NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4544444.stm

All right, as a Democrat I can't be objective. But, a boost from 39% to 47% is still 47%. 52% think he is doing a bad job.
Although, I guess it could only get better.

The fact that we're discussing this programme is helping the enemy
Can someone explain that?

So, what does his recent speech on TV and the elections in Iraq do for you in relation to Bush? Is he still mostly dislike for his handling of Iraq?

The fact that we're discussing this programme is helping the enemyCan someone explain that?
Isn't that a quote from his speech at the press conference yesterday? I think he meant something along the lines of "we need to take some measures which may invade your privacy (referring to Patriot Act, phone tapping) but we can't explain how and why we're doing all this because that information is helping the Enemy (referring to whatever figment of his imagination is actually so dangerous) - in fact, even the fact we're discussing these measures is helping the Enemy (referring to aforementioned)." After which he gave an elaborate example of how the US government informed the public about terrorists making overseas calls using a certain type of cell phones or a certain provider, after which the lead on the terrorists was lost because they had (obviously) changed phones or took another provider.

As long as US troops are in Iraq I'm not going to be best buddies with GWB. I'm also not going to like him any better if he manages to pressure the Dutch government into sending troops to Afghanistan (which is more or less decided next Thursday).

At least he's finally admitted that there was no proof for Iraq having weapons of mass destruction when US troops were sent there, and he's acknowledged the humanitarian problems that were caused by the invasion. Good going, GWB. Now let's adress these allegations of government-supported torture.

This is bullshit.

Bush: "I am illegally using the NSA to spy on American citizens to protect you from terrorists, and I will keep doing it."

*Support jumps 8%*

I hate America.

This is bullshit.

Bush: "I am illegally using the NSA to spy on American citizens to protect you from terrorists, and I will keep doing it."

*Support jumps 8%*

I hate America.


Hah. Perfect. Not only that, but this couldn't wait till State of the Union?
Do we really have to feel this bad for Generic Winter Gift Giving Time?
I mean, Christmas?

I hate America.
That's ok. We hate you too. :p

Actually:

No, did you completely forget about Osama you idiot?

and

No, have you done anything that isn't completely stupid in the last five years? The answer to that question being: "Yeah, I spent 9-11 cowering on Air Force One."

This is bullshit.

Bush: "I am illegally using the NSA to spy on American citizens to protect you from terrorists, and I will keep doing it."

*Support jumps 8%*

I hate America.
So do i. and I'm live there. As a STRONG DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!!!

They say Arnold (Gov. of Cali) will lose agnaiast and unknown democat. Taht's what the polls say.

This is bullshit.

Bush: "I am illegally using the NSA to spy on American citizens to protect you from terrorists, and I will keep doing it."

*Support jumps 8%*

I hate America.
That's a reason to hate stupiditiy, not to hate America.

That's a reason to hate stupiditiy, not to hate America.

Trying to talk sense to people who hate? They usually hate themselves most of all. Talking about everything else they hate is not much more than a distraction.

That's a reason to hate stupiditiy, not to hate America.
The two often seem to be synonyms at the moment, sadly.

Now terrorists know that the gov't is tapping phones.

If I were them, I'd know be more careful, and possibly not use email or phones from now on...

Thanks NYT for helping our enemies!

Now terrorists know that the gov't is tapping phones.

If I were them, I'd know be more careful, and possibly not use email or phones from now on...

Thanks NYT for helping our enemies!

Heh...you crack me up! The NYT did help us! They exposed the fact that Bush has reserved the right to implement and is implementing secret police tactics. Whats next? Government Created 'Happy' Squads that kill you if you dislike how the government is being run? Accusations against people who dislike Bush for being terrorists? All I know is if we dont have a regime change Im splitting when I hit 18...

"One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too burdensome.
No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wanteth the same;everyone is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily to the madhouse."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Uh, Philanchez, Nietzsche was against socialism and favored aristocracy. That quote was sarcastic.

That quote was sarcastic.
And in German. I mean, becometh? wanteth? goeth? You Americans have such a hilariously tacky way to decorate your verbs with apparent authenticity. *chokes* :D Sorry, I hate me too. I ought to be shot.

This is bullshit.
Bush: "I am illegally using the NSA to spy on American citizens to protect you from terrorists, and I will keep doing it."

*Support jumps 8%*

I hate America.That's a reason to hate stupiditiy, not to hate America.

Wait a sec...there's a difference?

Realclearpolitics.com

Aprove disaprove Difference
RCP Average 12/12 - 12/18 44.8% 52.2% -7.4%


CNN/USA Today/Gallup 12/16 - 12/18 41% 56% -15%
Rasmussen12/16 - 12/18 44% 55% -11%
ABC News/Wash Post12/15 - 12/18 47% 52% -5%
FOX News12/13 - 12/14 42% 51% -9%
Hotline/FD12/12 - 12/13 50% 47% +3%



He's up a little. Bottomed out at the 37% that would back Attilla the Hun if he were Republican. Elections brought in a little. We'll see what it looks like after the glow of that wears off.

Wait a sec...there's a difference?
Some days.
At least the courts just ruled teaching "intelligent design" as part of a science curricullum violated the seperation of chuch and state, since it is thinly veiled creationism.

Now terrorists know that the gov't is tapping phones.

If I were them, I'd know be more careful, and possibly not use email or phones from now on...

Thanks NYT for helping our enemies!

You know, if Bush has actually followed the law and gotten warrants (which are almost always approved and can be approved up to 72 hours after the fact,) then this would never have come up.

You realize that the government has been tapping phones LEGALLY for a long time, and any terrorists would know this already. All the NYT revealed was that the government was not only breaking the law, but breaking the law in a way that in no way increased our safety one iota but merely gave the executive branch more power to act without oversight of any sort.

I posted this in the other thread on this topic (in which the original poster commented, so he/she knew it was there), but hey, I'll do it here too.

http://pollingreport.com/images/PREStrend.GIF

Is Bush coming up? A bit. Is he at 47%? Not so clear. The WaPo poll could be a trendsetter or it could be an outlier. Only future polling will clear it up.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I never really saw the big problem with tapping phones and torturing suspected terrorists for information. Is privacy and the physical comfort of a likely criminal worth lives?

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I never really saw the big problem with tapping phones and torturing suspected terrorists for information. Is privacy and the physical comfort of a likely criminal worth lives?
I'll just quote a couple of great Americans--Patrick Henry, and Senator Russ Feingold who echoed him today--"Give me liberty or give me death."

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I never really saw the big problem with tapping phones and torturing suspected terrorists for information. Is privacy and the physical comfort of a likely criminal worth lives?
Perhaps it wouldn't be as much of a problem if you could be sure that lives were at stake, and if you could be sure that every suspect would turn out to be a criminal. Point is you can't.

And I'd hardly describe torture as a lack of physical comfort, but maybe that's a matter of personal preference. ;)

This is bullshit.

Bush: "I am illegally using the NSA to spy on American citizens to protect you from terrorists, and I will keep doing it."

*Support jumps 8%*

I hate America.

Why, do you want us dead?

What's so wrong with protecting American civilians from being blown up?

That is such a simple question... people aren't seeming to get it.

Terrorists are real
Terrorists hate us
Unfortunately, terrorists probably have help from some terrorist-loving Americans
I don't want my fellow americans talking to terrorist. I sure as hell hope we're listening in on those conversations so that I don't get blown up at the mall this Friday. Quite frankly, I'm offended by people who think that the privacy of terrorists is more important than the safety of the 99.9% of Americans who aren't terrorists (rough estimate, but probably pretty accurate).

Gas is cheaper, and a lot of people aren't particularly interested in the whole eavesdropping thing (which should be concerning). Add that to strong job growth and economic improvement, and it's easy to see why. $3 dollar gas is a lot more motivating to people than any NSA activity.

Unfortunately, that's the effect the economy can have on a president's popularity.

Why, do you want us dead?

What's so wrong with protecting American civilians from being blown up?

That is such a simple question... people aren't seeming to get it.

Terrorists are real
Terrorists hate us
Unfortunately, terrorists probably have help from some terrorist-loving Americans
I don't want my fellow americans talking to terrorist. I sure as hell hope we're listening in on those conversations so that I don't get blown up at the mall this Friday. Quite frankly, I'm offended by people who think that the privacy of terrorists is more important than the safety of the 99.9% of Americans who aren't terrorists (rough estimate, but probably pretty accurate).You know something? (Obviously, you don't, or you wouldn't be writing such drivel, but I'm using a rhetorical device here.)

The type of thing you're so scared about, the US government already had the power to do--using FISA warrants. You know how many FISA warrants have been turned down? One source I read today put it at 6--for the life of the act, which was passed in 1978. Tens of thousands were approved. And you know something else? (Again, obviously not, but whatever.) The government can start surveillance without a warrant, as long as they provide probable cause within 72 hours of starting the surveillance. That's not an undue burden to overcome.

But you're such a chickenshit that you're willing to say to the government "spy on all of us, because somewhere some bad guy just mightbe talking about doing something bad to us and we don't want to have to bother with warrants." Well fuck that. We're not supposed to have a totalitarian government here. We're not supposed to have a king here. The president isn't supposed to be able to say that he can ignore the law just because he's the president.

You are the epitome of the person described in the old adage, "those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."

I'm going to attribute the jump to sunspot interference in the Van Allen belts.

Frangland, I think you're underestimating the seriousness and sincerity of people who oppose the War on Terror. Their objections don't rise from concern for terrorists, but from concern for freedom and democracy, as much as your opinion does. Some measures are perceived as oppressive by those they're supposed to protect. Terrorists may be real and they may hate you, but they're not going to pack their bags and wander off if you return the favour. These people think they have a just cause, which is to fight oppression by western capitalist superpowers. And the War on Terror really isn't helping to prove them wrong.

'Sharp rise' in Bush standings eh?

I thought we sorted this shit out with Clinton!

Good thing this. Hope it rises.

Less than 50% popularity rating for a 'leader of the free world' can't be good... For image reasons.

Glad the war is going well.

*keep your heads down... plenty of shrapnell (political kind) flying around..*

This is bullshit.

Bush: "I am illegally using the NSA to spy on American citizens to protect you from terrorists, and I will keep doing it."

*Support jumps 8%*

I hate America.

So what about the fact that we sent millions of Japs to concentration camps after Pearl Harbor? That was illegal but it was still done.

Not like it hasn't been done before either. Don't think Bush was the 1st one to do this.

No, have you done anything that isn't completely stupid in the last five years? The answer to that question being: "Yeah, I spent 9-11 cowering on Air Force One."

And yet he returned to the White House ON 9-11 DESPITE the Secret Service OBJECTING to such a move.

Come to think of it, any President would be on Air Force One in something like that while away from the White house. If he was in D.C., he would've been in a bunker and that is standard Operating Procedure.

Heh...you crack me up! The NYT did help us! They exposed the fact that Bush has reserved the right to implement and is implementing secret police tactics. Whats next? Government Created 'Happy' Squads that kill you if you dislike how the government is being run? Accusations against people who dislike Bush for being terrorists? All I know is if we dont have a regime change Im splitting when I hit 18...

HA!

This has been going on long before Bush took office. People keep forgetting about that. They are quick to point the finger at Bush but yet forget that this has been going on before he even took office.

You know, if Bush has actually followed the law and gotten warrants (which are almost always approved and can be approved up to 72 hours after the fact,) then this would never have come up.

Now that is the question. Were warrents issued. If they were then its all 100% perfectly legal. That'll be interesting to see.

You realize that the government has been tapping phones LEGALLY for a long time, and any terrorists would know this already. All the NYT revealed was that the government was not only breaking the law, but breaking the law in a way that in no way increased our safety one iota but merely gave the executive branch more power to act without oversight of any sort.

And this has been going on for a much longer time than Bush has been in office.q

I posted this in the other thread on this topic (in which the original poster commented, so he/she knew it was there), but hey, I'll do it here too.

http://pollingreport.com/images/PREStrend.GIF

Is Bush coming up? A bit. Is he at 47%? Not so clear. The WaPo poll could be a trendsetter or it could be an outlier. Only future polling will clear it up.

For once, I'll agree with The Nazz here.

Now that is the question. Were warrents issued. If they were then its all 100% perfectly legal. That'll be interesting to see.

They weren't--that's what all the fuss is about. Haven't you been paying attention?

For once, I'll agree with The Nazz here.
wow...there may be hope for humanity after all! :eek:

They weren't--that's what all the fuss is about. Haven't you been paying attention?

I'm sorry. ALl I'm hearing is the fact that evesdropping is occuring but yet I've heard NOTHING on warrents.

I'm sorry. ALl I'm hearing is the fact that evesdropping is occuring but yet I've heard NOTHING on warrents.
Sorry. Here you go. (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-spy20.html)
Gonzales defended Bush's decision not to seek warrants from the secretive Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, saying that ''we don't have the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of enemy.''
The problem with Gonzales's statement is that FISA allows surveillance to begin without a warrant, as long as probable cause is established within 72 hours. I don't know how you can be any more agile.

Sorry. Here you go. (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-spy20.html)

The problem with Gonzales's statement is that FISA allows surveillance to begin without a warrant, as long as probable cause is established within 72 hours. I don't know how you can be any more agile.

Well excuse me. I've only caught this story midstream and only starting to catch up.

As to probably cause, I doubt we'll ever hear about that. What is probable cause to one person, isn't probable cause to another. That is the problem with probable cause exceptions.

To be honest, I'm mixed on this issue.

Well excuse me. I've only caught this story midstream and only starting to catch up.

As to probably cause, I doubt we'll ever hear about that. What is probable cause to one person, isn't probable cause to another. That is the problem with probable cause exceptions.

To be honest, I'm mixed on this issue.
Well, if you look at the history of the FISA court, you discover that they're very lax on the matterof probable cause. One source I read earlier today said that the FISA court had turned down a grand total of 6 warrant requests in the history of the court. FISA was passed in 1978. That ought to give you some perspective.

To be honest, I'm mixed on this issue.

That's the smartest thing anyone here has said about it, to be sure.

Everyone is so quick to judge. It's either a massive government conspiracy plunging us into Orwellian territory or it's instantly justified just because Bush had something to do with it.

"Oooo, this is a serious infringing on our rights! This demands action, so I'm going to start 37 polls about how we're DOOOOOOMED!!"

or

"Terrorists are trying to kill us all!!! Bush is going to bring my dead puppy back to life with these wire taps!"

Cripes, calm the hell down. One thing our government is still good at, it's eventually getting to the bottom of things. Often years too late, but at least we get there. Why the rush to judgement either way?

That's the smartest thing anyone here has said about it, to be sure.

Everyone is so quick to judge. It's either a massive government conspiracy plunging us into Orwellian territory or it's instantly justified just because Bush had something to do with it.

"Oooo, this is a serious infringing on our rights! This demands action, so I'm going to start 37 polls about how we're DOOOOOOMED!!"

or

"Terrorists are trying to kill us all!!! Bush is going to bring my dead puppy back to life with these wire taps!"

Cripes, calm the hell down. One thing our government is still good at, it's eventually getting to the bottom of things. Often years too late, but at least we get there. Why the rush to judgement either way?

In any matter, at least one side of debate will say that anything short of instantaneous is too long for a decision. And of course, another side is quick to point out hastiness if it ever resolves at all.

In any matter, at least one side of debate will say that anything short of instantaneous is too long for a decision. And of course, another side is quick to point out hastiness if it ever resolves at all.
What? You mean nothing will get solved by the 49 million threads started about this?!?! :eek:

Too bad we don't have a government full of checks and balances that we collectively hired to get to the bottom of this.

Oh wait...

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I never really saw the big problem with tapping phones and torturing suspected terrorists for information. Is privacy and the physical comfort of a likely criminal worth lives?


Thats the problem.
In this country, before the so called "Patriot Act", a person was assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, in a court of law, by a jury of his peers.

Its is morally wrong to take such measures against an innocent person.
A person who has rights to privacy.

Do you want Big Brother watching everything you do?

You may be thinking "well I wouldnt care, becuase Im not a terrorist".
But you probably dont realize that a case of mistaken identity, could easily land you in federal detention.

Where you might be tortured until you admit to something you may not have done.

THATS why its wrong.

This is why Bush has boosted in popularity.

Up until just recently, he has been happily cutting down trees in Crawford, as opposed to jumping in front of the cameras and microphones and saying "I did this! I did that!" Meanwhile, the press and media-at-large, whom I believe to be slanted towards the left of the political spectrum, have been having a field day with his credibility.

One of Ronald Reagan's strengths was that he loved the media. As a former movie star, he could manipulate what he wanted to say through cameras. Thus, whenever something 'good' happened (e.g. unemployment dropped a percent), he'd immediately make a charismatic speech (often live) about how it's obviously the result of his policies in action. "See? I know what I'm doing! You should trust me, I'm older than you." Regardless of whether or not his speeches made sense, the fact that he promptly came out and made them made him appear more credible to the masses.

Until not so long ago, Bush has remained silent on many things. A bombing in Iraq? Nothing. Unemployment drops half a percent? Nothing. We nab another terrorist? Maybe a bumper sticker-sized slogan, if we're lucky. Because he had put out so little... well, material, his detractors, the press, and anyone with a "fuck Bush!" sticker on their Civic could fill in the huge blanks with whatever they liked. Bushie never actually tried to set the record straight, and thus, people see no reason to question what they read.

Now, it seems like something has clicked in that little monkey head of his, and he's realized, "If I actually talk about stuff, maybe people will believe me." Contrary to popular belief, most people don't think Bush is an outright liar, and anything he says is obviously full of deciet. On the other hand, they hate him for the fact that he refuses to justify anything that's going on. That's what seperated Dubya and his father from Reagan: they seemed content to not blow their own whistles, as it were.

If Bush continues to make people listen to what he has to say, and continues to put a good spin on issues to combat the negative spin of his political enemies, he may actually pull out of this second term up a few points.

On the other hand, this could simply be a one-off lucky strike, at which point we'll never hear any substance from him again, and he'll leave office making Lyndon Johnson look like a success in comparison.

George, please stop being dumb. We need you to use that brain for important things.

Nice one Brett.

I'll take some of your bombers now.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I never really saw the big problem with tapping phones and torturing suspected terrorists for information. Is privacy and the physical comfort of a likely criminal worth lives?

I think it's pretty safe to say that there's no maybe about it.

If Dubya would consent to me attaching some jumper leads from my car battery to his nuts so we can find out how sincere his reasoning for the illegal attack on Iraq is, then by all means let him and his regime torture away.

Nice one Brett.

I'll take some of your bombers now.

Awesome. Make a post in the relevent topic and we'll get down to profit!

So what about the fact that we sent millions of Japs to concentration camps after Pearl Harbor? That was illegal but it was still done.

Not like it hasn't been done before either. Don't think Bush was the 1st one to do this.
Oh I see, this was done 60 years ago, so it is okay to do it today??

Oh I see, this was done 60 years ago, so it is okay to do it today??


Apparently the answer is yes, as long as you live by the philosophy of some of these people that history is there to repeat, not to learn from.

Oh I see, this was done 60 years ago, so it is okay to do it today??

Where did I imply that? I didn't imply anything. Just pointed out that things were done for national security in the past that were questionable at best and unconstitutional at worst.

Where did I imply that? I didn't imply anything. Just pointed out that things were done for national security in the past that were questionable at best and unconstitutional at worst.
You referenced something from WW 2 for crying out loud. You were just doing the normal Bush apology routine, and yes you did imply that it is okay because it was done 60 years ago.

The government can use whatever methods it likes to fight anything it sees as a problem? So what's next?

<sarcasm>
"Yes, it's true. We're cornholing American citizens, but we need to take measures which may invade your ass. We can't explain how or why we're doing this, because that could lead to drug resistant strains of colorectal cancer."
</sarcasm>

Some polls have had Bush hovering at 44-47 for the last 8 months solid.. the polls that had him at 30 or so were probably never accurate.. I doubt he's gotten a bump recently..

Oh I see, this was done 60 years ago, so it is okay to do it today??
may I remind you the tone of the people back then. After Pearl Harbor, the Citizens did pull together to fight the Axis. they gave up their cars so that Gas could be sent to the troops, their resources and scraps. they even inconvienced themselves to raise gardens so that more foodstuff can be sent overseas. they gave alot from money to time to blood.

nowdays, after 9/11, while the world cleaned up, it was "go get em boys, but I'm still keeping what's mine and you aint getting it."

back then women were encouraged to work in jobs that were for men, during hours no sane person would work, nowdays, it's "what, no overtime pay... f*@k you, I ain't working over 8 hours."

back then, people asked themselves "What more can I give." Now it's "I Gave... your turn."

Back then, it was "what can we do to help our goverment and the Governments fighting for freedom and Democracy." now it's "What the f*#k is the Government doing? let the other Government and people suffer."

can you imagine how WWII would've been like with today's mentality.

"WTF are we going after the GERMANS for, it was Japan that Bombed us, Japan and Germany had nothing to do with each other. Let the other guys handle their problems. Send the Military after them Japs, but the Government better not take anything away from me."

"WTF are we going after the GERMANS for, it was Japan that Bombed us, Japan and Germany had nothing to do with each other. Let the other guys handle their problems. Send the Military after them Japs, but the Government better not take anything away from me."
Well.... yeah, pretty much. Had Hitler not idioticly declared on the States, thats what might well have happened.

But anyway, you can't compare Total War with 9/11. There is no comparison that can be accurately made. [/off topic]

Well.... yeah, pretty much. Had Hitler not idioticly declared on the States, thats what might well have happened.

But anyway, you can't compare Total War with 9/11. There is no comparison that can be accurately made. [/off topic]
Not comparing the War and 9/11, but the mind set of the American citizens on those two times.

and remember, Hitler was fighting most of Europe long before America became "Officially Involved."

can you imagine how WWII would've been like with today's mentality.

"WTF are we going after the GERMANS for, it was Japan that Bombed us, Japan and Germany had nothing to do with each other. Let the other guys handle their problems. Send the Military after them Japs, but the Government better not take anything away from me."
Ummmm, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, the US pretty much said "Let the other guys handle their problems.".

Sad but true.

Ummmm, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, the US pretty much said "Let the other guys handle their problems.".

Sad but true.
"Offically" that was the US's stance. Their Policy was more "anyone going there to fight were not fighting for the US."

thus they really didn't stop volunteers from heading there through Canada. and there were some indications that some supplies were smuggled to the European front until America's involvement became "Official."

After Pearl Harbor, if used with Today's mindset, we would fight the Japanese, and only the Japanese. instead we fought the war on Two fronts, the Pacific and Europe. Because our Allies needed us and after the attack, the citizens were ready to fight.

Ummmm, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, the US pretty much said "Let the other guys handle their problems.".

Sad but true.

Not true at all. That fucker Roosevelt wanted nothing more than to entangle us in the war, and he did everything possible to ensure it happened.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I never really saw the big problem with tapping phones and torturing suspected terrorists for information. Is privacy and the physical comfort of a likely criminal worth lives?
First, torture has been studied scientifically for many years. IT DOESN'T WORK. Stop and think about it, you're being tortured, whos name do you give? Many give the names of their enemies. Then the torturers go out and get the enemies and torture them. They give the name of enemies---big circle--nothing gained. McCain gave the names of the Green Bay Packers Football team. How much good did that do the Viets?

Second, you can have safety or freedom, you cann't have both. Under Saddam, anyone who didn't oppose the govenment had complete safety. They could walk the streets at any time with no fear. The children could play without fear. They could own any gun they wanted. No freedom, but complete safety. Since 9/11 the US has traded freedom for safety. Iraq has traded safety for freedom. Ironic isn't it.

This is bullshit.

Bush: "I am illegally using the NSA to spy on American citizens to protect you from terrorists, and I will keep doing it."

*Support jumps 8%*

I hate America.

Awesome grasp of the situation! It is incredible, isn't it?

You referenced something from WW 2 for crying out loud. You were just doing the normal Bush apology routine, and yes you did imply that it is okay because it was done 60 years ago.

Shall I go all the way back to the Alien and Seditious Acts under John Adams? That was purely unconstitutional.

I was pointing out CH, if you bothered to add 2 and 2 together, is that Bush isn't the first one to do something like this. Its been going on long before Bush took office. Only now, we're making a big stink about it.

Ummmm, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, the US pretty much said "Let the other guys handle their problems.".

Sad but true.

Then why the hell did we send military equipment to the UK and the USSR as well as "volunteers" to China?

For God's sake CH, learn history.

"Offically" that was the US's stance. Their Policy was more "anyone going there to fight were not fighting for the US."

thus they really didn't stop volunteers from heading there through Canada. and there were some indications that some supplies were smuggled to the European front until America's involvement became "Official."

After Pearl Harbor, if used with Today's mindset, we would fight the Japanese, and only the Japanese. instead we fought the war on Two fronts, the Pacific and Europe. Because our Allies needed us and after the attack, the citizens were ready to fight.

Remember JuNii, our declaration of war was on Japan only. It wasn't till Germany declared war on the US did we get officially involved in Europe.

Not true at all. That fucker Roosevelt wanted nothing more than to entangle us in the war, and he did everything possible to ensure it happened.

Somewhat inaccurate unless your one of those that believe he let Pearl Harbor happen.

Shall I go all the way back to the Alien and Seditious Acts under John Adams? That was purely unconstitutional.

I was pointing out CH, if you bothered to add 2 and 2 together, is that Bush isn't the first one to do something like this. Its been going on long before Bush took office. Only now, we're making a big stink about it.

How do we even know if anyone made a stink about John Adams' decision? I doubt anyone here has researched that. It is also irrelevant. If we happen to be the only generation to 'wake up' to these actions then more power to us - but I doubt that is the case.

How do we even know if anyone made a stink about John Adams' decision? I doubt anyone here has researched that. It is also irrelevant. If we happen to be the only generation to 'wake up' to these actions then more power to us - but I doubt that is the case.

I take it then that you never read the Alien and seditious act then did you? No I guess not otherwise, you wouldn't have made such a statement.

It is quite relevent because those who were against the government *gasp* were rounded up and tossed in jail or lost their right to publish a newspaper.

Then why the hell did we send military equipment to the UK and the USSR as well as "volunteers" to China?

For God's sake CH, learn history.

To be fair, the US government was motivated to do that for economic reasons as much as for friendly diplomacy. The military orders did more than anything else to end the high unemployment experienced since the Great Depression.

I take it then that you never read the Alien and seditious act then did you? No I guess not otherwise, you wouldn't have made such a statement.

It is quite relevent because those who were against the government *gasp* were rounded up and tossed in jail or lost their right to publish a newspaper.

So people were making a stink about it?

To be fair, the US government was motivated to do that for economic reasons as much as for friendly diplomacy. The military orders did more than anything else to end the high unemployment experienced since the Great Depression.

Your right however FDR did wanted to get involved in World War II but couldn't because of the pacifists in Congress and the fact the people themselves didn't want to get involved.

Also, Lend-Lease violated the Neutrality Acts and can be considered an act of war against Germany.

So people were making a stink about it?

To be honest, I dont know but I doubt they did because if they did make a stink about it, they probably would've been tossed in jail hence the seditious part.

Then why the hell did we send military equipment to the UK and the USSR as well as "volunteers" to China?

For God's sake CH, learn history.

So what? That went on in WW1 as well YEARS before they offically entered, dragged kicking and screaming some might say.

So what? That went on in WW1 as well YEARS before they offically entered, dragged kicking and screaming some might say.

Some might say that yes but Wilson wanted us involved from the getgo. However, he had to do something to get the populace behind it and the Germans gave it to us with sinking the Lusitania and another passanger liner killing Americans then the Zimmerman Note gave us all the ammo we needed to declare war.

Yeah another anti Bush thread YOU PEOPLE are so smart and original

here take a cookie

The president admits that he's an idiot for going to war in Iraq. And his approval goes up... I'm missing something right?

Why, do you want us dead?

What's so wrong with protecting American civilians from being blown up?

That is such a simple question... people aren't seeming to get it.

Terrorists are real
Terrorists hate us
Unfortunately, terrorists probably have help from some terrorist-loving Americans
I don't want my fellow americans talking to terrorist. I sure as hell hope we're listening in on those conversations so that I don't get blown up at the mall this Friday. Quite frankly, I'm offended by people who think that the privacy of terrorists is more important than the safety of the 99.9% of Americans who aren't terrorists (rough estimate, but probably pretty accurate).

Chill out dude, you've had fuck all since 9/11.

The president admits that he's an idiot for going to war in Iraq. And his approval goes up... I'm missing something right?

He admitted he was an idiot for going into Iraq? Where did I miss that line at? His popularity is going up because he's fighting back and the fact that Iraq had very successful elections.

Some might say that yes but Wilson wanted us involved from the getgo. However, he had to do something to get the populace behind it and the Germans gave it to us with sinking the Lusitania and another passanger liner killing Americans then the Zimmerman Note gave us all the ammo we needed to declare war.

Zimmerman telegram yes.

Luisitania, no. It was a legit target- there were weapons and munitions on board as well as transporting Canadian troops- on top of which the Imperial Navy repeatedly warned passengers not to travel because of fear of sinking innocents. They did all in their power to stop civilians being hurt, but its war. If they choose to ignore the warnings, then thats their fault not the Navy. I personally don't find the Lusitania a valid case for entry- a good scapegoat maybe, but not a valid excuse.

Isn't that a quote from his speech at the press conference yesterday? I think he meant something along the lines of "we need to take some measures which may invade your privacy (referring to Patriot Act, phone tapping) but we can't explain how and why we're doing all this because that information is helping the Enemy (referring to whatever figment of his imagination is actually so dangerous) - in fact, even the fact we're discussing these measures is helping the Enemy (referring to aforementioned)." After which he gave an elaborate example of how the US government informed the public about terrorists making overseas calls using a certain type of cell phones or a certain provider, after which the lead on the terrorists was lost because they had (obviously) changed phones or took another provider.

As long as US troops are in Iraq I'm not going to be best buddies with GWB. I'm also not going to like him any better if he manages to pressure the Dutch government into sending troops to Afghanistan (which is more or less decided next Thursday).

At least he's finally admitted that there was no proof for Iraq having weapons of mass destruction when US troops were sent there, and he's acknowledged the humanitarian problems that were caused by the invasion. Good going, GWB. Now let's adress these allegations of government-supported torture.


This is rediculous. Only one pooll had him jumping to 47%. Gallup and Fox still have him at 41 and 42, taken after the 47% rating. Look at the trend of total polling reports at www.pollingreport.com for a better understanding of all his poll numbers, not just one. Ignore the Diego as it is only the first time they are appearing and there needs to be time to lower their margin of error. Regards

Zimmerman telegram yes.

Glad we can agree on this :D

Luisitania, no. It was a legit target- there were weapons and munitions on board as well as transporting Canadian troops- on top of which the Imperial Navy repeatedly warned passengers not to travel because of fear of sinking innocents.

You'll get no argument out of me on the Luisitania. Your right that it was 100% legit but to Wilson's mind, Americans were killed and therefor, it has to be responded too. Why do you think Unrestricted Submarine Warfare was stopped for abit? Germany didn't want us to get involved.

They did all in their power to stop civilians being hurt, but its war.

Yep!

If they choose to ignore the warnings, then thats their fault not the Navy. I personally don't find the Lusitania a valid case for entry- a good scapegoat maybe, but not a valid excuse.

I'll agree 100% with you again.

Zimmerman telegram yes.

Luisitania, no. It was a legit target- there were weapons and munitions on board as well as transporting Canadian troops- on top of which the Imperial Navy repeatedly warned passengers not to travel because of fear of sinking innocents. They did all in their power to stop civilians being hurt, but its war. If they choose to ignore the warnings, then thats their fault not the Navy. I personally don't find the Lusitania a valid case for entry- a good scapegoat maybe, but not a valid excuse.


Yes but if the United States did Not enter the war there would have been trouble for the allies...

now try to think ratinaly for it a minit and listen to what i have to say before you flame back...

the axis consisted of Austria-Hungry (my homeland) Germany Italy And the Ottomon turks. Allies Imperial Russia France UK (later italy)

there was a stalemate you all know Russia had its revolution than became the USSR backed out of the war.. that would have disrupted the balance if the USA never came into the war which would have been a catastrophy for the allies

Chill out dude, you've had fuck all since 9/11.


wait we had what? Oh i think you mean we could fuck since 9-11 no no Americans have been getting it on long before where do you think our population comes from cloneing vats???

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I never really saw the big problem with tapping phones and torturing suspected terrorists for information. Is privacy and the physical comfort of a likely criminal worth lives?

First, torture only motivate people to say anything to stop the pain and fear. It rarely, if ever, produces a positive lead or information. Ask any interrigation expert and they'll tell you that. How do I know? I have training in this area and counter intelligence/counter insurgency disciplines via USMC. Next, Tapping phones is a different story. The point is, as was made earlier, there are secret courts set up just for this purpose. Warrants can be issued up to 72 hours after the search and are almost always approved if you mention the words "national security." This beds to question, if it were so easy why would Bush have to side step it? Why would he investigation an activist organization that worked against his re-election and his Iraq war policy? When they had done no wrong and were clearly not "terrorists?" Use your pragmatic side to answer these questions and maybe you'll see "what's wrong" with this. In conclusion, he abused power when it was easy enough to get a warrant. That alone should raise suspicion. Who decides who is "most likely" a terrorist and what is the criteria? So fair it seems that if you oppose Bush you are labeled as a "possible terrorist." That's called fascist totalitarianism, not Representitive Democracy.

I'll agree 100% with you again.

Weird! :p :D


now try to think ratinaly for it a minit and listen to what i have to say before you flame back...

Why would I do that? :confused:


the axis consisted of Austria-Hungry (my homeland) Germany Italy And the Ottomon turks. Allies Imperial Russia France UK (later italy)

there was a stalemate you all know Russia had its revolution than became the USSR backed out of the war.. that would have disrupted the balance if the USA never came into the war which would have been a catastrophy for the allies

Meh... the Reich was trying to look for a way out of it after the West ground to a halt. Their plan was entirely based on a speedy victory against France and after 3 years of sitting in the trenchs, morale wasn't exactly high. Those troops from the East might have, might not have made a difference.

The Dough-Boys themselves had little impact- it was the political significance of the USA getting involved that scared the bejesus out of the Imperial Generals. [/off topic]

wait we had what? Oh i think you mean we could fuck since 9-11 no no Americans have been getting it on long before where do you think our population comes from cloneing vats???
How immature, I was simply saying you've had no terrorist attack on your soil since 9/11, and then you try to be funny or something...

Leading on from that... sort of... I don't think Bush should be tapping the phones because the US is not in total war, no-one is frequently bombing US citizens, so it's not like this extra illegal tapping is necesary. Torture if it really MUST happen should only happen after an apparently innocent has been proven guilty, not torturing people assuming they're guilty first.

I cannot understand how the man's popularity has gone up... must be all you typical american racist gun-nuts who bum the flag... grr

Bush is only interested in money... that's why he wont stop tapping innocent citizens until he's out, that's why he went to Iraq, cos by the time he's out, withdrawal is not his issue anymore.

How immature, I was simply saying you've had no terrorist attack on your soil since 9/11, and then you try to be funny or something...

Leading on from that... sort of... I don't think Bush should be tapping the phones because the US is not in total war, no-one is frequently bombing US citizens, so it's not like this extra illegal tapping is necesary. Torture if it really MUST happen should only happen after an apparently innocent has been proven guilty, not torturing people assuming they're guilty first.

I cannot understand how the man's popularity has gone up... must be all you typical american racist gun-nuts who bum the flag... grr

Bush is only interested in money... that's why he wont stop tapping innocent citizens until he's out, that's why he went to Iraq, cos by the time he's out, withdrawal is not his issue anymore.


Speaking to a fellow Europian

I used to live in AUstria now in the USA and i must tell you that most are nto Racist gun toting red necks. And besides there is far more racism in France Austria UK and Germany than in the USA

example in Germany you can find Spray painted on the wall Turks Forbiddion..

Man thats why i left Europe you think you know everything about the world europes sun is fading yet there arogance is not...

Weird! :p :D



Why would I do that? :confused:



]



most people on NS cant talk without flameing its niec to see somone who can have a convo without resorting to name calling. points to you :)

most people on NS cant talk without flameing its niec to see somone who can have a convo without resorting to name calling. points to you :)

He's one of the few on here that I love debating because of that very reason.

Speaking to a fellow Europian

I used to live in AUstria now in the USA and i must tell you that most are nto Racist gun toting red necks. And besides there is far more racism in France Austria UK and Germany than in the USA

example in Germany you can find Spray painted on the wall Turks Forbiddion..

Man thats why i left Europe you think you know everything about the world europes sun is fading yet there arogance is not...

I know most of them aren't racist, but I can't say I believe you that there is more racism in Europe, there certainly isn't where I live. Sure there are plenty of neo Nazis all over europe (even still in Germany), but they are almost the same as the rednecks. I say this because I see clear divides when comparing the UK to the USA, like the fact the states still have ghettos.

A lot of southern Europe hate the Turks yes this is true. But this has a lot to do with Turkey's illegal occupation of half of Cyprus. In America it seems to be, "hate the black's cos their black neehahaha", like you didn't need any reasons for anything, which (going back on topic) is probably why Bush has got more popular again. He says tapping and torture is good for the country, and 47% of you say "OK daddy, we love you"... and you say Europeans are arrogant...

He's one of the few on here that I love debating because of that very reason.


finding an open minded good debater On NS is like finding a needle in a haystack i am happy i found one NS says its a politilcle forum but its really just a bitch forum full of high walls with no foundation.. Kinda reminds me of Parliment....

*sigh* i kinda miss Europe

You know, if Bush has actually followed the law and gotten warrants (which are almost always approved and can be approved up to 72 hours after the fact,) then this would never have come up.

You realize that the government has been tapping phones LEGALLY for a long time, and any terrorists would know this already. All the NYT revealed was that the government was not only breaking the law, but breaking the law in a way that in no way increased our safety one iota but merely gave the executive branch more power to act without oversight of any sort.

here's the problem with that line of reasoning:

you can't get it until SEVENTY_TWO HOURS AFTER THE FACT, which might be after these nutjobs blow something up.

I'm sorry, but we need to be able to check people out so that we can prevent a disaster.

72 hours is a joke... like tying my hands behind my back and telling me to beat you up.

I totally fail to see the logic of not defending the American people to the utmost of our capabilities... apparently, like i've said, the rights of terrorists are more important than the rights of all Americans to live.

I know most of them aren't racist, but I can't say I believe you that there is more racism in Europe, there certainly isn't where I live. Sure there are plenty of neo Nazis all over europe (even still in Germany), but they are almost the same as the rednecks. I say this because I see clear divides when comparing the UK to the USA, like the fact the states still have ghettos.

A lot of southern Europe hate the Turks yes this is true. But this has a lot to do with Turkey's illegal occupation of half of Cyprus. In America it seems to be, "hate the black's cos their black neehahaha", like you didn't need any reasons for anything, which (going back on topic) is probably why Bush has got more popular again. He says tapping and torture is good for the country, and 47% of you say "OK daddy, we love you"... and you say Europeans are arrogant...


no ghettos in UK? i have been to the UK you guys have some pretty bad areas there as well... And if you knew americans like i do you would realize most of them are free thinkers who do what they feel in there heart is right..

though you dont find many on NS

This is bullshit.

Bush: "I am illegally using the NSA to spy on American citizens to protect you from terrorists, and I will keep doing it."

*Support jumps 8%*

I hate America.

So did Carter. So did Clinton. It was okay when they did it, when the terrorist threat, albeit existing, was marginally less than it is now. Bush does it, everyone whines. I am no fan of the guy but the double standard is just too embarrassing.

When it is tempered with limitless capitalism, democracy is a joke. Bush & Co. have been claiming to promote democracy, when it is capitalism that is being pushed.

and finally, you can tell by looking at the poll options that this is a biased person... because to be fair, this option also should have been added:

Yes, i am brainwashed to always oppose him


Well I support him most of the time... only I can provide logical backing for my stances. I don't see that, just a bunch of whining about "rights". In this case the logical backing is: I'd rather thwart the "rights" of terrorists and remain alive (or have a greater chance of remaining alive) than to allow terrorists to thrive in the US and have increased chances of ending up in little sandwich bags.

Phone privacy while planning terrorist atacks is not a right.

When it is tempered with limitless capitalism, democracy is a joke. Bush & Co. have been claiming to promote democracy, when it is capitalism that is being pushed.

democracy = freedom to vote for whom you choose (among other rights)

financial freedom = capitalism (freedom to spend your money as you see fit)

sorry, i guess I i don't get your point.

Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand.

here's the problem with that line of reasoning:

you can't get it until SEVENTY_TWO HOURS AFTER THE FACT, which might be after these nutjobs blow something up.
Uh. No, you're wrong, please re-read.
They can tap anybody based on probable cause. However, if they do that, they must get a warrant within 72 hours. Said warrants are typically granted if national security is brought up as the reason.

Which makes the rest of this:
I'm sorry, but we need to be able to check people out so that we can prevent a disaster.

72 hours is a joke... like tying my hands behind my back and telling me to beat you up.Totally irrelevant.

I totally fail to see the logic of not defending the American people to the utmost of our capabilities... apparently, like i've said, the rights of terrorists are more important than the rights of all Americans to live.Terrorism is real. It sucks. But it probably won't affect you personally.
The government most assuredly will.

Have you learned nothing from the no-fly lists that stop 9 month old babies from flying on suspicion of terrorism? What Bush has been doing is essentially giving the NSA carte blanche to wiretap anybody based on a list (like said 9 month old baby). So is there anything wrong with tapping terrorists? Of course not. There is, however, something wrong with tapping Ted Kennedy's phone line because T. Kennedy is a terrorist alias. Unfortunately, with the blanket approval that Bush is giving, we have no way of knowing if this wasn't done.

For the real conspiracy theorists, we don't even have any way of knowing if Bush is encouraging the NSA to tap the campaign managers of his political adversaries. Something which I think even you might agree is wrong. It's not that he is or isn't, it's that by circumventing the normal process, we are forced to rely on our faith in him that he isn't.

Were he God, such faith might be justified. But he's just a man, one as fallible as any of us.

finding an open minded good debater On NS is like finding a needle in a haystack i am happy i found one NS says its a politilcle forum but its really just a bitch forum full of high walls with no foundation.. Kinda reminds me of Parliment....

*sigh* i kinda miss Europe

assuming you're a dude or a lesbian (or both: many men consider themselves lesbians):

go to southern California or Miami and check out the females... they'll put the US back into a positive light. hehe

So did Carter. So did Clinton. It was okay when they did it, when the terrorist threat, albeit existing, was marginally less than it is now. Bush does it, everyone whines. I am no fan of the guy but the double standard is just too embarrassing.

Here Here! Well said Layarteb. Well said indeed.

Uh. No, you're wrong, please re-read.
They can tap anybody based on probable cause. However, if they do that, they must get a warrant within 72 hours. Said warrants are typically granted if national security is brought up as the reason.

Which makes the rest of this:
Totally irrelevant.

Terrorism is real. It sucks. But it probably won't affect you personally.
The government most assuredly will.

Have you learned nothing from the no-fly lists that stop 9 month old babies from flying on suspicion of terrorism? What Bush has been doing is essentially giving the NSA carte blanche to wiretap anybody based on a list (like said 9 month old baby). So is there anything wrong with tapping terrorists? Of course not. There is, however, something wrong with tapping Ted Kennedy's phone line because T. Kennedy is a terrorist alias. Unfortunately, with the blanket approval that Bush is giving, we have no way of knowing if this wasn't done.

For the real conspiracy theorists, we don't even have any way of knowing if Bush is encouraging the NSA to tap the campaign managers of his political adversaries. Something which I think even you might agree is wrong. It's not that he is or isn't, it's that by circumventing the normal process, we are forced to rely on our faith in him that he isn't.

Were he God, such faith might be justified. But he's just a man, one as fallible as any of us.

so they can begin the wire tap based on probable cause... just have to get a warrant within 72 hours of the start point?

okay, gotcha. thanks for the explanation.

and finally, you can tell by looking at the poll options that this is a biased person... because to be fair, this option also should have been added:

Yes, i am brainwashed to always oppose him


Well I support him most of the time... only I can provide logical backing for my stances. I don't see that, just a bunch of whining about "rights". In this case the logical backing is: I'd rather thwart the "rights" of terrorists and remain alive (or have a greater chance of remaining alive) than to allow terrorists to thrive in the US and have increased chances of ending up in little sandwich bags.

Phone privacy while planning terrorist atacks is not a right.

-

democracy = freedom to vote for whom you choose (among other rights)

financial freedom = capitalism (freedom to spend your money as you see fit)

sorry, i guess I i don't get your point.

Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand.


You're talking as if the people opposing the tapping are pro-terrorist - we're really not! We just think that people should be innocent 'til proven guilty, not guilty 'til proven innocent, and besides, the government must be using this for other purposes too.

-

He means that the government will sacrifice civil rights for more money. He's not just trying to stick a naughty sticker on capitalism, though I might pat him on the back if he did. :)

assuming you're a dude or a lesbian (or both: many men consider themselves lesbians):

go to southern California or Miami and check out the females... they'll put the US back into a positive light. hehe


I just may do that :)

You're talking as if the people opposing the tapping are pro-terrorist - we're really not! We just think that people should be innocent 'til proven guilty, not guilty 'til proven innocent, and besides, the government must be using this for other purposes too.

-

He means that the government will sacrifice civil rights for more money. He's not just trying to stick a naughty sticker on capitalism, though I might pat him on the back if he did. :)

i know that... just being melodramatic

I just may do that :)

bring an umbrella if you're going to florida... they get tons of sunshine but also a good deal of rain

if you go to SoCal... just bring your sunglasses, and maybe a sweater for the evenings.

So I assume when you guys talk about 'Bush does this...Bush intends that...Bush's beliefs include' etc etc etc you aren't talking about the little old guy on telly with an alcohol pickled brain, learning difficulties, dementia andsoforth? I always read 'Bush' as 'evil corrupt psychopathic group of men and women who decieve the world (especially America) so that they get rich or fulfill religious delusions, with that bloke Junior as an icon or puppet'.

Now that little euphemism's cleared up:

Did you hear about China underestimating (accidentally on purpose) their stellar economic growth over the last few years. Bet The west's crapping it's pants. Ha Ha

Also I look forward to the puppeteers finessing their way out of the promise not to remove troops from I-Rack, they'll just change the definition of 'stability' or say that 'well it's their right as free citizens to manage their own affairs' or 'it's not a withdrawal it's a thoroughly planned, staged, sequenced, progressive reduction in actual on-ground peace operatives'. Or some such brazen crap.

and p.s. americans can't comment on 'terrorism' without breathtaking hypocrisy. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. American supported FINANCIALLY AND ETHICALLY (and actually gave bombs and guns to) the IRA, who blew up the british for decades. And the mujahadine (spelling) who were freedom fighters when the CIA armed them to fight the ruskies and terrorist taliban scum when they bit the hand that fed (and exploited) them

Ooh I feel a bit better.
Take care guys

"Offically" that was the US's stance. Their Policy was more "anyone going there to fight were not fighting for the US."

thus they really didn't stop volunteers from heading there through Canada. and there were some indications that some supplies were smuggled to the European front until America's involvement became "Official."

After Pearl Harbor, if used with Today's mindset, we would fight the Japanese, and only the Japanese. instead we fought the war on Two fronts, the Pacific and Europe. Because our Allies needed us and after the attack, the citizens were ready to fight.

No, today's mindset from those in charge is as stated on September 13th, Find out if SH did this... Let's wrap up Iraq and all things related..." Are you intentionally showing a lack of grasp for history, or do you really think we fought the war on two front "just because." After declaring war on Japan, the Axis Powers (A real organized front unlike Bush's farciful "axis of evil") declared war on the US. Naturally, the decleration of war by another country usually makes the country on the receiving end follow suit. Once Germany declared war on us we were obliged. Furthermore, they were actually trying to take over the world and doing a damn good job of it. Thjey weren't creating imaginary weapons, with imaginary armies, that turned out to be nothing more than imagination. You may be fooled by the shfting rationale for war, but please don't insult the intelligence of others. Saying this as a Marine, we're fighting the war for the MIC and those who profit from our pain. If we truly wanted to fight terrorists we'd have 140,000 in the Afghan Desert instead of Iraq. OBL is near Afghanistan/Pakistan, and we have 1,600 troops there. Anybody see a fricken problem here? Instead we have 140,000 in Iraq for Saddam who had no WMD, couldn't threaten his neighbor as he was weakened by sanctions, and had troops surrendering to news vans. For God's sake, could you please care more about our lives to actually use the military for protecting America? Maybe I'm not fit to be a MArine anymore, because I only want my blood spilled for a worthy cause. I also cannot follow lock step because unlike most E class members, I actually have graduate degrees and a worthy education. Some of you armchair rambo types make me laugh, on another note.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I never really saw the big problem with tapping phones and torturing suspected terrorists for information. Is privacy and the physical comfort of a likely criminal worth lives?
At first I took up the idea of writing a very long reply about kidnapping and torture being illegal but then I realised that I only had to point out that the US government in fact is doing many of the things the Iraqi government did in it's days so I deleted everything. I just wonder how you would feel if in half an hour or so, a dark van would pull up into your driveway and you would be grabbed from behind your computer, put in a "company" plane and transported to a "secret" prison in some Eastern European country or friendly Arabian country where government officials or government hired civilians would torture you because you were a suspected terrorist. You obviously wouldn't object to that because a little physical discomfort is worth lives.

I totally fail to see the logic of not defending the American people to the utmost of our capabilities... apparently, like i've said, the rights of terrorists are more important than the rights of all Americans to live.

Corection: the rights of all Americans are more important than the rights of all Americans to live. Currently the threat of worldwide international terrorism is insignificant - the number of people dying in traffic accidents, through diseases, malnutrition and possibly even by slipping on a bar of soap in the bathroom is still much higher.

Why are you so willing to throw away freedoms and privacy in exchange for inefficient and expensive combatting of a relatively rare cause of death ?

democracy = freedom to vote for whom you choose (among other rights)

financial freedom = capitalism (freedom to spend your money as you see fit)

sorry, i guess I i don't get your point.

Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand.

So there are no other forms of democracy to you? Capitalism giving all control and power to the corporations, making them seemless, is the basis for fascism. Also, your definitions are basic and incomplete. They are not synonymous, now should they be. de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.


capitalism

n : an economic system based on private ownership of capital [syn: capitalist economy] [ant: socialism]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


capitalism

capitalism in InvestorWords


Source: InvestorWords, © 2000 InvestorGuide.com, Inc.


Capitalism states the freedom is from "re-investment of profits gained in the free market place." How does this lend to corporate welfare, and massive expenditures being given to private corporations because they cannot reinvest money gained in the free market due to their loss of money? ARe you for large welfare programs for poor people? If so, then good because then you are not hypocritical. Using tax payer money to subsidize multi-billion dollar organizations is taking money from the poor to give to the rich. A Reverse Robin Hood if you will. Capitlism provides that free enterprise will stand on it's own, not take more money from those who pay it's profits, or lack thereof, in the first place. THEY ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS!

Democracy in its ideal sense is the notion that "the people" should have control of the government ruling over them. This ideal is pursued by implementing a system of voting such that the majority of people rule, either directly or indirectly through elected representatives. Democracies may be "liberal," where fundamental rights of individuals in the minority are protected by law, or they may be "illiberal" where they are not.

Democracy is often implemented as a form of government in which policy is decided by the preference of the real majority (as opposed to a partial or relative majority of the demos/citizens) in a decision-making process, usually elections or referenda, open to all or most citizens. In recent decades 'democracy' was used as a synonym for (western) liberal-democratic systems in nation-states, but the existence of "illiberal democracies" is now recognised. The qualifier 'liberal' in this context refers strictly speaking to constitutional liberalism and individual rights, but 'liberal democracy' is widely used to describe other aspects, (see below and the main article Liberal democracy). Definitions of democracy have in any case broadened to include aspects of society and political culture in democratic societies, which are not specifically a 'form of government'. Most liberal-democracies are parliamentary representative democracies, but there are many varieties of democracy, some still hypothetical. The term 'democratic' is also used in a looser sense, to describe participatory decision-making in groups or organizations.

Indeed, due to implications of comparative government, other prefered governments included: theocracy, monarchy, parliamentary republic, and republic. Since there are these other forms of government, the preference for the democratic form is itself an ideology, and a source of conflict. Despite its historical importance, there is no separate name for this ideology; it is referred to as 'pro-democracy' or simply 'democracy'. It is a universal ideology: most supporters of democracy consider it to be the only ethically legitimate form of government, and believe it should replace all other forms of government. Democratization is the replacement of these non-democratic forms by a democracy, and the historical impact of modern democracy has taken the form of successive democratisations of nation-states (rather than slow parallel evolution). If it continues, some consider that this process will make the liberal-democratic nation-states the standard form of human society, although they are historically recent and historically unique. This (incomplete) transition is the core of the end of history thesis.

The word democracy originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (demokratia). The components of the word are δημος (demos), the people; κρατειν (kratein), to rule; and the suffix ία (ia). The term means "rule by the people".

Corection: the rights of all Americans are more important than the rights of all Americans to live. Currently the threat of worldwide international terrorism is insignificant - the number of people dying in traffic accidents, through diseases, malnutrition and possibly even by slipping on a bar of soap in the bathroom is still much higher.

Why are you so willing to throw away freedoms and privacy in exchange for inefficient and expensive combatting of a relatively rare cause of death ?

no, this is not hurting the rights of all Americans

has your phone been tapped? mine hasn't either. this is aimed at criminals ... no, not just criminals, terrorists or those who would aid/abet terrorists.

again, this only affects maybe .00001% of Americans. So relax. Cripes.

I'll just quote a couple of great Americans--Patrick Henry, and Senator Russ Feingold who echoed him today--"Give me liberty or give me death."

there is also that little moral truth... "the ends never justify the means"

no, this is not hurting the rights of all Americans

has your phone been tapped? mine hasn't either. this is aimed at criminals ... no, not just criminals, terrorists or those who would aid/abet terrorists.

again, this only affects maybe .00001% of Americans. So relax. Cripes.
I hate to spring this on you, but criminals are a rather bigger chunk of the American population than 0.00001% of the adults in the country.

So I assume when you guys talk about 'Bush does this...Bush intends that...Bush's beliefs include' etc etc etc you aren't talking about the little old guy on telly with an alcohol pickled brain, learning difficulties, dementia andsoforth? I always read 'Bush' as 'evil corrupt psychopathic group of men and women who decieve the world (especially America) so that they get rich or fulfill religious delusions, with that bloke Junior as an icon or puppet'.

Now that little euphemism's cleared up:

Did you hear about China underestimating (accidentally on purpose) their stellar economic growth over the last few years. Bet The west's crapping it's pants. Ha Ha

Also I look forward to the puppeteers finessing their way out of the promise not to remove troops from I-Rack, they'll just change the definition of 'stability' or say that 'well it's their right as free citizens to manage their own affairs' or 'it's not a withdrawal it's a thoroughly planned, staged, sequenced, progressive reduction in actual on-ground peace operatives'. Or some such brazen crap.

and p.s. americans can't comment on 'terrorism' without breathtaking hypocrisy. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. American supported FINANCIALLY AND ETHICALLY (and actually gave bombs and guns to) the IRA, who blew up the british for decades. And the mujahadine (spelling) who were freedom fighters when the CIA armed them to fight the ruskies and terrorist taliban scum when they bit the hand that fed (and exploited) them

Ooh I feel a bit better.
Take care guys



Does it make someone a hypocrite to try and correct those mistakes?

Using tax payer money to subsidize multi-billion dollar organizations is taking money from the poor to give to the rich.

Liuzzo
Wrong. Saving businesses helps poor people by saving their jobs. Now I'm not for saving one company... but I see no problem with our government bailing out a whole industry, as was recently the case with the airline industry.

Even so, to save a huge company does mean that thousands of jobs are saved.

My loose/incomplete definitions stand:

Capitalism is financial freedom in that it allows a person to spend/invest his money as he sees fit. Proprietary rights, the right to reap the fruits of one's labor and then decide how to spend it... that's what i love about capitalism/free enterprise.

And of course democracy is a form of government/governmental election process... there was nothing at all wrong with my saying that democracy connotes freedom in the form of the free ballot box. That was accurate... it's the democratic way to have the freedom to choose one's leaders.

what I say stands:

Capitalism = Personal economic/financial freedom (gov't doesn't steal your money and give it to others, for instance... people keep what they earn or own by other rights -- like family)

Democracy = freedom of the people to choose their leaders

no, this is not hurting the rights of all Americans

And yet 9 yearolds are not allowed to board airplanes because they are placed on a list of suspected terrorists...
Not to mention the actually useful things one could do with the billions poured into the "war on terror"...

I hate to spring this on you, but criminals are a rather bigger chunk of the American population than 0.00001% of the adults in the country.

i believe i narrowed it down to suspected terrorists... re-read my post.

terrorists are a very small sub-set of criminals (I'd say they qualify as criminals).

And yet 9 yearolds are not allowed to board airplanes because they are placed on a list of suspected terrorists...
Not to mention the actually useful things one could do with the billions poured into the "war on terror"...

yeah, like erect giant titanium walls to deflect the terrorists' planes... that would be coming at us if we weren't chasing them all over the place...

ahh, to think that terrorists are really warm, fuzzy people who will leave us alone if we stop hunting and killing them like the pigs they are.

the titanium walls thing was a joke, btw. hehe

Using tax payer money to subsidize multi-billion dollar organizations is taking money from the poor to give to the rich.

Liuzzo
Wrong. Saving businesses helps poor people by saving their jobs. Now I'm not for saving one company... but I see no problem with our government bailing out a whole industry, as was recently the case with the airline industry.

Even so, to save a huge company does mean that thousands of jobs are saved.

My loose/incomplete definitions stand:

Capitalism is financial freedom in that it allows a person to spend/invest his money as he sees fit. Proprietary rights, the right to reap the fruits of one's labor and then decide how to spend it... that's what i love about capitalism/free enterprise.

And of course democracy is a form of government/governmental election process... there was nothing at all wrong with my saying that democracy connotes freedom in the form of the free ballot box. That was accurate... it's the democratic way to have the freedom to choose one's leaders.

what I say stands:

Capitalism = Personal economic/financial freedom (gov't doesn't steal your money and give it to others, for instance... people keep what they earn or own by other rights -- like family)

Democracy = freedom of the people to choose their leaders

There is also that little known fact that impoverished people dont actually pay taxes.. and that over 60% of all taxes are paid by the top 20% of the countries wealthy.. so money isn't being taken from the poor and given to the rich just as a matter of technicality

Using tax payer money to subsidize multi-billion dollar organizations is taking money from the poor to give to the rich.

Liuzzo
Wrong. Saving businesses helps poor people by saving their jobs. Now I'm not for saving one company... but I see no problem with our government bailing out a whole industry, as was recently the case with the airline industry.

Even so, to save a huge company does mean that thousands of jobs are saved.

My loose/incomplete definitions stand:

Capitalism is financial freedom in that it allows a person to spend/invest his money as he sees fit. Proprietary rights, the right to reap the fruits of one's labor and then decide how to spend it... that's what i love about capitalism/free enterprise.

And of course democracy is a form of government/governmental election process... there was nothing at all wrong with my saying that democracy connotes freedom in the form of the free ballot box. That was accurate... it's the democratic way to have the freedom to choose one's leaders.

what I say stands:

Capitalism = Personal economic/financial freedom (gov't doesn't steal your money and give it to others, for instance... people keep what they earn or own by other rights -- like family)

Democracy = freedom of the people to choose their leaders


Sure, and nuclear fission is simply the splitting of atoms. Nothing mor somplex than that right? Your attempt to take complex issues and turn them into black and white, cookie-cutters is not even worthy of notice. OH, so when they raise taxes (gas tax, income, property) to give money to Exxonmobil it isn' stealing, it's redistribution? When they give money from taxes to an illiterate mother of 3, it's class warfare. I understand you perfectly now. I like what you said about saving jobs, except that it's a farce. No, this is what really happens. Government bails out companies and industries (ie. pay farmers not to grow food, airlines, insurance companies, and oil companies that announce record profit 2 quarters in a row) which you state will create more jobs. What it actually does is pad the stock accounts of upper level execs while allowing them to outsource (30,000 cut for GM) work to companies in foreign lands, thereby gaining even larger profits. Couple that with the tax loopholes that allow a desk in Aruba to be the "company headquarters" and you realize that real US PATRIOTS PAY US TAXES! Either way you cut it, it's a give away to corporations. They take money paid by John Q. Public and give it to compaines already making HUGE profits. What you said doesn't stand, just as a chair won't stand on only 1 good leg. I might be giving you too much credit with one good leg, but I'm feeling festive. Happy Holidays as I'm now a War on Christmas Jihadist.

There is also that little known fact that impoverished people dont actually pay taxes.. and that over 60% of all taxes are paid by the top 20% of the countries wealthy.. so money isn't being taken from the poor and given to the rich just as a matter of technicality

Please take your Mike Drudge "Facts" and spin them the O'REilly way. Let's clarify, in the end we all pay taxes. Gas tax, income tax, sales tax, etc. There's no way to avoide it, and myopic people can't understand that there's more then the damned income tax. You are taxed almost on a daily basis, but never even think about it. Please argue against that fact and I'll just ingore you for the rest of existence, which according to the 7 day adventists is tomorrow or something like that. Let's expand out defintion of "poor" to people who live paycheck to paycheck. While the rich care making money off oil stocks, the poor are struggling just to be able to put the oil in their car, house, etc. So in this, and your ideal system, the poor stay poor just struggling to buy what the wealthy profit from. So in your world of "logic" this is not an example of the exploitation of the less fortunate to help pad the wealthy's expense accounts? In America, and a truly capitalist society, there is supposed to be the ability for any one of us to move freely throughout the economic and social ladder. I've just shown you how the current system actually negates that concept and creats an environment where we are socially stagnated. The people on the lower end will never have the means to own what the richer person is selling them and profitting from. Have I made myself more clear?

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frangland
Using tax payer money to subsidize multi-billion dollar organizations is taking money from the poor to give to the rich.

Liuzzo
Wrong. Saving businesses helps poor people by saving their jobs. Now I'm not for saving one company... but I see no problem with our government bailing out a whole industry, as was recently the case with the airline industry.

Even so, to save a huge company does mean that thousands of jobs are saved.

My loose/incomplete definitions stand:

Capitalism is financial freedom in that it allows a person to spend/invest his money as he sees fit. Proprietary rights, the right to reap the fruits of one's labor and then decide how to spend it... that's what i love about capitalism/free enterprise.

And of course democracy is a form of government/governmental election process... there was nothing at all wrong with my saying that democracy connotes freedom in the form of the free ballot box. That was accurate... it's the democratic way to have the freedom to choose one's leaders.

what I say stands:

Capitalism = Personal economic/financial freedom (gov't doesn't steal your money and give it to others, for instance... people keep what they earn or own by other rights -- like family)

Democracy = freedom of the people to choose their leaders




what you have described is a republic. :upyours:
a republic is where people elect officials to represent them.
a democracy is where everyone votes on every issue.
if we had a straight democracy there would be some anarchy!
we have a democratic republic.
:eek: :mp5:

:confused: :sniper:

:mad: :gundge:

:( :mp5:

:mad:

I love all these people who say that these wiretaps/torturings are only being used on terrorists, etc.

First off, if we aren't even going to get warrants anymore, how the hell do you know if he isn't wiretapping you?

Has enough B television movies where the good guy makes the decision to torture, and gets the exact location of the main bad guy, etc, affected your subconscious so strongly that you think its some very rare occurance to suspect the wrong people?

If it was this easy to pick out terrorists, we would never have any terrorist attacks, here or elsewhere. Yet, I've heard at most of small catches, like two guys a while ago who were terrorist were caught, and it was plastered on the news.

I don't buy the excuse that the administration is catching all these terrorists and stopping all these plots, and keeping them quiet. They have plastered less on the news more. It seems to me, the government is more than happy to wiretap tens, if not hundreds, of americans, to stop every legitimate terrorist.

If the government want's to listen in on my conversations, good for them. However, get your fucking warrant first, because I see no probable cause. If the court does, then obviously there is something to be worried about. If you need to look first, ask for permission later, go ahead, as long as you don't do it without any permission whatsoever.

I don't understand the bush-wankers positions. These warrants are almost never not granted. They get all the wire-taps they ask for. None of them have answered this point.

Why does bush want the ability to grant wiretaps, without needing any warrants? If he already gets all the ones for legitimate targets he wants? I can see nothing but nefarious wishes of his as the reason, and if you have a legitimate counter-argument to that point, please tell me. I really do want to know.

personally, i think he is testing the country.
if there is no investigation, he will do it again, and worse.:headbang:

Then why the hell did we send military equipment to the UK and the USSR as well as "volunteers" to China?

For God's sake CH, learn history.
As usually the Cornman resorts to flaming. :(

Next time take a moment of thought as to what I posted without going off on some obtuse slant.

As usually the Cornman resorts to flaming. :(

Next time take a moment of thought as to what I posted without going off on some obtuse slant.

So its flaming in telling the truth? Militarily we were not though that is also sketchy at best.

Jesus, I thought this died a few days ago!

Anyway, Bush is now stepping into the realm of Lincoln and FDR: taking liberties with the law to either save us or defend us. I guess Bush is putting it under save.
FDR did it for economy, Lincoln did it for the Union, Bush is doing it for . . . .
:confused:

See, therein lies the problem. We can't deny that terrorism is a major problem facing we of the Western world (and elsewhere, too), however, it is a much more vague and abstract problem that the more direct and tangible issues facing Roosevelt and Lincoln.

Right now, Bushie needs to argue why these wiretappings are important. He can defend this position if he puts his mind to it. However, if he acts as he's done before and says nothing, history (and popular opinion...) will continue to frown on his administration.

You might say that the only person that can save Bush's credibility is Bush himself. To be perfectly honest, George seems to be his own worst enemy in some situations.

Time will tell if he can pull himself out of the gutter once and for all, or just bury himself even deeper. We're waaaaaiting.......