he'll be anti-Republican? :)

you know what he meant...

Why should we? People need to toughen up and take care of themselves, without turning to Mama Welfare for support.

Then why did Bush go to the aid of the Iraqis? By this logic, shouldn't they have toughened up and learned to take care of themselves?

How do you know this? Always seems like you see a big ole mess of them calling for the death of the Jews over there in Arabtown.

Or maybe 'Arabs calling for the death of Jews' makes better television than 'Arabs being happy to co-exist peacefully'. If we could stop the fighting in a reasonable way then I have no doubt that the vast majority of Palestinians would be happy to stop the violence.

you know hwat he meant...

But the title is misleading. As I said earlier, if you are going to blame President Bush, then you have to blame the entire congress because they knew about this as well. President Bush has briefed them over a dozen times.

Then why did Bush go to the aid of the Iraqis? By this logic, shouldn't they have toughened up and learned to take care of themselves?

I'm not Bush, though. Unlike me, Bush loves the Mama Welfare state. He wants to be Iraq's Mama Welfare.

Alright let's say his statement is correct. We won't give up ANY freedom for security.

We will get rid of the airport checks, off-limit areas, lifeguards, stop signs, speed limits, legal drinking age, and traffic lights because they take away freedom for security/safety.


I'm glad you've finally seen the light! Though I'd disagree with you on traffic signals and signs, and the drinking age (I really hate teenagers, and drunk teenager are even worse that your average pubecant punkass)

Or maybe 'Arabs calling for the death of Jews' makes better television than 'Arabs being happy to co-exist peacefully'. If we could stop the fighting in a reasonable way then I have no doubt that the vast majority of Palestinians would be happy to stop the violence.


Why have no Arab countries accepted Isreal as a soveign nation yet? I also have no doubt that no one wants the war but no one whats to live the way the other people them to live.

i was just wondering, how many of you read the entire news story, instead of just the headline, before running of and screaming about "Big Brother Bush?" You people are the reason I can't call myself a liberal. All the taps are checked on a weekly basis by the Justice Department for legality, which scrutinizes the situation a lot more than a just a warrant. Furthermore no there is no proof that any actual citizens have been bugged; there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about it, or else the Justice Department would have stopped it. Not only that, but this has been going on since FDR, who mastered the process of bugging civilians for the "war effort". Come on, people. Sto bringing up absolute crap and try to run a political campaign. People see this crap as indicitave of the Democratic Party's unwillingness to be serious or offer new solutions to problems, and that's only going to get more Republicans elected. and who wants that?

Then why did Bush go to the aid of the Iraqis? By this logic, shouldn't they have toughened up and learned to take care of themselves?

It's called Oil

Iraq has a ton of it and Bush want's it above all other things.

It's called Oil

Iraq has a ton of it and Bush want's it above all other things.


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. this is what I'm talking about!! The U.S. oil imports have dropped since we've went into Iraq!! No oil from Iraq!!. But when people say stupid stuff like this, the Rush Limbaughs bash them over the head, and the American people are tricked into thinking the Iraq war is okay. Seriously people, just because we are liberals doesnt mean we are this blind

It's called Oil

Iraq has a ton of it and Bush want's it above all other things.



To big to red....

Im sorry your answer is incorrect sir... the right answer was Sand Bush wanted Sand... we would have also accepted Dessert... But just because you lost does not mean you leave empty handed you will be leaving our wonderful game with two free tickets to your back yard thats right all expenses paid.

I'm glad you've finally seen the light! Though I'd disagree with you on traffic signals and signs, and the drinking age (I really hate teenagers, and drunk teenager are even worse that your average pubecant punkass)

No No! WE have to get rid of traffic lights and signs, and drinking age because those are all taking away our freedom for security and safety![/sarcasm]

You don't seem to realize that my previous post was sarcastic. My point is that sometimes freedom has to be given up for security/safety. I mean we wouldn't want drunk 15 year olds driving down the highway.

Freedom is Slavery.

To big to red....

Im sorry your answer is incorrect sir... the right answer was Sand Bush wanted Sand... we would have also accepted Dessert... But just because you lost does not mean you leave empty handed you will be leaving our wonderful game with two free tickets to your back yard thats right all expenses paid.

dessert or desert? Ice cream or a place that gets less than 10 inches of rain a year?

Freedom is Slavery.
Wait, what's this about? Surely you don't mean this seriously?

dessert or desert? Ice cream or a place that gets less than 10 inches of rain a year?


ice cream every one wants more and there thirst can never be stoped.... he could have invaded antartica if he wanted a desert.. :)

Freedom is Slavery.

That doesn't make sense. Are you joking? I think you are because no rational person would think this.

It's called Oil

Iraq has a ton of it and Bush want's it above all other things.

The oil produced by Iraq has been sold on the market at world prices through OPEC. The US hasn't gotten any Iraqi oil at special prices from this entire war. Anyways, if Bush wanted oil he'd attack Saudi Arabia because they've got more infrastructure and light crude which is more valuable and easier to refine.

It's called Oil

Iraq has a ton of it and Bush want's it above all other things.

Ah....the media has tricked another one. One of the many tricks that the media does is make plausible but false stories. The media knows that if they said that penquins were making sponges in Baghdad, no one would believe them. However if they said something like "we went to Iraq for oil", then some people starting believing it. If they keep saying this over and over again, a lot of people will start believeing it. It doesn't matter if it was false. All that matters to the public is if it is plausible. The media exploits this and uses it to boost their ratings. They honestly don't give a shit if it was true of false. All that matters to them is if the public will believe it.

ice cream every one wants more and there thirst can never be stoped.... he could have invaded antartica if he wanted a desert.. :)

so I didn't write precipitation
sue me
I only left it out because I can't spell it has you can now see. Actualy I may have got it right...

Ah....the media has tricked another one. One of the many tricks that the media does is make plausible but false stories. The media knows that if they said that penquins were making sponges in Baghdad, no one would believe them. However if they said something like "we went to Iraq for oil", then some people starting believing it. If they keep saying this over and over again, a lot of people will start believeing it. It doesn't matter if it was false. All that matters to the public is if it is plausible. The media exploits this and uses it to boost their ratings. They honestly don't give a shit if it was true of false. All that matters to them is if the public will believe it.


I would never belive the media if they said penquins where making sponges in Baghdad..

HOWEVER!!!

i do bealive that Marmasets are creating sporks to feed the taco bell global domination machine... I saw it on MSNBC and Dan Rather talked about it :)

Wait, what's this about? Surely you don't mean this seriously?
it's true, "The Price for Freedom is Eternal Vigelance." we have to guard our freedoms from others and sometimes that means storing it way to safeguard it.

so I didn't write precipitation
sue me
I only left it out because I can't spell it has you can now see. Actualy I may have got it right...


its okay i am new to speaking English so my spelling and grammor are deplorable at best :)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. this is what I'm talking about!! The U.S. oil imports have dropped since we've went into Iraq!! No oil from Iraq!!. But when people say stupid stuff like this, the Rush Limbaughs bash them over the head, and the American people are tricked into thinking the Iraq war is okay. Seriously people, just because we are liberals doesnt mean we are this blind

Bush is hiring Haliburton, a company that gave VP Cheney 38 million dollars as a going away present, as one of the major contractors to build Iraq. Additionally, a good deal of Bush's extended family holds stock in Haliburton.

-SH.

I would never belive the media if they said penquins where making sponges in Baghdad..

HOWEVER!!!

i do bealive that Marmasets are creating sporks to feed the taco bell global domination machine... I saw it on MSNBC and Dan Rather talked about it :)
WTF!!! KFC Sold their Spork Franchise to the Mexicans?!?!

No wonder Taco Bell is the only franchise to Survive the Fast Food Wars...
(Ref "Demolition Man" for those who don't get it.)

Bush is hiring Haliburton, a company that gave VP Cheney 38 million dollars as a going away present, as one of the major contractors to build Iraq. Additionally, a good deal of Bush's extended family holds stock in Haliburton.

-SH.


Wake up Clinton was in bed with Haliburton as well.... GOD please somone open the eyes of the sheep and show them how bad both parties are! Where has reason gone?

Ah....the media has tricked another one. One of the many tricks that the media does is make plausible but false stories. The media knows that if they said that penquins were making sponges in Baghdad, no one would believe them. However if they said something like "we went to Iraq for oil", then some people starting believing it. If they keep saying this over and over again, a lot of people will start believeing it. It doesn't matter if it was false. All that matters to the public is if it is plausible. The media exploits this and uses it to boost their ratings. They honestly don't give a shit if it was true of false. All that matters to them is if the public will believe it.

Saying soemthing over and over again so people beleive it... mmm... at this point I wish I had a bunch of clips saying that Sadam has WMDs. Blame the media! Those crazy liberals are at it again aren't they? I could go on long rant about Fox but I won't. We all know how left wing they are...

WTF!!! KFC Sold their Spork Franchise to the Mexicans?!?!

No wonder Taco Bell is the only franchise to Survive the Fast Food Wars...
(Ref "Demolition Man" for those who don't get it.)


Demolition man was not just a movie it was a prophocy :)

Bush is hiring Haliburton, a company that gave VP Cheney 38 million dollars as a going away present, as one of the major contractors to build Iraq. Additionally, a good deal of Bush's extended family holds stock in Haliburton.-SH.

So? If they can do the job, then there's no reason not to choose them to do it.

That doesn't make sense. Are you joking? I think you are because no rational person would think this.

Did you read 1984?

In the book, the government of Oceania takes away almost all freedoms for security. The phrase Freedom is Slavery is showing the irony of having freedom. To preserve freedom, we have to get rid of some freedom. Think about it. We have traffic lights, so people can drive safer. The traffic lights however are in a sense taking away our freedoms. It controls when we are allowed to go and when we aren't. But in return, accidents are reduced and less people die.

Ah....the media has tricked another one. One of the many tricks that the media does is make plausible but false stories. The media knows that if they said that penquins were making sponges in Baghdad, no one would believe them. However if they said something like "we went to Iraq for oil", then some people starting believing it. If they keep saying this over and over again, a lot of people will start believeing it. It doesn't matter if it was false. All that matters to the public is if it is plausible. The media exploits this and uses it to boost their ratings. They honestly don't give a shit if it was true of false. All that matters to them is if the public will believe it.

I have a sense that you like Larry the Cable Guy.

The media, whether you wish to admit it or not, is actually biased towards whoever is in charge at the moment. They do no investigative stories, they only wait for things to come out of the woodworks.

Your feelings on 9/11 aren't that valid either. We have to be strong and realize that we could die any day. It's always been like that, dying free is a better option than being a slave.

However, I highly doubt you're serious about this, it seems like a farce. The Freedom is Slavery thing just isn't believable enough for me, no-one who preaches about 9/11 would've read 1984 and still said that. If it is a farce, good job.

LOVE IS HATE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
-SH

Where has reason gone?

It died in Kansas when the school board... wait wrong debate....

i was just wondering, how many of you read the entire news story, instead of just the headline, before running of and screaming about "Big Brother Bush?" You people are the reason I can't call myself a liberal. All the taps are checked on a weekly basis by the Justice Department for legality, which scrutinizes the situation a lot more than a just a warrant. Furthermore no there is no proof that any actual citizens have been bugged; there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about it, or else the Justice Department would have stopped it. Not only that, but this has been going on since FDR, who mastered the process of bugging civilians for the "war effort". Come on, people. Sto bringing up absolute crap and try to run a political campaign. People see this crap as indicitave of the Democratic Party's unwillingness to be serious or offer new solutions to problems, and that's only going to get more Republicans elected. and who wants that?


You mean the Justice Department run by Alberto "redifining torture" Gonzales? People under him have already shown things done by administration friendly politicians to be illeagal and unconstitutional, but have been "overruled". Forgive me if I don't trust them.

No No! WE have to get rid of traffic lights and signs, and drinking age because those are all taking away our freedom for security and safety![/sarcasm]

You don't seem to realize that my previous post was sarcastic. My point is that sometimes freedom has to be given up for security/safety. I mean we wouldn't want drunk 15 year olds driving down the highway.

Freedom is Slavery.


In that case, your new name is Toby/Number 6. Get used to it.

It died in Kansas when the school board... wait wrong debate....


i was at that funeral very sad.... :(

In that case, your new name is Toby/Number 6. Get used to it.

can i be 69?

In that case, your new name is Toby/Number 6. Get used to it.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/apathy18/1134860312304.jpg

And how does spying on the international communications of people who are known to be involved with terrorists anti-democratic? It's not being used to silence political dissent, nor is it being used to rig elections.
no . . .no yet . . . ..

no . . .no yet . . . ..
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/apathy18/1131583138869.jpg

Did you read 1984?

In the book, the government of Oceania takes away almost all freedoms for security. The phrase Freedom is Slavery is showing the irony of having freedom. To preserve freedom, we have to get rid of some freedom. Think about it. We have traffic lights, so people can drive safer. The traffic lights however are in a sense taking away our freedoms. It controls when we are allowed to go and when we aren't. But in return, accidents are reduced and less people die.
ya but where do you draw the line? do you start taking cigaretts away from smokers to protect their health? do we start listening to everyones conversations to see who's a terrorist and who is not? as a matter of fact lets just put a cammera in everyones television so that we can know what there thinking! sound good to you? well you should definatly read 1984.
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
War is peace
[sarcastic]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/apathy18/1131583138869.jpg
lol sweet

It's called Oil

Iraq has a ton of it and Bush want's it above all other things.
This is only a half-truth. The sad fact is, Bush doesn't want his cheap oil, per se, the American people do (almost unanimously).
We preach about the beauty of the unfettered market, but not when it comes to gas. Our pres had better get it for us, and it had better be cheap... or else. When gas goes up a few cents, Americans throw an embarrassingly juvenile hissy fit. We're outraged because we have to think twice before taking the urban assualt vehicle to Wal-Mart for a bucket of rocky road. Two bucks a gallon to go ten miles is too much, but 5 bucks to pay a valet to park your car 10 feet away is okay.
We should stop worrying so much about the price of gasoline and start thinking about its cost. You really wanna be patriotic? Don't change your fucking car by putting a flag on it, change your car. Nobody is using their Sports Utility Vehicles for sport, or utilities. Soccer Moms and Football Dads aren't crossing the Rockies in these tanks.
The irony is, what we love most about our cars (the feeling of "freedom" they provide) has made us slaves. Slaves to cheap oil.
Which has corrupted our politics, threatened our environment, funded our enemies, and had us doing the dirtywork for a bunch of desert royalists.
It's time we took a good, hard look at our driving. And we have to do it for ourselves because our leaders aren't going to help. Faced with our addicition, what do our leaders say? Get more of it! That'll make 'em happy!
And it does. Strange, when you consider that their answer to drug dependance is to cut off the supply.
The gasoline we purchase to take us on unnecessary trips, wherever and whenever we please, funds royal assholes who fund terrorists.
Follow the oil. It's painfully obvious what's happening. And it's our fault for not having the willpower (personal responsibility, for conservatives/libertarians) to change. God forbid we should do something drastic like change our driving habits in order to make our country a little more secure. No, instead let's clamp down on our civil liberties instead.
Yeah, that'll solve the problem.

ya but where do you draw the line? do you start taking cigaretts away from smokers to protect their health? do we start listening to everyones conversations to see who's a terrorist and who is not? as a matter of fact lets just put a cammera in everyones television so that we can know what there thinking! sound good to you? well you should definatly read 1984.
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
War is peace
[sarcastic]

We haven't crossed the line imo. I mean the government is not spying on everyone. Just a few. As for where we draw the line. I don't know. The line is more of an opinion rather than a fact. So the line can be drawn anywhere.

i was just wondering, how many of you read the entire news story, instead of just the headline, before running of and screaming about "Big Brother Bush?" You people are the reason I can't call myself a liberal. All the taps are checked on a weekly basis by the Justice Department for legality, which scrutinizes the situation a lot more than a just a warrant. Furthermore no there is no proof that any actual citizens have been bugged; there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about it, or else the Justice Department would have stopped it. Not only that, but this has been going on since FDR, who mastered the process of bugging civilians for the "war effort". Come on, people. Sto bringing up absolute crap and try to run a political campaign. People see this crap as indicitave of the Democratic Party's unwillingness to be serious or offer new solutions to problems, and that's only going to get more Republicans elected. and who wants that?
while that might satisfy YOU, that does not satisfy THE LAW which requires that warrants be issued by a judge.

as we are a country of laws, this is a bad thing.

while that might satisfy YOU, that does not satisfy THE LAW which requires that warrants be issued by a judge.

as we are a country of laws, this is a bad thing.

I don't know if this is legal or not, but what I do know is that this program prevented two terrorist attacks.

Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches.

What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said.

I don't know if this is legal or not, but what I do know is that this program prevented two terrorist attacks.
accepting that as completely true, why did the president need to act outside the law to get it done? he had plenty of time to go to congress with new proposals if existing law was insufficient.

foiling terrorist plots does not require illegal means.

foiling terrorist plots does not require illegal means.
No, it doesn't. It also shouldn't require unconstitutional "legal" means. What it does require is (gasp!) a change in the habits of the American people.
We can treat the symptoms all we want... it's not gonna stop the terrorists from popping up anytime, anywhere. Wiretaps and the like is just a playing pathetic political game kinda like whack-a-mole. :rolleyes:
The real cause isn't being addressed because it's unpopular. And being so, our leaders are far too afraid of the polls to acknowledge the elephant in the room... oil.

accepting that as completely true, why did the president need to act outside the law to get it done? he had plenty of time to go to congress with new proposals if existing law was insufficient.

foiling terrorist plots does not require illegal means.Because we did try the legal means, and guess what. it didn't work then.

Because we did try the legal means, and guess what. it didn't work then.
Do you really belive that bullshit? You really believe that anything in the PATRIOT Act would've prevented 9-11?
Is there a clause in there for gross incompetence? A special clause for a group of muslims who wanted to learn to fly a plane, but not how to land it?
For passing over direct intel?

It was in our faces, not hidden in shadowy cellphone conversations. Stop making excuses for our leaders who've let us down. We're paying attention to the man behind the curtain... are you?

Because we did try the legal means, and guess what. it didn't work then.

So this is how freedom ends then. This is where the founding principles of our society, all that made our civilization possible, are rationalized away and forgotten. We are proving that our ideals are only skin deep, that it takes only 3,000 of our countrymens' lives to sacrifice the very foundation of our country. With just eleven men and four planes Al Quaeda has destroyed our entire concept of governance. Bin Laden's goal was to expose the hypocrisy of our way of life, to demonstrate to the world that we did not truly value the freedoms we preached. Apparently there are those among us who agree with him.

In the future, when it's all over and our civil liberties have long since disappeared, the question will remain as to who caused their demise. Was it the terrorists, or we ourselves?

So this is how freedom ends then. This is where the founding principles of our society, all that made our civilization possible, are rationalized away and forgotten. We are proving that our ideals are only skin deep, that it takes only 3,000 of our countrymens' lives to sacrifice the very foundation of our country. With just eleven men and four planes Al Quaeda has destroyed our entire concept of governance. Bin Laden's goal was to expose the hypocrisy of our way of life, to demonstrate to the world that we did not truly value the freedoms we preached. Apparently there are those among us who agree with him.

In the future, when it's all over and our civil liberties have long since disappeared, the question will remain as to who caused their demise. Was it the terrorists, or we ourselves?
What's even more disgusting, is that those who would throw our basic principals out the window (and those we're supposed to be instilling in Iraq) are the same douchebags who have the nerve to call themselves patriots, and denounce anyone with a different opinion as otherwise.

They're sellout cowards, if you ask me.

Do you really belive that bullshit? You really believe that anything in the PATRIOT Act would've prevented 9-11?
Is there a clause in there for gross incompetence? A special clause for a group of muslims who wanted to learn to fly a plane, but not how to land it?
For passing over direct intel?

It was in our faces, not hidden in shadowy cellphone conversations. Stop making excuses for our leaders who've let us down. We're paying attention to the man behind the curtain... are you?
no, I don't believe that anything in the Patriot Act wouldv'e prevented 9/11. The Patriot act helps but it's not the cure all.

just remember tho. you're paying attention to the man beind the curtain. but are you paying attention to the world around you or just the man behind the curtain.

no, I don't believe that anything in the Patriot Act wouldv'e prevented 9/11. The Patriot act helps but it's not the cure all.

just remember tho. you're paying attention to the man beind the curtain. but are you paying attention to the world around you or just the man behind the curtain.

Wait, so you admit that the Patriot Act wouldn't have prevented 9/11, yet you still think it's helpful? How does the violation of basic liberties help anything? If I had the chance, I would completely shut down the Patriot Act, all airport security (just give pilots weapons and close the cockpit) and end all invasive measures by the government and the police force into the lives of individual citizens.

Sure, I'm paying attention to the world around me. I see government corruption in the name of "security" while at the same time the suppression of individual rights to protect and defend themselves.

So this is how freedom ends then. This is where the founding principles of our society, all that made our civilization possible, are rationalized away and forgotten. We are proving that our ideals are only skin deep, that it takes only 3,000 of our countrymens' lives to sacrifice the very foundation of our country. With just eleven men and four planes Al Quaeda has destroyed our entire concept of governance. Bin Laden's goal was to expose the hypocrisy of our way of life, to demonstrate to the world that we did not truly value the freedoms we preached. Apparently there are those among us who agree with him.

In the future, when it's all over and our civil liberties have long since disappeared, the question will remain as to who caused their demise. Was it the terrorists, or we ourselves?if you think that one Act will end your freedom, then you don't have much freedoms. I'm willing to restrict myself for a while to expose those who would rather kill off innocent children in the name of Freedom.

it was asked. what liberties did you lose with the Patriot Act. no one answered. sure some kids got questioned by the FBI for borrowing some books, but that's it. some kid's name ended up on the no fly list because it was similar to a terrorist's one. ok. but what Liberty did YOU personally loose?

I for one still enjoy all my freedoms. I feel safe when I fly because I know steps are being taken. sure they may fail sometimes, but they are there.

or would you rather live in a government that says "we lost 3000 people on 9/11... oh well. next order of business, cutting back on Airport security. we can sure save alot of taxpayers money there."

Wait, so you admit that the Patriot Act wouldn't have prevented 9/11, yet you still think it's helpful? How does the violation of basic liberties help anything? If I had the chance, I would completely shut down the Patriot Act, all airport security (just give pilots weapons and close the cockpit) and end all invasive measures by the government and the police force into the lives of individual citizens.

Sure, I'm paying attention to the world around me. I see government corruption in the name of "security" while at the same time the suppression of individual rights to protect and defend themselves.
What liberties did you loose?

okay since every one on this thread thinks they know everything!!!


where do babies come from?

I'll take option B. Honestly. *nod*

Hundreds of thousands of Americans sacrificed their lives to make this country what it is. I'm not going to soil their memory by corrupting this country's ideals over a few thousand. Over a handful of madmen in a religious cult.

How many threads do we need on this topic?

Hol-ee Jeesus

What does the foundation of democracy have to do with international communications?
I did a quick scan but I guessed I missed the others. My fault. But you responded didn't you.
It wasn't inernational communications it was domestic. He illegally listened in on American phone conversations.

no, I don't believe that anything in the Patriot Act wouldv'e prevented 9/11. The Patriot act helps but it's not the cure all.

just remember tho. you're paying attention to the man beind the curtain. but are you paying attention to the world around you or just the man behind the curtain.
The man behind the curtain isn't Bush, or Saddham, or even Osama Bin Laden.
He's you and me, and every other spoiled, self-centered, bratty American who'd rather blame the president, or blame our lack of freedom-hating laws, rather than blame themselves for this mess.
The real culprit here is our addiction to cheap gasoline and "limitless" oil supplies.
God forbid we should have to cut back on our dope in order to make our world a better, safer place. Our grandparents understood this back in WWII.
They had to (gasp!) make sacrifices for the war effort, including cutting back on gasoline and oil consumption. And that oil wasn't exactly funding the third reich. Our leaders have become such poll-chasing lapdogs that nobody has the balls to tell us what we need to hear... That we're funding the royalist scumbags who, in turn, fund the terrorists by guzzling gas and driving around town in our urban tanks.
PATRIOT Acts aren't going to solve the problem. Instilling a stazi-like police force won't do that. We aren't willing to do what's really necessary to make our country safe, and we'll pay for it. At the tanks, and then in our cities.

Yeah! How dare he try to protect the American people! Him and that awful Abraham Lincoln, who did even more things against "democracy!" A pox on them both! :rolleyes:
If you truly wanted to be protected then you should allow him to turn your precious country into a totlitrian state. The crime would even go down. I guess your saying FUCK democracy eh.

Ben Franklin: They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.


To paraphrase, once you give up your freedoms for safety, you will find you have neither.

That's why the Government can't be allowed to possess the power to trample on our freedoms. Not because Bush is evil, or Clinton, or anyone else. But because America IS Freedom. It is what we were founded on. On the idea that there were somethings that a government didn't have the right to gainsay. We've added to that since then, the idea that no man should be considered inherantly less than another. The idea that men and women are different but neither is superior. We should never give up our freedom to save our lives. The men who fought Britain in 1776 gave up their lives for our freedom. Are we to spit on their sacrifice? How can we do differently than lay down our own lives in the name of freedom?

The man behind the curtain isn't Bush, or Saddham, or even Osama Bin Laden.
He's you and me, and every other spoiled, self-centered, bratty American who'd rather blame the president, or blame our lack of freedom-hating laws, rather than blame themselves for this mess.
The real culprit here is our addiction to cheap gasoline and "limitless" oil supplies.
God forbid we should have to cut back on our dope in order to make our world a better, safer place. Our grandparents understood this back in WWII.
They had to (gasp!) make sacrifices for the war effort, including cutting back on gasoline and oil consumption. And that oil wasn't exactly funding the third reich. Our leaders have become such poll-chasing lapdogs that nobody has the balls to tell us what we need to hear... That we're funding the royalist scumbags who, in turn, fund the terrorists by guzzling gas and driving around town in our urban tanks.
PATRIOT Acts aren't going to solve the problem. Instilling a stazi-like police force won't do that. We aren't willing to do what's really necessary to make our country safe, and we'll pay for it. At the tanks, and then in our cities.... you know what. I agree with most that you say. What I disagree with isn't worth arguing.

You pricks need to shut the fuck up and look at the big picture. Freedom is Slavery. We have to give up some freedoms to protect others!
Remember 9/11? 4 planes were hijacked and 3,000 people died that day because we followed a flawed policy! We can not go back to those policies because it doesn't work anymore and we will risk another terrorist attack. That's a risk that we can not take. I don't want to see children lose their parents again. I don't want to see firefighters die in the service of their country again. And I definitely do not want to see any of those motherfucking terrorists killing innocent US civilians again. *sits down*
What about the all the Iraqi children who lost their parents in a war based on a lie. What about all the children in Nicaragua in the late 80s who lost their parents due to the terrorist acts of the United States. How about all the children who lost their parents in New Orleans because Bush was asleep at the post. Hmm. Maybe somone should tap Bush's phone.

Maybe somone should tap Bush's phone.
what makes you think it's not.

after all, Nixon also thought he was safe BECAUSE he was the President.

... you know what. I agree with most that you say. What I disagree with isn't worth arguing.
Holy shit, the sky is falling!!! :D

What about the all the Iraqi children who lost their parents in a war based on a lie. What about all the children in Nicaragua in the late 80s who lost their parents due to the terrorist acts of the United States. How about all the children who lost their parents in New Orleans because Bush was asleep at the post. Hmm. Maybe somone should tap Bush's phone.

You're complaining about the New Orleans incident and blaming it on Bush? That's the furthest thing from logic I've heard all day. Terrorist acts of the United States? What biased source have you been reading from? War Based on a lie? Point being that those are called accidental deaths, not intentional deaths. Yes, they are sad, but how many would have been dead anyway with Saddam still in power?

And, frankly, I don't care if some FBI Agent hears every word I say. Does it affect me at all? No. Anyone who complains about this is either doing something illegal and deserves to be caught, or is a wuss.

So this is how freedom ends then. This is where the founding principles of our society, all that made our civilization possible, are rationalized away and forgotten. We are proving that our ideals are only skin deep, that it takes only 3,000 of our countrymens' lives to sacrifice the very foundation of our country. With just eleven men and four planes Al Quaeda has destroyed our entire concept of governance. Bin Laden's goal was to expose the hypocrisy of our way of life, to demonstrate to the world that we did not truly value the freedoms we preached. Apparently there are those among us who agree with him.

In the future, when it's all over and our civil liberties have long since disappeared, the question will remain as to who caused their demise. Was it the terrorists, or we ourselves?
I couldn't have said it better myself.
By getting rid of your own civil liberties you are letting the terrorists win!!!! Terrorists win by causing terror. Sounds like a lot of people in the US are being terrorized into giving up their freedoms. :(

if you think that one Act will end your freedom, then you don't have much freedoms. I'm willing to restrict myself for a while to expose those who would rather kill off innocent children in the name of Freedom.

it was asked. what liberties did you lose with the Patriot Act. no one answered. sure some kids got questioned by the FBI for borrowing some books, but that's it. some kid's name ended up on the no fly list because it was similar to a terrorist's one. ok. but what Liberty did YOU personally loose?

I for one still enjoy all my freedoms. I feel safe when I fly because I know steps are being taken. sure they may fail sometimes, but they are there.

or would you rather live in a government that says "we lost 3000 people on 9/11... oh well. next order of business, cutting back on Airport security. we can sure save alot of taxpayers money there."


so . . .correct me if im wrong but you dont think its important that people are loosing civil liberties as long as your's are not at stake??? how does that make any sense at all? what you in essence saying here is that if everyone except you is placed under survalance and not allowed to think or do any thing the government wants then its fine???

Anyone who complains about this is either doing something illegal and deserves to be caught, or is a wuss.
I congragulate you on being a model citizen... of the old communist USSR.

Well done, sir!

You're complaining about the New Orleans incident and blaming it on Bush? That's the furthest thing from logic I've heard all day. Terrorist acts of the United States? What biased source have you been reading from? War Based on a lie? Point being that those are called accidental deaths, not intentional deaths. Yes, they are sad, but how many would have been dead anyway with Saddam still in power?

And, frankly, I don't care if some FBI Agent hears every word I say. Does it affect me at all? No. Anyone who complains about this is either doing something illegal and deserves to be caught, or is a wuss.
so if you said to your freind that you didnt like the bush administration and then the next day you are fired from your job because your boss doesn't agree with your views then thats not a problem?

I congragulate you on being a model citizen... of the old communist USSR.

Well done, sir!

On a more serious note, it's either having an old guy who's job is to protect me to listen to a few conversations, or risk dying. It's plain and simple. Anything else is just political spin.

so . . .correct me if im wrong but you dont think its important that people are loosing civil liberties as long as your's are not at stake??? how does that make any sense at all? what you in essence saying here is that if everyone except you is placed under survalance and not allowed to think or do any thing the government wants then its fine???
I can be under Survalance right now. You know what, I don't care because I have nothing to hide.

My phones can be tapped, same thing.. I got nothing to hide.

MIB's can come and question me, and guess what. Nothing to Hide.

Now if a child Preditor is concerned about the Authorities finding out he's out there... well, would you want him/her protected?

I, for one, am willing to be inconvienced to help insure the saftey of others.
do you complain if the cops pull you over for a random Alcohol test?

so if you said to your freind that you didnt like the bush administration and then the next day you are fired from your job because your boss doesn't agree with your views then thats not a problem?

Where in the WORLD did that come from?

Ben Franklin: They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.


To paraphrase, once you give up your freedoms for safety, you will find you have neither.

That's why the Government can't be allowed to possess the power to trample on our freedoms. Not because Bush is evil, or Clinton, or anyone else. But because America IS Freedom. It is what we were founded on. On the idea that there were somethings that a government didn't have the right to gainsay. We've added to that since then, the idea that no man should be considered inherantly less than another. The idea that men and women are different but neither is superior. We should never give up our freedom to save our lives. The men who fought Britain in 1776 gave up their lives for our freedom. Are we to spit on their sacrifice? How can we do differently than lay down our own lives in the name of freedom?

I agree with you completely

okay since every one on this thread thinks they know everything!!!


where do babies come from?
The stork?

Where in the WORLD did that come from?
lol not sure . . .somethin a heared from a freind of mine cept' it was email and not a phone . . .

I congragulate you on being a model citizen... of the old communist USSR.

Well done, sir!


actuly it was just the USSR see the Union of soviet socilist republics was a country or "republic of a sort" while Communist is a Economical belief... which the USSR was certanly not communist if you see how its officials lived in great homes etc... but saying Communist USSR is as redundant as saying You are a model citizin of the Capatalist/socialist United States of America.

You're complaining about the New Orleans incident and blaming it on Bush? That's the furthest thing from logic I've heard all day. Terrorist acts of the United States? What biased source have you been reading from? War Based on a lie? Point being that those are called accidental deaths, not intentional deaths. Yes, they are sad, but how many would have been dead anyway with Saddam still in power?

And, frankly, I don't care if some FBI Agent hears every word I say. Does it affect me at all? No. Anyone who complains about this is either doing something illegal and deserves to be caught, or is a wuss.
I'm not blaming New Oreleans on Bush. I'm saying he acted way too slow to help out the people.
The source about US based terrorism is hardly bias it's Noam Chomsky. I know all you anti-democratic Americans don't like him but the rest of the world does.
Bush started the war in Iraq saying that Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction. I call that a lie.

I'm not blaming New Oreleans on Bush. I'm saying he acted way too slow to help out the people.
The source about US based terrorism is hardly bias it's Noam Chomsky. I know all you anti-democratic Americans don't like him but the rest of the world doesn.
Bush started the war in Iraq saying that Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction. I call that a lie.

And I call you completely ignorant. When did this become a "let's bash Americans" topic?

And I refuse to believe in "US terrorism" until you can prove to me that the US committed acts of terrorism.

Bin Laden is in Newfoundland, Canada. He keeps using aliases:
Bin drinking
Bin puking
Bin losing my job
Bin drinking (hiccup)
Bin smoking
Bin screwing

And I call you completely ignorant. When did this become a "let's bash Americans" topic?

And I refuse to believe in "US terrorism" until you can prove to me that the US committed acts of terrorism.
In 1986 the US broke international laws by creating an army to bring down a legitimate government they did not agree with. They knew they were breaking international laws and when the UN Security Council tried to pass a motion saying that UN countries would not break international laws the US vetoed it.

And I call you completely ignorant. When did this become a "let's bash Americans" topic?

And I refuse to believe in "US terrorism" until you can prove to me that the US committed acts of terrorism.
hey im canadian its my hobby:p

I'm not blaming New Oreleans on Bush. I'm saying he acted way too slow to help out the people.
The source about US based terrorism is hardly bias it's Noam Chomsky. I know all you anti-democratic Americans don't like him but the rest of the world doesn.
Bush started the war in Iraq saying that Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction. I call that a lie.
President Bush could not act on New Orleans. Had he done so then he couldv'e been impeached.

the Local and State Governments first needed to turn all power of control over to the Federal Government, then the President could act.

they didn't and so He couldn't

That is why a navel ship sat outside New Orleans and could not do anything. The moment they did, President Bush wouldv'e been guilty of Overstepping his bounds and infringing on State/Local Government.

Wake up Clinton was in bed with Haliburton as well.... GOD please somone open the eyes of the sheep and show them how bad both parties are! Where has reason gone?

If Clinton was in power, and invading a semi-oil rich country with his friends in tow, I'd truly care. However, you're right. I don't trust politicians, truly any of them. They're paid millions by corporations, and only hundreds of thousands by us. Right now democrats are powerless and kind of embaressing as a party. Also known as: not a threat to anything in general.

The fact that the white house speaker said "This is time for the democrats to get out of the way" of the republican machine, openly no less, is evidence of this. I'm not concerned about the democrats right now, I'm concerned about the party in power usurping every goddamned freedom I have.

Does the fact one politician does something, make it ok for every politician to do it? If we knew for a fact every politician kills a hooker and then covers it up, would that be allright? If we knew for a fact every politician lies to our faces, and then does what they want, is that allright? We know the last one for a fact fairly well, yet we seem to think that it IS allright.

We hire these bastards. They're not OUR bosses. It's quite the opposite. WE pay their salary. WE say when they stay and when they go. Sometimes through election, others have gone through assasination. Is this the typical feeling when you give an employee a very important job and they fuck it up, but since you can't fire them yet, you deny it?

"Oh, well you know, Anderson messed up the accounting software too, so Bush can fuck up Katrina by hiring his nephew"

"Well... I know technically he's supposed to be following the law, but look at that chimpy mother-fucker, he can't help it."

"He really shouldn't detain thousands of people in secret prisons, and in Guantonamo, but c'mon, what would you do?"

When an employee fucks up, you fire them. We have that same system, although it's more like a board decision. If the houses of Congress weren't such pussies about it, like the democrats are about doing anything, we'd have him out. Bush right now has the lowest approval rating from registered voters, because he's doing shit like this.

-SH.

actuly it was just the USSR see the Union of soviet socilist republics was a country or "republic of a sort" while Communist is a Economical belief... which the USSR was certanly not communist if you see how its officials lived in great homes etc... but saying Communist USSR is as redundant as saying You are a model citizin of the Capatalist/socialist United States of America.
Where's SuperPower's graphic of "Not this shit again!" when I need it?

I'm willing to restrict myself for a while...
I for one still enjoy all my freedoms.

So which is it? Are you restricting your freedoms or do you still enjoy them? Also, how long is "a while"? Please don't tell me those responsible for taking away our liberties will decide when those liberties will be restored.

As to your justification, if it can be applied to one law then it can be applied to any law. Surely you realize how dangerous such a precedent is. I will not argue with you over whether or not the Patriot Act restricts civil liberties, because frankly if you do not see that then nothing I show you will sway you.

hey hey i got a question... anyone heard of the writ of habeus corpus

Where's SuperPower's graphic of "Not this shit again!" when I need it?


just making a point its ridiculous that i am that anal to point that out... but really almost everyone who has posted on this topic has been nitpicking every last word just making a stupid point.

So which is it? Are you restricting your freedoms or do you still enjoy them? Also, how long is "a while"? Please don't tell me those responsible for taking away our liberties will decide when those liberties will be restored.

As to your justification, if it can be applied to one law then it can be applied to any law. Surely you realize how dangerous such a precedent is. I will not argue with you over whether or not the Patriot Act restricts civil liberties, because frankly if you do not see that then nothing I show you will sway you.
Considering the fact that the attack on the WTC was the very definition of a faith-based initiative, I say we restrict religious freedoms first.
I mean, it's the least we could do. ;)

So which is it? Are you restricting your freedoms or do you still enjoy them? Also, how long is "a while"? Please don't tell me those responsible for taking away our liberties will decide when those liberties will be restored.

As to your justification, if it can be applied to one law then it can be applied to any law. Surely you realize how dangerous such a precedent is. I will not argue with you over whether or not the Patriot Act restricts civil liberties, because frankly if you do not see that then nothing I show you will sway you.what ever freedoms are deemed necesary to catch those terrorists.
as for how long. till every terror group is elimiated or made Impotent is nice, but I'll leave that up to the politicians. We gave them those powers by electing them.

I've read the Patriot Act, and I agree with most of it on a security standpoint.

Btw. been out of touch for the past couple of days, did anyone know if the Patriot Act extension passed? I thought it didn't.

alright ill explain it then.

The Writ of Habeus Corpus - In time of Clear and Present danger (basically meaning war) some freedoms can be suspended in order to protect the people of the United States and to protect our soldiers.

Effects... during war some freedom of press is restricted like say for instance broadcasting troop movements.

and your right to privacy can be suspended in order to protect Americans.

Who said it Abraham lincol introduced it in the civil war. The supreme Court APPROVED of it...

the patriot act is just an extension of it people therefor is completely legal.

alright ill explain it then.

The Writ of Habeus Corpus - In time of Clear and Present danger (basically meaning war) some freedoms can be suspended in order to protect the people of the United States and to protect our soldiers.

Effects... during war some freedom of press is restricted like say for instance broadcasting troop movements.

and your right to privacy can be suspended in order to protect Americans.

Who said it Abraham lincol introduced it in the civil war. The supreme Court APPROVED of it...

the patriot act is just an extension of it people therefor is completely legal.

I'm sorry. This thread is about manufactured outrage over losing liberties that haven't really existed in decades and creating things to worry about and defend while calling the other guy "misinformed."

Actual facts and legal precedent really don't have any place here. :p

I'm sorry. This thread is about manufactured outrage over losing liberties that haven't really existed in decades and creating things to worry about and defend while calling the other guy "misinformed."

Actual facts and legal precedent really don't have any place here. :p



LOL I LOVE IT! finaly somone else with a sense of humor! kudos!

I'm sorry. This thread is about manufactured outrage over losing liberties that haven't really existed in decades and creating things to worry about and defend while calling the other guy "misinformed."

Actual facts and legal precedent really don't have any place here. :p


GASP!! CALL 911!! THERES ACTUALLY SOMEONE ELSE HERE WHO USES SARCASM!!!!!!!! IM GONNA HAVE A HEART ATTACK!!!!!!:eek: :D

You have to love the justifications people will use.

"Street signs keep me safe and that's good, so a Big Brother government that restricts essential freedoms to keep me safe must be good too!"

There are days when I sympathise with anarchists...

You have to love the justifications people will use.

"Street signs keep me safe and that's good, so a Big Brother government that restricts essential freedoms to keep me safe must be good too!"

There are days when I sympathise with anarchists...


dont twists peoples words when you do that you just dont understand what was being said

dont twists peoples words when you do that you just dont understand what was being said

Was that not the logic being used before? Was there not an argument being presented earlier that used that exact logic to justify this?

I understand, and reject fully, the presented argument.

Was that not the logic being used before? Was there not an argument being presented earlier that used that exact logic to justify this?

I understand, and reject fully, the presented argument.


the message that person put wasnt a justification it was to prove a point. people said we should have absolute freedom...the point proven was that our freedoms are restricted everyday for the betterment of everyone not just me the founding fathers understood that or esle they never would have made the constitution cause that itself limits some freedoms

So this is how freedom ends then. This is where the founding principles of our society, all that made our civilization possible, are rationalized away and forgotten. We are proving that our ideals are only skin deep, that it takes only 3,000 of our countrymens' lives to sacrifice the very foundation of our country. With just eleven men and four planes Al Quaeda has destroyed our entire concept of governance. Bin Laden's goal was to expose the hypocrisy of our way of life, to demonstrate to the world that we did not truly value the freedoms we preached. Apparently there are those among us who agree with him.

In the future, when it's all over and our civil liberties have long since disappeared, the question will remain as to who caused their demise. Was it the terrorists, or we ourselves?

Scary, but I agree with much of what you say (and say well). That's why oversight and accountability is important - more important than it seems to be these days.

if you think that one Act will end your freedom, then you don't have much freedoms. I'm willing to restrict myself for a while to expose those who would rather kill off innocent children in the name of Freedom.

*snip*

I for one still enjoy all my freedoms. I feel safe when I fly because I know steps are being taken. sure they may fail sometimes, but they are there.

The detention af american citizens as "illegal combatants" without access to the courts, the existence of secret U.S. prisons abroad, the CIA's detention overseas of innocent foreign nationals, and the discovery that the military has been engaged in domestic spying. It is not one act that is the problem, it is the steady erosion of freedoms and civil rights that is (and should be) worrying - in addition to having an administration who doesn't see the problem with not complying with the lawful procedures that are there for a reason.

You might still think that you enjoy all your freedoms, but with such a trend continuing unchecked you might one day wake up to find that the freedoms that you thought you had are gone.

But that might be a price you are willing to pay, I don't know.

dont twists peoples words when you do that you just dont understand what was being said

Weren't you the guy who got a stiffy over this gem?

... and defend while calling the other guy "misinformed."


Didn't take long to figure out who that guy was. :p

Scary, but I agree with much of what you say (and say well). That's why oversight and accountability is important - more important than it seems to be these days.



The detention af american citizens as "illegal combatants" without access to the courts, the existence of secret U.S. prisons abroad, the CIA's detention
But that might be a price you are willing to pay, I don't know.


wait wait wait....you have a problem with secret prisons??

the message that person put wasnt a justification it was to prove a point. people said we should have absolute freedom...the point proven was that our freedoms are restricted everyday for the betterment of everyone not just me the founding fathers understood that or esle they never would have made the constitution cause that itself limits some freedoms

The founding father's made a point of trying to limit the abuses of the legal system, it was only when "honest" Abe Lincoln (representing a party rooted deeply in the desire to "reform" society to fit their narrow-minded view of "correct" action) took those rights away that it became an issue.

Street regulations do one thing. They are open regulations with open prosecution where everyone is aware of legal enforcement. Monitering communications secretly without the most importart part of any Democracy (you know.. The people?) being aware of it smells to me of persecution for what you say, not what you do. I doubt that most of these "taps" pan out anything, but they can serve both as a form of intimidation and as a form of persecution for beleifs.

This "security" is the root of tyrany, and this logic is the root of control.

Weren't you the guy who got a stiffy over this gem?



Didn't take long to figure out who that guy was. :p


hey eichen ......if ure gonna be fresh im gonna go back to sleeping wit ure mom:upyours:

The founding father's made a point of trying to limit the abuses of the legal system, it was only when "honest" Abe Lincoln (representing a party rooted deeply in the desire to "reform" society to fit their narrow-minded view of "correct" action) took those rights away that it became an issue.

Street regulations do one thing. They are open regulations with open prosecution where everyone is aware of legal enforcement. Monitering communications secretly without the most importart part of any Democracy (you know.. The people?) being aware of it smells to me of persecution for what you say, not what you do. I doubt that most of these "taps" pan out anything, but they can serve both as a form of intimidation and as a form of persecution for beleifs.

This "security" is the root of tyrany, and this logic is the root of control.


um yeah were persecuting people for beliefs.......for their beliefs in wanting to blow us all up..

fisrt, i would like to state that George W. Bush is a hypocritical moron with a speech impedimant that shouldn't even be consider human becouse he's so idiotic and the only reason that he is president is cuz he had lots of help from his father, mr. president and his brother, the governer of florida....i think....but anyway, its his fault more people are dying in iraq and he should be fired from his job as president, whatever thats called...
he claims to support democracy, but that dumb redneck republican is trying to force issues and politics amongst other things upon iraq when they clearly dont want them, and hes the one who forced sudam hussain to burn the oil wells in iraq and force gas prices in america to rocket up forcing our economy to struggle more than we already are with a moron like that for president.

and just for the heck of it, lets decode the word "politics"

first, poli, which actually means 'many' and then comes tics, which just happen to be blood sucking little creatures that are commonly disliked throughout the world. so it basically means alot of blood-sucking-evil-unliked-creatures.

death to bush, the dumb redneck........

um yeah were persecuting people for beliefs.......for their beliefs in wanting to blow us all up..

Gross generalizations as a support for fear and hate-mongering are such fun!

The problem with the oversimplification being used in this case is that this kind of monitering will do little to no actual good for catching terrorist agencies. Most of these groups are smart enough to know to avoid using such easily tapped forms of communication to pass messages. The odds that we're going to catch a terrorist who is a real threat to people's well-beings using these measures is next to nil. Successful terrorists either are or are controlled by very, very smart people.

If this is the case, what purpose does this policy support? Probably allowing taps into the communications of the "Threats" presented by such devious groups as those evil protesters the pentagon is watching (that is if our government is actually capable of communicating between different branches of defense. :rolleyes: )

The detention af american citizens as "illegal combatants" without access to the courts, the existence of secret U.S. prisons abroad, the CIA's detention overseas of innocent foreign nationals, and the discovery that the military has been engaged in domestic spying. It is not one act that is the problem, it is the steady erosion of freedoms and civil rights that is (and should be) worrying - in addition to having an administration who doesn't see the problem with not complying with the lawful procedures that are there for a reason.

You might still think that you enjoy all your freedoms, but with such a trend continuing unchecked you might one day wake up to find that the freedoms that you thought you had are gone.

But that might be a price you are willing to pay, I don't know.
ahh.. so that's what you're worried about. To tell the truth so am I, but why am I not getting all Huffy about it?

Simple. Our Government has these checks and balances in place. it is impossible for one person or even one party to take total control. There must be several changes to occure to open up the Government for a Dictatorship. and trust me, it hasn't started... yet.

untill I see those particular signs, I will still hold faith in our Government because it's the imperfections that make our Government perfect... in my eyes anyway.

hey eichen ......if ure gonna be fresh im gonna go back to sleeping wit ure mom:upyours:
She wanted me to ask ya, did you ever get that "You've got herpes, sorry!" email she was gonna send?

[snip]
I pray you're not a puppet, for as a newbie, then you wouldn't know that calling for an Assination of anyone can bring down harsh mod action against you.

I pray you're not a puppet, for as a newbie, then you wouldn't know that calling for an Assination of anyone can bring down harsh mod action against you.
yeah...sorry about that, im gonna go change it now....but i still think it should happen, and im not a puppet, i just have my own opinions of things around me.

fisrt, i would like to state that George W. Bush is a hypocritical moron with a speech impedimant that shouldn't even be consider human becouse he's so idiotic
hello mr intollerant... you yell at us for judging

and the only reason that he is president is cuz he had lots of help from his father, mr. president and his brother, the governer of florida

well this is just wrong. after all the recounts were done and all that stuff happened the pollls still showed bush won by some 500 votes. and all this stuff about people not knowing who they voted for is stupid...it was an arrow that pointed to the person u want if u cant understand that u shouldnt be allowed to vote.

....i think....
yeah im being negative but it think this one is questionable

but anyway, its his fault more people are dying in iraq and he should be assasinated.

yeah because um bush is there with an uzi killing an american soldiers....im sorry its the insurgents who dont understand that they lost and are still attacking soldiers.

he claims to support democracy, but that dumb redneck republican is trying to force issues and politics amongst other things upon iraq when they clearly dont want them,
yeah thats why everyones happy now that theres elections going on....thats why like a bunch of people voted.... thats why people are signing up to be police officers in their new country.

and hes the one who forced sudam hussain to burn the oil wells in iraq and force gas prices in america to rocket up forcing our economy to struggle more than we already are with a moron like that for president.
yup.. bush called sadam and said hey burn your oil wells so that my country will suffer... you are just .......delusional
are gas prices soard because of natural disasters and price gouging by the oil componies which has nothing to do with bush..


and just for the heck of it, lets decode the word "politics"

first, poli, which actually means 'many' and then comes tics, which just happen to be blood sucking little creatures that are commonly disliked throughout the world. so it basically means alot of blood-sucking-evil-unliked-creatures.

death to bush, the dumb redneck........

your not the first to come up with that dont feel creative.

you sir need to stop accepting everything the farleft forces down your throat as truth and investigate some things for yourself and then form your OWN opinion

yeah...sorry about that, im gonna go change it now....but i still think it should happen, and im not a puppet, i just have my own opinions of things around me.
don't say kill (or any form of lifetaking.) just call for his impeachment or removal from office. it's safer and still get's your hatred for President Bush across. ;)

Just don't wanna see anyone get banned or whatnot on their FIRST post.

alright ill explain it then.

The Writ of Habeus Corpus - In time of Clear and Present danger (basically meaning war) some freedoms can be suspended in order to protect the people of the United States and to protect our soldiers.

Effects... during war some freedom of press is restricted like say for instance broadcasting troop movements.

and your right to privacy can be suspended in order to protect Americans.

Who said it Abraham lincol introduced it in the civil war. The supreme Court APPROVED of it...

the patriot act is just an extension of it people therefor is completely legal.


The Writ of Habeus Corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_corpus): A legal proceeding in which an individual held in custody can challenge the propriety of that custody under the law. A petitioner (the individual in custody) files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his custody violates the law. The writ, if granted, is addressed to the custodian (warden, jailer) of the petitioner, directing that the custodian release the petitioner. The writ applies to almost all forms of official detention, civil or criminal, and was also employed in cases of imprisonment for private debt. In many jurisdictions today the writ can also be issued against private individuals.



Tarsonis, where did you get your definition from?

The Writ of Habeus Corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_corpus): A legal proceeding in which an individual held in custody can challenge the propriety of that custody under the law. A petitioner (the individual in custody) files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his custody violates the law. The writ, if granted, is addressed to the custodian (warden, jailer) of the petitioner, directing that the custodian release the petitioner. The writ applies to almost all forms of official detention, civil or criminal, and was also employed in cases of imprisonment for private debt. In many jurisdictions today the writ can also be issued against private individuals.




Tarsonis, where did you get your definition from?
I'm not sure what definition Tarsy intended, but Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the civil war.

don't say kill (or any form of lifetaking.) just call for his impeachment or removal from office. it's safer and still get's your hatred for President Bush across. ;)

Just don't wanna see anyone get banned or whatnot on their FIRST post.
i did , and that other guy who called me a moron:
first: i just so happen to be a girl
second: i am to young to vote,
and third: i dont really care what you think and just because you called me stupid and a puppet for bending at what other people think does not mean i am going to change my opinion at all, and the thing about politics, i know im not the first one to say that you ignorant moron, i have heard it from other people before, and in case you didn't notice, i did mention that i only posted that just for fun, so you dont need to go and call me a moron for it, so just leave me alone, i dont make personal attacks to people that can actually hear me, and i highly doubt that our president is actually monitering this thread, so shut up.

ahh.. so that's what you're worried about. To tell the truth so am I, but why am I not getting all Huffy about it?

Simple. Our Government has these checks and balances in place. it is impossible for one person or even one party to take total control. There must be several changes to occure to open up the Government for a Dictatorship. and trust me, it hasn't started... yet.

untill I see those particular signs, I will still hold faith in our Government because it's the imperfections that make our Government perfect... in my eyes anyway.
err . . .i think i read somewhere (sry that source sux lol) that one of the first steps towards becoming a dictatorship is to use fear and hate to control a population usually done through wars and fear mongering.
course "i think i read somewhere" isnt to reliable so w/e

the next person to vote for bush... deserve a 6000 to 10,000 bullets to their head.

err . . .i think i read somewhere (sry that source sux lol) that one of the first steps towards becoming a dictatorship is to use fear and hate to control a population usually done through wars and fear mongering.
course "i think i read somewhere" isnt to reliable so w/e
every President during war uses fear and hate. that's not the start of the decline of Democracy. if you think about it, and learn how our government both works and don't work, you'll see those checks and balances too as well as those tell tales.

the next person to vote for bush... deserve a 6000 to 10,000 bullets to their head.
I bet you were spending your time slowly reading through the last eleven pages, concentrating hard and quietly contemplating what to say... right?

the next person to vote for bush... deserve a 6000 to 10,000 bullets to their head.

Ahh yes, The "kill people for their political beliefs" angle.

A staple of forumites.

i did , and that other guy who called me a moron:
first: i just so happen to be a girl
second: i am to young to vote,
and third: i dont really care what you think and just because you called me stupid and a puppet for bending at what other people think does not mean i am going to change my opinion at all, and the thing about politics, i know im not the first one to say that you ignorant moron, i have heard it from other people before, and in case you didn't notice, i did mention that i only posted that just for fun, so you dont need to go and call me a moron for it, so just leave me alone, i dont make personal attacks to people that can actually hear me, and i highly doubt that our president is actually monitering this thread, so shut up.

me....ignorant.....riigggggghhhhhhhttttt

I bet you were spending your time slowly reading through the last eleven pages, concentrating hard and quietly contemplating what to say... right?
Eichen... we may not agree on alot of things. and we may find ourselves agreeing on some things... but never let it be said that I don't enjoy your posts. :D

Jesus, this thing's gone to hell since I left...

and thankyou (im serious) to people who corrected me on the habeus corpus thing...its been a while since that part of history class any way lincoln still presented the part of clear and present danger...

and btw seiden women belong in the kitchen not the public forum (sarcasm anyone)

I bet you were spending your time slowly reading through the last eleven pages, concentrating hard and quietly contemplating what to say... right?


Make that 12.... :D ...

every President during war uses fear and hate. that's not the start of the decline of Democracy. if you think about it, and learn how our government both works and don't work, you'll see those checks and balances too as well as those tell tales.
does anyone else see something wrong with "every President during war uses fear and hate." or is it just me???
as to the second part im Canadian we dont need checks and balances cause our government cant do nethin without getting overthrown neway;)

Eichen... we may not agree on alot of things. and we may find ourselves agreeing on some things... but never let it be said that I don't enjoy your posts. :D
Actually, depending on the subject at hand, we probably agree more than you think. ;)

hello mr intollerant... you yell at us for judging



well this is just wrong. after all the recounts were done and all that stuff happened the pollls still showed bush won by some 500 votes. and all this stuff about people not knowing who they voted for is stupid...it was an arrow that pointed to the person u want if u cant understand that u shouldnt be allowed to vote.


yeah im being negative but it think this one is questionable



yeah because um bush is there with an uzi killing an american soldiers....im sorry its the insurgents who dont understand that they lost and are still attacking soldiers.


yeah thats why everyones happy now that theres elections going on....thats why like a bunch of people voted.... thats why people are signing up to be police officers in their new country.


yup.. bush called sadam and said hey burn your oil wells so that my country will suffer... you are just .......delusional
are gas prices soard because of natural disasters and price gouging by the oil componies which has nothing to do with bush..




your not the first to come up with that dont feel creative.

you sir need to stop accepting everything the farleft forces down your throat as truth and investigate some things for yourself and then form your OWN opinion

lol i agree with most but id say the worlds runnin out of gas rather than disasters sending them up . . .either way . . . . . one other point thow . . i gotta say that bush's plan for after the war with Iraq was non-existant so he did cause the loss of lives for many American soldiers

lol i agree with most but id say the worlds runnin out of gas rather than disasters sending them up . . .either way . . . . . one other point thow . . i gotta say that bush's plan for after the war with Iraq was non-existant so he did cause the loss of lives for many American soldiers


we have an exit plan......its just not fullfilled yet....we got the government now we gotta finish training their army..

Yes, no, and yes. My computer's actions are constantly being monitored by the government. My home is technically not "bugged" (though it is indirectly through the monitoring of the computer). I don't go to church, but from what I hear from my friends who do go, Bush is often brought up as a topic.



Define decency. I think Howard Stern is extremely decent.



http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

OWNED


It amazes me when people scream out about how they either hate or love Bush and no nothing of what they speak. I've read so many ill informed posts here, most by "Bush-lovers" as they tend to get their news from one source only. Statistics show that those who get their news from Fox news only are almost 2/3 more likely to hold an erroneous view of events. Eg. 2/3 of people who only watch Fox believed that stockpiles of WMD were found in Iraq. Alsthough the Duelfer report to the CIA negates this, they still will fight like hell to claim they are correct. My point being, try to get your news from as many sources as possible, domestic and international. Then, once you've been able to process it all make a decision. Why don't most people do this as it seems to be logical? To quote Bush, "It's hard work...now watch this drive." Compiling information and coming to a well informed decision is not quite as easy as listening to John Gibson tell you about the white, christian victimhood re: Xmas.
First, congress wasn't involved in the wiretapping as it was done by executive order. Next, there have been over 30,000 erroneous wiretaps as per the fbi report out last month. Then, there's the President, up until May2004, who had no idea there was a difference between SHia and Sunni (Newsweek). Join that with a President who called the Constitution "just a God Damned piece of paper" and people have good reason to be worried. Bush trying to stop terrorists in Iraq? The two majority parties elected in Iraq were reponsible for terrorist attacks in Lebenon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia against American interests. They are supported by the Iranian ruling party who just loves the US? Finally, its always said that the devil is in the details, and you damn people just don't care enough to learn the details. You listen to the soundbytes and the slogans that politicians and "journalists" say and take them as gospel. You know very little about your own country and even less than that about US Geopolitical impact. Just keep telling yourself "they hate us for our freedom" so you don't have to think of why they really do. If the American public were vigelent about politics, and apathetic about Survivor, maybe we'd have some hope.

Frustated American, Marine, child of God.

does anyone else see something wrong with "every President during war uses fear and hate." or is it just me???
as to the second part im Canadian we dont need checks and balances cause our government cant do nethin without getting overthrown neway;)
ever hear of a President using encouraging words and Motivtional sloagans to get a people to back a War?

ever hear of a President using encouraging words and Motivtional sloagans to get a people to back a War?
yep Churchill . . . oh wait primeminister . . . . . but i was close . . . wasn't I?

It amazes me when people scream out about how they either hate or love Bush and no nothing of what they speak. I've read so many ill informed posts here, most by "Bush-lovers" as they tend to get their news from one source only. Statistics show that those who get their news from Fox news only are almost 2/3 more likely to hold an erroneous view of events. Eg. 2/3 of people who only watch Fox believed that stockpiles of WMD were found in Iraq. Alsthough the Duelfer report to the CIA negates this, they still will fight like hell to claim they are correct. My point being, try to get your news from as many sources as possible, domestic and international. Then, once you've been able to process it all make a decision. Why don't most people do this as it seems to be logical? To quote Bush, "It's hard work...now watch this drive." Compiling information and coming to a well informed decision is not quite as easy as listening to John Gibson tell you about the white, christian victimhood re: Xmas.
First, congress wasn't involved in the wiretapping as it was done by executive order. Next, there have been over 30,000 erroneous wiretaps as per the fbi report out last month. Then, there's the President, up until May2004, who had no idea there was a difference between SHia and Sunni (Newsweek). Join that with a President who called the Constitution "just a God Damned piece of paper" and people have good reason to be worried. Bush trying to stop terrorists in Iraq? The two majority parties elected in Iraq were reponsible for terrorist attacks in Lebenon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia against American interests. They are supported by the Iranian ruling party who just loves the US? Finally, its always said that the devil is in the details, and you damn people just don't care enough to learn the details. You listen to the soundbytes and the slogans that politicians and "journalists" say and take them as gospel. You know very little about your own country and even less than that about US Geopolitical impact. Just keep telling yourself "they hate us for our freedom" so you don't have to think of why they really do. If the American public were vigelent about politics, and apathetic about Survivor, maybe we'd have some hope.

Frustated American, Marine, child of God.


I read the globe ;)

It amazes me when people scream out about how they either hate or love Bush and no nothing of what they speak. I've read so many ill informed posts here, most by "Bush-lovers" as they tend to get their news from one source only. Statistics show that those who get their news from Fox news only are almost 2/3 more likely to hold an erroneous view of events. Eg. 2/3 of people who only watch Fox believed that stockpiles of WMD were found in Iraq. Alsthough the Duelfer report to the CIA negates this, they still will fight like hell to claim they are correct. My point being, try to get your news from as many sources as possible, domestic and international. Then, once you've been able to process it all make a decision. Why don't most people do this as it seems to be logical? To quote Bush, "It's hard work...now watch this drive." Compiling information and coming to a well informed decision is not quite as easy as listening to John Gibson tell you about the white, christian victimhood re: Xmas.
First, congress wasn't involved in the wiretapping as it was done by executive order. Next, there have been over 30,000 erroneous wiretaps as per the fbi report out last month. Then, there's the President, up until May2004, who had no idea there was a difference between SHia and Sunni (Newsweek). Join that with a President who called the Constitution "just a God Damned piece of paper" and people have good reason to be worried. Bush trying to stop terrorists in Iraq? The two majority parties elected in Iraq were reponsible for terrorist attacks in Lebenon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia against American interests. They are supported by the Iranian ruling party who just loves the US? Finally, its always said that the devil is in the details, and you damn people just don't care enough to learn the details. You listen to the soundbytes and the slogans that politicians and "journalists" say and take them as gospel. You know very little about your own country and even less than that about US Geopolitical impact. Just keep telling yourself "they hate us for our freedom" so you don't have to think of why they really do. If the American public were vigelent about politics, and apathetic about Survivor, maybe we'd have some hope.

Frustated American, Marine, child of God.


first of all to you being a Marine i wanna thank you for your service to this country. and second i have to agree with you on most things but not on others... for instance the statistics and the newsweek articles... all released by whom... the farleft who think fox news is evil and are anitbush... im not saying theyre wrong im just saying keep that in mind when you read these things

ever hear of a President using encouraging words and Motivtional sloagans to get a people to back a War?


dude honestly every war has motivational slogans... just look at posters from ww11 the uncle sam poster...most succesful war poaster in history

yep Churchill . . . oh wait primeminister . . . . . but i was close . . . wasn't I?
ehh... close enough. but in reality, the war closer to England so the Fear and hatred was there already.

infact, so were the bombs, as well as the enemy... think they also contributed in the rallying of the troops.

ehh... close enough. but in reality, the war closer to England so the Fear and hatred was there already.

infact, so were the bombs, as well as the enemy... think they also contributed in the rallying of the troops.
ya thats actually very true people will be much more willing to fight if they think they've got something to lose

Ok, here's one for ya: you're saying that Bush's wiretapping is unconstitutional. Now, let's look at the "Privacy Amendment", the 14th Amedment.

Section 1 says: "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You're still under the jursdiction of the US! You cannot claim immunity from the same body that grants you those rights, otherwise you lose them. That's like me stealing a car, getting arrested, and then saying that the investigation is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's right to privacy. AND WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU SEE RIGHT TO PRIVACY EXPLICTLY STATED IN THERE ANYWAYS?! I want you to find the exact text in that section that mentions it. The rest of the amendment doesn't address this issue, so don't worry about it.

Ok, so you might try to pull the 4th Amendment into this, alright,

"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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

These searches are within reason, they have probable cause. Would you like to not be informed of a terrorist living next door to you? I sure as hell wouldn't!

In short: STFU!

Ok, here's one for ya: you're saying that Bush's wiretapping is unconstitutional. Now, let's look at the "Privacy Amendment", the 14th Amedment.

Section 1 says: "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You're still under the jursdiction of the US! You cannot claim immunity from the same body that grants you those rights, otherwise you lose them. That's like me stealing a car, getting arrested, and then saying that the investigation is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's right to privacy. AND WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU SEE RIGHT TO PRIVACY EXPLICTLY STATED IN THERE ANYWAYS?! I want you to find the exact text in that section that mentions it. The rest of the amendment doesn't address this issue, so don't worry about it.

Ok, so you might try to pull the 4th Amendment into this, alright,

"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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

These searches are within reason, they have probable cause. Would you like to not be informed of a terrorist living next door to you? I sure as hell wouldn't!

In short: STFU!

ya but you need a warent to search a house or to plant a bug . . at least you do in Canada dunno bout the USA

Ok, here's one for ya: you're saying that Bush's wiretapping is unconstitutional. Now, let's look at the "Privacy Amendment", the 14th Amedment.

Section 1 says: "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You're still under the jursdiction of the US! You cannot claim immunity from the same body that grants you those rights, otherwise you lose them. That's like me stealing a car, getting arrested, and then saying that the investigation is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's right to privacy. AND WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU SEE RIGHT TO PRIVACY EXPLICTLY STATED IN THERE ANYWAYS?! I want you to find the exact text in that section that mentions it. The rest of the amendment doesn't address this issue, so don't worry about it.

Ok, so you might try to pull the 4th Amendment into this, alright,

"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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

These searches are within reason, they have probable cause. Would you like to not be informed of a terrorist living next door to you? I sure as hell wouldn't!

In short: STFU!
AAAAMEEEEENNNNNNNN:mp5: :sniper: :) :p:cool:

ya but you need a warent to search a house or to plant a bug . . at least you do in Canada dunno bout the USA


You need a warrent but however if they suspect is emitting suspicious behavior and giving probable cause like say for instance some one bringing uranium into their house....you can bypace the whole warrent phase and strait to the bust

You need a warrent but however if they suspect is emitting suspicious behavior and giving probable cause like say for instance some one bringing uranium into their house....you can bypace the whole warrent phase and strait to the bust
Really???? in Canada without a warrent the police can't do anything . . .at least thats what i thought but im not really up on my knowledge of the law . . .

Really???? in Canada without a warrent the police can't do anything . . .at least thats what i thought but im not really up on my knowledge of the law . . .

okay nother example....you get pulled over and youve got a shitload of weed in ure trunk.....the cop cant just say pop the trunk for no reason...but if hes got a drugsniffing dog and it starts going crazy hes got every right to

okay nother example....you get pulled over and youve got a shitload of weed in ure trunk.....the cop cant just say pop the trunk for no reason...but if hes got a drugsniffing dog and it starts going crazy hes got every right to
good to know . . .ty (im serious for a change)

okay nother example....you get pulled over and youve got a shitload of weed in ure trunk.....the cop cant just say pop the trunk for no reason...but if hes got a drugsniffing dog and it starts going crazy hes got every right to
Not just that, but if the driver or passenger show signs of being high (and there are physical telltales) then that is also probable cause enough to search your car.

most of the time, they will call a K-9 unit tho. it depends on the situation.

good to know . . .ty (im serious for a change)


been smokin a little there

been smokin a little there
just a little . . ooooo look at all the pretty coulors

fisrt, i would like to state that George W. Bush is a hypocritical moron with a speech impedimant that shouldn't even be consider human becouse he's so idiotic and the only reason that he is president is cuz he had lots of help from his father, mr. president and his brother, the governer of florida....i think....but anyway, its his fault more people are dying in iraq and he should be fired from his job as president, whatever thats called...
he claims to support democracy, but that dumb redneck republican is trying to force issues and politics amongst other things upon iraq when they clearly dont want them, and hes the one who forced sudam hussain to burn the oil wells in iraq and force gas prices in america to rocket up forcing our economy to struggle more than we already are with a moron like that for president.

and just for the heck of it, lets decode the word "politics"

first, poli, which actually means 'many' and then comes tics, which just happen to be blood sucking little creatures that are commonly disliked throughout the world. so it basically means alot of blood-sucking-evil-unliked-creatures.

death to bush, the dumb redneck........

Hey Jackson White, glad to see your eyes haven't grown any closer.

Douche Par Excellance!

first of all to you being a Marine i wanna thank you for your service to this country. and second i have to agree with you on most things but not on others... for instance the statistics and the newsweek articles... all released by whom... the farleft who think fox news is evil and are anitbush... im not saying theyre wrong im just saying keep that in mind when you read these things

This person is no Marine.

ya but you need a warent to search a house or to plant a bug . . at least you do in Canada dunno bout the USA

Do they even have law enforcement there in Canada?

This person is no Marine.
ya because marines cant read or write . . . . :mp5:

Do they even have law enforcement there in Canada?
yep there are the RCMP u know the guys . . .on the horses . . . . .yep thats Canadian tech for ya

yep there are the RCMP u know the guys . . .on the horses . . . . .yep thats Canadian tech for ya

At least they don't get chapped lips. An old Amish trick is to stick your finger up the horses bum, then rub it on your lips. You'll never lick your chapped lips again.

ya because marines cant read or write . . . . :mp5:


No, because it's the internet and you can be whomever you want. I'm Bruce Lee, I faked my death to escape the vicious monkey fist gang.

So... When do you all think Bush will rename all military personnel "Storm Troopers"
and start shooting lighting out of his hands? :D

So... When do you all think Bush will rename all military personnel "Storm Troopers"
and start shooting lighting out of his hands? :D
Now THAT would be sweet!

So... When do you all think Bush will rename all military personnel "Storm Troopers"
and start shooting lighting out of his hands? :D

I would vote for that man. Sec of State could be Boba Fet (sp?).

Now THAT would be sweet!
would that make Chaney his "apprentice"?

No, because it's the internet and you can be whomever you want. I'm Bruce Lee, I faked my death to escape the vicious monkey fist gang.
ya on the other hand if you dont have a reason not to beleive him then you should believe him/her
you know the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. . . whereas I know for a fact that bruce lee faked his death to escape the vicious monkey HEAD gang :rolleyes:

would that make Chaney his "apprentice"?
i like the boba fet idea better

would that make Chaney his "apprentice"?
Dick Chaney as Darth Vader... now that's a scary thought

Dick Chaney as Darth Vader... now that's a scary thought


Question: Could our Stormtroopers actually hit anything with their guns?

Question: Could our Stormtroopers actually hit anything with their guns?
As long as it's not a farm boy swinging across a rope with a woman in hand, I guess so... :D

As long as it's not a farm boy swinging across a rope with a woman in hand, I guess so... :D
good point . . . they would also have trouble with farmboys flying planes who would destroy their major doomsday devices

good point . . . they would also have trouble with farmboys flying planes who would destroy their major doomsday devices
Well as long as his Dru- uhh "spice" smuggler friend didn't save his ass at the very last minute we'd be ok.

Well as long as his Dru- uhh "spice" smuggler friend didn't save his ass at the very last minute we'd be ok.
lol

Could John Kerry be that farmboy who is in love with the princess, (Theresa Heinz) who turns out to be his sister? As long as he gets a purple heart for losing his hand.

Of course, under Lincoln we had an actual war in this country.

Oh, thank goodness we have Big Brother Bush around to protect us from things like making choices and having freedom. Don't forget, freedom means the freedom to take the consequences of your descisions, we don't need that sort of freedom in the USA. No thanks. Freedom from choice, freedom from speech, and freedom of a religion. Those are the freedoms for the USA, not You ese. :rolleyes:
Dom! Good to see you rousing again. Figgered i'd have seen you on a few of the other tumult, haven't. Stayin' busy, i imagine?

Could John Kerry be that farmboy who is in love with the princess, (Theresa Heinz) who turns out to be his sister? As long as he gets a purple heart for losing his hand.
Tee hee :rolleyes:
So were you aware that Bush and Kerry are cousins, their mutual ancestor from the 1600's ?
Edmund Reade i think is his name.
It's like Dynasty again, with less tangles in the pool and less shower scenes.
Maybe as much sex, i'm not sure yet.

(blather blather) Times have changed and we therefore need to adopt.

*sits down*
M'kay, like Maddox and the other one?
Or do you mean ...
adopt, adapt and improve ... okay, just a pair of knickers, then?

Right to privacy? Have you been wiretapped? Is your home bugged? Does the evil Bush bug your church?

Freedom of the press? The FCC regulates decency, and besides, Bush did not start the FCC.

Right to peaceful protest? The local governments are the ones who set up where and when you may protest. Did you know you have to usually get a permit in order to stage a protest? Talk to the city people.

Nice try though.
Who's in on the FCC? I bet you don't know.
I also bet you don't know what trouble they've gone through for consolidation of the media groups ... but i will tell you that "liberal bias" bullsh*t doesn't jibe with the facts.
Go ahead and look it up.
And due the charter, it is entirely possible that the poster has had their calls tapped at some point. Look that up too.

Until the situation changes, it has to stay like that.
And when the F*CK is that going to happen? You have a crystal ball? Do you truly think that starting a war with and invading a country that had ... wait for it .... NOTHING to do with 9/11 is going to stop the Saudis from doing it again?
Especially when they get reprieves from investiagtions into their civil rights abuses by our own administration?

To big to red....

Im sorry your answer is incorrect sir... the right answer was Sand Bush wanted Sand... we would have also accepted Dessert... But just because you lost does not mean you leave empty handed you will be leaving our wonderful game with two free tickets to your back yard thats right all expenses paid.
Uhm, desert is a vast tract of sand that moves along in wind-shifted dunes, leftovers from often an environmental disaster of some kind or another.
Dessert is what you eat in between dinner and the midnight snack.

Freedom is Slavery.
I would normally consider it perplexing that someone who posts as you do would include Orwellian statements to qualify their position, but i've since moved on.

Anyways, if Bush wanted oil he'd attack Saudi Arabia because they've got more infrastructure and light crude which is more valuable and easier to refine.
Don't think those Saudis don't have enough money to buy an assassination if Bush were to turn colours on them and the Carlyle Group.
It shores up their profits, obviously. It's actually working out pretty good for some of them. ....AND, although it was THEIR people who attacked us on 9/11, NOT IRAQI'S, we're still their military. Hoo-f*ckin'-rah.

Ah....the media has tricked another one. One of the many tricks that the media does is make plausible but false stories. The media knows that if they said that penquins were making sponges in Baghdad, no one would believe them. However if they said something like "we went to Iraq for oil", then some people starting believing it. If they keep saying this over and over again, a lot of people will start believeing it. It doesn't matter if it was false. All that matters to the public is if it is plausible. The media exploits this and uses it to boost their ratings. They honestly don't give a shit if it was true of false. All that matters to them is if the public will believe it.
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

Bush is hiring Haliburton, a company that gave VP Cheney 38 million dollars as a going away present, as one of the major contractors to build Iraq. Additionally, a good deal of Bush's extended family holds stock in Haliburton.

-SH.
Sounds like a good enough reason to suspect some favoritism for oil.
Kellogg, Brown & Root are also worth punching up, for those of ye that care ...

Wake up Clinton was in bed with Haliburton as well.... GOD please somone open the eyes of the sheep and show them how bad both parties are! Where has reason gone?
Reason is hand-in-hand with evidence.
Do you have anything other than your protests to qualify your stance?
Maybe a few links or something ... not blogs, btw?

So? If they can do the job, then there's no reason not to choose them to do it.
As i said, punch up KB&R and the suits they're involved in for overcharging and underperforming.
That would answer the "so?" query of yours.

Did you read 1984?

In the book, the government of Oceania takes away almost all freedoms for security. The phrase Freedom is Slavery is showing the irony of having freedom. To preserve freedom, we have to get rid of some freedom. Think about it. We have traffic lights, so people can drive safer. The traffic lights however are in a sense taking away our freedoms. It controls when we are allowed to go and when we aren't. But in return, accidents are reduced and less people die.
The NEWSPEAK was put into vernacular to keep people from questioning the intentions and actions of their government, even to the extent that people SHOULD FEEL GUILT for doing anything different. Sound familiar?
Your post isn't exactly in sync with the nature of that story.

okay since every one on this thread thinks they know everything!!!


where do babies come from?
A special twinkle in our daddy's eye!

I'm sorry. This thread is about manufactured outrage over losing liberties that haven't really existed in decades and creating things to worry about and defend while calling the other guy "misinformed."

Actual facts and legal precedent really don't have any place here. :p
As evidenced by your rapier wit and the sound of an open attic window.

hey eichen ......if ure gonna be fresh im gonna go back to sleeping wit ure mom:upyours:
Wow! A fair and balanced response from someone who has a whole archive of them!
A new gem, again! shiny, shiny ....

me....ignorant.....riigggggghhhhhhhttttt
Well, you're a long shot away from understanding the correct letters and order in which to use them when you post a reply, but that could just be bad breeding.
Everything else is .... well, basically what you would expect from someone with those kinds of grammatical impediments.

and btw seiden women belong in the kitchen not the public forum (sarcasm anyone)
...yes, i'd say this further illustrates my above response.

Ok, here's one for ya: you're saying that Bush's wiretapping is unconstitutional. Now, let's look at the "Privacy Amendment", the 14th Amedment.

Section 1 says: "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You're still under the jursdiction of the US! You cannot claim immunity from the same body that grants you those rights, otherwise you lose them. That's like me stealing a car, getting arrested, and then saying that the investigation is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's right to privacy. AND WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU SEE RIGHT TO PRIVACY EXPLICTLY STATED IN THERE ANYWAYS?! I want you to find the exact text in that section that mentions it. The rest of the amendment doesn't address this issue, so don't worry about it.

Ok, so you might try to pull the 4th Amendment into this, alright,

"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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

These searches are within reason, they have probable cause. Would you like to not be informed of a terrorist living next door to you? I sure as hell wouldn't!

In short: STFU!

So are you saying that the right to privacy is not a privilage for US citizens? Or at least not one worth preserving?

It doenst even matter, because the issue is even about it being constitutional, or even the right to privacy, the issue is facism. The government is taking away a basic civil right, privacy, and using that power against its people.

The problem is that the goverment has convinced everyone that governments job is to rule over them, its not. The purpose of a democratic government should be to serve its people. Man when the government enacts a new law without full explanation to the public, and slipped in under the guise of 'national security', its a load of crap. We need wiretaps? Why? What exact intelligence has been gathered that this is required and why isnt it available to the American public?

At least they don't get chapped lips. An old Amish trick is to stick your finger up the horses bum, then rub it on your lips. You'll never lick your chapped lips again.
FINALLY a useful post from you!

Douche par excellance!

President Bush could not act on New Orleans. Had he done so then he couldv'e been impeached.

the Local and State Governments first needed to turn all power of control over to the Federal Government, then the President could act.

they didn't and so He couldn't

That is why a navel ship sat outside New Orleans and could not do anything. The moment they did, President Bush wouldv'e been guilty of Overstepping his bounds and infringing on State/Local Government.
That law was just for troops. He could have gotten food ready, etc. or declared his own state of emergency overriding state laws. Plus - he didn't seem to have any quams about breaking the laws in bugging people's phones and houses without a search warrant. (see original topic of this thread).

The "war on terrorism" is about as real and successful as the "war on drugs".


THERE IS NO WAR ON TERRORISM

Douche par excellance!
That schtick got old faster than "You might be a redneck".

...yes, i'd say this further illustrates my above response.


um it was a joke.....stupid bitch

That schtick got old faster than "You might be a redneck".

Sorry, Jackson White?

ahh.. so that's what you're worried about. To tell the truth so am I, but why am I not getting all Huffy about it?

Simple. Our Government has these checks and balances in place. it is impossible for one person or even one party to take total control. There must be several changes to occure to open up the Government for a Dictatorship. and trust me, it hasn't started... yet.

untill I see those particular signs, I will still hold faith in our Government because it's the imperfections that make our Government perfect... in my eyes anyway.

Well, I worry because the system of checks and balances doesn't seem to be working quite as well as it should.
I worry because a Republican congresses seems to have a tendency to overinvestigate Democratic administrations, but underinvestigate their own. Granted, I believe the same to be true if Democrats were in power, but these are dangerous times for such partisan plays.
I worry because of what I feel to be a lack of accountability in the current administration - when the President says he accepts full responsibility for something that has gone wrong, it seems to be just words and no substance. When some subordinate screws up, it seems more likely that they will be promoted or rewarded than suffer any negative consequenses.
I worry when I hear that the Agriculture Committee Chairman declines to call hearings on the administration's policy on mad cow disease because it would embarrass the administration to do so, to give an example.

So, yes, I feel it's only right to ask questions... Not for fear of a dictatorship at the present time, but for fears of abuse of power.


These searches are within reason, they have probable cause. Would you like to not be informed of a terrorist living next door to you? I sure as hell wouldn't!

How do we know that they are within reason and that they have probable cause? When Bush authorizes the NSA (not the FBI) to engage in domestic eavesdropping without the involvement of a judge, as is required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?

That law was just for troops. He could have gotten food ready, etc. or declared his own state of emergency overriding state laws. Plus - he didn't seem to have any quams about breaking the laws in bugging people's phones and houses without a search warrant. (see original topic of this thread).
It's easy to condemn Bush for breaking laws against domestic espionage. I'm sure that he was faced with decisions that none of us would want to make, however.

Let's just speculate that Osama called a number in Atlanta. The call doesn't go through. But intelligence officials are sure that Osama is going to try and call again, but at a different number. There's every likelihood that the call will be completed and some critical information will be discussed.

There's no time for a wiretap to be authorized, only enough time to complete the preparations needed to listen in on the second call. Now, do you authorized this action and hope that it prevents another 9/11 type catastrophe? Or do you wait for the wiretap?

There's no way to win on this one. You are going to be crucified if you don't prevent the disaster and you are going to be crucified if you break the law.

My thought is that this is a country founded on the rule of law. If the laws aren't sufficient, then try to change them. But follow the laws.

The NEWSPEAK was put into vernacular to keep people from questioning the intentions and actions of their government, even to the extent that people SHOULD FEEL GUILT for doing anything different. Sound familiar?
Your post isn't exactly in sync with the nature of that story.
I agree completly though I would go further and say that newspeak was infact an attempt to limit what people could think based on limiting what they had the ability to say. eg. no word for revolution=no revolution but thats another debate

It's easy to condemn Bush for breaking laws against domestic espionage. I'm sure that he was faced with decisions that none of us would want to make, however.

Let's just speculate that Osama called a number in Atlanta. The call doesn't go through. But intelligence officials are sure that Osama is going to try and call again, but at a different number. There's every likelihood that the call will be completed and some critical information will be discussed.

There's no time for a wiretap to be authorized, only enough time to complete the preparations needed to listen in on the second call. Now, do you authorized this action and hope that it prevents another 9/11 type catastrophe? Or do you wait for the wiretap?

There's no way to win on this one. You are going to be crucified if you don't prevent the disaster and you are going to be crucified if you break the law.

My thought is that this is a country founded on the rule of law. If the laws aren't sufficient, then try to change them. But follow the laws.

understandaable if it was only . . .get this . . . .ONE phone . . or even one hundred . . .but the numbers of phones taped were upwards of one thousand. . . therforeur correct in one sense but completely worng in this case

understandaable if it was only . . .get this . . . .ONE phone . . or even one hundred . . .but the numbers of phones taped were upwards of one thousand. . . therforeur correct in one sense but completely worng in this case
oh boy can i not spell nething today lol

Let's just speculate that Osama called a number in Atlanta. The call doesn't go through. But intelligence officials are sure that Osama is going to try and call again, but at a different number. There's every likelihood that the call will be completed and some critical information will be discussed.

There's no time for a wiretap to be authorized, only enough time to complete the preparations needed to listen in on the second call. Now, do you authorized this action and hope that it prevents another 9/11 type catastrophe? Or do you wait for the wiretap?

There's no way to win on this one. You are going to be crucified if you don't prevent the disaster and you are going to be crucified if you break the law.

Well, if I've understood correctly, you can go to the court and get a warrant after the fact - if you could prove that it was a situation where there was no time to get the authorization before.

But the problem, as far as I can understand it, is that Bush claims that he doesn't need to follow the law because his presidential powers gives him the authority to spy on americans, combined with the 2001 resolution called : "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

My source for this... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900211.html)

Well out of the ass's (oops horse's) mouth...George Bush has admitted to breaking domestic laws - DEMOCRATIC LAWS - by illegally bugging his own people. Isn't the whole "war on terrorism" a fight to protect democracy? How can Bush say this when he goes against the very foundation of democracy? One more reason to get rid of that silly Patriot Act down there in the US. Impeach the guy already.

An even better question is this:

Is your life worth someone in the NSA accidentally listening in on your phone conversation with your mom?

What if Osama called you... shouldn't the NSA/USA know about that?

This is ridiculous... the number one, NUMBER ONE, responsibility of the US government is to protect its citizens. If we're dead from a terrorist attack, we can't enjoy any rights.

Big picture: The realities of terrorism have made it necessary to upgrade certain security measures, like tapping into the phone lines of those we think are conversing with the Enemy. Of course we've probably always done this (well, since we've been able to, anyway)... it's just now coming to the fore with all these people whining about their rights being trampled on, missing the fact that without some of these tactics they might end up dead.

I'm not talking to Osama or other terrorist agents/enemies of the state
I'm not a terrorist

If the above statements are true, you should have nothing to worry about in terms of losing any rights whatsoever. I sure as hell want to know if anyone in America is talking to UBL. I would thinhk most Americans want the same thing, but I guess potential terrorists' rights are more important than the right of every American to live.

An even better question is this:

Is your life worth someone in the NSA accidentally listening in on your phone conversation with your mom?

What if Osama called you... shouldn't the NSA/USA know about that?

This is ridiculous... the number one, NUMBER ONE, responsibility of the US government is to protect its citizens. If we're dead from a terrorist attack, we can't enjoy any rights.

Big picture: The realities of terrorism have made it necessary to upgrade certain security measures, like tapping into the phone lines of those we think are conversing with the Enemy. Of course we've probably always done this (well, since we've been able to, anyway)... it's just now coming to the fore with all these people whining about their rights being trampled on, missing the fact that without some of these tactics they might end up dead.

I'm not talking to Osama or other terrorist agents/enemies of the state
I'm not a terrorist

If the above statements are true, you should have nothing to worry about in terms of losing any rights whatsoever. I sure as hell want to know if anyone in America is talking to UBL. I would thinhk most Americans want the same thing, but I guess potential terrorists' rights are more important than the right of every American to live.


ah so these new measures could have stoped 9/11. i doubt it and even if they had this is the way that terrorists win and will always win. they cause terror and America respondes by limiting civil li berties and rights until the point at which we will have given up all of our liberties to stay "safe" and when that happens we have lost to the terrorists.

No, it doesn't. It also shouldn't require unconstitutional "legal" means. What it does require is (gasp!) a change in the habits of the American people.
We can treat the symptoms all we want... it's not gonna stop the terrorists from popping up anytime, anywhere. Wiretaps and the like is just a playing pathetic political game kinda like whack-a-mole. :rolleyes:
The real cause isn't being addressed because it's unpopular. And being so, our leaders are far too afraid of the polls to acknowledge the elephant in the room... oil.

rofl, yeah, oil again

so if we're in Iraq for oil... why aren't we just taking their oil?

we could really bring prices down with all that new supply... assuming demand stays about where it is.

rofl, yeah, oil again

so if we're in Iraq for oil... why aren't we just taking their oil?

we could really bring prices down with all that new supply... assuming demand stays about where it is.


because if we just took their oil we'd look like bastards. it's that whole "america has to look good all the time" thing. Like when we were sending iraqis food while we were bombing the shit out of them.

ah so these new measures could have stoped 9/11. i doubt it and even if they had this is the way that terrorists win and will always win. they cause terror and America respondes by limiting civil li berties and rights until the point at which we will have given up all of our liberties to stay "safe" and when that happens we have lost to the terrorists.

which of your civil liberties have been curbed?

...none of mine have.

then again, I'm not a terrorist, so I wouldn't know... (not saying you are... saying that we're targeting enemies of the state as opposed to people like you and me.)

because if we just took their oil we'd look like bastards. it's that whole "america has to look good all the time" thing. Like when we were sending iraqis food while we were bombing the shit out of them.

But if we don't take their oil they're selling it on the market through OPEC to any buyer making it the same as it was before, only with billions in new investment and sans the murderous Saddam Hussein (there's a little bit of irony in that phrase).