Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > New Yeeeccchhh Times

New Yeeeccchhh Times
Thread Tools
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2006, 05:34 PM
 
Is anybody as mad at the New York Times as I am? What is the point of blabing about the banking records? What is their goal in all this? I'd cut all the reporters out of the process. I'd give 'em less access thsn the average person, and I'd do a full background check on everybody at the NYT! Financial stuff too!
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2006, 05:43 PM
 
What the heck are you talking about?
It would be good if you presented the topic that is getting you mad in a coherent fashion so that everybody understands what you are mad about, a link would be nice, too.

Taliesin
     
darth-vader000
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2006, 07:28 PM
 
Yeah I'm mad
Wiretapping american making foreign calls without a court order
Datamining of american domestic phone records
Holding "enemy combatants w/o due process
Using old russion gualgs in eastern europe.

Yeah I'm mad, thank you George Bush for trying to turn America the free into a police state
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2006, 07:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by darth-vader000
Yeah I'm mad
Wiretapping american making foreign calls without a court order
Datamining of american domestic phone records
Holding "enemy combatants w/o due process
Using old russion gualgs in eastern europe.

Yeah I'm mad, thank you George Bush for trying to turn America the free into a police state
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2006, 07:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
Is anybody as mad at the New York Times as I am? What is the point of blabing about the banking records? What is their goal in all this? I'd cut all the reporters out of the process. I'd give 'em less access thsn the average person, and I'd do a full background check on everybody at the NYT! Financial stuff too!
So you want to harass them (background checks) and take rights away from staffers (less access than the average person) because you don't agree with them publishing stories on this?

Sorry, but you make less sense than usual today.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2006, 07:45 PM
 
Are you mad at the Wall Street Journal, as well? They reported on it, too.

Bill Keller, one of the NYT's big-wigs, wrote an open letter on the topic Sunday....

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish
The rest of the letter is worth reading as well, as it detailed the Times' process in deciding to publish the story.

To be honest, I'm less concerned about this program than others we've read about.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2006, 08:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork.
Are you mad at the Wall Street Journal, as well? They reported on it, too.

Bill Keller, one of the NYT's big-wigs, wrote an open letter on the topic Sunday....



The rest of the letter is worth reading as well, as it detailed the Times' process in deciding to publish the story.

To be honest, I'm less concerned about this program than others we've read about.

Which others are you more concerned with?

Too mad members couldn't merge threads. I guess SimeytheLimey's thread is now officially superceeded by this one.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2006, 09:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
Which others are you more concerned with?

Too mad members couldn't merge threads. I guess SimeytheLimey's thread is now officially superceeded by this one.
I saw Simey's thread too late. I have a standing policy to not get into a 'NN thread after the 70th post (unless it's about Anna Benson), because that's about the point at which most of the threads there have already gone downhill.

What I mean is that financial transactions, while "private" in the sense that I can't go down to your bank and find out how much is on your bank account, are regulated and stored and generally available to the Government if for no other reason than to determine how much income tax you owe. It's not much of a stretch to think that the government ought to have the ability to inspect records that look suspect, or are from people under suspicion.
Following the money trail is also a tried-and-true method for finding bad guys. It's also possible to avoid this surveillance if you want to -- simply use cash for all your purchases if you're afraid of the government that much.

The domestic wiretapp... er... call-log-logging program is much more of a problem, because it involves giving Government access to all the calling data of everyone who isn't a Qwest subscriber. Everyone's calls are being scrutenized at the same time to find patterns which will, in all likelihood, lead to a false positive. The simple link of who called who is a much weaker link than who sent money to who. It's a program that appears to yield very little benefit in the Global War On Terror, but is ripe for abuse by a (hypothetical, of course ) Chief Executive who views holding on to power and digging dirt on political enemies as a higher priority than enforcing civil liberties.
( Last edited by Dork.; Jun 26, 2006 at 09:12 PM. )
     
Y3a  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 09:21 AM
 
OK, so in the name of 'freedom' we are to compromise the governments attempts to protect us by removing those threats, or verifying that they aren't a threat. The continual removal of tools to observe and capture the bad guys is what will kill us in the end. Idealistic concepts don't jive with todays harsh reality that we are under attack by many forces and methods, from thought and mind control/propaganda, to infiltration by illegals, to corrupt politicians. The press could better spend it's time exposing corrupt politicians, but they don't seem to want to do this. WHY? I think that "Big Press" is taking money from the same influence peddlers as the many, many corrupt politicians both locally, and nationally.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 09:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork.
I saw Simey's thread too late. I have a standing policy to not get into a 'NN thread after the 70th post (unless it's about Anna Benson), because that's about the point at which most of the threads there have already gone downhill.

What I mean is that financial transactions, while "private" in the sense that I can't go down to your bank and find out how much is on your bank account, are regulated and stored and generally available to the Government if for no other reason than to determine how much income tax you owe. It's not much of a stretch to think that the government ought to have the ability to inspect records that look suspect, or are from people under suspicion.
Following the money trail is also a tried-and-true method for finding bad guys. It's also possible to avoid this surveillance if you want to -- simply use cash for all your purchases if you're afraid of the government that much.

The domestic wiretapp... er... call-log-logging program is much more of a problem, because it involves giving Government access to all the calling data of everyone who isn't a Qwest subscriber. Everyone's calls are being scrutenized at the same time to find patterns which will, in all likelihood, lead to a false positive. The simple link of who called who is a much weaker link than who sent money to who. It's a program that appears to yield very little benefit in the Global War On Terror, but is ripe for abuse by a (hypothetical, of course ) Chief Executive who views holding on to power and digging dirt on political enemies as a higher priority than enforcing civil liberties.


I agree, I do think that the government should have access to our financial records for security reasons. However, this whole story seems to be systemic of a larger problem where the government seems to want to abuse power without a legal precedent. Certainly, the domestic wiretapping program is more bothersome than monitoring financial records though, like you said.

Also noteworthy is that several newspapers also wrote about the same story, revealing the same sorts of details. Obviously, not only the NYT thought that this story was appropriate enough for publication.

I often wonder whether the Michael Moore Bowling for Columbine premise has some degree of truth to it. Is the government just playing into all our fears and using fear as a tool of manipulation? It seems far too easy to do things under the guise of fighting terrorism these days, and I can see how those (not necessarily any of us here) pumped full of fear would gladly issue a free pass to the government.

You're a smart lad, do you buy into this here theory?
( Last edited by besson3c; Jun 27, 2006 at 09:59 AM. )
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 09:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
OK, so in the name of 'freedom' we are to compromise the governments attempts to protect us by removing those threats, or verifying that they aren't a threat. The continual removal of tools to observe and capture the bad guys is what will kill us in the end. Idealistic concepts don't jive with todays harsh reality that we are under attack by many forces and methods, from thought and mind control/propaganda, to infiltration by illegals, to corrupt politicians. The press could better spend it's time exposing corrupt politicians, but they don't seem to want to do this. WHY? I think that "Big Press" is taking money from the same influence peddlers as the many, many corrupt politicians both locally, and nationally.

Maybe if we are under attack in the form of mind control/propaganda, corrupt politicians, etc. we shouldn't count on corrupt politicians to set things right in this country with no guidance or checks/balances?

This is why we have a free press, because part of this attack we are under is from our very government, although you probably do not see this since you do not seem to recognize how a government can be manipulating its own people.


What I don't understand is that you guys don't buy into the global warming threat, think that people who do are naive and misguided, yet when your government says that there is a scary terrorist on the loose and asks you to jump, you ask "how high"?

My only explanation for this is that you trust your government because you want to. Well, I say, trust *no* government. Think for yourself.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 10:34 AM
 
I applaud them. It is important that the government be restricted to only ethical, constitutional means in their law enforcement: this restriction does far more to keep the people safe than catching terrorists ever will.

If a government can't keep its people safe using only ethical means, then it doesn't deserve to remain in power.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 10:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
I applaud them. It is important that the government be restricted to only ethical, constitutional means in their law enforcement: this restriction does far more to keep the people safe than catching terrorists ever will.

If a government can't keep its people safe using only ethical means, then it doesn't deserve to remain in power.

Agreed, and just so that the NYT is not the only target of vitriol in this thread, as it turns out several other papers were on this story too.
     
Cody Dawg
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 10:37 AM
 
Los Angeles Times also reported on it.

The point that people are overlooking is that if newspapers/media can figure out what's going on, so can terrorists.

     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cody Dawg
Los Angeles Times also reported on it.

The point that people are overlooking is that if newspapers/media can figure out what's going on, so can terrorists.


Good point, it is far from a given that the media told terrorists something they didn't already know. I believe the Wall St. Journal reported it too.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 10:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
New Yeeeccchhh Times
This is quite a staple of conservative rhetoric, isn't it? Madman Murtha! The Bitch in the Ditch! The Demo-rat party! It's argument by name-calling.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cody Dawg
Los Angeles Times also reported on it.

The point that people are overlooking is that if newspapers/media can figure out what's going on, so can terrorists.

Sounds like a snappy retort, but it's not really that simple.

The press has always enjoyed a level of inside access that no terrorist or enemy force should. Sources inside all levels of government/law enforcement will give information to the press, but certainly shouldn't be giving it to terrorists. During WWII, a press that's as flippant as some members of the press are now could have blown things like details of troop movements and invasion plans to the Axis, for example. But in those days, the press (and the public) probably knew better.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
This is quite a staple of conservative rhetoric, isn't it? Madman Murtha! The Bitch in the Ditch! The Demo-rat party! It's argument by name-calling.
Yes, the left never name calls!
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Yes, the left never name calls!
I think the difference is that the right always name calls, and are usually the first to do so.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Sounds like a snappy retort, but it's not really that simple.

The press has always enjoyed a level of inside access that no terrorist or enemy force should. Sources inside all levels of government/law enforcement will give information to the press, but certainly shouldn't be giving it to terrorists. During WWII, a press that's as flippant as some members of the press are now could have blown things like details of troop movements and invasion plans to the Axis, for example. But in those days, the press (and the public) probably knew better.

There is a key difference though. Giving away supported military attack strategies is quite different than giving away government policies that are not established upon a clear legal precedent, if this distinction makes sense.
     
Y3a  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
I applaud them. It is important that the government be restricted to only ethical, constitutional means in their law enforcement: this restriction does far more to keep the people safe than catching terrorists ever will.

If a government can't keep its people safe using only ethical means, then it doesn't deserve to remain in power.
So, you're for rules in a knife fight too?

I want you to explain how only being ethical will protect us.
Keep those burning towers in your mind while you think about it OK?
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
I often wonder whether the Michael Moore Bowling for Columbine premise has some degree of truth to it. Is the government just playing into all our fears and using fear as a tool of manipulation? It seems far too easy to do things under the guise of fighting terrorism these days, and I can see how those (not necessarily any of us here) pumped full of fear would gladly issue a free pass to the government.

You're a smart lad, do you buy into this here theory?
I've never seen Bowling for Columbine. I can buy into this theory, but I have one problem with it -- to what end are they manipulating us? Manipulation implies that there is some sort of goal in mind which we're not aware of, and we're being "tricked" into complying.

What I see is an administration that is simply overzealous in asserting its executive powers, and too excited about flexing its muscle and ignoring its constitutional bounds (using the Global War on Terror as an excuse to get what it wants) that it simply doesn't see that much of what it is doing doesn't make us any safer, and some of it might harm us down the road if someone who is intent on manipulation gets their hands on those extended powers.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
So, you're for rules in a knife fight too?

I want you to explain how only being ethical will protect us.
Keep those burning towers in your mind while you think about it OK?

My God, could you lay it on any thicker? How soupy and lame can you make your rhetoric? This sounds like something Stephen Colbert would say, only he would say it in jest.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by osiris
I think the difference is that the right always name calls, and are usually the first to do so.
Yeah sure, whatever.

Both sides name-call. The left is usually first out of the gate to label anyone they disagree with as racist, fascist, Nazi, homophobe, etc.

On the other hand, something like “New Yeeeeech Times” seems fairly innocuous to me.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Yeah sure, whatever.

Both sides name-call. The left is usually first out of the gate to label anyone they disagree with as racist, fascist, Nazi, homophobe, etc.

On the other hand, something like “New Yeeeeech Times” seems fairly innocuous to me.
So you side yourself with racists, fascists, Nazis and homophobes. How revealing.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
There is a key difference though. Giving away supported military attack strategies is quite different than giving away government policies that are not established upon a clear legal precedent, if this distinction makes sense.
It was said in the other thread, but bears repeating here. It’s not up to New York Times editors to decide legal precedent, and therefore grant themselves authority to declassify whatever information they choose, with impunity.

No one has still answered the question why the NYT or anyone else never saw fit to out the same techniques when they've been used against organized crime.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by osiris
So you side yourself with racists, fascists, Nazis and homophobes. How revealing.
It didn't even take you a minute to prove my point for me. A record?
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
It didn't even take you a minute to prove my point for me. A record?
I didn't call you anything. You did it yourself.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by osiris
I didn't call you anything. You did it yourself.
That makes no sense. Move on.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
It was said in the other thread, but bears repeating here. It’s not up to New York Times editors to decide legal precedent, and therefore grant themselves authority to declassify whatever information they choose, with impunity.

No one has still answered the question why the NYT or anyone else never saw fit to out the same techniques when they've been used against organized crime.

I think this has been answered, but I don't think getting into this again would be productive, so I'll just drop it.
     
Y3a  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
My God, could you lay it on any thicker? How soupy and lame can you make your rhetoric? This sounds like something Stephen Colbert would say, only he would say it in jest.
Maybe lame rhetoric to you, but I still haven't heard an answer to my question.

HOW IS BEING ETHICAL GOING TO PROTECT US???

if this is so obvious and simple YOU should be able to answer.
Is it because you really have no answer.

Liberals really DON'T have any answers anyway,
so perhaps We need to ask someone else...
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
Maybe lame rhetoric to you, but I still haven't heard an answer to my question.

HOW IS BEING ETHICAL GOING TO PROTECT US???

if this is so obvious and simple YOU should be able to answer.
Is it because you really have no answer.

Liberals really DON'T have any answers anyway,
so perhaps We need to ask someone else...


I've answered this question several times, I think, but I'll try again.

What are you afraid of? What is the danger here? You seem to think the only danger is the terrorists, fine. What I"ve been saying is that there is an additional danger: giving our government too much power.

I say if you can avoid both dangers, why not? Develop a legal precedent for all this, and everybody is happy... You guys even control both chambers, so doing this shouldn't be too hard!
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
Maybe lame rhetoric to you, but I still haven't heard an answer to my question.

HOW IS BEING ETHICAL GOING TO PROTECT US???

if this is so obvious and simple YOU should be able to answer.
Is it because you really have no answer.

Liberals really DON'T have any answers anyway,
so perhaps We need to ask someone else...
The presidential oath of office says that it is his duty "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Militarily defending the country against violent enemies, while obviously important, is still not as important as preserving our system of government.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
Maybe lame rhetoric to you, but I still haven't heard an answer to my question.

HOW IS BEING ETHICAL GOING TO PROTECT US???
I think you're playing into his hands. No one has proven anything unethical was done by law enforcement in the outed program that went after terrorist financing. The Times even admitted there was nothing done that was illegal. All this nonsense about 'no precedent' is just a smokescreen from people that don't want to admit that the most unethical thing done here, was the NYT and others appointing themselves the new authority over what's 'classified' and what isn't.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Yes, the left never name calls!
Of course not.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2006, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
It didn't even take you a minute to prove my point for me. A record?
I noticed that.
     
Y3a  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2006, 10:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
I've answered this question several times, I think, but I'll try again.
OK...I'm waiting...

Originally Posted by besson3c
What are you afraid of?
Pointless question. NOT AN ANSWER.

Originally Posted by besson3c
What is the danger here?
Pointless question. NOT AN ANSWER.

Originally Posted by besson3c
You seem to think the only danger is the terrorists, fine. What I"ve been saying is that there is an additional danger: giving our government too much power.
Pointless blather. NOT AN ANSWER

Originally Posted by besson3c
I say if you can avoid both dangers, why not?
HOW? HOW? HOW?? You are still blathering.

Originally Posted by besson3c
Develop a legal precedent for all this, and everybody is happy... You guys even control both chambers, so doing this shouldn't be too hard!
"Everybody is Happy" PULEEEZE!

So you really DON'T HAVE ANY SOLUTION OUTSIDE OF FAIRY TAILS.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2006, 11:29 AM
 
Y3a: sorry to use too many syllables in my answer. Guess what? Sometimes answers involve a little more than just a short sentence answer, and sometimes they aren't (or can't be) entirely concrete. Guess what? Intelligent people sometimes come up with complex answers to complex questions...

That isn't to say that I'm brilliant, but clearly you don't seem interested in having an intelligent debate, which is what leads me to think that you were looking for a more bite-sized response.

Sorry, feel free to ask me for clarification on anything I"ve said, but I'm not going to widdle down my answer into more bite-sized, simplistic chunks just for you.


It's no wonder you are a Bush fan - he's hardly the most articulate politician I've ever seen.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2006, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
OK, so in the name of 'freedom' we are to compromise the governments attempts to protect us by removing those threats, or verifying that they aren't a threat.
Quoted for emphasis. God forbid we do anything in the name of "freedom."
     
Y3a  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2006, 02:21 PM
 
But the question of how being ethical, playing by old rules etc will actually protect us these days. With the porus borders we have we don't even know who's in our country. We don't know what threats they may pose. The "Bad Guys" don't play by rules and they are hard to beat when our own seem to be siding with them and protecting them. I don't want our idealistic words to be used against us by the ACLU or the judges who legislate from the bench - which is a greater threat to our way of life. The founding fathers were religious, but wanted no part in state sponsored chruch like had been the way in England and Europe at the time, but it's now spun to mean state sponsored athiesm. The geneva convention was signed between countries, and had specific details about who was covered. This has been construed to mean ALL enemies, whether they are representing the army of a country, or terrorists. Our freedoms were for AMERICANS, not anybody who crossed our soil. The ACLU has twisted this - with help from inarticulate judges into EVERYBODY GETS EVERYTHING! You don't even need to be a citizen. The liberals(idealists) and terrorists and corrupt politicians are out to destroy us with our generosity. This needs to stop.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:45 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,