| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
Comments:
<0> MrRod: no ... you don't remember the Seattle earthquake a couple of years ago?
<1> You see, i realized this when I read the 911 commission report, 3 years or so after it was published.
<1> The first chapter brought me right back to that morning.
<2> OcDoc: Not really. Mostly I remember the rain. Has it stopped?
<0> MrRod: ruined that traffic control tower at the airport
<1> I watched it live on tv..
<0> MrRod: we're back to normal here ... 26 straight days of rain
<1> Then when they methodically go through who the players are, and what their ideology is and what their goal is, it wakes me up more like coffee.
<1> Truth can be a potent stimulant.
<0> Free: very poetic, but it doesn't answer the question, how much response is too much?
<1> Usama believe in a Egyptian philosopher. And most people think he was influenced by Saudi Arabia.
<1> He had a egyptian guru so to speak.
<1> But anyway
<2> FreeTrade: There are things that need to change but I don't think the answer is having a two-tiered justice system where the old system is in place for common criminals and a new, secret system is run by the administration for what it deems threats to national security.
<1> I am sure Bush committed no crime anyway, And I hope they continue the program and they continue to monitor it to make sure its not being abused.
<1> thats the bottom line and end statement of my opinion.
<0> Free: you don't understand ... I don't care whether Bush created a crime ... the government p***es the laws that I question
<1> OcDoc, But I wonder why you think its ecen wrong.
<0> something can be totally legal and completely unconstitutional and contrary to the purpose of our founding
<1> I mean I understand plenty of people think its wrong, you are more reasonable in that you dont blame a single person.
<3> Inspired by safe *** organizations, William Pea, a councilman in the Colombian city of Tulua, announced today he will present a formal proposal requiring all men and women - even those just on a visit to the town - to carry at least one condom. Those caught empty-pocketed could be fined $180 or ordered to take a safe *** course, he said.
<0> just because people are scared into giving up their rights doesn't mean they are right to do so
<1> But I can see both sides of the issue, I can understand the civil rights argument, which I disagree with and the civil rights argument in favor of the program.
<1> I am not scared at all.
<1> I believe in prudence.
<1> I believe in acting.
<1> I have no fear of al queda
<4> steve smith manhandling the bearss
<1> I have knowlege of them
<3> FreeTrade, ahh, so you are a thesbian ;-)
<2> FreeTrade: You don't have to worry. You don't vocally oppose the administration.
<1> And That knowlege makes me understand we need to affirmatively react and try to counter attack them
<0> Free: all of your civil rights are rights that you have been guaranteed by the Constitution against your GOVERNMENT
<1> \or prevent them from making attacks on our soil
<1> or to our interests and even allies
<5> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/60minutes/main1203973.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories
<5> thats good to know
<0> Josephs: Thespian?
<5> (CBS) North Korean three-star General Ri Chan Bok tells correspondent Dan Rather that if the U.S. invades his country, he will use nuclear weapons to defend it.
<1> OcDoc, but the best you or anyone else can do is argue this is a violation of a civil right
<5> thats airing right now on CBS
<3> OcDoc, something like that :-)
<1> You can not say with fact it is a violation.
<1> Only with opinion.
<1> The constitution says a warrant unless there is reasonable cause.
<0> Free: that's not true ... the best I can do is argue that this is unwise
<6> Well, the constitution does not say one needs a warrant in any instance. That is case law and legislative laws establishing what 'due process' shall be.
<1> OcDoc, Yes you can argue its unwise, but the result is always going to be opinion.
<3> ahh, CBS news ... so well known for their honest reporting
<1> unless its a clear violation.
<0> that the giving up of a right in exchange for the hope of additional safety will fail
<1> What right have you given up ocdoc do you think ?
<0> Free: the right to be secure in my person and my papers from invasion by my government
<1> If you have never been eavesdropped then I would say you have never had your civil rights broken in these ways.
<6> "One who does not actively defend his own liberties, and his own security; deserves neither. "
<1> I repeat that as a follow up to your last statement too
<0> Free: I don't have to be hiding something in order to be more secure because of that right
<2> OcDoc: Oh, you'll be safe enough as long as you don't oppose the administration's policies in public.
<1> MrRod, You think Bush is spying on people who might oppose him politically ? That defies common sense.
<1> he is running for no office, not ever again.
<2> FreeTrade: Why not?
<7> " I am in far more danger from my government than I am from terrorists"
<0> MrRod: it's not even that ... a corrupt official might have a personal vendetta against me
<6> Well, I fail to see how an international phone call is "ones person or ones papers"
<1> MrRod because the odds would be highly against it.
<7> that's a really demented attitude
<0> MrRod: it might not even be because of something I do ... he might covet my wife and feel he had a better chance if I were out of the way
<2> FreeTrade: Why shouldn't he be expected to use the resources at hand for political purposes? Clinton did. Nixon did.
<1> There is not really a motive and it would say that Bush is 100% a dishonest person when he says he feels its his job to use his office to help protect american people.
<0> Lupine: Oh, I think you DO see
<2> OcDoc: Your wife??
<1> I wouldnt say any president even Clinton was that dishonest.. I dont believe Clinton would intentionally harm us, though we do have evidence that he abused power de facto, with bush its nothign but accusation and no proof.
<0> Free: you don't think Clinton had one of the witnesses against him jailed in Arkansas?
<8> FreeTrade not really. if he belives that stopping people from opposing him serves the american people :)
<2> FreeTrade: If he can consider political opposition to his policies a threat to national security then why not use his resources to thwart that opposition?
<9> MrRod: Lincoln did things I disagree with and consider unconstitutional, that doesn't mean he gave license to future generations to also violate the constitution.
<1> I am not so cynical that I believe the majority of presidents are anti american, and instead of reacting to teerrorists are spying on their neighbors.
<10> MrRod: depends on whether that opposition has known links to groups supporting terrorists
<10> as many do.
<1> Look at the logic.
<10> hence the justification
<2> FreeTrade: Clinton's staff was caught with FBI files on his political opponents. They weren't supposed to have those files.
<6> Crying about eavesdropping on international phonecalls to terrrorists, is like being gang raped and crying that the last guy didn't ask for a kiss. This wiretapping is _nothing_ compared to the all-but-entire ***ault on the 2nd amendment.
<1> This started right after 911
<10> Lup: I agree with the 1st part
<8> FreeTrade it is not a "instead of" situation
<2> Timur: No, I'm talking about domestic, peaceful political opposition.
<8> FreeTrade they could easily do both
<6> timur: yes, we know you are anti 2nd amendment
<1> whoever leaked it who I hope is caught and punished, Even this person acknowleged it started after 911
<1> Logic, using logic
<11> I must be lagged
<10> we do
<6> FT: i'ld prefer him to be just liquidated
<1> What were people attacking the government and President Bush for ?
<11> no wonder I wasn't really in the discussion
<1> Not putting the dots together.
<12> Michelle Malkin is hot! discuss
<6> ocdox PING!
<10> MrRod: well, some of that peaceful opposition isn't as peaceful as may appear
<2> FreeTrade: The whole point of having checks and balances is to not tempt those who are in power.
<9> Damirtol: O Rlly?
<1> Why did the CIA know this and the FBI know that, and yet noone who could act on the information knew it all ?
<10> in terms of their links to terrorist groups.
<11> Lupine: well, you're receiving me just fine
<8> FreeTrade because there were barriers set in place between the CIA/FBI/etc on purpose
<11> Free: no one is questioning the realignment of the services
<6> ocdx sure
<8> which was an error
<1> Publicly they said they were going to tear down the walls between the CIA and FBI and DIA and NSA and they were going to put dots together to try to make an effective counter intelligence team.
<11> LUpine: good, thought I was being ignored
<6> kob: absolutely
<1> And I would say they have had some success and in that lie some proof or indication of motive.
<8> However... just because the nation is threatened from an external source; dos not mean that we should tear down the protections that are in place t protect it rom attack by an internal source.
<11> Free: what does that have to do with eliminating protections for citizens against government corruption?
<13> interesting time to walk in
<6> if we were to be able to weigh all the attacks on our liberty.. listening to international phonecalls to terrorists is very very minor compared to the hundreds of others
<10> Kob: which proved stupid in an era of international terrorism.
<2> Lupine: ***uming that's all they're listening to....
<13> John Cornyn said "none of your civil liberties matter much when you're dead"
<10> Lup: regardless of comparison to others, it's justified in and of itself
<11> Lupine: you keep saying that ... I want to roll back ALL of them
<1> First of all, Without inventing conspiracy theories I can tell you that Congress , Certain bi partisan members have power to oversee the actions of the president and the executive.
<13> i say, "Give me liberty or give me death"
<6> if/when any US citizen is brought up on charges not-related-to-terrorism.. he'll be able to appeal the admissability of the evidence.
<10> Oc: that's because you have the bizarre, paranoid attitude that:
<2> FreeTrade: And they should.
<8> Timur correct, I see no reason to have such varried intelligence groups... however a unified one calls for stronger oversight imo.
<10> " I am in far more danger from my government than I am from terrorists"
<1> OcDoc, You have demonstrated one single protection eliminated for citisens against governemtn corruption.
<6> OcDox: sure, but by putting your efforts into tiny issues.. you are effectively ignoring m***ive issues.
<13> well, i have no problem with them listening in
<1> You cant cite one single case
<11> TImur: you think protections for you against your government are stupid ... eventually you will learn the truth, but it will be too late then
<13> as long as i could be sure that they were not abusing it
<10> Kob: 'such varied intelligence'?
<6> ocdox: its like ignoring all industiral pollution sources, and complaining about one person, lighting one match
<9> OcDoc: Free has in the past claimed that the government is allowed to infringe on civil liberties durring times of war. Which is a position I can not support.
<1> This is the Libertarian philosophy to its ultimate conclusion
<13> unfortunately, as nixon showed us, political dissenters are also threats to national security
<1> And this is why when I was a Libertarian, I eventually became a Republican
<13> that's the bottom line: can we trust them not to take it too far?
<11> LUpine: I have ignored nothing ... I have argued here p***ionately against all of them without result
<8> Timur ... yeah, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA; varied intelligence groups... multiples, plural :)
<8> Timur only need 1 that covers all ranges
<9> FT: funy, I went from Republican to Libertarian..
<9> funny, even.
<11> LUpine: I have run for office against alll of them and failed
<1> IN other words I realized you cant live by rigid dogmatic principles.
<6> Personally, I *FAR FAR* more fear what secret judges of a secret court may do with their power.
<10> Oc: no, here's what I think. Too much governmental power can be a danger. Not enough power exercised has, in the case of 9/11 proven a danger. Hence, measures must be taken to address the certainty of the latter, while accomodating the former to the extent possible.
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#gamedev
#gentoo
making vines + 3dsmax
Is peter crouch married
#gentoo
#politics
#bsd
#windowsxp
#debian
#computers
|
|