We're all gonna die in suicide bombings! Thanks, you dirty liberals!

Sincerely,

John Q. Righty.

Oh no! Now I must hide under my bed!

The Frightened Right

Never been a big fan of the Patriot Act. Glad to see this part shot down.

Kudos to Oorah for choosing not to walk lockstep with his party.

Those damn Activist Judges, they have no business upholding the Constitution.

Judges or Judge?

""His ruling is just more proof that Liberals cannot be trusted with the security of this Nation in the 21st Century.""

No, actually BOWA it really is an indication that the REpublicans can't be trusted with defending the Constitution. They too willingly trash it in hopes of insuring their safety. The judge wouldn't need to strike down any part of the law had it been written with respect for the Constitution.

Oh and Duuuuh!

Now how do we get the rest of that abomination destroyed?

Monte.... where do you see Oorah posting on this thread?

I am a pretty conservative guy generally but the patriot act has been the biggest step towards a system with out checks and balances, it is basically "if the ends justify the means bill". The abuse of power that is possible in this act is unbelievably UN-AMERICAN. This and other must pass legislation has destroyed civil liberties for all Americans.

I am a pretty conservative guy generally but the patriot act has been the biggest step towards a system with out checks and balances, it is basically "if the ends justify the means bill". The abuse of power that is possible in this act is unbelievably UN-AMERICAN. This and other must pass legislation has destroyed civil liberties for all Americans.

Notice how the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is doing everything they can to stop the encroachment into our constitutional civil rights.

Collusion at its best!

You dirty rotten bastard Lokisfur How dare You say Liberals can not be trusted. It is Your limp dick leader that You support who can not be trusted. Obviously You lack the mental faculties necessary to grasp the truth. Please get a clue at WallGreens buy 4 get 3 free. Thanks.

Larry

How dare You say Liberals can not be trusted.

Well, larry -- you think 1+1=three. You are a liberal. I don't trust you.

Also, you said that Bush didn't know about the 9/11 attack. Bob said they did. You lied about that. You are a liberal. I don't trust you.

The judge wouldn't need to strike down any part of the law had it been written with respect for the Constitution.

Oh and Duuuuh!

Posted by danni at 2007-09-06 05:58 PM | Reply

Typical BS and you know it Danni.

This guy used his appointment to strike down a law that can truely help federal investigators track down and gather intel on potential terrorists that have only one thing in mind and that is too attack the US...

This is proof that Libs don't know how to protect the US in the 21st century. I believe they have the country in mind but with their adament PC attitude and their unwillingness to activly search for terrorists they just dont have the drive or fortitude to defend the US...

Goatman = WOB that is an algebraic equasion. Probably way over Your head.

Larry

This guy used his appointment to strike down a law that can truely help federal investigators track down and gather intel on potential terrorists that have only one thing in mind and that is too attack the US...

Shall we make search and seisure legal without warrants? It would certainly make it not only easier for federal investigators but the local police too. My be his appointment has nothing to do with the ruling.

The idiocy of this post clearly shows the level of intellect the army is drawing from.

It's really very simple. So simple, you'd think even the lib, Islamofascist aiding and abetting lovers of terrorism and haters of liberty might, just might mind you, be able to comprehend. But let's go through it one more time, shall we?

A "strict constructionist" is a judge who bases decisions on the law, on precedent, on what's right and decides in favor of Our President. A "politically motivated udicial activist stooge" is a judge who does something else.

The Judicial Branch of our Government is supposed to be engaged in judiciating. The Legislative Branch legislates, with the President's approval. The Executive Branch executes the wishes of the President. It's really very simple. So simple, you'd think the libs could understand it but they seem to be having a tough time of it: There are three---count them: three---branches of the Federal Government. It's like a pyramid, with the people as one branch at the bottom, where the foundation lies. The next branch is the Legislative. This is followed by the Judicial. Then up at the top, the very tippity toppity, there's the Big Eye (just like on a dollar bill). That's the Executive Branch, which is what oversees the whole sheebang and reflects the wishes and whims of Our Leader: The I.

When you libs understand that you'll understand how our System works. Until you do, you won't. The problem is, you cause so much damage during the time you don't that I believe the Eye needs to focus very sharply and narrowly on those who are undermining our Very Way of Life: you libs. Perhaps it's time to do a little data mining, take a few names, jot down some numbers, tighten things up a bit.

Stop holding up President Bush's judicial nominees!
God Bless Our Leader and Champion of the Free World!
God Bless Rudy!

No respectable court could have done anything else, although if the Supremes get at it, they will no doubt rule in favor of a totalitarian police state.

The funny thing is that if i were plotting to overthrow this government (in my dreams) or set off a bomb on some Ten Commendments memorial, I surely would not use my phone or e-mail. herm

God Damned You Boa. I was all going to get up in Lokisfur's shit when I spilt My drink all over hell and back I swear.

Larry

First ball, first inning strike for America.

There are never less than 27 outs with up to three strikes each. Additional strikes.

Home team only gets 27 outs.

Home is the White House

It will take a lot of pitching but, our rights may just be returned.

Lay in a lot of beer and popcorn, its gonna get dirty.

On that note, what do you think of this?

Cooper, I think given the rise of "homegrown" terrorist cells and networks in Europe and elsewhere, the government must be given great latitude in developing and implementing the intel gathering tools necessary to safeguard this nation in the 21st Century.

And giving known terrorists and their supporters "due process" rights as if they were just common criminals is not the answer.

While I can understand why the SCOTUS would see a distinction between Padilla and other terrorists based on "citizenship", I still believe that it creates a huge weak spot in our security network that will eventually be exploited by our enemies costing hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of innocent american lives.

I am very glad that our Goivernment was able to convict Padilla without revealing state secrets -- next time we might not be so lucky -- and our government might be put in a position of having to reveal secret intel about our techniques and programs in order to get an indictment, or release a terrorist because they are unwilling to jeopardize these secret programs. Talk about between a rock and hard place.

"Monte.... where do you see Oorah posting on this thread?

Posted by moomanfl at 2007-09-06 06:10 PM"

Oops! My kudos were meant for Moomanfl. Credit where credit is due, and all that jazz.

I'm a relative newcomer here so I know I missed something that happened before my time. Can someone tell me what Larry's obsession with "lokisfur" is? I see it every day that he posts.

Thanks

Boa's 7:24 is fucking hilarious. FF for that.

Goatman = WOB that is an algebraic equasion. Probably way over Your head.

Larry = afraid to answer one little question

Not over your head. You are smart enough to know that to answer it will trap you.

Bowa-
I think you're right. Since we're all scared, the president has the right to declare a citizen an "enemy combatant", hold him indefinitely without charges and subject him to "alternative interrogation techniques".

What do you think, Goatman?

"What do you think, Goatman?"

I think an Acacia Carneros 2005 pinot noir goes very nicely with a well made Beef Stoganoff.

I can't imagine that the founding fathers would disagree with granting the president the same powers as the king in pre-Magna Carta England.

Let me give You the low down on Lokisfur. Lokisfur is Bowa He has used several Handles. It all started because Lokisfur got outed for information outside of the Drudge Retort. Then about 3 weeks later He comes back under Derfla5 then His next reincarnation happened with rastaninjja on September the 5th of LAST Year. Then He went under the handle Larry Bowa and then reduced it to simply Bowa. He is a fraud a fake a phony. You Goatman are a WOB most of the time but You have yet came in under Multiple handles which to me constitutes a fraudulent act making that person a fraud. Myself I have used only 2 Handles which can be construded to being actualy the long version of My Name. I came here about 3.5 Years ago under LarryM(Shortened version of My REAL Name) then I just added the LarryMohr after we were required to sign in. Now back to the Lokisfur thing. He has lied about Many things upon the Drudge like when He was under the Handle Derfla5 He made a Headline Liberals beat up a 7 Year old. It was a case back east where YES a kid got beat up but it was another Youngster that commited the act. He has of yet retracted that nor has He retracted many oif the other lies that He has told. Like the time when He declared on November 26 2006 that He had a public EMAIOL address when He never had it set to anything but Private. I am sick and tired of the lies that He keeps spewing and As long as blood flows through My body I am going to call Him on it. Now any other questions about it.

Larry

It seems that Goatman doesn't like questions where he doesn't like his own honest answers(If he were to ever express them, which he won't).

Goat - Lokisfur is one of the handles that a thoroughly discredited poster here has chosen in the past. He has made some ridiculous statements and predictions (primarily about Iraq), but when events evolve to show that he is a complete idiot (like we told him at the time), instead of facing the music he simply chooses a new handle.

I think Larry is convinced that Bowa is Loki's current handle. He might be right, but I don't know.

Hell, at least Bowa is mostly clear in stating that he'll bend over when the gov't tells him to - forsaking hundreds of years of struggle and law to appease his momentary fears.

Lokiderflarastaninnjabowa - has a certain ring to it, no?

Montecore as assuredly as I sit here typing to You I KNOW BOWA Is LOKISFUR. NO QUESTION.

Larry

It seems that Goatman doesn't like questions where he doesn't like his own honest answers(If he were to ever express them, which he won't).

It seems that cooper is obsessed with me because he daily asks ambiguous questions trying to trap me into a debate with him. Even when he's told that I don't want to debate, he keeps it up. Frankly, I'm starting to find his obsession with me a little creepy. I wish he'd target someone else who actually wants to converse with him. There are so many others on the DR to choose from.

Shall we make search and seisure legal without warrants? It would certainly make it not only easier for federal investigators but the local police too. My be his appointment has nothing to do with the ruling.

The idiocy of this post clearly shows the level of intellect the army is drawing from.

Posted by moneywar at 2007-09-06 07:14 PM | Reply

Should we give terrorists a free pass and the opportunity to plan devistating attacks on the US. All the while forcing the government to tell them hey were looking into you to see if you are a terrorist..

Sorry, They are not going to intentionally kick in the door or 70 yr old grandmothers. Talk about spreading fear... You lefties have the public so scared that their RIGHTS are being violated they are willing to give the country over to people who would actually take thier RIGHTS away....

Hell, at least Bowa is mostly clear in stating that he'll bend over when the gov't tells him to Posted by Cooper at 2007-09-06 07:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now any other questions about it.

No more questions, Larry. Thank you et al who cleared up this question for me.

It seems that cooper is obsessed with me because he daily asks ambiguous questions trying to trap me into a debate with him. Even when he's told that I don't want to debate, he keeps it up. Frankly, I'm starting to find his obsession with me a little creepy. I wish he'd target someone else who actually wants to converse with him. There are so many others on the DR to choose from.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-06 07:52 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Same can be said of You towards me.

Larry

You lefties have the public so scared that their RIGHTS are being violated they are willing to give the country over to people who would actually take thier RIGHTS away....

Should we give terrorists a free pass and the opportunity to plan devistating attacks on the US. All the while forcing the government to tell them hey were looking into you to see if you are a terrorist..

Because we won't let you supporters violate the constitution is giving the terrorists a free pass?

Wow, like I said before, the quality of intellect the army is getting now a days is quite reflective of no child left behind.

Goatman-
Whether or not the president has the constitutional power to detain a citizen indefinitely without charges is not "an ambiguous question".

But it is a question you seem unwilling to answer.

I think you're right. Since we're all scared, the president has the right to declare a citizen an "enemy combatant", hold him indefinitely without charges and subject him to "alternative interrogation techniques".

Actually, the President never claimed the right to declare any citizen as an "enemy combatant", only ones with direct ties to terrorist activities. And padilla certainly fit the bill.

The paranoid and fear mongering Left of course, sees abuse of these intel programs as a greater danger then the threat of terrorism -- hence their belief that because the Governemnt wants to spy on terrorists in secret so theor plans can be uncovered and the terrorists captured, they must also want to spy on every innocent american and put them in jail and throw away the key. For what reason would the governemnt have to lock up completely innocent people for no apparent reason -- you got me. I guess the Left thinks that the governemnt doesn't have anything better to do.

But the above is moot anyway, the Padilla case found that the President did not have that right to lock up american citizens as enemy combatants under any circumstances.

And frankly, I fear US citizens belonging to a homegrown terrorist cell exploiting this verdict to kill innocent americans a lot more then I fear our governemnt spying on ordinary american instead of targeting known terrorists and their operatives as intended.

Whether or not the president has the constitutional power to detain a citizen indefinitely without charges is not "an ambiguous question".

No it's not. In fact it's not even a question, much less an ambiguous one. You are so smart. But

What do you think, Goatman?

Posted by Cooper at 2007-09-06 07:41 PM


Is. Your point?

Actually, the President never claimed the right to declare any citizen as an "enemy combatant", only ones with direct ties to terrorist activities.

Really? And how were the "direct ties to terrorist activities" established?

(By the president's decree)

Are you truly so subservient, so cowered in fear, and so gullible and ignorant as to jettison hundreds of years of struggle to just bend over and grant the gov't any power they wish?
Have you any clue as to the long struggle for the republic, and for the rejection of kings?

"Actually, the President never claimed the right to declare any citizen as an "enemy combatant", only ones with direct ties to terrorist activities."

And it's Bush who decides who has "direct ties", so your claim is a distinction without a difference.

Wow, like I said before, the quality of intellect the army is getting now a days is quite reflective of no child left behind.

Posted by moneywar at 2007-09-06 07:58 PM | Reply

See you lefties only know how to make personal attacks. WHY whats the point are you incapable of arguing without it.

The Constution says no unreasonable search or seizure.

If the DHS, DOJ, etc have good reason to tap, investigate or gather records on a person they should have the right without having to go through some liberal ass judge to do so. What if it is time sensitive? Should they have to wait for some judge to get his ass into the office. Sorry, there are situations where the need GREATLY outweights the detriment and I am sure their are vice versa events as well.

Army of 1. That confirms my suspicions about the success of their recruiting goals, even though--in the words of the Army COS--"We're not lowering our standards, we're just widening the aperture". Yeah. Army folks love to widen apertures. Say! Isn't Craig ex-Army?

USN -- Are you a Navy Vet?

Lokisfur must have forgotten when Dubya declared Hamdi an enemy combatant He must have forgotten Padilia He has absolutely NO clue.

Larry

Same can be said of You towards me.

No, Larry, it's different. I asked one question about the wild conspiracy theory you threw out and you won't answer it. Cooper comes out of the blue with stuff that I never initiated. There's a difference.

When you make outrageous conspiratorial claims like you do, Larry, it is normal for people to question them. Or when you say things like 1+1=3 people are going to question you. Does this surprise you?

"If the DHS, DOJ, etc have good reason to tap, investigate or gather records on a person they should have the right without having to go through some liberal ass judge to do so"

Good reason according to whom? There's the lynchpin of our entire system: checks and balances. No one in the judicial branch gets to operate independently. Neighborhood cops must get a judge to sign off on a warrant, based on probable cause; why shouldn't all law enforcement?

"What if it is time sensitive? Should they have to wait for some judge to get his ass into the office. "

They don't. Under FISA, they had 72hrs AFTER the tap to get permission. And less than one request in a thousand was denied.

If the DHS, DOJ, etc have good reason to tap, investigate or gather records on a person they should have the right without having to go through some liberal ass judge to do so.

Who shall establish "good reason"?

What if it is time sensitive? Should they have to wait for some judge to get his ass into the office.

FISA established very generous after-the-fact court approval.

What you are arguing for is the right of the executive to spy on anyone whenever they wish without any oversight.

Goatman-

You betcha.

You a CPO?

23 years covering the last war we lost. E-1 to W-3. Airedale, shot at, shit-on, ditched and retired. Foreign Service, Pakistan/Afghanistan when we were doing the surrogate war with the USSR.

So nice to see the commentary here....chuckle.

Cooper,

That's twice now, 8:05 and 8:15. Brilliant minds, and all.

Army,

You have now reduced yourself to a point were conversational debate is no longer worth while.

I would have a debate with a 4th grader who knows more about our constitution than what you have continuously posted.

I no longer wish to converse with purposeful regression of intellectual valued people.

I'm still waiting on Armyof1 to tell me how the terrorists would take our rights away.

I mean, how can they attack the bill of rights? With what methods?

Please, elaborate on that assertion Armyof1.

When you make outrageous conspiratorial claims like you do, Larry, it is normal for people to question them. Or when you say things like 1+1=3 people are going to question you. Does this surprise you?

Goat, I find it interesting that you created the 1+1=3 term but now push the attributed falsehood upon Larry.

More and more like LOKI all the time with shades of Niceville all over it.

Danforth-
LOL. I see it now.

No Goatman it is the same fucking thing and You know it. You are always on My ass for something.

Larry

PS Moneywar it was I who created 1+1=3 because one Male + One Female nine months later out pops a kid therefor 1+1=3

Larry

Trees-
I'm still waiting on Armyof1 to tell me how the terrorists would take our rights away.

I mean, how can they attack the bill of rights? With what methods?

Through fear, and the gleeful help of those such as "Army of 1".

See you guys later

You a CPO?

No, got out after six years as STG2. Would've made first if I had reupped. I was in 1975-1981. Crewmember USS H E Holt ff 1074 out of Pearl and USS Elmer Montgomery ff 1082 out of Mayport. Went BE/E, A & C schools at FLTASWTRACENPAC in San Diego for 14 months. Excellent electronic school. I have no regrets getting my training from the Navy vs vocational school.

Are you truly so subservient, so cowered in fear, and so gullible and ignorant as to jettison hundreds of years of struggle to just bend over and grant the gov't any power they wish?

Do you truly fear and hate our governemnt more then our enemies who are trying to destroy us?

We are at war. Now if you want to live in some fantasy world and pretend that we are not in a war, that Bush made the whole thing up in order to give him more power and make him more popular then you can prance around with yur rainbows and unicorns and beleive that all you want.

As for me, I will have to respectfully decline your invitation to never-never land where liberals never grow up -- I have reality to deal with.

Cooper,

You know that, and I know that. What I wanted was Armyof1 to tell me how capitulation to the "terror" generated by the terrorists is somehow in the best interest of this nation.

See, by my reckoning, it is Armyof1, Bowa and others of their ilk who are so eager to surrender the protection offered to them by the bill of rights in the name of a little extra security that are truly the people supporting the terrorist's agenda. Control through fear.

Personally, I believe the only way to win the "GWOT" is to live as free and without fear as we were living on 09-10-01.

We've always had a choice, let them win by changing how we live or make them irrelevant by thumbing our noses at them and living the way we were the day before they got their evil on.

Goat, I find it interesting that you created the 1+1=3 term but now push the attributed falsehood upon Larry.

Posted by moneywar at 2007-09-06 08:21 PM


STFU, moneywar, or get a clue.


WROPNG AGAIN GOATMAN. If One Male and One Female get together and have sex and in 9 months oput pops a Baby then 1+1=3 Nice try though on Your part I will give You that.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-09-06 03:31 PM |

Iy won't be shot down for long.

The judge is a Clinton appointment who also had been an assistant to Mayor John Lindsey, one of the worst mayors in NYC history.
www.fjc.gov

His ruling is just more proof that Liberals cannot be trusted with the security of this Nation in the 21st Century.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-06 05:53 PM | Reply |

Damn bowa just when I thought you got off the ignorant bias against liberals band-wagon. Your no damned better than army and rob some days.

I've seen you post sensibly and you make a good argument for the right, but that would not be present in this thread.

Moneywar it was I who created 1+1=3 because one Male + One Female nine months later out pops a kid therefor 1+1=3


And I'm sure moneywar, being the same mindset as Larry agrees that 1+1=3, right, moneywar?

Armyof1:
re: Do you truly fear and hate our governemnt more then our enemies who are trying to destroy us?

I truly fear those who would sacrifice liberty for the illusion of security.

Should we give terrorists a free pass and the opportunity to plan devistating attacks on the US. All the while forcing the government to tell them hey were looking into you to see if you are a terrorist...

Once again it all comes down to warrants. We on the Left say the government can fight terrorism with extreme vigilence, all they need to do is get a warrant, even a 3 days later FISA warrant.

You'll notice that what Armyof1 posted is a lie. The FBI does not have to tell a single terrorist that they are being monitored. All they have to do is tell a court that a terrorist is being monitored.

Judge Marrero said the ruling does not mean the FBI must obtain the approval of a court prior to ordering records be turned over, but rather must justify to a court the need for secrecy if the orders will last longer than a reasonable and brief period of time.

The government is still being granted extreme leniency. They can spy on everyone without a warrant, they only need to justify if they need to keep the spying secret.


I don't trust the suporters of the Patriot Act, because they keep lying. Why do they claim that terrorism can't be fought within the bounds of the Constitution? All that is needed is a warrant, and court supervision to ensure that this nation does not become a police state.

As long as the Right continue to claim that we're all going to die if the cops have to get a warrant, we will continue to call you out as liars.
The more you claim you don't need a warrant when there's no reason not to get one, the more we wonder what it is you're really up to.

Obey the Constitution, get a warrant, fight terrorism. It's not that fucking hard.

Damn bowa just when I thought you got off the ignorant bias against liberals band-wagon

I think the patriot Act, as well as numerous other actions and intitiatives implemented after 9/11 are the reason this nation has not been attacked again here at home.

So when a liberal judge appointed by Clinton with ties to the failed liberal mayoralty of John Lindsey in NYC, starts to pull apart the Patriot Act during wartime and call some parts "unconstitutional" my inclination is to belive that this Judge, like so many liberals and democrats, fears the US governemnt more then they do our enemies -- and he would rather protect the rights of terrorists to plot and plan the murder of innocent men women and children, then allow our government to discover and thwart these plans.

And ti is this "Liberal" mindset which refusees toeven acknowledge the threat, the danger that America faces, which led me to make the statement that "His ruling is just more proof that Liberals cannot be trusted with the security of this Nation in the 21st Century."

I just calls it the way I see it.

You certianly have every right to disagree.

(see Goatman)

Bowa-
There was no attack on US soil between 1993 and 2001.

Was it the blowjobs?

Bowa-
re: ...and ti is this "Liberal" mindset which refusees toeven acknowledge the threat, the danger that America faces..

That's bullshit. Pretty much everyone recognizes the threat; it's only the fearful authoritarians such as yourself who are eager to jettison the constitution when you hear "Boo!".

(which makes me wonder if you really support the constitution at all, or perhaps have always seen it as an impediment)

"this nation has not been attacked again here at home."

Anthrax?

"fears the US governemnt more then they do our enemies"

"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Bowa-
re: "I just calls it the way I see it."

The way you see it is fucked up. Everyone knows that a top-down authoritarian gov't is more efficient, but that's not what we've spent the last 500 years fighting for.

""Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan"

Unfortunately, Republicans in power have been trying to prove him right ever since.

I think the patriot Act, as well as numerous other actions and intitiatives implemented after 9/11 are the reason this nation has not been attacked again here at home.

So when a liberal judge appointed by Clinton with ties to the failed liberal mayoralty of John Lindsey in NYC, starts to pull apart the Patriot Act during wartime and call some parts "unconstitutional" my inclination is to belive that this Judge, like so many liberals and democrats, fears the US governemnt more then they do our enemies -- and he would rather protect the rights of terrorists to plot and plan the murder of innocent men women and children, then allow our government to discover and thwart these plans.

And ti is this "Liberal" mindset which refusees toeven acknowledge the threat, the danger that America faces, which led me to make the statement that "His ruling is just more proof that Liberals cannot be trusted with the security of this Nation in the 21st Century."

I just calls it the way I see it.

You certianly have every right to disagree.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-06 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

This statement is incorrect We have been attacked since 9-11-01 several times. Lokisfur. Please do so ever try yet again for You know not what You speak about.

Larry

There was no attack on US soil between 1993 and 2001.

Well, Obvioulsy in hindsight we now know that the main reason for that was they were planning the spectacular attack on 9/11 for 4-5 of those years.

And had the patriot Act been in place then, no doubt the FBI and CIA would have been able to share information and the plot would have been uncovered.

But as we also know, Clinton was big on political correctness and preventing the FBI and CIA from sharing info for fear that some terrorists rights might be violated -- and he certainly wasn't too interested in fighting terrorism -- as numerous unanswered attacks on US interests during his tenure prove.

Bowa-
re: Well, Obvioulsy in hindsight we now know that the main reason for that was they were planning the spectacular attack on 9/11 for 4-5 of those years.

Sure. Obviously. If you're a right-wing nutcase.

Bowa, that last post of yours is complete Horace the Horse bullshit. You're taking suppositions and stating them as fact. C'mon. You're not that stoopid.

Are you?

It's like saying OBL hit on 9/11/01 because he knew he'd have a faithful foil and enabler in GWB. Prove it aint' so.

In any event, we DO know that Tenet briefed Bush, Cheney and Rice before Bush became pres. and told him there were 3 major threats to the US: one of them OBL.

We also know Bush received news of increased OBL activity.

And we know Bush did nothing.

So where do you go with that?

Do you truly fear and hate our governemnt more then our enemies who are trying to destroy us?

I think the patriot Act, as well as numerous other actions and intitiatives implemented after 9/11 are the reason this nation has not been attacked again here at home.

You can't think Bowa. You don't know how. Except for a few minor cranks, they have no reason. bin Laden wanted to draw Bush into the ME tar pit and Bush took the bait.

With the Navy and Air Force primed and ready to level Iran, if there is a major attack on this continent in the next six months, it will have been planned in Washington. The timing is too transparent.

BOWA

Can you say 68 Cruise Missles, or all the 1995 WTC attackers hunted down and imprisoned under Clinton?

Can you say 0 shots at Bin Laden by Bush, or letting him get away in Tora Bora when the CIA had him in their sights with a box for his head begging D.C. for permission to shoot and getting turned down?

Can you say, "Bush shut down the Bin Laden desk Clinton created and focused the first cabinet meeting after 9/11 on Saddam instead of Bin Laden?"

Can you say 'Bin Laden and Zawahiri still at large 6 years after 9/11?"

Can you say "Our own intelligence services conclude Bush's actions have left us less safe and have created MORE terror?"

Uh huh

Doc-
Clearly, Bush can't be blamed for being oblivious to the most devastating terrorist attack it history.

It's Clinton's fault, and the only way to remedy it is to grant Bush, and the presidents that follow, the powers of a pre-Magna Carta king!

It all makes perfect sense.

"no doubt the FBI and CIA would have been able to share information and the plot would have been uncovered."

And Bush brought that wall down the first day of his Presidency, right?

No?

Well, the first week, right?

No?

The first month? The first quarter? The first half-year? Anytime prior to 9/11? No? No? No? NO?

Sounds like the sentry-on-duty on 9/11 is to blame.

GOATMAN You watching?? Here is yet another lie from LOKISFUR aka BOWA.

But as we also know, Clinton was big on political correctness and preventing the FBI and CIA from sharing info for fear that some terrorists rights might be violated -- and he certainly wasn't too interested in fighting terrorism -- as numerous unanswered attacks on US interests during his tenure prove.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-06 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Can you say "Bin Laden free, and the US military strapped down in Iraq"?

Can you say "If Bush were a mole planted by jihadists how could he have more effectively weakened the US"?

Thank you, Cooper. I defer to your view. It makes much more sense. Please put a cube of sugar in my cup of soma. Oh, and make sure you tell me about the rabbits. There's nothing like soma and rabbits.

:>)

We are ALL gonna die someday the question is do You want to die standing up for the Principles that Our Founding Fathers gifted to us or do You want to die on Your hands and knees licking Your Masters feet?? the question is YOURS and YOURS alone.

Larry

I think the patriot Act, as well as numerous other actions and intitiatives implemented after 9/11 are the reason this nation has not been attacked again here at home.

Is it only terrorism if it's a muslim? The LA airport shooting was an act of terrorism. The DC sniper was an act of terrorism. The Virginia Tech shootings was an act of terrorism.

Terrible things like this will happen, and there's nothing an authoritarian government can do about it.

And yes I do fear unfettered government power more than terrorism. Because terrorism is random acts, they have no real power except what we give them through fear.
But governments ARE power. And they grow and they take and they take. How much untold suffering was caused by the war machine of Nazi Germany? How much suffering could have been saved if the people had just held the line against totalitarianism?

When you have people saying we need to surrender our 'minor' freedoms for security, we are at the edge of a cliff. When the minor freedoms are gone, and terrorism still exists, then the justification will be made to surrender the 'major' freedoms. And when the major freedoms are gone and terrorism still exists, what then?

Bowa, terrorists cannot ever, ever destroy America. But if we surrender our freedoms, America ceases to exist without the terrorists ever lifting a finger.

I mean, if you're so afraid of dying that you give up living, then what is the point?

Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-09-06 09:10 PM


trees: Don't we all do that to a certain extent? I don't know your lifestyle so I'm not necessarily addressing singular you, but plural you: Have you given up something in your diet that will shorten your life yet you find yourself craving it? Butter, sweets maybe? Are there certain activities that would be fun but you shun because it may shorten your life? Can not your same question be asked about these things?

Me, I love big fat greasy hamburgers. I get the cheapest fattiest ones because they taste so good after being cooked on the grill. I use whole milk, not skim or 2%. I know these things shorten my life, but as you say, "if you're so afraid of dying that you give up living, then what is the point?

We are ALL gonna die someday the question is do You want to die standing up for the Principles that Our Founding Fathers gifted to us or do You want to die on Your hands and knees licking Your Masters feet?? the question is YOURS and YOURS alone.

Larry -- I hope you don't die before you answer my question about the conspiracy claim you and Bob made.

Goatman do some research first and not skim through a few and declare they are all bullshit. YOU have to be willing to open Your mind up and learn and not try and be a fucking trool all of the time.

Larry

I mean, if you're so afraid of dying that you give up living, then what is the point?

Well said.

My defense of the 2nd Amendment means I have a greater risk of being shot. That is a risk I willingly take.
Additionally, my defense of our Constitutional freedoms means I have a greater risk of dying from terrorism. But that is a risk I willingly take to protect the freedoms that our soldiers fought and died for. I will not surrender hard fought freedoms to save my own ass, like a coward.

I choose to die on my feet, unlike Bowa who is willing to live on his knees.

Goatman,

I don't believe being forced to relinquish basic freedoms that the founding fathers fought for is quite the same thing as voluntarily giving up a cheeseburger.

The most obvious reason they are vastly different is one is my personal choice not to have the cheeseburger and the other is a choice forced upon me by my government.

The less obvious reason, but perhaps the more stunning reason is that a cheeseburger is not the same thing as a constitutional protection or right.

So I have a hard time answering your question because I can't see a correlation between the arguments that makes a lick of sense to me.

Choosing to give up cheeseburgers just seems petty and trivial when compared to being forced to surrender my right to due process because someone thinks I might be a terrorist, terrorist supporter and terrorist appeaser.

I no longer wish to converse with purposeful regression of intellectual valued people.

Posted by moneywar at 2007-09-06 08:18 PM |

that's intellectually. Adverbs modify adjectives, Mr. Intellectual.

I don't normally correct this sort of thing, but if someone wants to condescend to another, he'd better have his own ducks in a row.

Goatman do some research first and not skim through a few and declare they are all bullshit. YOU have to be willing to open Your mind up and learn and not try and be a fucking trool all of the time.

What the hell are you talking about, Larry? BTW, Did Bush know about 9/11 beforehand or not? I just want to know which conspiracy theory is right. You said he didn't know. Bob said he did. Who is right?

Goatman

We DO know you're full of baloney and other cold cuts on Sunday nights LOL

"I don't normally correct this sort of thing, but"...
..when my ass has been handed to me repeatedly, I really don't know what else to do...

Goatman

So I have a hard time answering your question because I can't see a correlation between the arguments that makes a lick of sense to me.

Choosing to give up cheeseburgers just seems petty and trivial when compared to being forced to surrender my right to due process because someone thinks I might be a terrorist, terrorist supporter and terrorist appeaser.

Fair enough answer. Works for me.

just for kicks- ask Goatman what powers he feels the executive should not have if he's pissing his pants.

May I ask a general question?:

If a terror attack on the level of 9/11 has been stopped because of these "loss of freedoms" would it be worth it?

Hell. I'll ask.
Goatman, what powers should the executive not have even when you are pissing your pants?

Are there any?

If a terror attack on the level of 9/11 has been stopped because of these "loss of freedoms" would it be worth it?

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-06 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Goatman, what powers should the executive not have even when you are pissing your pants?

The same ones he shouldn't have when I'm not pissing my pants.

May I ask a general question?

If you wiped your ass with the constitution and it cured your colon problems, would it be worth it?

I don't agree, but thanks for the honest, direct answer, trees. It's refreshing on the DR.

If you wiped your ass with the constitution and it cured your colon problems, would it be worth it?

I have no colon problems (yet -- fingers Xed) nor do I have access to the constitution.

WOuld you like to grow up and ask questions that a real adult would ask? If not, this is the last one I'm answering of yours.

The same ones he shouldn't have when I'm not pissing my pants.

Such as the inalienable right of a citizen not to be declared an "enemy combatant" by decree of the king thereby to be held without due process and subject to "enhanced interrogation" without any legal recourse?

(and cooper wonders why I don't like to respond to his posts. Cany anyone really be that dense? Apparently so.)

If a terror attack on the level of 9/11 has been stopped because of these "loss of freedoms" would it be worth it?

It's a false question. Because the FISA warrants allow all the syping and eavesdroping and wiretaps needed.

But if you're asking, "Is it worth tearing up the 4th Amendment for the illusion of security?"

NO! Surrendering the Constitution pisses on the grave of every dead American soldier who died to protect it.

I won't do it.

No problem Goatman, and I don't expect agreement but can I ask you a question.

Why would it be worth it to you?

Okay two questions...

What freedoms would you not be willing to give up in order to be protected from terrorist attacks?

I'm going to nuke dinner...kind of scared actually. I was in a hurry before work so I bought one of those Hormel completes...I'm not sure I've thought this out properly.

Gee, Goatman. I assume that you think the founders of our constitution were petty children, and that only your pant-pissing self is capable of reason.

The reason Goatman doesn't respond to my questions is because he has no defensible response.

Such as the inalienable right of a citizen not to be declared an "enemy combatant" by decree of the king thereby to be held without due process and subject to "enhanced interrogation" without any legal recourse?

*sigh* I answered this for a week or two ago. The answer is the same. If you don't recall, that's your problem. I don't like answering the same question by the same person more than once. But since I like you so much I will this one if you phrase it as a question so that I don't get caught in the ambiguity web you spin and gleefully rejoice about when you catch someone in it.

BTW, why do you expect me (or anyone) to answer your questions when you don't answer theirs? I expect an answer to mine before I continue. Or are you so above that?

Gee, Goatman. I assume that you think the founders of our constitution were petty children, and that only your pant-pissing self is capable of reason.

BFD

I find it doubly insulting for a character such as Goatman to even pretend that his belief in this nation extends beyond the petty, the tribal, and the transitory.

The reason Goatman doesn't respond to my questions is because he has no defensible response

Let's see. I've responded to three questions of yours (even the childish ones) and you haven't answered my one.

whatever you say.

May I ask a general question?:

If a terror attack on the level of 9/11 has been stopped because of these "loss of freedoms" would it be worth it?

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-06 09:48 PM | Reply

You can either die an American(Standing up for the principles that this Country was founded upon or You can die on Your hands and knees and die UnAmerican. The choice is Yours and Yours alone.

Larry

Cooper -- take note of trees and norm and their ability to answer a simple question.

Goatman-
You've never answered a direct question on constitutional matters. You seem to view such questions as impertinent.

I find it doubly insulting for a character such as Goatman to even pretend that his belief in this nation extends beyond the petty, the tribal, and the transitory.

BFD

Can anyone figure out the hidden riddles Goatman refers to as previous responses?

Do I need a decoder ring and a time-machine?

You've never answered a direct question on constitutional matters. You seem to view such questions as impertinent.

Gee, Goatman. I assume that you think the founders of our constitution were petty children, and that only your pant-pissing self is capable of reason.

As I said, grow up and ask it as if an adult asked it. i refuse to respond to childishness. You'll have to come up to my level because I can't come down to yours.

It goes like this:

"*sigh* I answered this for a week or two ago. The answer is the same."

What was the answer? Who the fuck knows.

Cooper- My cap N crunch decoder ring sez goatman is trying to be funny and ironic.

Note: Trying.

Anyone want to pick up cooper's BS. I've grown weary of it.

now I'll sit back and watch the predictle "oh you are so afraid of my quesions, pants pisser" and "you are so ___________" (fill in the blank with childish remarks) retorts.

Have at it, clown.

Anyone here up to an honest debate or should I move on to another thread. Trees? You seem the only one with a brain here tonight. Everyone else is potty talk and insults.

I'm curious.

Has anyone a link to an actual solid statement by Goatman regarding whether or not the President has unlimited powers because Goatman's pants are wet?

I've asked questions of Goatman regarding presidential powers for weeks and his response has always been something like

"well, I remember that I reached down to pick up a piece of paper with my right hand..."

Maybe it's in the water, or contained in the glue of mass-mailings.

Okay, I may catch hell for this, but I think not.

Cooper, Goatman is actually pretty reasonable. He isn't a Bowa, he isn't a Tadowe.

He also thinks I'm sane, which is proof positive that he is a twisted and demented dude. How can you not appreciate that?

His political views over all are fairly broad, although I'll admit at first I thought he was rather contentious as well. Now, after having a few conversations, even though I disagree, vehemently in some cases with his politics, I do find him to be well informed and willing to discuss. That being said if you come out the gate frothing at the mouth, you do get the category of response you are seeing now.

I make no apologies for anyone, but I think Goatman is one of our better conservative leaning posters.

P.S. Because I know you are all just dying to hear about my dinner...these Hormel Completes don't suck.

Guess I tuned in just in time to watch this thread explode.

Trees?

Goatman-
I haven't even begun with the insults, Goat.

You seem incapable of answering the simplest question, and instead accuse the querent of nefarious intent no matter how quantitative the question.

Does anyone really object to this question:

Does the president have the constitutional authority to declare, without any oversight -judicial or otherwise, that a citizen is without the right of due process?

(Seems simple enough)

Guess I tuned in just in time to watch this thread explode.

FF CC

I think you give me a little too much credit, trees, but i'll take it. *grin*

Does the president have the constitutional authority to declare, without any oversight -judicial or otherwise, that a citizen is without the right of due process?

no

Does the president have the constitutional authority to declare, without any oversight -judicial or otherwise, that a citizen is without the right of due process?

no

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-06 10:27 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Dubya did Twice that I know of. Hamdi and Padillia. Now what say You??

Larry

Does the president have the constitutional authority to declare, without any oversight -judicial or otherwise, that a citizen is without the right of due process?

(Seems simple enough)

Posted by Cooper at 2007-09-06 10:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Goatman-
Wow! You answered a simple question!

Why is it that the Bush administration has argued that the President does have the right to declare a citizen an "enemy combatant" without the rights of due process?

Goatman-
I thank you for you eventual honesty. I do wonder why you would support an administration that has no respect for the rights you rightly value and cherish. Moreover, I must wonder why getting to this point of agreement was like pulling a very stubborn and rotted molar.

Wow! You answered a simple question!

Yes, see what happens when you ask a question like an adult without innuendos and insults? Amazing, isn't it. The first time you asked me this question it was as if an adult asked it, too.

BTW, take notes so I don't have to answer it for a third time.

Why is it that the Bush administration has argued that the President does have the right to declare a citizen an "enemy combatant" without the rights of due process?

I have no idea. I don't know Bush nor do I ever talk to him. You'll have to ask him that.

LOL-
Why is it that the Bush administration has argued that the President does have the right to declare a citizen an "enemy combatant" without the rights of due process?

I have no idea. I don't know Bush nor do I ever talk to him. You'll have to ask him that.

LOL.

when you fuck him let me know

Later on.

I do wonder why you would support an administration that has no respect for the rights you rightly value and cherish.

Please reference a post of mine where I supported the current administration's Iraqi war policy or policies concerning detaining combatants.

Moreover, I must wonder why getting to this point of agreement was like pulling a very stubborn and rotted molar.

Because I refused to reply to childishly asked questions, remember?

As I said, grow up and ask it as if an adult asked it. i refuse to respond to childishness.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-06 10:06 PM |

BTW, I do not like people putting words in my mouth as you did above, either. That is a huge put-off when it comes to debating an issue.

when you fuck him let me know

I really didn't think his civility would last long, but in my mind I gave it more than two retorts. Silly me.

Dubya did Twice that I know of. Hamdi and Padillia. Now what say You??

Larry

I say the same thing, Larry. He doesn't have that right.

Please reference a post of mine where I supported the current administration's Iraqi war policy or policies concerning detaining combatants.

Oh, that would be fun; but you are not only eerily silent on that topic but have refused to answer pointed questions for weeks. The best you can do is that perhaps the president has some undisclosed personal reasons for defying the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Like I said - when you get the pillow-talk answers, please let us know.

Maybe he knows that violating the constitution and pretty much every drop of blood spent in defense of it is good for his digestion....

Civility?

I guess you do have a sense of humor after all.

Good night

Oh, that would be fun;

and it would be fun for me to throw your arguement:

You seem incapable of answering the simplest question,

back at you, but I won't. We all know you can not come up with any posts of mine that support what you say.

but you are not only eerily silent on that topic but have refused to answer pointed questions for weeks.

Ask them civily and I will. I just proved that. BTW, when i ask questions, I expect answers, too. It's a two way street. I'm still waiting for an answer to the question that brought on your string of questions, but I haven't gotten it yet. Or do you consider this a one way street? Let me know if you do.

Good night
Posted by Cooper at 2007-09-06 10:53 PM

again? I guess your obsession with me just won't let go, will it?

Later on.
Posted by Cooper at 2007-09-06 10:42 PM

What the hell...

What were your questions?

What were your questions?

It was the one immediately before you started your barrage on me:

If a terror attack on the level of 9/11 has been stopped because of these "loss of freedoms" would it be worth it?

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-06 09:48 PM

Look, I only have so much time to spare Goatman. Ask your very important questions in the next few minutes or I'm off to sleep.

No.

What is the oath that the president takes upon assuming office?

The oath is to protect and defend the constitution, not to keep your cherry-ass safe.

No, the president should not have the constitutional authority to declare that an American citizen is without due process.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 absolutely allows the detainment and classification of US citizens as Enemy Combatants.

The only recourse once charged is to appeal to those listed in the MCA (such as The Sec't of Defense) - not to the Courts.

Parts of the MCA should be struck down as well. It's horrible legislation.

Any other questions, Goatman?

The oath is to protect and defend the constitution, not to keep your cherry-ass safe.

I'm not disagreeing with the general gist of your reply, but the ambiguity of it. How does he protect you but not keep you safe? To me this is a non sequitor.

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

The oath is to protect and defend the constitution,

Any news on when Bush plans to start?

How does he protect you but not keep you safe?

That distinction doesn't seem to matter much to you.

Goatman-
Your position seems clear.

1. Fear

2. Bend over

Well, Obvioulsy in hindsight we now know that the main reason for that was they were planning the spectacular attack on 9/11 for 4-5 of those years.

And had the patriot Act been in place then, no doubt the FBI and CIA would have been able to share information and the plot would have been uncovered.


Able Danger
Sibel Edmonds

Known and ignored...all without the Patriot Act.

Ron Paul is right...what is good is intelligence without intelligent people to interpret it.

Your position seems clear.

1. Fear

2. Bend over


reference a post of mine to support this. I know you can't

Goatman-
I doubt that I could find a single post of yours that even recognized the constitutional questions. Most, if not all, of your posts are cowering tributes to your betters in the service of saving your ass by removing your liberty.

Enjoy, goatman, and pretend that you are the patriot.

...government orders must be subject to meaningful judicial review and that the recently rewritten Patriot Act "offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers."

If a terror attack on the level of 9/11 has been stopped because of these "loss of freedoms" would it be worth it?

No.

I doubt that I could find a single post of yours that even recognized the constitutional questions

Then where do you come off with these "fear" and "bend over" statements if you admittedly have no proof? Lack of evidence to the contrary is proof? is that what you are saying?

If a terror attack on the level of 9/11 has been stopped because of these "loss of freedoms" would it be worth it?

No.

Yav, trees, Larry, et all who answered this the same, I agree. But doing a thought experiment I ask myself, "what if the magnitude of the attack was so great that there would be (figuratively) nobody left to enjoy those freedoms?" That is unlikely with the weapons terrorists are now using, but what if 100 years from now they are well enough armed to get a nuke into the top 100 american cities? This is not inconceivable in the next 100 years, IMHO. would compromising a few freedoms on the order of what Bush is now doing be acceptable.

I know this question is a bit more difficult. I know it is for me.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 absolutely allows the detainment and classification of US citizens as Enemy Combatants.

The only recourse once charged is to appeal to those listed in the MCA (such as The Sec't of Defense) - not to the Courts.

Parts of the MCA should be struck down as well. It's horrible legislation.

Posted by YAV at 2007-09-06 11:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

I absolutely agree with you. The MCA is a constitutional abomination.

I do too. I always wondered why it was necessary when there were treason laws that addressed this sort of thing.

Thanks Trees, Goatman.

I spent days reading and rereading the MCA of 2006. It contradicts itself on definitions: Enemy combatant, non-enemy combatant, interchanges the terms, yet tries to lay out specific actions to each classification. It's not just a Constitutional abomination - it's an abomination within it's own context!

I'm not even going to go into the retroactive protection from prosecution for those that could be charged with torture - or even it's redefinition of torture.

"its", not "it's" dammit!

(I really hate that particular error)

Anyone want to nibble on my scenario above? No rebuttals; I just wonder what people think of how far we should go to prevent a truly catastrophic attack like the one I described above.

Ok, I am not going to get into some of the tangents that others have gotten into here. I am just going to say my piece.

I hear a lot of arguments from the so-called conservatives on this thread (you know who you are) about how necessary the Patriot Act is. I say "so-called" because what they suggest is nothing like conservatism as it has been explained since before I was born (small government, hand off, etc). So for the second POLITICAL thread in the last 24 hours I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing the with the leftists on this thread.

Let me give you a little history. Two hundred thirty-one years ago, our forefathers gave their lives for the freedoms we enjoy today. Rights that they carefully spelled out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Now I have to hear crap like this:

Should we give terrorists a free pass and the opportunity to plan devistating(sic) attacks on the US.(?)


To say it more clearly for you, Sparky: Our forefathers died for these freedoms, and unfortunately cowards like you aren't willing to do the same. You would rather give these freedoms back to the government for little TEMPORARY and ILLUSORY safety. Me, I would rather die than give my freedoms up. That is the same attitude that started this country. The sacrifice wasn't whether you were willing to join the military (I was and still would if they would take me)... it was what you were willing to sacrifice to keep these freedoms intact.

So you just run and scream the sky is falling, Chicken Little. All while expecting us to cower with you and hand our precious freedoms over. Not me.

The terrorist very well may come. They very well may kill me. The might kill ones I love. And either I or someone else will take up arms against them and kick their asses back to where they came from. But BY GOD, if I die it will be with ALL my freedoms.

It seems that we should destroy the constitution first, and then move on to shit that actually helps.

But I digress, and it's late.

This is 3 times in as many days that I have found myself in heated agreement with Mooman.

(going to check the color of the moon now. . .)

Yav, trees, Larry, et all who answered this the same, I agree. But doing a thought experiment I ask myself, "what if the magnitude of the attack was so great that there would be (figuratively) nobody left to enjoy those freedoms?" That is unlikely with the weapons terrorists are now using, but what if 100 years from now they are well enough armed to get a nuke into the top 100 american cities? This is not inconceivable in the next 100 years, IMHO. would compromising a few freedoms on the order of what Bush is now doing be acceptable?


I know this question is a bit more difficult. I know it is for me.


No, no A THOUSAND TIMES NO! I would rather be in a fiery crater with all my loved ones than sacrifice my freedom. This is a slippery slope and only the beginning. I don't want to live in a world, nor raise children in a world where I am chipped, and biometrically fucked in the ass for the rest of my life. Eternally tracked. And it's coming...

If 10 thousand years from now, people are studying America in the history books and are saying "The reason why this great civilization collapsed is because their people were too free", well I can live with that. And somewhere you can guarantee that Thomas Jefferson, Ron Paul and I are going to have some shit-eating grins on our faces...

The terrorist very well may come. They very well may kill me. The might kill ones I love. And either I or someone else will take up arms against them and kick their asses back to where they came from. But BY GOD, if I die it will be with ALL my freedoms.

You're bringing a tear to my eye Mooman...

Mooman-
But you have forgotten that it is a simple choice between

A: bending over and greasing

and

B: Being blown up by a nuclear weapon


(Just ask Goatman, he seems to have it all worked out)

Mooman and Iraqibukkake summed up my feeling quite eloquently!

I'll take choice "B" then. I won't give up my freedoms. End of story.

If 10 thousand years from now, people are studying America in the history books and are saying "The reason why this great civilization collapsed is because their people were too free", well I can live with that. And somewhere you can guarantee that Thomas Jefferson, Ron Paul and I are going to have some shit-eating grins on our faces...

Good answer

(Just ask Goatman, he seems to have it all worked out)

Cooper -- for the last time: I'm really getting weirded out with your obsession for me. What is it? It is the weirdest thing I've encountered since I became active on the DR. If you can explain this obsession you have with me to me, I might better understand and feel less creeped out. But now I just find it bizarre.

I guess I should be flattered, -- no one has been this obsessed with me since my wife died -- but somehow I don't.

Mooman-
re: "I'll take choice "B" then. I won't give up my freedoms. End of story."

That's because your principles extend beyond the immediate safety of your balls.

Good man. I wish I could say the same for the other "patriots" on this blog.

Mooman and Iraqibukkake summed up my feeling quite eloquently!

The funny thing is, Yav:

I am a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, but I have told people all along that I don't march in lock-step with Bush or the GOP on everything. I even have told people on the DR that I don't support the Patriot Act.... and I was called a liar.

Maybe NOW they will believe me??? LOL

That's exactly what I'm afraid of, Chris.

Goatman,

The answer is still no, because how many freedoms will be too many freedoms lost over a highly unlikely what if?

Furthermore, there is the deterrant of mutually assured destruction and when taking into consideration the small number of militants versus the more moderate followers of Islam I find it highly improbable that terrorist organizations would be able to stockpile enough weapons to carry out an attack on the scale you propose.

I can't reconcile the surrendering of freedom for this scenario any more than I could reconcile it to possibly prevent another attack relative to the scale of 9/11.

That's exactly what I'm afraid of, Chris.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-07 12:22 AM | Reply

Well, no one can jump out your computer screen to chase after you -- or swim out to your oil rig -- so you're safe hahahaha.

The answer is still no, because how many freedoms will be too many freedoms lost over a highly unlikely what if?

You miss the point, Trees.

It doesn't matter if it is highly unlikely or very LIKELY.... there is NO good reason to give up our freedoms. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Our forefathers were willing to die to secure them for us, we should be willing to die to keep them. That means even at the hands of terrorist on U.S. soil.

MOOMANFL

It doesn't matter if it is highly unlikely or very LIKELY.... there is NO good reason to give up our freedoms. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Our forefathers were willing to die to secure them for us, we should be willing to die to keep them. That means even at the hands of terrorist on U.S. soil.

You're so right. Too much American blood has been shed to secure those freedoms for us to just roll over and hand them up to the first person who says to give them to him and in exchange he'll make you safe and secure. I see a very unsettling erosion of our rights and freedoms all under the guise of needing to fight this eternal war on terror.

Well, no one can jump out your computer screen to chase after you -- or swim out to your oil rig -- so you're safe

I know. It's just the thought that that's what is on his mind . . . *shudder*

Too much American blood has been shed to secure those freedoms for us to just roll over and hand them up to the first person who says to give them to him and in exchange he'll make you safe and secure

There is NO safe and secure. It is an illusion. You could give up ALL your freedoms to the government and the terrorist will STILL find a way here if they want to come bad enough. That isn't to say that things shouldn't be done... but at some point you HAVE to draw a line and say "No further!".

This is what Benjamin Franklin meant when he said:

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

He meant simply, that no security can be guaranteed. If you give up your freedom for that then you are a fool that has given up the world for a handful of dust. You have essentially pissed on the graves of all those that died to secure the freedoms for you in the first place.

Goat

Hah! That mechanic on your rig you said makes shadow elephant trunks with his private parts would scare me more.

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

~James Madison,
speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

.... and I was called a liar.

I've said it a hundred times, mooman, but I'll say it again just because it never ceases to amaze me. There are so many people who are so wrapped up in their own party's ideals that they cannot imagine not believing in 100% of the party you associate yourself with. Therefore, they call you a liar since a republican HAS to love Bush in their eyes. They cannot imagine any other way.

I lean a bit to the right of center (at least I thought I did until I took that test today. It says I am a little bit LEFT of center, to my surprise) but there are a lot of DRers who do not think that is possible and I am called a liar at times as well.

Strange thinking -- I don't get it.

Mooman,

I didn't miss the point, I merely phrased my response to ask a question to Goatman.

I firmly believe that there is never a reason to give up a freedom, but what I wanted from Goatman was a response as to what he felt was too many freedoms sacrificed.

Read my previous responses in this thread and you will know that I am willing to give up NO freedoms for the illusion of security.

Okay I am behind on this thread, because I've had actual work to do here...at work. So Goatman had answered the question I posed before I posed it.

I'll be away for a couple hours again while I finish up here and head home.

Goatman, Chris, Yav, Mooman, Larry, Cooper this has been enjoyable, thank you.

I'll check back later.

Hah! That mechanic on your rig you said makes shadow elephant trunks with his private parts would scare me more.

I used to be "afraid" of him because he is so touchy-feely. A lot of the guys are. They'll grab your ass or thigh, or whatever, but the jewels and sceptre are off limits. It took a while to get used to that.

Also, this mechanic (like a few others, in fairness) like to walk right into your room without knocking. There have been a couple of times that I've been ready to get in the shower, and in someone comes.

It's just silly games some of them play. Now I'll sit back and wait for the homo jokes to start pouring in.

The pleasure is here, trees.

Good night, Trees, join back in the thread when you get home if you're not too tired.

"There is NO safe and secure. It is an illusion. You could give up ALL your freedoms to the government and the terrorist will STILL find a way here if they want to come bad enough."

Right with your first two sentences, Moo, and the entire concept probably holds water. But let's also remember that there IS no "terrorism ."

Once more from the top: On 9/11/01 19 Saudis made an ill-conceived gesture to protest the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Theyj took it out on the US, and paid with their lives. No Iraqis or Afghans were involved, and the only "terrorism" in this land since 9/1101 has been at the hands of Republicans. herm

There have been a couple of times that I've been ready to get in the shower, and in someone comes.

Get a lock. I like my privacy and wouldn't want to live in a room that's like Grand Central Station.

They'll grab your ass or thigh, or whatever,...

Curious, what is it with guys always slapping each other's butts anyway? You see football players do it all the time.

Well there is a lot of talk on this site about "sheeple"... and there is a lot of talk about "righties" on here not being "nuanced"....

Yet many here can't seem to grasp the nuanced concept of: I listen to Rush because I agree with most of what he says. I don't agree with most of what he says because I listen to Rush. (see the subtle difference?)

If I was that interested in being "sheeple" and living in an echo-chamber of opinion... I wouldn't be here. I certainly don't hang out on any CONSERVATIVE blogs. I come here to test my ideas and opinions under fire... not to get parroting confirmation of something I already have my mind made up about.

I lean a bit to the right of center (at least I thought I did until I took that test today. It says I am a little bit LEFT of center, to my surprise) but there are a lot of DRers who do not think that is possible and I am called a liar at times as well.

The problem there is that the idea of "Center" is highly subjective and shifts more than the Iranian naval border (i.e. where "center" is depends on who you ask). Ask a hardcore conservative and they might say you are left of center... ask a hardcore liberal and they will say the opposite. You happen to be on a site for HARDCORE liberals. Of course they are going to say you are right-of-center.

I have to relate a funny story, Chris, that happened last week. I hesitate, but what the hell. It was innocent and people can think what they want. Doesn't bother me.

As you may know, some of us have been here for 5 weeks now. There is a condition we used to call "Blue balls" when I was in the Navy. One would get "blue balls" after a long time without sex. I'm sure I don't have to explain that.

The standing joke is everyone here having blue balls since we've been at sea so long. a haha here, a haha there on it. Well, last week at our daily meeting one of the mechanics (not the elephant one) commented that he had only a week to go before he could take care of his blue balls. He said he had 'em bad. Then he proceded to drop his pants, then his underwear to display his blue painted scrotum. I don't know what he painted himself with, but it was a bright blue. Needless to say the room erupted in laughter. It was about the funniest thing to have happened this hitch.

Get a lock. I like my privacy and wouldn't want to live in a room that's like Grand Central Station.

We have locks, but no one uses them. There is not a thievery problem here. At least nothing more serious than dipping into someone's candy stash or something.

If I was a modest person, I guess I would lock my door. But after 6 years in the Navy and 6 years of public showering in HS after gym class, I don't care if someone comes in on me. In fact if someone knocks on the door and I am in the nude, I answer. Some people are offended but most don't care. No biggy to me.

He said he had 'em bad. Then he proceded to drop his pants, then his underwear to display his blue painted scrotum. I don't know what he painted himself with, but it was a bright blue. Needless to say the room erupted in laughter. It was about the funniest thing to have happened this hitch.

That's hysterical.

But let's also remember that there IS no "terrorism ."

Herm: What do you call what most people refer to as "terrorism"? e.g. flying planes into buildings, mailing anthrax, self detonation in a crowded place

I'm off to play with my mud pit sensors for a while. Will check back in an hour or so and see if anyone's awake.

Right with your first two sentences, Moo, and the entire concept probably holds water. But let's also remember that there IS no "terrorism ."

Once more from the top: On 9/11/01 19 Saudis made an ill-conceived gesture to protest the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Theyj took it out on the US, and paid with their lives. No Iraqis or Afghans were involved, and the only "terrorism" in this land since 9/1101 has been at the hands of Republicans.

Herm, while we may agree on some things... we don't agree on this.

I just can't swallow your sugar-coating of what happened on 9/11. It is more of an apologist's explaination. Terrorist are simply those that will stop and nothing, including (and usually it is "ESPECIALLY") targeting civilians and non-combatants to engender fear.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't count on this because they weren't done to make a point... they were done to end a war. One that had already claimed too many lives and would have killed many more on both sides than were killed in the bombing if the war had not ended there. I still think in horror of the lives lost there... but am thankful that it wasn't many more. If we hadn't done it, the next step in the war was a land invasion of Japan in which many millions would have died on both sides.

However, terrorism exists. 9/11 was a good example of that. Their whole purpose of hitting the towers was to crush our spirit by taking down a major symbol western ideals.... the towers. They wanted to make us afraid of them at the cost of civilian lives on our home soil. That is terrorism.

Well, comparing this post -

If I was a modest person, I guess I would lock my door. But after 6 years in the Navy and 6 years of public showering in HS after gym class, I don't care if someone comes in on me. In fact if someone knocks on the door and I am in the nude, I answer. Some people are offended but most don't care...

with your earlier statement:

Also, this mechanic (like a few others, in fairness) like to walk right into your room without knocking. There have been a couple of times that I've been ready to get in the shower, and in someone comes.

I don't think those no-knocks guys on the rig would bother you much.

In fact if someone knocks on the door and I am in the nude, I answer.

Geeeze, get a wrap-around towel. What if it was your female nurse on the rig or something knocking on your door?

No biggy to me.

No "biggy", huh?

(all in fun)

One thing that's always stuck in my mind and has bothered me is:

how -- only a day or so later -- were the feds able to show on television the NON-BURNED original passport that belong to one of the highjackers who was ON THE PLANE that crashed into the WTC. They said this passport was found down on the ground. I never forgot that and don't see how that was ever possible after looking at that inferno.

Dunno, Chris. But having had experience with fire... some weird stuff can happen. When my house burned, there were rooms were stuff was charred or melted all around, but then you would find one seemingly fragile item that seem to be miraculously untouched except for a bit of soot.

Shit happens that doesn't always seem logical or intuitive. I think maybe that book about Chaos Theory that Goatman pointed out in another thread is as good an explaination as any. No need to go looking for conspiracies when nature and real life are strange enough.

" What do you call what most people refer to as terrorism? e.g. flying planes into buildings, mailing anthrax, self detonation in a crowded place."

Satire (or Satyr, which is a goatman), I want you to list for me all the planes flown into American buildings, anthrax mailed to American legislators and suicide bombers that have gone off in crowded Ameircan places in - oh - the last six years. herm

Moo, you define "terrorism" your way and I'll define it mine. I stand by this statement, as I stand by most of mine:

There has been no "terrorism" - but for what Republicans have perpetrated - in America since 9/11/01.

"Terrorism" is a Karl Rove invention to retain GOP control, but if you choose to define it, then Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the WTC WERE both acts of terrorism . herm

Moo, you define "terrorism" your way and I'll define it mine.

I expect no different, Herm.

"Terrorism" is a Karl Rove invention to retain GOP control,

Except for the fact that both the definition of terrorism and the practice of it were around long before Karl Rove was in a position to "invent" it.

No "biggy", huh?

I set myself up for that one, didn't I?

The females never come around. They know better than to knock on a man's room's door.

I think maybe that book about Chaos Theory that Goatman pointed out in another thread is as good an explaination as any

It does address this sort of thing, actually.

Dunno, Chris. But having had experience with fire... some weird stuff can happen. When my house burned, there were rooms were stuff was charred or melted all around, but then you would find one seemingly fragile item that seem to be miraculously untouched except for a bit of soot.

Posted by moomanfl at 2007-09-07 01:34 AM |

Yeah, you're right. There are so many questions and "odd" happenings attributed to 9-11 but I doubt we will ever know them all and there will always be doubts but not much we can do about it. The government will never put together a real investigative commission other than the one they had already so that's that, I guess.

Dunno, Chris. But having had experience with fire... some weird stuff can happen. When my house burned, there were rooms were stuff was charred or melted all around, but then you would find one seemingly fragile item that seem to be miraculously untouched except for a bit of soot.

Posted by moomanfl at 2007-09-07 01:34 AM |

Yeah, you're right. There are so many questions and "odd" happenings attributed to 9-11 but I doubt we will ever know them all and there will always be doubts but not much we can do about it. The government will never put together a real investigative commission other than the one they had already so that's that, I guess.

whoa, sorry for the double posts. haven't done that in awhile.

To add to the "Chaos" book:

There is a very short list of books that I have read in my life outside of academia that have influenced the way I think and see the world. "Chaos" was one of them. It is an incredible book and it makes sense out of nonsense. Or as they put it in the book, order out of chaos.

Satire (or Satyr, which is a goatman), I want you to list for me all the planes flown into American buildings, anthrax mailed to American legislators and suicide bombers that have gone off in crowded Ameircan places in - oh - the last six years. herm

I didn't qualify it as to happening only to Americans. (though I don't see the difference on where it happens) It happens in other countries, too. Well except the plane into building thing.

What do you call it when someone blows themselves up in an Israeli market place or bus stop, then?

The government will never put together a real investigative commission other than the one they had already so that's that, I guess

Why bother? It wouldn't be believed, anyway. Warren Commission, anyone?

...anthrax mailed to American legislators...

And oh SO ODD that the anthrax was mailed only to our Democrat legislators.

And oh SO ODD that the anthrax was mailed only to our Democrat legislators.

I didn't know that. That is strange, but that makes me think it as a unabomber right wing wacko home grown style terrorist, not part of a 9/11 conspiracy.

Just to jog everyone's anthrax memory -- a short reminder --

It started with the mailing of Anthrax in envelopes from a Post Office in the suburbs of Camden N.J. to a printing operation in Florida who published what has been known as a "Rag Sheet News Paper found at the check out counters of grocery stores and on the selves of sidewalk news stands, infecting and killing several people along with several postal workers in the N.J. Postal Center.

This was followed by mail containing Anthrax being sent to several leading NYC TV News Anchor personnel and several U.S. Legislators (All Democrats) in Washington, D.C., all of them were down grading Bush and the Republican Party.

A investigation was called for and after Bush appointed his new director of the FBI the new director appointed a FBI agent who just came off an investigation of the Ruby Ridge Shooting of a woman and her baby and received a recommendation of removal from the FBI or at the least an suspension and a fine. The director of the FBI not only appointed him to lead the Anthrax investigation but gave him a $20,000 bonus.

Vice President Cheney went into hiding and about two weeks later a small sample of the Anthrax was found on one of several mail sorting machines that handle mail for the White House at Camp Perry and no workers were infected... Bush said he was not afraid, he would not go into hiding and would take the Anti-Anthrax vaccine but not his family or associates and the general public should do the same.

This was followed by press releases stating the Anthrax was a strain that could only be made on a high level by a government operation using Iraq as an example, this was found to be false a week later and the strain was to be found at many colleges and last found in animals in 1983 in the State of Texas, similar strains could be found in the dirt through out the U.S..

What ever happened to that guy they held up in front of the cameras and accused of being the one who had access to the anthrax and he never stopped denying that it wasn't true.

What ever happened to that guy they held up in front of the cameras and accused of being the one who had access to the anthrax and he never stopped denying that it wasn't true.

They probably decided they didn't have anything on him or not enough on him to convict, so they let it quietly die so as to not have another Richard Jewell fiasco.

Back to the mud pits for a while

Later

They were not trying to take down the towers. They did not know that is what would happen. They were just trying to do a terroristic action with airplanes. True, they hated the symbolism of the towers but they were not aware of the weird, rarely used architecture the towers had which resulted in the pancakes collapsing effect. Remember in the first attack they tried to topple one tower into the other? They thought they were rigid. Also the NSA told that they intercepted one mullah calling another saying that they had done "far more" than what they thought they were going to do. So the whole giant war on terror is the most overblown reaction in history because it is a reaction to something that was an accident. The correct response would have been to increase airplane security against hijacking, and go after OBL. But Bush and Blair led the world into the war on terror and then Iraq based on their own agenda.

Goatman

Right of center, left of center. You're just plain cool and I'm glad you spend time around here with us strangers.

Great synopsis, Grumpy.

Okay, some brief thoughts from my seriously sleep deprived brain.

Herm, Terrorism has been around for a long time. The building blocks for modern terrorism of the middle eastern flavor actually took hold in Munich in 1972 and has grown from there.

1976 Air France flight 139 was hijacked by Palestinians. All hijackers, 1 commando and 3 passengers were killed when Israeli commandos stormed the plane.

1977 Luftansa flight 181, hijacked again by Palestinians.

1981 A Pakistani jet is hijacked and hostages are held for 13 days.

1981 Guarda Indonesia flight GA 206 was hijacked by a group called Commando Jihad. All hijackers eventually killed and all passengers lived.

1984 Kuwait Airways flight 221 Hijacked by Lebanese Shi'a, 2 Americans killed and dumped on the tarmac.

1985 Lebanese Shi'a again, this time TWA flight 847 is hijacked and the situation was resolved when Israel freed 31 Lebanese prisoners.

1985 Palestinians take over Egypt Air flight 648. 60 Dead.

1986 Pan Am flight 73, 22 dead in rescue attempt.

1988 Kuwait Airways 422, Shi'a hijackers, 2 dead remaining hostages held for 16 days.

Now lets take a look at Airport shootings... in the next post.

Trees

Remember that Egyptian airliner that nosedived a couple of months before 9/11? At the time they blamed mechanical failure, although the guy was screaming something about Allah on the way down.

I think we can be pretty sure now he was an Islamic radical.

Terrorism in the airports...

1969 February 18th. - Switzerland, Zurich: the attack of an EL AL plane by 4 terrorists was prevented by an on-board Security officer; in the ensuing gun-battle 2 people, including 1 terrorist died

1970 February 10th. - Germany, Munich-Airport: three terrorists attacked El Al passengers in an airport transit bus en route from the terminal building to the aircraft. Handgrenades and firearms were used; 1 passenger was killed and 11 others injured.

1972 May 30th. - Israel, Tel Aviv Airport: three members of the radical Japanese Red Army (JRA) group arrived on Air France flight, and opened fire with automatic weapons in the arrival lounge, killing 26 people, 16 of them pilgrims from Puerto Rico, and injuring 78 others. One of the terrorists ran out of ammunition. A second terrorist committed suicide by pulling the pin on a grenade and detonating it against his body. The third terrorist, Kozo Okamoto, was captured while attempting to flee the terminal.

1973 December 17th. - Italy, Rome Airport: five Palestinian terrorists began shooting as they pulled weapons from their luggage in the terminal lounge. Two people were killed there. The assailants then made their way to an American Airlines 707 preparing to take off for Beirut and Teheran. Hurling incendiary devices inside the aircraft, they killed all 29 people aboard and destroyed the plane. Next, they herded five Italian hostages into a Lufthansa jetliner and killed a sixth person, an Italian customs policeman, as he tried to escape. The plane, carrying the hostages, crew, and terrorists, took off and the pilot was ordered to head for Beirut. Lebanese officials refused to allow the plane to land, however, and it flew on to land in Athens..

In an effort to gain compliance with their demands, the terrorists killed one of the hostages and threw his body onto the tarmac before leaving Athens.

1974 August 6th. - USA, California, Los Angeles International Airport: Bomb exploded near the PanAm ticketing area at Terminal 2; at least 17 people were injured and 2 persons died.

1976 August 11th. - Turkey, Istanbul, Yesilkoy Airport: two Palestinian terrorists attacked passengers who waited to board an El Al plane; 4 people died and more than 30 were injured.

1985 June 19th. - Germany, Frankfurt: bomb exploded in the main terminal area; 3 people died, 42 were injured

1985 December 27th. - Italy, Rome, Leonardo da Vinci Airport: 4 terrorists enter the check in area of EL-AL, TWA, and PanAm and start firing with submachine guns and throwing grenades into the crowd; 14 people were killed (including 3 attackers) and 70 injured.

1985 December 27th. - Austria, Vienna, Schwechat Airport: 3 terrorists attack waiting passengers at the El-Al lounge with machine guns and handgrenades; 3 persons were killed (including 1 gunman) and 47 were injured.

1986 September 14th. - South Korea, Seoul, Kimpo Airport: bomb explosion; 5 people died and 26 were injured.

1992 August 28th. - Algeria, Algiers Airport: bombing attack; 9 people died and 128 were injured.


So herm, terrorism has existed for a very long time. It is not a Rovian concept and sadly Terrorism of all forms will exist long after Rover has retired to his final destination.

American Unity,

I wouldn't doubt it. Terrorists and people capable of Terrorism are all over, however, it doesn't matter how many laws you pass, how many Federal ID's you issue, how many rights you violate or how many wars you start they will never be eradicated.

Terrorism is your modern day Hydra and the only way to defeat it, in my opinion, is to live free and without fear.

AU

Right of center, left of center. You're just plain cool and I'm glad you spend time around here with us strangers.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2007-09-07 02

Goatman tells such interesting stories and I've learned things about global warming and astronomy and oil rigs -- subjects that I probably wouldn't have looked into before with much passing interest. Goat also brings some of our regular posters into debates on some subjects which I never knew they had such wide knowledge of -- like YAV's computer knowledge which showed itself the other night when they were debating the internet/computers on another thread. It's nice to have different subjects to discuss and various points of view on subjects other than routine news. I learn by reading all their posts even if I barely know much on some of the particular subjects myself.

Okay, AU, enough flattery of the Goatman.
We don't need any swelled heads around here.

How's your Mom doing? Better day by day, I hope? Is she breathing a little clearer?

I've got some things to take care of now for my own Mom. Will be back later if I don't fall asleep.

TREES

Do you, as I do, find it almost impossible to have a war on "terror" -- what is "terror" anyway. It's like having a "war on jealousy" or a "war on meaness" -- it's a method of warfare, not a war in and of itself.

back later, people.

Chris

She's doing a WHOLE lot better, thanks. i got up to give her her meds. Coughing is hardly an issue, and she's resting a lot more comfortably.

Chris,

I've always believed that you cannot wage a successful war on a tactic. You also cannot wage a successful war on an ideology.

And as this Administration is discovering, aside from it's loyal supporters, you cannot maintain widespread support on a fools errand for any length of time.

AU,

Glad to hear that your mom is doing better.

GOATMAN:

Right of center, left of center. You're just plain cool and I'm glad you spend time around here with us strangers.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Ditto for me. I hope you stick around.

Okay, holding your eyes open with toothpicks is unpleasant so I am not going to do it.

Instead I'll just go to bed.

Night folks.

Thanks TREES

:-)

Right of center, left of center. You're just plain cool and I'm glad you spend time around here with us strangers.

Thanks AU. Y'all aren't strangers anymore. More like rigtime/nighttime family!

Do you, as I do, find it almost impossible to have a war on "terror" -- what is "terror" anyway. It's like having a "war on jealousy" or a "war on meaness" -- it's a method of warfare, not a war in and of itself.

I think "War on Terror" is shorthand for the
"War against those groups and nations who use terrorism as their primary weapon to further their anti-American, Anti-Western Civilization agenda"

Our forefathers died for these freedoms, and unfortunately cowards like you aren't willing to do the same. You would rather give these freedoms back to the government for little TEMPORARY and ILLUSORY safety.

What a crock. Every war the US has ever fought has involved Americans making sacrifices in every aspect of their life -- for example, during WW2, Capitalistic Americans essentially gave control of the free market to the Governemnt and allowed the Feds to tell them when they could buy certain goods, and how much -- and those who were caught violating these rationing rules, were arrested and thrown in jail. The USSR couldn't have done it better.

We all know about the suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war, as well as numerous other suspensions of certain rights which were deemed necessary at the time as the "lesser of two evils" the other evil being the total and utter destruction of this nation.

In fact, if anything, given how high the stakes are, Bush has asked for very little sacrifice from the American people at all. We don't even have a draft. There is no rationing. No suspension of haveas corpus, not internment camps rounding up all muslims, no attempts to silence the press (as under Wilson).

And for all the whining and complaining about Bush targeting completely innocent Americans for surveilance and imprisonment, not even the ACLU coul dfind a single injured party to sue on behalf of -- all they could do is sue on behalf of "John Doe" admitting from the get-go that there has been no abuse of this provision, only the potential for abuse.

Frankly, I think the democrats and liberals protest to much -- they didn't say squat when Clinton issued an executive order giving him the right to enter homes in federally funded projects without a warrant (to investigate drug dealers) but now they get completely unglued and nutty over the very reasonable security measures we took after our nation was attacked on 9/11 and we were plunged into War.

The answer is still no, because how many freedoms will be too many freedoms lost over a highly unlikely what if?

Trees: Better late than never. Don't know how I missed this. I'vee been in and out of the shop all night. Lot's going one.

Anyway, I don't think it's so much the number of freedoms, but the magnitude. Needless to say home searches without warrants would be a no no. But some people think that cameras watching public places is unacceptable. I do not. By their nature, they are public. Beyond that, I don't think I could accept any personal intrusions.

"...not even the ACLU coul dfind a single injured party to sue on behalf of"

BOWA

That's an easy one.

All that stuff is marked 'Top Secret' including their names.

ACLU should be sued if someone died because this restriction. Less tool for containing terrorists.

Am glad the FBI could tip German intelligence without the interference of antiChrist ACLU.

Takitez

So you hate 'Civil Liberties'. Fine. Move to a country without them - like Cuba.

Actually ACLU could dissolve and the nation would not miss it.

America is a land of applied Christian principles. That is why ACLU can survive in a freedom-loving nation.

It is ACLU that cannot survive in Cuba or Iran or Saudi Arabia. Yet ACLU uses and abuses its privilege to persecute Christian causes. That is why I consider it antiChrist.

"America is a land of applied Christian principles."

A completely meaningless comment.

Hans

America is a land of applied Christian principles. That is why ACLU can survive in a freedom-loving nation.

That's a non-sequitur.

Yeah, the land of Harvard which was first a Bible school.

One nation under God --- the God of the Bible. Surpassed liberal/Catholic Europe in power and influence.

Land of Protestants, as distinguished from Catholic South America.

The country that later liberated Europe from tyranny, but forgotten by the spoilt and ungratefuls.

"but forgotten by the spoilt and ungratefuls."

Wouldn't it be more correcter (perhaps even most correctest) if you put it this way: "spoilts and ungratefuls"? Or do you think "spoiltozoids and ungratefulators" works betterest?

I think Arnold the gobernator of California might prefer the exotic "spoiltozoids and ungratefulators"....

Well, I do too. Wise choice.

For all of you pro patriot act people out there:

Have you guys actually read the bill? If so I can imagine why oh why you would want the federal government to have that much power over your life. We as Americans have only their word that these new powers will never be abused? That's like trusting that the wolf will not eat your chickens if he promises not to. It is the wolf's nature to be what he is and the government is no different in this respect. They will abuse it, it is just a matter of time till they do. The patriot act (named to make people feel better about it) is nothing more that another huge step towards the police state and you guys love it all the way to enslavement. It may seem like it is in the good of the countries security but it is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
There is a reason why our legal system was set up the way it was. It was meant to be slow and deliberate not fast and careless. The barriers set up in the constitution were put there to protect the people from a over aggressive central government and to prevent people from being harassed, imprisoned or otherwise deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This act does this very thing by the further erosion of our civil liberties in the name of national security or the famed "If it only saves one child" rhetoric. Be very careful for what you wish for, you may get it!!! And most of all this is not a red vs. blue thing this is the state vs. you in the last 6 years our federal government has eroded more civil rights than it has 60 years under the democrats. True conservatives' and libertarians should be outraged by its passage

If we are at war where is the congressional declaration? You can't compare WWII, WWI, the Civil War or the Revolution to the "War on Terror". I'll give you Korea and Vietnam but none of the others.

His ruling is just more proof that Liberals cannot be trusted with the security of this Nation in the 21st Century.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-06 05:53 PM |

When you are done pissing your panties in fear, grow a set.

Maybe you enjoy trading your liberty for a false sense of security, but most of America does not.

I think you need to stock up on your "duct tape" terrorist protection kits from the Gay Old Party.

"True conservatives' and libertarians should be outraged by its passage"

And how it was passed.

Wasn't it passed in the middle of the night before anyone could really read it?

What kind of crap was that?

Every war the US has ever fought has involved Americans making sacrifices in every aspect of their life --

Posted by bowa at 2007-09-07 08:21 AM | Reply

1. When did Congress declare war?

2. How much sacrifice has this administration demanded of citizens with tax cuts for millionaires and the call for America to "go shopping".

Perhaps you can impress us with your rationing of fuel by driving less or a more fuel effecient car. Or maybe you can tell us how your victory garden is growing. Maybe you can tell us all the metals that you have been donating to the government to build war materials.

The only sacrifices this administration has ever sought from Americans is for them to sacrifice their Constitutional liberties and rights. How patriotic is that?

TakeitEZ needs to study a bit more what the ACLU is all about. The ACLU works to defend his right to post bullshit. herm

"So herm, terrorism has existed for a very long time. It is not a Rovian concept and sadly Terrorism of all forms will exist long after Rover has retired to his final destination. "

Trees illustrates his thesis with a list of atrocities that ended at least (AT LEAST!) a decade before 9/11/01. I can only repeat that the only "terrorism" in the United States SINCE 9/11/01 has been at the hands of Republicans. herm

"...the definition of terrorism and the practice of it were around long before Karl Rove was in a position to 'invent' it."

Excuse me for answering these things in reverse chronological order, 'cause I just rose and am scrolling up from the bottom.

Moo, Karl Rove didn't invent the idea of "terrorism" but he invented (nay, perfected) use of the scare concept to further GOP goals. herm

Herm,

Look it up...first the definition of Terrorism and then the acts. I merely stopped because it was late and I made my point.

Oklahoma City was a terrorist act. 1995

The first WTC bombing. 1993

I don't disagree that this Administration runs on Fear Mongering, and yes, they seek to terrorize the American people. However, terrorism even post 9/11 is not a Republican concept and it has continued world wide since 9/11. Bali, London, Madrid...

I dislike this Administration as much as anyone, but to call them Terrorists is an oversimplification of what they are.

"Trees illustrates "his" thesis...

Posted by herm at 2007-09-07 01:51 PM"

His? Huh?

"Trees illustrates "his" thesis...

Posted by herm at 2007-09-07 01:51 PM"

His? Huh?

Posted by mOntecOre at 2007-09-07 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Oklahoma City was a terrorist act. 1995"

I hate to nitpick, Trees, but the Murragh Building was wiped out by one of OUR (?) guys, Timmy McVeigh, and not Osama.

If I got your gender wrong, Trees, it is because the shape of the branches isn't always obvious in the DR postings. Apologies, I guess.

And still grousing, I hate being the 400th or so to comment on a thread. herm

And still grousing, I hate being the 400th or so to comment on a thread. herm

I don't think you've totally woken up yet.

Coffee -- which reminds me...

Herm,

Regardless of who perpetrated the bombing, the Murrah Federal Building Bombing was still terrorism. I was well aware of who bombed the Murrah building when I made my post.

I'm challenging your assertion, But let's also remember that there IS no "terrorism ."

You further clarified, on American soil, post 9/11, but I have a problem with your overall concept. I think it is a gross oversimplification of the Political tactics used by this administration, not to mention that Terrorism by its very nature lacks a sustained organization because it operates in secret up until the actual attack is carried out.

What this administration has attempted, on the other hand, is a well organized and open campaign to gain control through the use of fear and authoritarianism. The distinction is great. The actions of this Administration lean much more toward Fascism than toward Terrorism.

Bowa,

Sacrificing metal or sacrificing meat is different than giving up your right to privacy and right to due process.

We can always get ahold of metal and meat (boy, that sounds strange) after the "war" is over, but getting the right to privacy and due process back after a politician has taken it away would be near impossible. Every politician after that would be leery of giving that power back to the people.

Take,

"ACLU should be sued if someone died because this restriction. Less tool for containing terrorists.

Am glad the FBI could tip German intelligence without the interference of antiChrist ACLU."

The ACLU fights for civil liberties, that's what they're there for. Just because the ACLU's mandate has run counter to the Bush Administration's will, or the will of the "mob" seeking to convert all public schools into Christian schools, doesn't make them the anti-christ.

And if YOU were thrown into a holding cell at Gitmo falsely, wouldn't you want someone like the ACLU to pull your ass out of there?

""America is a land of applied Christian principles.""

What a load of crap. The sad part is these idiots actually believe it.

""America is a land of applied Christian principles.""


So Ben Franklin was wrong when he said America was based on "The Light of Reason?"

Guess the light burned out.

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
-Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams (4/11/1823)

Sorry, Tom.
Sadly that day is further away now than in your time.

""America is a land of applied Christian principles.""

What a load of crap. The sad part is these idiots actually believe it.

Posted by danni


True. It is a load of crap, and the lie keeps getting perpetuated to push prayer in school, and religion in government. I think most informed citizens know what a slippery slope claiming this is a "Christian Country" puts us on.

What a crock. Every war the US has ever fought has involved Americans making sacrifices in every aspect of their life -- for example, during WW2, Capitalistic Americans essentially gave control of the free market to the Governemnt...

We all know about the suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war, as well as numerous other suspensions of certain rights which were deemed necessary at the time as the "lesser of two evils" the other evil being the total and utter destruction of this nation.

Bowa... where to start?

The test of whether it is right or wrong to give up these freedoms isn't whether it has been done before, or why it was done before; the test is whether it SHOULD be done.

You are more worried about what YOU may have to sacrifice in order to not give them up, rather than what was sacrificed to make sure you had them in the first place. So let's ask the founding fathers what THEY thought of giving up our liberties:

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." --- Benjamin Franklin

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." --- William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." --- Thomas Jefferson

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much ... to forget it." --- James Madison

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." --- Thomas Jefferson

And the last quote I make right now, while not being from a founding father, is none-the-less from a man that KNEW what it was to be willing to give your life in the cause of freedom:

"Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question: is it political? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor political, nor popular but one must take it simply because it is right." ---- Martin Luther King, Jr.

So, Bowa, you can talk about a little "safety" all day long. Franklin thought you don't deserve liberty or safety, and Martin Luther King Jr. would call you a coward.

You can talk about "necessity", and William Pitt would have called you a tyrant or a slave.

You can talk about it as being only an "inconvenience" and Thomas Jefferson would have called you a fool or a tyrant (or both).

One thing however is without question... all of our founding fathers, and I myself, would definitely call you one thing in unanimity: WRONG!

Trees, I hate it when my debate opponents get reasonable. You are surely far too reasonable. Do I oversimplify Rovian political tactics? I think not. I'm not enough paranoid, enough conspiracy buff, as to suggest that the WTC debacle was orchestrated in the White House, but it it safe to say that that White House glommed on to 9/11 with love and kisses, and 9/11 remains the Numbah One tool that the uglies have going for them as the next vote approaches.

In "What this administration has attempted, on the other hand, is a well organized and open campaign to gain control through the use of fear and authoritarianism. The distinction is great. The actions of this Administration lean much more toward Fascism than toward Terrorism" you speak TRUth with a capital TRU. Let me suggest that fascism IS terrorism and terrorism IS fascism. herm

Trees, I hate it when my debate opponents get reasonable. You are surely far too reasonable. Do I oversimplify Rovian political tactics? I think not. I'm not enough paranoid, enough conspiracy buff, as to suggest that the WTC debacle was orchestrated in the White House, but it it safe to say that that White House glommed on to 9/11 with love and kisses, and 9/11 remains the Numbah One tool that the uglies have going for them as the next vote approaches.

In "What this administration has attempted, on the other hand, is a well organized and open campaign to gain control through the use of fear and authoritarianism. The distinction is great. The actions of this Administration lean much more toward Fascism than toward Terrorism" you speak TRUth with a capital TRU. Let me suggest that fascism IS terrorism and terrorism IS fascism. herm

Trees, I hate it when my debate opponents get reasonable. You are surely far too reasonable. Do I oversimplify Rovian political tactics? I think not. I'm not enough paranoid, enough conspiracy buff, as to suggest that the WTC debacle was orchestrated in the White House, but it it safe to say that that White House glommed on to 9/11 with love and kisses, and 9/11 remains the Numbah One tool that the uglies have going for them as the next vote approaches.

In "What this administration has attempted, on the other hand, is a well organized and open campaign to gain control through the use of fear and authoritarianism. The distinction is great. The actions of this Administration lean much more toward Fascism than toward Terrorism" you speak TRUth with a capital TRU. Let me suggest that fascism IS terrorism and terrorism IS fascism. herm

Also, you said that Bush didn't know about the 9/11 attack. Bob said they did. You lied about that. You are a liberal. I don't trust you.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-06 07:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

GoatShit,

Who cares who you think you can trust.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

We can always get ahold of metal and meat (boy, that sounds strange) after the "war" is over, but getting the right to privacy and due process back after a politician has taken it away would be near impossible.

That's a crock too. Habeas was restored after the civil war -- as was any right to privacy and due process, as well as free speech rights that may have been infringed on during WW1 & WW2 and all other wars.

As for the "right to privacy' that has been eroding at rapid pace ever since we entered the electronic age -- The Governemnt is almost the last entity that one needs to worry about invading their privacy -- just to conduct the most basic transactions nowadays means providing private information that allows total strangers to identify your buying habits, personal likes and dislikes etc. And interraction with any electronic media at all, now opens up a person's life to the universe to be inspected, critiqued, verified, denigrated or used against them in sometimes criminal ways by complete strangers.

The democrats and Liberals don't have a case -- when they can show that any of these intel programs which have them completely unglued and insane -- are being used consistently to target innocent american citizens instead of known terrorists and/or theor operatives, then they will be able to argue that the governemnt has overstepped its bounds.

Until then, they are just a bunch of whiney crybabies who really just need togrow up and realize that it's not September 10, 2001 anymore.

Until then, they are just a bunch of whiney crybabies who really just need togrow up and realize that it's not September 10, 2001 anymore

Still flogging that tired old "dangerous, pre 9/11 mentality" argument Bowa?

Ya know wot Dumbya's mentality was on September 10, 2001?

He was sitting on his hands wishing fer 9/11 to occur.

Hoping fer a "pearl harbour" type incident as was fortold in the PNAC propecies.

Yer right ...we don't wanna return to that.

Be Well.

Also, you said that Bush didn't know about the 9/11 attack. Bob said they did. You lied about that. You are a liberal. I don't trust you.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-06 07:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

GoatShit,

Who cares who you think you can trust.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2007-09-07 05:06 PM |
,

If you read the posts leading up to mine, it would be clear to you that I was aiming a well deservered blast of sarcasm at Larry who was making outrageous claime (1+1=3, a conspiracy of hundreds causing 9/11) and who couldn't be trusted. I guess you missed that part. If you did read that part, a change in your screen handle is in order.

It is painfully obvious Lokisfur does NOT believe in America nor American Values. Oh and He also does not believe in the US Constitution that is painfully obvious as well.

Larry

If you read the posts leading up to mine, it would be clear to you that I was aiming a well deservered blast of sarcasm at Larry who was making outrageous claime (1+1=3, a conspiracy of hundreds causing 9/11) and who couldn't be trusted. I guess you missed that part. If you did read that part, a change in your screen handle is in order.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-07 06:07 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

If they were such outragous claims You should have been able to refute them. Your inability to refute them states that they are NOT outragous claims but Your labeling them as such are outragous claims. Please do get a clue or 2.

Larry

"It's not September 10, 2001 any more...."

I'll say it's not. We just suffered through almost eight years of a man who HAS laid claim to dictatorial powers and may even yet claim he is entitled to more.

It's a battle between monarchists and the rest of us, Bowa. Your vision of the world has caused this country nothing but grief.

Maybe after Rudy and Fred have been chased home you'll get it.

Bowa is on record there is no right to privacy. If that's true, a paid government informant on his block monitoring, recording, and forwarding his personal behavior to some central clearing house is no big deal.

Maybe they will be allowed supplement their logs with offical editorials, summing up your behavior from their point of view.

One definition of hell. But, if you like it so much, be the first to volunteer. As the target, that is, not the informant.

That's a crock too. Habeas was restored after the civil war -- as was any right to privacy and due process, as well as free speech rights that may have been infringed on during WW1 & WW2 and all other wars.

Bowa,

This war however is different in very FUNDAMENTAL way from all those other wars.

In the Civil war the US was fighting the Southern states.


In the Spanish American War we were were fighting Spain.

World War 1 we fought Germany.

In World War 2 we were fighting primarily Germany and Japan.

In Korea we fought North Korea.

In Vietnam we fought North Vietnam.

Now what do they all have in common? They were defined enemies lead by a governing body that could surrender. There was a clear and defined goal by which you could get victory. You knew exactly who the enemy was, where to find them, and could pound the crap out of them till they gave in.

Now, the current "War on Terror" (which I don't have a problem with per se)... is not like those other wars. There is no defined enemy. The enemy doesn't have a clear governing body. We don't know who they are, we don't know where they can be found. There is no one that we can pound the crap out of until they surrender.

Most importantly though, there is no way to define winning short of "we will know it when we see it".

So when exactly are we supposed to get these freedoms back?

That is only one question. The next... why the heck should I trust the government to give back these freedoms at all? While I don't despise Bush (he isn't my favorite by a long shot though) like the leftist on the site... He is certainly no Lincoln. He isn't even an FDR. Hell... he isn't even a Ronald Reagan.

The point of the founding fathers was that, when it came to freedoms, the government (ANY government) was not to be trusted. To illustrate that I give you these words:

"The true barriers of our liberty in this country are our state governments..." --- Thomas Jefferson

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." --- James Madison

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." --- William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." ---- Ronald Reagan

The Patriot Act must be rescinded in Congress as it infringes on the basic inherent rights of militant radicals to kill imperialistic Americans. We would not mind arresting the rogues and scoundrels who reject our sensible anti-American propaganda, but the terrorists aren't among those and should be allowed to roam free. They and us both find America not merely contemptible but despicable and unconscionably insane. They do it for God, we for history, we merely have different goads to take up the same justice.


Professor Bates
Homosexual Trial Layers For Trouble-Free Help

I think Osama bin Laden's (ProfessorBates) inclusion of fag-bashing into his propaganda to the West will likely backfire, though this and his promotion of anti-democratic policies will probably play well to both jihadists and the Republican base.

BTW Bowa... in addition to this latest post, please answer my 4:37pm post as well since I went to so much trouble to answer you.

Bowa is on record there is no right to privacy,/i>

That's not true. I never said there was "no right to privacy" what I was trying ot get across was that the holy "right to privacy" that has become mythical to Lefties has never really existed in the pristine never-changing state that they believe-- the truth is the "right to privacy" changes and morphs in response to wars, technology, or even trends.

And while in the past, the Government might have had the greatest legitimate need to infringe on privacy rights in response to some war and crisis which might have prompted accusations of abuse-- but nowadays, it is in the private sector where the most abuse of privacy rights is taking place in conjunction with mnodern media technology, the rise of the internet, blogosphere, and the availaibilty of personal information that was never intended for public purview.

If they were such outragous claims You should have been able to refute them.

Larry, if you think I am going to waste time refuting your claim that 1+1=3 you are further off the deep end than I ever imagined.

Go calculate somewhere else, my friend.

SInce acts of terrorism is a CRIMINAL ACT and NOT an act of War a person can not legitamently declare it an act of War. Besides even if there was an armed conflict by a standing Army the President MUST adhere to the US Constitution and not piecemeal what He wants to abide by or not UNLESS He suspends the whole US Constitution in its entirity. Those that support warrantless wiretaps etc etc etc are NOT AMericans and do not deserve the title of an AMerican Citizen.

Larry

Sorry, Bowa---My school is that an American "Right" is exactly that---Inalienable and forever.

That used to be the conservative position. Used to be.

You're essential position is, because various entities have been stealing into my yard and ahving sex with my dogs I should accept that.

Nonsense. It's just time for new dogs that bite.

"Homosexual Trial Layers For Trouble-Free Help..."

Is this a group I should know about? If so, how do you lay a homosexual trial? herm

Is this a group I should know about? If so, how do you lay a homosexual trial? herm

Posted by herm at 2007-09-07 07:04 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

It's like when You tried out heterosexual sex. You lay down and try out Gay sex for a TRIAL period. Easy Peasy simple as pie just don't get any in Your eye.

Larry

My school is that an American "Right" is exactly that---Inalienable and forever.

The "unalienable rights" endowed by "our Creator" are "life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness"

The "right to privacy" is not an "unalienable right" but it is a Contituional one -- and as 200 years of jurisprudence shows the definition of "right to privacy" has changed quite a bit since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

Nonsense. It's just time for new dogs that bite.

I tend to agree. For the same reasons why I believe we need privacy laws giving greater latitude to the government to track known terorists and their operatives, I also think we need to provide citizens with more and better recourse against those who exploit modern technology in order to get private information which is then used to injure, slander, stalk, harrass or otherwise engage innocent individuals in a criminal manner.

Just eight days after the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, the Bush Administration made a legislative proposal that later became the USA Patriot Act. The proposal did not represent a careful examination of the failures and deficiencies of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies that led to the attacks. Rather, it was a collection of old policies that were taken off the shelf and dressed up as the new powers they needed to combat terrorism.

IN other words ... Bush was waiting for something like 9/11 to happen so that this law could be pushed through.

I believe we need privacy laws giving greater latitude to the government Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-07 07:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Right to Privacy is an Unalienable right. It falls upon the LIBERTY in those Unalienable rights. a Person should have the Freedom(Liberty) be be free from snooping from others. Please do ry again Lokisfur.

Larry

Bowa is so bassackwards it is as though he is not really an American sometimes...

Rights are are not granted to the People by the Government.

You see-

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Constitution was not meant as a list of the Rights of the People but was a list of the Rights afforded to the Government BY the People.

Therefore, I have the unalienable right to privacy as I do not give up that right to the Government.

Therefore, I have the unalienable right to privacy as I do not give up that right to the Government.

Posted by donnerboy at 2007-09-07 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

AMONG these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness, Bowa.

Everyhting you say minimizes your birthright and mine. Even your misquotes.

Therefore, I have the unalienable right to privacy as I do not give up that right to the Government.

Except when you are providing personal information to pay your taxes...and when you are driving a car (especially if you have a electronic toll device) -- and when you take a plane -- and if you carry a knapsack in manhattan by the UN, and on and on.

we need privacy laws giving greater latitude to the government--bowWow

Nothing more needs to be said. Trees


You are so wrong Trees.

BowWow may have the right to say such a thing, but his ignorance or contempt for our Constitution must be rigorously countered and disdained.

The fact is, by historical standards he is a monarchist who denigrates the dignity of our citizens and those who have gone before. Men and women have died clinging to that dignity, while others like BowWow slather in obeisance to any authority presumptuous enough to claim it.

He is among the worse of this nation, just as the Tories who opposed our Independence.

We can with some satisfaction regard him for what he is--a traitor to the principles of our Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.

Spit won't carry through the Ethernet, and it probably would hit the dirt before landing on that scum-sucking sycophant.

Maybe later I say what I really think, but for now it's off to the Dark Side and Roger-Dodger's Debut on the Freedom Network.

Except when you are providing personal information to pay your taxes...and when you are driving a car (especially if you have a electronic toll device) -- and when you take a plane -- and if you carry a knapsack in manhattan by the UN, and on and on.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-07 08:01 PM | Reply


Let's see You have the freedom NOT to work so thats out.
You have the Freedom NOT to own a car and are free NOT to drive a car so thats out. You are free not to travel so that's out. You are Free NOT to stand in front of a secure building so thats out. What do You have left up Your sleive LOKISFUR Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!

Larry

FF for Ozark

Ozark,

With that statement by Bowa, you know exactly where he stands...he hangs himself with his anti-constitutional statements. With statements like the one I quoted, nothing more needs to be said...it fully speaks for what Bowa believes. His words stand on their own.

He can't claim to be anything other than an extremist, big government, big brother cheerleader. He'd willingly surrender everything to be protected from the Crazy Brown Boogeymen who want to destroy us.

Really, nothing more needs to be said.

Yeah, yeah, mesquite, but I like spearing the little bastard.

There's also the historical perspective.

You let these rodents breed and pretty soon they've developed an immunity and there's nothing toxic enough to eliminate them.

FF my ass.

You let these rodents breed and pretty soon they've developed an immunity and there's nothing toxic enough to eliminate them.

LOL

Grow up Ozark and Trees you sound like whiney little babies just grow up and get over yourselves already.

Just because our Governemnt is taking aggressive actions to safeguard this nation and fight a war, doesn't mean that we are being stripped of our civil liberties.

I mean just get real and grow up already.

Just because our Governemnt [sic]is taking aggressive actions to safeguard this nation and fight a war, doesn't mean that we are being stripped of our civil liberties.

Of course not.

The demonstrable fact that they are attempting to strip us of our key civil liberties is of concern, however.

mean just get real and grow up already.




Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-07 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag:DECLINE

Sorry, Bowa, but when the President argues that he has the power to divest a citizen of his right to due process merely upon his decree, it's time to wake up and take notice.

Trees-
(Hint: to Bowa, "growing up" means doing what daddy says)

Trees-
(Hint: to Bowa, "growing up" means doing what daddy says)

Posted by Cooper at 2007-09-07 09:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Flag:DECLINE

The gov't is doing what they do in order to protect us from the bad guys.

When the gov't starts encamping Muslims out of Mosques--you can start worring. Think FDR and the Japanese.

But Cooper --unless you are talking with terrorists off the computer data--you are not being stripped of civil liberties.

Now, I hear Hans on the show and he's wearing something casual.

Murphy

The gov't is doing what they do in order to protect us from the bad guys.

How sweet. It's good that daddy is looking out for us, and protecting us from the 'bad guys'. The particulars are none of our business, unless we have something to hide!!

Seriously, are you over the age of five?

Really Murphy, what percentage of the population do you suppose are as sheep-like as you?

What's doubly odd is that you see your intentional ignorance and reflexive subservience as somehow virtuous traits for a citizen.

Ask Mooman, Murphy. He'll set you straight.

Adios.

What's doubly odd is that you see your intentional ignorance and reflexive subservience as somehow virtuous traits for a citizen

Where do you get that? I glanced through the thread and I didn't see where he even implies his "virtue" by what you refer to as his ignorance. I could have missed it though.

The federal government was designed to protect our borders and sea lanes. That's why Congress established the Marine Corps and the Navy first.

I believe in civil defense. Bush had the opportunity to resurrect that idea after 9-11. In stead he went for the Big Daddy approach. Makes the cowardly feel safer.

Makes the cowardly feel safer

How pissed off are you?

It's 7:13 p.m. right now. I give Goatman's post 2 minutes to show up on this board gunnin' for bear hahahahaha

sorry, that was 7:13 p.m. PST

Now, I hear Hans on the show and he's wearing something casual.


Well, at least he's wearing -- something.

Eberly-
re: But Cooper --unless you are talking with terrorists off the computer data--you are not being stripped of civil liberties.

The very idea that gov't can be trusted with unchecked powers "for our own good" is inimical to the Constitutiion, the Bill of Rights, and the revolution itself.
It is an insult to the founding principles of our nation and betrays a depth of ignorance unfathomable to the the founding fathers, but perhaps desirable in puppy.

It's 7:13 p.m. right now. I give Goatman's post 2 minutes to show up on this board gunnin' for bear hahahahaha

Lost my bet

Spoken like a true Betty Booping Pooping accountant from Texahhhhs. Sorry it could not be avoyded.

Actually, "Murphy" is a good name for a puppy.

It's cute, unoffensive, and neutered.

But I prefer "Eberly". It has a certain charm.

The very idea that gov't can be trusted with unchecked powers "for our own good" is inimical to the Constitutiion, the Bill of Rights, and the revolution itself.
It is an insult to the founding principles of our nation and betrays a depth of ignorance unfathomable to the the founding fathers, but perhaps desirable in puppy.

I know and agree. That wasn't my point. You referenced "virtous" to imply that Murphy believes he is virtuous and thus, you aren't for questioning this. I just don't see that.

The gov't is doing what they do in order to protect us from the bad guys.

Thanks, but I've got a mommy. From my gov't I expect transparency and accountability (Remember that?)

Cooper--just grow up and think--critical thinking, friend.

Get with it--the Dems have voted --along with the Repubs to overhaul the listening of phones and emails who talk with the "probable" enemy.

So where in the Constitution does it say the President can't do this? Where does it say in the Constitution that the Congress can't agree and make the avenues available to proceed?

And who's rights are being infringed? The probable enemy --that's who.

Murphy

BTW I am a Woman -- Woof!


Murphy

eberly-
sorry. I'm sure that Murphy was intentionally providing statements of opinion that weren't virtuous and desirable just so you would have kinda almost a point. What is clear to anyone is that Murphy read his opinions off a box of cereal just to see the reaction.

clever, that Murphy.

Wow.
Women can be just as stupid as men.

Thanks for broadening my horizon, Murphy.

BTW I am a Woman -- Woof!

When was the surgery???

"Woof!"

That was Madeline Kahn's best one-word line in "Young Frankenstein."

Oh and Copper reads his shit off the milk carton.

See we can both play the goofy game --

Answer the post dunderhead---

Get with it--the Dems have voted --along with the Repubs to overhaul the listening of phones and emails who talk with the "probable" enemy.

So where in the Constitution does it say the President can't do this? Where does it say in the Constitution that the Congress can't agree and make the avenues available to proceed?

And who's rights are being infringed? The probable enemy --that's who.


Murphy

Zat--I thought it was SSSSSSSSS...AAAAAHHHHHH!



Murphy

Hey.
Wake me when the gov't starts rounding people up and putting them into camps.

Er...I mean when they do it again and to citizens who are white and stuff.

Otherwise, I'm sure our gov't is doing the right thing even though I have no idea what they're doing because it's secret and for my own good and if I don't have anything to hide I'm OK.

But mostly you two have given me such little hope for the future of an engaged citizenry that I must go and either watch some stupid TV or vomit, or both.

Do both--


Murphy

this argument has been tossed around for some time here on the DR. I don't pretend to speak for everybody but I think most of us agree on the principle that we need to follow the law and that FISA gives us plenty of room to perform wiretaps and such in a reasonable time frame.

what I have always questioned in my mind is whether or not the folks here who constantly use words and phrases like "sheep" and "cowards" and "hiding under the bed" etc... really have another issue with this. I can't quite place my finger on it but I think some of them (if not most) hate the idea of wiretaps being performed by GWB period. It doesn't really matter whether or not they are legal to them.

Are you on drugs or someting?

The whites in general are Not doing the plotting--

It is the ideology of islam radicals--like that asshole OBL.

And Bush is so restrained compared with Presidents of the past.

Murphy

BTW I am a Woman -- Woof!


Murphy

Posted by MURPHY at 2007-09-07 10:28 PM | Reply

This is a potential self derogatory statement You have made Murphy. You are in affect declaring Your bitchness because only dogs woof. and well all know what a female dog is called now don't We. Unless You love that term it should have been stated. I am Woman Roar. and NOT Woof. Just an FYI.

Larry

But mostly you two have given me such......

Who? Which 2?

Larry--did you get the smile and tougue in cheek of the post?

Read into it the way your potty/gutter mind works.

Did you see the post response of Zat?

Would you rather see GGGGGRRRRR....?



Murphy

Eb--you are included in the Two.


Murphy

Would you rather see GGGGGRRRRR....?



Murphy

Posted by MURPHY at 2007-09-07 10:45 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You are JeffJ's Woman so I will refrain from saying what was on MY Mind.

Larry

I guess so Murph.

If he is going to accuse me of his depression then he really has serious issues. He just chooses to blame them on people he disagrees with ideologically on a blog.


It won't work.

night all.

Are you on drugs or someting?

The whites in general are Not doing the plotting--

He has one of those "you hate brown people" complexes that afflict a few on here.

'nite, Eberly

"I thought it was SSSSSSSSS...AAAAAHHHHHH!



Murphy"

Posted by MURPHY

Vive la difference!
"Woof" was the antici ... pation.

You are JeffJ's Woman so I will refrain from saying what was on MY Mind.

Larry

Water?

Eberly

I can't quite place my finger on it but I think some of them (if not most) hate the idea of wiretaps being performed by GWB period.

You nailed it. It has nothing to do with political party or even ideology as much as it has to do with GWB - him, the man himself -- that people so dispise and most of all DISTRUST. And with good reason.

it's "despise" not "dispise"

it's getting to be a pain in the ass to keep making spelling corrections.
from now on - I know how to spell so just deal with it.

I notice that Bowa never once had the courage to address my posts. For that matter no one that supports the "Patriot" Act did. That in and of itself says it all.

I notice that Bowa never once had the courage to address my posts

It has nothing to do with courage. I gave my opinion. I read your posts. There was nothing else to add. I disagree with your position, you disagree with mine.

You can list all the quotes of platitudes about freedom and privacy you want Moom. The fact remains that throughout our history the "right to privacy" has not remained static but changes in response to crisis, war, technology and other real world variables.

You obviously don't agree that the threat we currently face justifies the policies and progams established by the Patriot Act and in other intel areas, and I do.

I guess we shall just have to agree to disagree,

Bowa-

if there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution what does this mean?

Amendment IV

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.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

I wonder why the Founding Fathers felt it necessary to explain to the Government this right of the People?

I do not want the Bush administration to have it s hands tied in the hunt for Terrorists ( I prefer to call them Criminals) I want them to follow the law of the land and to abide by the oath of office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

if there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution what does this mean?

Why are youasking me? I've never said there is no right to privacy.

I just said that the definition of "right to privacy' is not static and has changed over the years in response to crisis, war, technology and other real world variables.

The 4ht amendment left the door open to this ever changing definition of "privacy' by including the line, "against unreasonable searches and seizures".

And what could be miore 4reasonable then developiong programs whihc succesfuly target and track known terrorists and their operatives during wartime in order to uncover theri plots and stop them.

"And what could be miore 4reasonable then developiong programs whihc succesfuly target and track known terrorists and their operatives during wartime in order to uncover theri plots and stop them." (sic)

The main trouble with that is that they can then go on to get YOU. I mean, Bowie, you better be clean. Real Clean.

Never dissed Da Chimp by phone, e-mail or on a park bench that may be bugged. Stikh with the constitution, man. The rights you save may be your own. herm

The main trouble with that is that they can then go on to get YOU

That's just fearmongering and scare tactics perpetrated by the Left. There is no evidence that these programs and policies are being used in any way but as intended -- to target known terrorists and their operatives.

And there are already legal checks in place to prosecute abuse if it takes place.