Members Lgehrig4 Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 Originally posted by la0tsu The main problem, IMHO, is the lack of oversight. There are plenty of tools in the belt of those charged to protect us. I have no problem with adding more, as long as there is some sort of accountability. I fear that granting broad powers to the executive without good checks and balances would lead to the use of those powers to "take care" of political opponents.I've been reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer (a CBS reporter who was in Austria and Germany during the war), and that is exactly the situation that led to the rise of Hitler. I'm not saying Bush is HItler, mind you. I have major disagreements with his policies and ability, but Hitler was evil beyond almost anything we've seen.No, my concern is for the future of this country. I want to make sure that the people remain solidly in control, and giving the president unchecked powers is the road to dictatorship.Does that make any sense? Fair enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ***1776*** Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 Originally posted by DirtyBird For the record I'm referring to The Patriot Act, among other things. The most recent that I'm aware of is the NSA's warrantless wiretapping practices. Most of that is being done with INTERNATIONAL calls, not all domestic USA calls.. The funny part is that some "phony politicians" knew about the NSA program (they were "briefed on the damn thing" or on the damn INTELLIGENCE COMMITEE) yet when the NYTimes broke the story they played "dumb" and went to the typical evil Bush, yada yada yada yada partison nonsense we hear.. Dont just listen to the 20 second "soundbite" or big headline, go in and read a lil bit more info on these stories! I think Bush has ALOT more on his plate than worrying about billions (yes billions) of domestic phone calls.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 Originally posted by Lgehrig4 In their eyes yes Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 Originally posted by 17 Tubes I didn't say it was "right". I never said *I* think citizens are guilty for their governemnts. You leap to conclusions. Judge jury and executioner. Reread. I'm just going by what you said. I don't think everything leads down the path of your particular "logic". I didn't say "everything" did. But what you posted did lead inevitably to the logical conclusion that I posted. I know there's a lot I don't know, but maybe you could enlighten me. Why do the terrorists kill citizens? As a threat to the governemnt?Yes, actually. Have you ever listened to any of the manifestoes bin Laden and others have spouted in their videotaped messages?Listening, by the way, does NOT mean "agreeing with," before anyone suggests otherwise. My point is that we cannot fight what we do not bother to try to understand. That threat doesn't workIt worked well enough to spur the U.S. into starting bin Laden's "holy war" for him... ....except Israel, who will call you out on your threats. Using the same tactics as the terrorists, but with greater resources & organization (+ the approval of the most powerful nation on Earth). No...they keep blowing up PEOPLE. Citizens. Either in punishment for supporting the reigning regime, or as an incentive to oust the regimeBut... didn't you *just* say that terrorists don't hate governments? Why, then, would they want to punish anyone for supporting a regime?Why would they want to oust anybody, if they don't hate governments? and install who the terrorists want, like Kerry for example. There's so much ass-level stupidity in that comment that I can't explain it without charts and graphs. Not saying it's tryu, just a theory. Your theory seems not only to contradict itself, but in doing so to support what I said in the first place. Um, thanks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 Originally posted by 17 Tubes Indeed. Peopel can't seem to look at the problem from others perspective. SOME people feel that EVRYONE uses the same..."logic" that they employ. As if logic is always a standard, a rule, an equation. Fixed. Not so. MAybe in the classroom, but not in the real world. A) Classrooms exist in the real world. Get over yourself.B) Logic IS fixed -- by its very nature. Do the rules of mathematics change from person to person? C) You're being asked to look at the situation at hand from other people's and other culture's perspectives; you're refusing, and now you're criticizing others for their unwillingness to see things from others' points of view? Noice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 Originally posted by guitar shmoe I never thought far a second it would work....try it? sure! but, benevolence has already been tried and came back with a slit throat and a burned American flag wrapped around it's torso.....there is no negotiating with these people... When did we actually try benevolence over there? When? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitar shmoe Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 that statement reminds me of a guy standing in the middle of a forest and asking: 'where is the forest....hmmmm, I don't see anything...all these dang trees are in the way..' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 Originally posted by guitar shmoe that statement reminds me of a guy standing in the middle of a forest and asking: 'where is the forest....hmmmm, I don't see anything...all these dang trees are in the way..' Glad it reminds you of that. Now... answer the freakin' question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitar shmoe Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 hahaha..just because "YOU" want to define our presence over there as something "OTHER" than a benevolent act does not mean that it is so.... The stance of the US is to defend ourselves and to come to the aid of the oppressed (when all other options are exhausted)...our very presence there is an act of benevolence to the people that were/are subjugated by the oppressive govts. of that region...we offer them liberty and freedom from such oppressors....(benevolent act)...if "YOU" in turn want to conveniently "REDEFINE" our presence in the region as 'evil' or 'oppressive' or 'destructive' etc...because of the ugliness of the act of war AND the slant of the liberal press trying make the US out to be the 'AGRESSORS"....if that is your stance (and I'm guessing it is...) and you want to ignore the 99.9% of absolute GOOD that is being done there... then, you are most naive...with a NY ton of growing up to do. You are an easy sponge for the leftwing propaganda to soak....sssooooo gullible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 Originally posted by guitar shmoe hahaha..just because "YOU" want to define our presence over there as something "OTHER" than a benevolent act does not mean that it is so....The stance of the US is to defend ourselves and to come to the aid of the oppressed (when all other options are exhausted)...our very presence there is an act of benevolence to the people that were/are subjugated by the oppressive govts. of that region...we offer them liberty and freedom from such oppressors....(benevolent act)...if "YOU" in turn want to conveniently "REDEFINE" our presence in the region as 'evil' or 'oppressive' or 'destructive' etc...because of the ugliness of the act of war AND the slant of the liberal press trying make the US out to be the 'AGRESSORS"....if that is your stance (and I'm guessing it is...) and you want to ignore the 99.9% of absolute GOOD that is being done there... then, you are most naive...with a NY ton of growing up to do. You are an easy sponge for the leftwing propaganda to soak....sssooooo gullible. Just because you claim it is benevolent does not make it so. The facts support my claim -- I want to hear what "facts" you've got to support yours. So, AGAIN, when have we tried "benevolence" over there? (Btw, the press is not liberal -- that myth's been debunked plenty, so let it go. Or, are all your "facts" like that?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DirtyBird Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 Originally posted by Lgehrig4 Ok, this affects me because a lot of this acts attention is placed on the banking & brokerage business.What is wrong with taking precautions to prevent further attacks? We live in a day and age that could not have been imagined by the men who drafted the constitution. Adjustments have to be made for good reason.I watched the planes hit the towers and then watched them crumble. I was stuck roaming the streets with colleagues who were freaking out because they had friends/family in the building who they couldn't contact. I take the subway every day and the thought never completely leaves my mind that someone next to me can be carrying a bomb and if I see a Muslim over dressed in 90 degree heat and praying my eyes don't leave him/her until one of us gets off. I say let the gov't implement anything that helps keep us safe. You trust the government WAAAY too much. That's nothing we're ever going to agree about then. It just reeks of behind the scenes big brother policing, and as such, it just bothers me on fundamental levels. I will not give up freedom for security. You think it's worth it, I don't. I hate when people use 9/11 as a scapegoat for this {censored} too... I find your logic rather disturbing, and to me that's the mark of the terrorists winning. We're willing to sacrifice our freedom because of some idiot terrorists. But hey man, we all got different opinions and you have your reasons, we're obviously just not going to agree on this point at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitar shmoe Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 Originally posted by draelyc Just because you claim it is benevolent does not make it so. The facts support my claim -- I want to hear what "facts" you've got to support yours. So, AGAIN, when have we tried "benevolence" over there?(Btw, the press is not liberal -- that myth's been debunked plenty, so let it go. Or, are all your "facts" like that?) no sense in addressing this any further...again, (sadly) if you cannot see the benevolence in our (American troop involvement) actions in the Middle East there is a much bigger issue with you and your 'world perception' than any argument here...(the benevolent acts our country is doing over there are far too many for me to list here...)....you 'see' what you want to see...sadly, you CHOOSE to only 'see' the negative (again, as portrayed by the LIBERAL media)...you will see the world differently when you grow-up...(what are you a teenager? live at home?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Craggin Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 Originally posted by guitar shmoe no sense in addressing this any further...again, (sadly) if you cannot see the benevolence in our (American troop involvement) actions in the Middle East there is a much bigger issue with you and your 'world perception' than any argument here...(the benevolent acts our country is doing over there are far too many for me to list here...)....you 'see' what you want to see...sadly, you CHOOSE to only 'see' the negative (again, as portrayed by the LIBERAL media)...you will see the world differently when you grow-up...(what are you a teenager? live at home?) They're not all benevolent...I'm actually quite concerned with the potential for more Abu Ghraib type incidents...and I'll bet there are more atrocities being committed by our troops than will ever get reported. I'll also state that I believe that the majority of our troops are well disciplined and keep their military bearing at all times. Oh, and for the record, I'm a former artillery officer. (Who also happened to be Charles Grainer's superior in college...before he failed out ) I really fear an "ugliness" permeating within the ranks the longer this campaign continues. Please stop with all the "benevolence" crap...we're not there to help anyone...that's just a convenient side benefit...we're there trying to secure a better sphere of influence in an unstable region. (If it works out, great.) And please, spare me the "liberal vs. conservative" BS...I don't see it that way. IMHO, we marched in like the proverbial bull in a china closet, with really {censored}ty intel, and now we're up to our assholes in alligators. The insurgency gains strength and momentum every time we exercise/impose our "benevolence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitar shmoe Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 Originally posted by Craggin They're not all benevolent...I'm actually quite concerned with the potential for more Abu Ghraib type incidents...and I'll bet there are more atrocities being committed by our troops than will ever get reported. I'll also state that I believe that the majority of our troops are well disciplined and keep their military bearing at all times. Oh, and for the record, I'm a former artillery officer. (Who also happened to be Charles Grainer's superior in college...before he failed out ) I really fear an "ugliness" permeating within the ranks the longer this campaign continues. Please stop with all the "benevolence" crap...we're not there to help anyone...that's just a convenient side benefit...we're there trying to secure a better sphere of influence in an unstable region. (If it works out, great.) And please, spare me the "liberal vs. conservative" BS...I don't see it that way. IMHO, we marched in like the proverbial bull in a china closet, with really {censored}ty intel, and now we're up to our assholes in alligators. The insurgency gains strength and momentum every time we exercise/impose our "benevolence". this is a 'revisionist' viewpoint...go back to 9/11 and review some context as to how we were attacked and the COMMITMENT to the SOLUTIONS to terrorism...then, SLOWLY proceed from there. Your statement will look pretty lame in reflection if you do that....we (America) are currently sending aid (as in BENEVOLENCE (side benefit...hehehehe)...yep, it costs tax money and effort etc...) to the Lebanese refugees...pay attention mon ami! and keep rockin the Splawn!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Craggin Posted July 25, 2006 Members Share Posted July 25, 2006 Originally posted by guitar shmoe this is a 'revisionist' viewpoint...go back to 9/11 and review some context as to how we were attacked and the COMMITMENT to the SOLUTIONS to terrorism...then, SLOWLY proceed from there. Your statement will look pretty lame in reflection if you do that....we (America) are currently sending aid (as in BENEVOLENCE (side benefit...hehehehe)...yep, it costs tax money and effort etc...) to the Lebanese refugees...pay attention mon ami! and keep rockin the Splawn!!! Revisionist my ass...my viewpoint towards "solutions" goes back many decades before 9/11. As for context towards a solution on terrorism...please...do you mean when we "declared war" on it? It was at that moment George W. lost me...I knew right then and there we were headed for a {censored} storm. I do believe for the most part our society is "benevolent", but unfortunately it is lost the second we offer it with a price tag attached. Don't worry about me paying attention...it is one of the few things I don't mind paying a premium for. Still got the purple people eater??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lgehrig4 Posted July 26, 2006 Members Share Posted July 26, 2006 Originally posted by DirtyBird You trust the government WAAAY too much. That's nothing we're ever going to agree about then.It just reeks of behind the scenes big brother policing, and as such, it just bothers me on fundamental levels. I will not give up freedom for security. You think it's worth it, I don't. I hate when people use 9/11 as a scapegoat for this {censored} too...I find your logic rather disturbing, and to me that's the mark of the terrorists winning. We're willing to sacrifice our freedom because of some idiot terrorists.But hey man, we all got different opinions and you have your reasons, we're obviously just not going to agree on this point at all. I'm still not sure what freedoms you are worried about. I feel quite free living in America. Sure I don't think the gov't should be involved in certain things, but do you actually think that they wanted to screen calls for any other reason only using 911 as an excuse? Easy to say that the terrorists are winning when you live in GA and don't even have to consider an attack. Hey, I still do everything that I want to do only some things with a different perception. I have more of a problem when the gov't tells a family how their 16yr old son has to treat his cancer(current case). Thats a personal matter that they have no business being a part of, especially given the success rates of conventional treatment. Lets face it, I'd have an easier time trying to serve Prime Rib at a PETA convention than get anyone to see a somewhat conservative point views on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DirtyBird Posted July 26, 2006 Members Share Posted July 26, 2006 Originally posted by Lgehrig4 Easy to say that the terrorists are winning when you live in GA and don't even have to consider an attack. Hey, I still do everything that I want to do only some things with a different perception. How do you know I dont have to consider an attack? There's a huge air force base just up the road from me. A nuclear strike on that base would take out this whole area and that base is definitely what I would consider a "target". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ***1776*** Posted July 26, 2006 Members Share Posted July 26, 2006 Lgehrig4Lets face it, I'd have an easier time trying to serve Prime Rib at a PETA convention than get anyone to see a somewhat conservative point views on this site. Great line and very true lol.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lgehrig4 Posted July 26, 2006 Members Share Posted July 26, 2006 Originally posted by DirtyBird How do you know I dont have to consider an attack? There's a huge air force base just up the road from me. A nuclear strike on that base would take out this whole area and that base is definitely what I would consider a "target". A nuclear strike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 17 Tubes Posted July 26, 2006 Members Share Posted July 26, 2006 Originally posted by draelyc A) Classrooms exist in the real world. Get over yourself. B) Logic IS fixed -- by its very nature. Do the rules of mathematics change from person to person? C) You're being asked to look at the situation at hand from other people's and other culture's perspectives; you're refusing, and now you're criticizing others for their unwillingness to see things from others' points of view? Noice. I'm not the only one around here who really really needs to get over themselves. If you could only read your posts with other eyes and a different mindset, you'd have a different outlook on how you aproach things. I'm not saying I am always right and you are always wrong. I *KNOW* I am not always right, In fact, usually am not, but I also know that this is only my opinion, uniformed, impossibly illogical and pathetic as it is. But you, of course have massive pipleines of the God's very own truth, you have your secret agents in place all across the globe, with spy satteliotes tied directly to your la-bor-a-tory. Andhave perfected your point-for-point delivery (which makes you appear to be even more an authority on EVerything), as well as perfected in monloques to the classroom.This is the part where you again tell me to get over myself, right?I know this is confusing, and will cause you undending amount of splicing to address, but just as an example, did or did not, bin Laden call for the election of someone OTHER than Bush? Terrorists also attacked the CITIZENS of Spain in a successful attempt to oust their government. So, in some sense, you are right, they hate governments to. I just wish they would blow THEM up instead of the citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 17 Tubes Posted July 26, 2006 Members Share Posted July 26, 2006 Originally posted by draelyc Just because you claim it is benevolent does not make it so. The facts support my claim -- I want to hear what "facts" you've got to support yours. So, AGAIN, when have we tried "benevolence" over there?(Btw, the press is not liberal -- that myth's been debunked plenty, so let it go. Or, are all your "facts" like that?) See? You have the same delivery as the people you condemn. You think that by just saying so, it makes it true. Us poor pitiful, mis-informed, illogical peons. As compared to draelycworld, which coulld save the entire universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DirtyBird Posted July 26, 2006 Members Share Posted July 26, 2006 Originally posted by Lgehrig4 A nuclear strike Last I heard everyone was all paranoid about terrorists and "suitcase nukes"...But hey whatever fits your worldview works, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted July 26, 2006 Members Share Posted July 26, 2006 Originally posted by guitar shmoe no sense in addressing this any further...again, (sadly) if you cannot see the benevolence in our (American troop involvement) actions in the Middle East there is a much bigger issue with you and your 'world perception' than any argument here...(the benevolent acts our country is doing over there are far too many for me to list here...)....you 'see' what you want to see...sadly, you CHOOSE to only 'see' the negative (again, as portrayed by the LIBERAL media)...you will see the world differently when you grow-up...(what are you a teenager? live at home?) Riiiiiigggtt... and it's the "bleeding hearts" who look at the world through rose-tinted glasses.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted July 26, 2006 Members Share Posted July 26, 2006 Originally posted by 17 Tubes I'm not the only one around here who really really needs to get over themselves. If you could only read your posts with other eyes and a different mindset, you'd have a different outlook on how you aproach things. Right back atcha, baby. Pot, have you known Kettle long? I'm not saying I am always right and you are always wrong. I *KNOW* I am not always right, In fact, usually am not, but I also know that this is only my opinion, uniformed, impossibly illogical and pathetic as it is. You likey the melodrama, don't you? Rather than respond to valid criticism, you always -- always -- rush to play the "martyr." Enjoy your cross! But you, of course have massive pipleines of the God's very own truth, you have your secret agents in place all across the globe, with spy satteliotes tied directly to your la-bor-a-tory. And *I'm* the one who doesn't live in the "real world." Andhave perfected your point-for-point delivery (which makes you appear to be even more an authority on EVerything), as well as perfected in monloques to the classroom.Insecure, much? This is the part where you again tell me to get over myself, right?Do I need to? I know this is confusing, and will cause you undending amount of splicing to address, but just as an example, did or did not, bin Laden call for the election of someone OTHER than Bush?Does or does not that have anything to do with the ridiculous, ludicrous suggestion that Kerry in any way *supports* bin Laden? In case *you're* confused, the answer is "no, it does not," though that was the implication of the post to which I responded. Terrorists also attacked the CITIZENS of Spain in a successful attempt to oust their government. So, in some sense, you are right, they hate governments to.And that's the point I was making. Thanks for putting in words that you're comfortable with. I appreciate the assist! I just wish they would blow THEM up instead of the citizens. If they worked that way, we'd have a traditional war on our hands, and this whole idea of a "war on terror" might have some slim chance of working. Since they don't, however..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted July 26, 2006 Members Share Posted July 26, 2006 Originally posted by 17 Tubes See? You have the same delivery as the people you condemn. You think that by just saying so, it makes it true. ...And if you actually READ what I wrote, you'd see that I JUST SAID THAT!!! Us poor pitiful, mis-informed, illogical peons. As compared to draelycworld, which coulld save the entire universe. C'mon, man -- you do so much better when you stay away from these silly fantasies of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.