On the subject of American Freedom.. this is frightening.
Why is the Pentagon spending time and resources doing surveilance on peace activists, some even on high school and colledge campuses, and peaceful and within the law? Who do they threaten?
Why are they on this list expressly intended for threats to National Security and anti-Terrorism?
*************************************************
Dec. 15, 2005
Pentagon to review possible database misuse
ROBERT BURNS Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon says it views with the greatest concern possible misuse of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity in the United States. A news report said the database listed activities of anti-war groups and referred to at least 20 U.S. citizens or others inside the U.S.
Pentagon spokesmen declined to discuss the matter on the record but issued a written statement Wednesday evening that implied - but did not explicitly acknowledge - that some information had been handled improperly.
The Pentagon said Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, ordered a full review of the system for handling such information to ensure that it complies with Pentagon policies and federal law.
Cambone also ordered a review of whether Pentagon polices are being applied properly with respect to reporting and storing information about "U.S. persons" - people, not necessarily U.S. citizens, inside the United States. And he ordered the database to be reviewed "to identify any other information that is improperly in the database," according to the Pentagon statement.
The House and Senate intelligence committees were to receive letters Thursday spelling out these actions, officials said.
The Pentagon was responding to a report Tuesday by NBC News, which said it obtained a 400-page document generated by an obscure Pentagon agency that analyzes intelligence reports on suspicious domestic activity that includes at least 20 references to U.S. citizens, plus information on anti-war meetings and protests.
A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue, acknowledged that anti-war group activities had been included in the database.
Earlier, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he had not determined whether the 400-page document was authentic.
"What I can tell you is that the Defense Department does have legitimate interests in protecting its installations, in protecting its people, and to the extent that they use information collected by law enforcement agencies to do that, that's an appropriate activity of the United States military," Whitman said.
The military's intelligence-gathering efforts must pertain directly to protection of Pentagon property or people, he said.
NBC News said the database lists a meeting in 2004 of The Truth Project in Lake Worth, Fla., where activists planned a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. It listed the meeting as a "threat" and one of more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" across the country over a recent 10-month period.
The NBC report also said the database includes nearly four dozen anti-war meetings or protests, including some that have taken place far from any military installation or recruitment center.
The database was generated by an obscure Pentagon agency, the Counterintelligence Field Activity, a three-year old outfit whose size and budget are classified secret.
Some have portrayed its activities as reminiscent of the 1960s when the Pentagon collected information on anti-Vietnam war groups and peace activists.
The Pentagon increased its counterintelligence efforts in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. An intelligence reporting system developed by the Air Force, called the Threat and Local Observation Notice, or TALON, was put into effect across the Defense Department in 2002. Its purpose was to assemble and share "non-validated domestic threat information," according to a Pentagon fact sheet.
"The TALON is designed to capture non-validated threat information and security anomalies indicative of possible terrorist pre-attack activity," it said. "Reportable events include nonspecific threat to DoD interests; suspected surveillance of DoD facilities and personnel," tests of security, unusual repetitive activity, bomb threats and "any other suspicious activity," it added.
-------------------------------------------------
� 2005 AP Wire and wire service sources.
(uh-oh ... I'm probably on the list!! )
Posted by treepatrol (Member # 4117) on :
Iam convinced now and before' the patriot act is totally wrong even with terrorists on the loose.
Government is running rampant and out of control in every facet of its realm.
We need prayer and people to speak up on real issuse's.
We are heading for a One world order ran by the antichrist.
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
I'll make a point of reading all your post later. I have to say that if you have trouble figuring that out mo, you are wwaayyy behind the power curve!!!
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
OK Mo, I'm not going to waste a lot of time on something this simple, you either g'it or you don't. If you wanted America to lose this war, you wouldn't get much traction if you walked around with a sign that read,'' I hate America and I want it to lose this war''! You just might piss off some redneck that would show you where to stick your sign! To say, ``stop the carnage of war'', would at least garner some sympathy or at least no direct hostility to you.
So what is the intent of the anti-war bunch. They don't picket anyone else but America, somehow that doesn't seem fair. They seem to only want America to stop fighting! I see these people as enemy combatants, plain and simple! It is indisputable they provide aid and comfort to our enemies and they are an organized operation with a chain of command. A chain of command with paid organizers, that's an army Mo!
Posted by treepatrol (Member # 4117) on :
Senate rejects reauthorization of Patriot Act Failure of vote to pre-empt filibuster is major defeat for administration.
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the nation's top anti-terror law as infringing too much on Americans' privacy, dealing a major defeat to President Bush and Republican leaders.
In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.
Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and GOP congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the 16 expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent, and add new safeguards and expiration dates to the two most controversial parts: roving wiretaps and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.
Feingold, Craig and other critics said that wasn't enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law.
If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on Dec. 31.
CLICK FOR RELATED STORIES Bush reportedly OK'd spying on Americans Analysis: Are wartime measures being abandoned?
Frist changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time. He immediately objected to an offer of a short term extension from Democrats, saying the House won't approve it and the president won't sign it.
``We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act,'' Frist warned.
`Vital tools' in the war on terror If the Patriot Act provisions expire, Republicans say they will place the blame on Democrats in next year's midterm elections. ``In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a single moment,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. ``The time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come.''
But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost Friday from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.
``I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care,'' said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.
``It is time to have some checks and balances in this country,'' shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. ``We are more American for doing that.''
Most of the Patriot Act -- which expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers -- was made permanent when Congress overwhelmingly passed it after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. Making the rest of it permanent was a priority for both the Bush administration and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill before Congress adjourns for the year.
Compromise reached earlier The House on Wednesday passed a House-Senate compromise bill to renew the Act that supporters say added significant safeguards to the law. These supporters predict doom and gloom if the Patriot Act's critics win and the provisions expire.
``This is a defining moment. There are no more compromises to be made, no more extensions of time. The bill is what it is,'' said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
``Those that would give up essential liberties in pursuit (of) ... a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security,'' said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H. They suggested a short extension so negotiations could continue, but the Senate scrapped a Democratic-led effort to renew the USA Patriot Act for just three months before the vote began.
The bill's opponents say the original act was rushed into law, and Congress should take more time now to make sure the rights of innocent Americans are safeguarded before making the expiring provisions permanent.
Posted by treepatrol (Member # 4117) on :
Live Vote Was President Bush right to authorize NSA eavesdropping on Americans?
Live Vote Here Posted by treepatrol (Member # 4117) on :
So Far!!
Posted by LymeOjai (Member # 8325) on :
This subject is not one I'm really familiar with, but thought I'd add my two cents anyway.
I've read on other war related subjects here that we've spent too much time, money and blood on fighting the war outside our borders, specifically in Iraq.
I've also read that we need to dedicate our efforts more on preventing future terrorism here rather than fighting a land war in Iraq.
Now I read that the Pentagon should not be spending time and resources doing surveilance on peace activists, etc.
I'm confused!! We don't have a problem being listed in credit card databases or in the IRS database or other personal information databases, but we get our panties all in a wad (it's just an expression, no offensive intended)if we might be listed in an anti-terrorism database.
I know nothing about the The Truth Project in Lake Worth Fla, highlighted in Mo's post, but did the group come to any harm being listed in the Pentagon's database??
I personally have no objections being listed in the Pentagon's database, I have absolutely nothing to hide. Just because of my security clearance, I know I'm in at least a dozen federal databases, if not more.
By virtue of what I do for a living, I'm probably even listed in several terrorists databases. Don't much care.
There is a price we all must be willing to pay in order to keep tabs on our enemy. He is not easy to identify, extremely hard to track if identified and he will be extremely hard to eliminate.
Our collective memory concerning who the actors were on September 11 and where they were able to beddown prior to 2001 seems to be a little selective.
I'm not a proponent of Big Brother, but I have no problem having my name or anything else about me listed on a database that might help fight our enemy.
Are we being just a little paranoid about losing our freedoms by being listed in a federal database?? Personally, I think so.
I'm done now,
Semper Fi
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Because this is nothing new doesn't make it OK.
After Vietnam, there were restrictions put on monitoring of anti-War groups .. this was done then and it was outrageous. ..and the Bush admin did away with all those provisions.
There is another situation regarding evesdropping of international calls.. which requires judicial overview, clearance.. and all that has bee overridden by this administration as well.
LymeOjai, these individuals and groups are not merely on a list.. and yes, I would mind being on an anti-terrism database.. however, these groups are being monitored, survelied..
Yes I do want exactly what you said.. our government to be more pro-ative in investigating terrorist threats (the real ones), and they are lacking in that regard both here and abroad.
That is why, not only as a matter of principal and concerns over why our government is 'watching' groups that do things such as plan peaceful rallies, where they hand out bumperstickers and buttons.. or show up at recruitment pushes on campus.. WHY??
but moreover that they are using time and resources we need to be targeting terrorist cells here in America.
The DOD has said they are 'looking into this'.. I hope their findings and actions taken are forthright.
Mo
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
I understand that might be your opinion, shared by others.. but that does not make what they do alright, and appahrently there has not, in many cases, been the justification you describe in these practices.. if there were, then a court order should have been easy to obtain.
Instead, they just skip that step.
*************************************************
Senate refuses to extend Patriot Act amid eavesdropping row
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Saturday December 17, 2005
Guardian
The White House yesterday suffered a new assault on its conduct of the war on terror when the Senate refused to renew provisions of the Patriot Act. The rebuff, which leaves the anti-terror law in limbo before crucial portions expire on December 31, was delivered amid growing outrage at reports that President George Bush secretly authorised eavesdropping on Americans inside the US without court oversight.
It was the second setback for the White House in two days after Mr Bush yielded to Congress and agreed to ban cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees.
The Senate vote was driven by a report in yesterday's New York Times that the president signed a secret order in 2002 authorising the national security agency to monitor international phone calls and emails of ****hundreds, if not thousands of US citizens without obtaining a court warrant.
Several senators accused the administration of treading on civil liberties following the September 11 attacks, and Arlen Spector, the Republican chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, said he would press for hearings early next year.
The White House would not confirm the veracity of the report. But in an interview to be broadcast on PBS, Mr Bush defended his leadership of the war on terror: "After 9/11 I told the American people I would do everything in my power to protect the country within the law, and that's exactly how I conduct my presidency."
The secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said: "The president acted lawfully in every step he has taken to defend the American people."
Several NSA officials told the New York Times they were so concerned about the legality of conducting wiretaps without surveillance court approval that they declined to participate. The programme was temporarily suspended last year amid questions about its legality from the judge of the court, which operates in secret.
The legal justification came in a memo from John Yoo, a former justice department official, who advised the administration on the definition of torture and presidential powers to prosecute the war on terror, the New York Times reported.
Critics of the administration said the report raised questions about the legality of the president's order, and was a disturbing throwback to the abuses of the 1960s and 70s when the government spied on anti-Vietnam war activists.
"The president apparently believed that he could order government officials to commit a crime, and if that's the case then it is an astounding and frightening incident of lawlessness," said Kate Martin, director of the Centre for National Security Studies.
"We know that some in the justice department had advised the president that he was above the law when it came to national security matters, but we didn't know the president had adopted that view himself and acted on it."
Guardian Unlimited
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Those of us on this board that are'nt afraid of the big bad wolf actually put where we really live in our bio's...
Those who may have reasons not to display places like "wonderland".
Maybe they are on the list...frankly...maybe someone who refers to our leaders as "facists" should be on a list somewhere...just to keep an eye or ear on them...
How the heck do ya blame the president when his advisors come to him and say, "Look George we can't guarantee to protect the US if we can't be allowed to monitor communications between the worldwide terror groups".
Then George says...do what you have to to keep America safe....even if you have to break a few outdated RULES....cuz this war is "different" than any we've faced before and we must keep anything like sept 11 from happening again.
Even if you have to play by their rules(which they don't seem to have).
Those who fear big brotherism...don't get it!
zman
Posted by treepatrol (Member # 4117) on :
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: Those of us on this board that are'nt afraid of the big bad wolf actually put where we really live in our bio's...
Those who may have reasons not to display places like "wonderland".
zman
The reason people dont put where or who they are is because of all the fruitcakes running around building info on individuals. Safe practice
Posted by David95928 (Member # 3521) on :
This coming Monday, the very conservative business periodical, Barron's, will have an editorial calling for impeachment of Dumbya. The text is already all over the web. The position taken is that he repeatedly broke the law by ordering wiretapping of U.S. citizens without a warrant. Then mr. machoman bragged about it in press conference. Things are getting interesting. Happy Winter Solstice Season!
[ 24. December 2005, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: David95928 ]
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
quote:Originally posted by LymeOjai: Are we being just a little paranoid about losing our freedoms by being listed in a federal database?? Personally, I think so.
I'm done now,
Semper Fi
Posted by LymeOjai (Member # 8325) on :
quote:"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Tequeslady,
Franklin's statement as been quoted quite a bit lately.
Unfortunately I don't believe the safety of our way of life that is being threatened is either "little" or "temporary". I believe our enemy has decided they will do whatever is necessary to end all of our liberties.
I find it odd that we allow BankofAmerica, CitiCorp, the IRS, several credit bureaus to maintain detailed databases on a vast majority of adult Americans without as much as a whimper.
However, if the executive branch tries to maintain surveillance on suspected terrorists, he's susceptable to ridicule, political harranging and the possibility of impeachment????
I continue to be concerned that we are developing selective memories; September 2001 was only 4 years ago.
I don't think we should assume that those attacks were the only ones we'll ever experience over the next few years, especially without tight security and surveillance, if necessary.
Posted by LymeOjai (Member # 8325) on :
One last thought on the current uproar on wiretapping, loss of liberties etc.
I can't quite understand why to some folks the president (commander-in-chief) cannot be trusted to use necessary cautions in deciding upon whom eavedropping is appropriate, yet they find it okay to allow a politically appointed federal judge to make the decision.
Posted by LymeOjai (Member # 8325) on :
David, you write:
quote: This coming Monday, the very conservative business periodical, Barron's, will have an editorial calling (my emphasis added) for impeachment of Dumbya.... the position taken is that he repeatedly broke the law by ordering wiretapping of U.S. citizens without a warrant.
You seemed to be pleased with that information, which kinda pissed me off. Don't be offended, I get that way pretty easily, so I researched the Barron's article,
No where in the article does Barrons or the author call for the impeachment of the president. Donlan writes:
quote: It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that , would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.
(My emphasis added)
The author further states:
quote:Some ancillary responsibility, however, must be attached to those members of the House and Senate who were informed, inadequately, about the wiretapping and did nothing to regulate it.
Then finally he comments:
quote: Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping.
Advocating the impeachment of a president during a time of war, at least from my perspective, provides way too much comfort to the enemy and borders on (I started to say treason, but thought better of it). It's just plain bad stuff.
My other concern is all the hoopla about wiretapping/eavesdropping on groups here in the U.S. versus the perceived notion of the real need to wiretap only international calls, etc.
I don't remember reading about the 9/11 terrorists coming from outside the U.S. in the period just prior to the attacks. They were hunkered down here in our home.
It seems to me that to limit the surveillance of suspected terrorists or terrorist groups to only those outside the CONUS, makes little sense.
Personal Note: I'm coming up on my third deployment, not counting Desert Storm. I can't emmphasis too much that we need to get behind this thing as a country and we need to do it now.
The Iraqi front may be coming to a close, it's my opinion that Iran is next. Without a united front from civilian america, we will still win this thing, it just makes it harder.
I've been home on leave a little over six weeks. During that time I've read more political crap than I can handle. I'm ready to get back to my troops and away from all this nonsense.
I only know a few things for sure,
1. Nothing in that region of the world, including Saddam's gold, Iraq's oil or anything else is worth one drop of American blood.
2. We didn't ask for this and we're right, the enemy is wrong.
3. As a people, the enemy is much more united in their goals than we are in ours.
4. His politics are simple, kill the infidel, that's us.
5. We have much more to lose than he does. I've been there, they have nothing we want, believe me.
6. American GI's know how to read newspapers, they perceive the division in our country and it hurts morale and morale is extrememly important.
7. My job, as a GySgt, is to keep my troops alive, keep discipline and morale high, keep my troops motivated, and make sure we kill more of them than they do of us.
8. I've had too much to drink tonight and I'm a little testy (just got my orders changed from Iraq to Afghanistan again).
So this will probably be my last post for a while. I'm taking my sister on a little get-away. She's not doing so good and I hate to see her hurt this way.
You all take it easy. My folks will be actively participating in this board.
I'm done now - Semper Fi
(Keep us all in your prayers, they really help)
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
I'm also concerned about the erosion of your freedom and liberty by what we're allowing to occur in our OWN country. We were told to be "ever vigilant".
Why would I think it wise to grant someone the power to take away my freedom and merely trust (or hope) that he doesn't do so. To do this is very dangerous, in my opinion.
As far as the databases that large corporations or credit bureaus have on citizens... do two wrongs make a right? I don't think so.
9-11... You're right, we should never forget. But, Iraq was not who bombed us. Did you forget that it was Bin Laden???? I don't see what Iraq had to do with it. Please straighten me out here.
I agree with you that 9-11 is unfortunately not the last time we'll be threatened by an external force. And the more that we invade other sovereign nations, kill their citizenry and overthrow their government, the more it will likely happen.
What are we doing in THIS country? I hear that we already have a lot of "cells" in this country. Ok... what are we doing to stem the current and future tide of terrorists into this country??? Are we tightening the borders? If so, how?
quote:Originally posted by LymeOjai:
quote:"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Tequeslady,
Franklin's statement as been quoted quite a bit lately.
Unfortunately I don't believe the safety of our way of life that is being threatened is either "little" or "temporary". I believe our enemy has decided they will do whatever is necessary to end all of our liberties.
I find it odd that we allow BankofAmerica, CitiCorp, the IRS, several credit bureaus to maintain detailed databases on a vast majority of adult Americans without as much as a whimper.
However, if the executive branch tries to maintain surveillance on suspected terrorists, he's susceptable to ridicule, political harranging and the possibility of impeachment????
I continue to be concerned that we are developing selective memories; September 2001 was only 4 years ago.
I don't think we should assume that those attacks were the only ones we'll ever experience over the next few years, especially without tight security and surveillance, if necessary.
Posted by David95928 (Member # 3521) on :
Barron's: Investigate a possible impeachable offense in Politics I normally steer clear of politics (except when it relates to markets, science or technology).
But I had to sit up and take notice this morning, when I saw the normally conservative-leaning financial weekly Barron's calls for an investigation into the Bush administration's use of domestic surveillance as a possible impeachable offense:
"AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers . . .
Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't last four years . . .
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.
Some ancillary responsibility, however, must be attached to those members of the House and Senate who were informed, inadequately, about the wiretapping and did nothing to regulate it. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, told Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 that he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities." But the senator was so respectful of the administration's injunction of secrecy that he wrote it out in longhand rather than give it to someone to type. Only last week, after the cat was out of the bag, did he do what he should have done in 2003 -- make his misgivings public and demand more information.
Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."
Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror.
>
Astonishing. When people ask me how I derived a 6,800 Dow in the BW survey, its not all that difficult to imagine any number of scenarios where the wheels all come off the bus -- and that was before this potentially troublesome issue raised its head.
>>
NOTE: See if this link leads non-subscribers to the full article
>>
Source: Unwarranted Executive Power The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up new laws By THOMAS G. DONLAN http://online.barrons.com/article/SB113538491760731012.html Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
I think all those who are afraid of this wiretapping issue becomming at worse case scenario a "big brother" issue are wrong.
Secrecy should have been maintained...to do otherwise let's the enemy know what tactics we're employing so they can circumvent our efforts...
Quit crying about Irag not being the one's that hit the towers and realize that these religious freaks are everywhere... Apparently a lot of them are indeed in Iraq at present...and I think you folks ought to be glad they are so we can deal with them militarily in one spot... If these wire tapping issues have kept you too safe....I guess you'll find that out soon enough...now that the word is out...
I hope there is a contingency plan in the works.....
I understand Treepatrol....it's I guess the fact that I don't feel anyone can actually harm me with anything I say on this board cuz...contrary to some here...I'm not some wacko! Just a regular sort of guy with my own opinions....I mean what the heck can they do to me...shave my head; put me on an LPH and send me to Nam?...zman
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Not "crying" zpac... stating a FACT.
"Religious freaks"?? Are you talking about Muslims? Are you saying that we should overthrow every Muslim country? If not, what exactly are you suggesting?
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: I think all those who are afraid of this wiretapping issue becomming at worse case scenario a "big brother" issue are wrong.
Quit crying about Irag not being the one's that hit the towers and realize that these religious freaks are everywhere... Apparently a lot of them are indeed in Iraq at present...and I think you folks ought to be glad they are so we can deal with them militarily in one spot... If these wire tapping issues have kept you too safe....I guess you'll find that out soon enough...now that the word is out...
I hope there is a contingency plan in the works.....
..zman
Posted by David95928 (Member # 3521) on :
This really is not about whether any of us have something to hide. It's about our constitutional form of government.
Congress makes the laws and the executive branch implements them. The executive branch does not make the laws. If the administration believes it needs a law change, it requests it of the congress which then debates it and decides. The administration bypassed this process that is absolutely central to our form of govenment.
Democracy is precious and fragile. There is always a crisis of the day or war of the year that is put forth as the reason to give up parts of our system. With ten year hindsight, they seem less compelling.
Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry in order to assure a steady supply of steel for the Korean War. The courts said no.
Roosevelt ordered the internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans during WWI. The congress and courts failed to respond and the result was a huge miscarriage of justice that still reverberates in the lives of those imprisoned and their descendants, to this day.
Reagan bypassed congress and defied the Boland ammendment by selling arms to Iran (which conveniently held onto the hostages until he was in office) in order to finance an attempted coup in Nicaragua. The coup failed, his administration was damaged, and our international reputation was further sullied.
Authoritarianism can be very appealing to people who are frightened by current circumstances and to those who are characterologically fearful of the unexpected. I believe we need to be forever vigilant in protecting what the founding fathers created.
BTW, it's my opinion that if the ammendment the administration decided to bypass was the second (the right to bear arms) many people who are fine with having the citizenry spied upon without court order would be singing a different tune.
Posted by HaplyCarlessdave (Member # 413) on :
quote:Originally posted by tequeslady: I'm also concerned about the erosion of your freedom and liberty by what we're allowing to occur in our OWN country. We were told to be "ever vigilant".
Why would I think it wise to grant someone the power to take away my freedom and merely trust (or hope) that he doesn't do so. To do this is very dangerous, in my opinion.
As far as the databases that large corporations or credit bureaus have on citizens... do two wrongs make a right? I don't think so.
9-11... You're right, we should never forget. But, Iraq was not who bombed us. Did you forget that it was Bin Laden???? I don't see what Iraq had to do with it. Please straighten me out here.
I agree with you that 9-11 is unfortunately not the last time we'll be threatened by an external force. And the more that we invade other sovereign nations, kill their citizenry and overthrow their government, the more it will likely happen. ... ...
Yes, these are very important observations, expressed in straight and simple words. The kind of misinformation the government has infected us with, though, evidently make reading them incredibly difficult for many people. It's just uncanny... DaveS Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
MSNBC Internet Poll Results:
Was President Bush right to authorize NSA eavesdropping on Americans?
Yes - 26% No - 69%
This latest unscientific poll shows that the majority of Americans do not agree with the presidents choices regarding eavesdropping and wiretapping.
Additionally several posters on this board also disagree with the president, while others support his actions.
People like Mo, meg, David95928, LymieTonyZ, tesquelady, treepatrol, my son and others have stated their positions without rancor or malice toward others. They have simply stated their opinions, usually supported by research and facts.
Then we have to read from one of those psuedo-intellectual superior leftist who make statements like;
HaplyCarlessdave;
quote: Yes, these are very important observations, expressed in straight and simple words. The kind of misinformation the government has infected us with, though, evidently make reading them incredibly difficult for many people. It's just uncanny... DaveS
Mr S.,
I have absolutely no difficulty reading, understanding and in some cases agreeing with those on the left of this and other issues. I do, however, take umbrage from people like you insenuating that because we on the right don't agree with your points-of-view we are somehow less intelligent and
quote:evidently make reading them incredibly difficult
.
I see nothing uncanny about the fact that many Americans, although in the minority at this time, happen to believe that President Bush is doing the right thing in using assumed powers to attempt to protect us from future terrorists attacks.
I, for one, would appreciate it if you would keep your elitists comments to yourself. If you have nothing more than innuendo to add to the discussion, do me a favor and don't say anything.
I would be more than pleased to provide you with my personal e-mail address, street address or phone number if you'd like to discuss these issues further.
LymeDad
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
I certainly understand your point, LymeDad, but in my opinion, it's a minor offense compared to what I've read recently.
I've read the post you referred to and others where the rhetoric became heated and I understand that the "conversations" are not always civil.
My frustration comes when others assume that those "across the political aisle" either are less intelligent or just don't understand the "real" truth.
I find if I treat my opponents with respect, I learn much more of their point of view and I can usually get them to see where I'm coming from easier. Respect begats respect.
Smug inferences do nothing for communications.
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
Tequeslady,
I understand your feeling of this type of smug rhetoric being minor, however, I found another quote by this same self-important radical that emphasizes his complete distain for any real exchange of ideas:
quote: I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S THAT MANY morons, selfish jerks, or oppression-victims who are completely hypnotised or deluded by the bushwazian corporate dictatorship into behaving like one. (Anyone who REALLY voted for that disgusting piece of excrement, gee dubya bush, must, of course, fall into one of these three categories!)).
I would personally relish the opportunity to speak with Mr. HaplyCarlessdave in person. I'd like his opinion on which of the three categories I fit within; moron, selfish jerk, or oppression-victim.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Agreed.
quote:Originally posted by lymedad: I find if I treat my opponents with respect, I learn much more of their point of view and I can usually get them to see where I'm coming from easier. Respect begats respect.
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Hey there teuques lady...
Let's see what do I mean by "religios freaks"....
NO not all muslims....this was a really unfortunate miss read on my comment by you...
Religious Freaks: The people in any one religion that uses their religion against another religion or group of people in a fanatical missinterpretation of their beliefs.....ya know like the terrorists.....the Klan........the whatever......
These folks are religious freaks...they missuse their respective religions to attempt to oppress and dominate their neighbors.
Again...the wire tapping would'nt have to have been so broad if the government would have been able to profile suspects.....
Then you liberals would have been whining about profiling....
Ya know in WAR ya gotta break some eggs if you want to win... I know "we're not gonna win" ...well if we don't you can blame yourselves...
This WAR is not going to go away when we pull out of Iraq... zman
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Thank you for the reply, Tony.
In your definition of "religious freaks", who would decide whether someone "uses their religion against another religion or group of people in a fanatical missinterpretation of their beliefs"?
I think this is treading on dangerous territory. Who do you trust enough to make this decision?
By the way, concerning your statement... " Then you liberals would have been whining about profiling...."... It is a joke to call me a liberal. To give you an idea, I came from a family who voted for Goldwater. Plus, I think it is a cop out to start throwing around labels rather than debate the facts.
I believe in a strong defense. I just don't believe we invaded Iraq for the right reasons. It was Osama Bin Laden who was responsible for the bombing. It was he and his group that we should have gone after. Not Iraq. No degree of bait and switch change the facts.
In an earlier post, you said... " Quit crying about Irag not being the one's that hit the towers and realize that these religious freaks are everywhere... Apparently a lot of them are indeed in Iraq at present...and I think you folks ought to be glad they are so we can deal with them militarily in one spot..."
I believe there are also a lot of Muslims in a number of other countries, including Iran. Are you thinking that we should also invade and overthrow that government too?
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: Hey there teuques lady...
Let's see what do I mean by "religios freaks"....
NO not all muslims....this was a really unfortunate miss read on my comment by you...
Religious Freaks: The people in any one religion that uses their religion against another religion or group of people in a fanatical missinterpretation of their beliefs.....ya know like the terrorists.....the Klan........the whatever......
These folks are religious freaks...they missuse their respective religions to attempt to oppress and dominate their neighbors.
Again...the wire tapping would'nt have to have been so broad if the government would have been able to profile suspects.....
Then you liberals would have been whining about profiling....
Ya know in WAR ya gotta break some eggs if you want to win... I know "we're not gonna win" ...well if we don't you can blame yourselves...
This WAR is not going to go away when we pull out of Iraq... zman
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
By the way, Tony, I can't say that I'm all that against prohibiting a whole bunch of people from coming to the U.S. At least for awhile. It might be said that this is profiling, but so what.
It's one thing disallowing people to come into the U.S., our country, and invading/overthrowing another's country.
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
quote:Originally posted by tequeslady: Thank you for the reply, Tony.
Actually I sould'nt have replied as it should have been obvious what I meant by "religious freaks" to most people...
In your definition of "religious freaks", who would decide whether someone "uses their religion against another religion or group of people in a fanatical missinterpretation of their beliefs"?
I think this is treading on dangerous territory. Who do you trust enough to make this decision?
MYSELF and my common sense...
By the way, concerning your statement... " Then you liberals would have been whining about profiling...."... It is a joke to call me a liberal. To give you an idea, I came from a family who voted for Goldwater. Plus, I think it is a cop out to start throwing around labels rather than debate the facts.
I was'nt calling you a liberal per say...it was just a collective use of the word "you" and if you don't belong there then don't take it personal...
I believe in a strong defense. I just don't believe we invaded Iraq for the right reasons. It was Osama Bin Laden who was responsible for the bombing. It was he and his group that we should have gone after. Not Iraq. No degree of bait and switch change the facts.
If you recall we did go after Ole Osama...
In an earlier post, you said... " Quit crying about Irag not being the one's that hit the towers and realize that these religious freaks are everywhere... Apparently a lot of them are indeed in Iraq at present...and I think you folks ought to be glad they are so we can deal with them militarily in one spot..."
I believe there are also a lot of Muslims in a number of other countries, including Iran. Are you thinking that we should also invade and overthrow that government too?
Your attempt at twisting my term of religious freaks into accusing all Muslims of said missinterpretations of their religious beliefs is offensive at best. You and everyone with an ounce of common sense should have been able to read what I said and not read into it anything that was'nt. But you did...I suspect you want to goad me into an argument...your feeble attempt won't do it...
If the extremists in ANY religion are allowed to hide behind there religion as an excuse to take power by terrorism it's simply wrong.
If these extremists happen to be muslims at this time and if they are also in Iran then yes...we should go there next...are you forgetting the hostage situation a few years earlier? Are you forgetting that the Iranians collectively Hate us? Are you forgetting they have nuclear capabilities? Are you forgetting that extreme muslims want to take over the world? There figurehead president over there is just a puppet to appease the UN. He has no power that the bearded freak behind him does'nt allow him to have.
I don't know where you came up with wanting to keep people out of the US...I never mentioned that. What I was referring to was folks living here that happen to be of Arab desent...
I mean if we're being attacked by folks of Arab desent it would'nt do much good to profile and keep an eye on Asians...now would it...unless of course they were extremist muslims.....
Gee I hope I cleared you up....
Goldwater huh?.......hmmmm........zman you know you're not fooling me with the new name..... chicken lady
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: Hey there teuques lady...
Let's see what do I mean by "religios freaks"....
NO not all muslims....this was a really unfortunate miss read on my comment by you...
Religious Freaks: The people in any one religion that uses their religion against another religion or group of people in a fanatical missinterpretation of their beliefs.....ya know like the terrorists.....the Klan........the whatever......
These folks are religious freaks...they missuse their respective religions to attempt to oppress and dominate their neighbors.
Again...the wire tapping would'nt have to have been so broad if the government would have been able to profile suspects.....
Then you liberals would have been whining about profiling....
Ya know in WAR ya gotta break some eggs if you want to win... I know "we're not gonna win" ...well if we don't you can blame yourselves...
This WAR is not going to go away when we pull out of Iraq... zman
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lymie tony z: [QUOTE]Originally posted by tequeslady: Thank you for the reply, Tony.
"Actually I sould'nt have replied as it should have been obvious what I meant by "religious freaks" to most people..."
Hummm... Anyone but you??
"In your definition of "religious freaks", who would decide whether someone "uses their religion against another religion or group of people in a fanatical missinterpretation of their beliefs"?
I think this is treading on dangerous territory. Who do you trust enough to make this decision?
"MYSELF and my common sense..."
Now... that's scary.
By the way, concerning your statement... " Then you liberals would have been whining about profiling...."... It is a joke to call me a liberal. To give you an idea, I came from a family who voted for Goldwater. Plus, I think it is a cop out to start throwing around labels rather than debate the facts.
"I was'nt calling you a liberal per say...it was just a collective use of the word "you" and if you don't belong there then don't take it personal..."
I believe in a strong defense. I just don't believe we invaded Iraq for the right reasons. It was Osama Bin Laden who was responsible for the bombing. It was he and his group that we should have gone after. Not Iraq. No degree of bait and switch change the facts.
"If you recall we did go after Ole Osama..."
But we didn't get him, we diverted to invading Iraq. First it was because they had weapons of mass destruction, then it was because we were avenging 9-11. Neither of which was true.
In an earlier post, you said... " Quit crying about Irag not being the one's that hit the towers and realize that these religious freaks are everywhere... Apparently a lot of them are indeed in Iraq at present...and I think you folks ought to be glad they are so we can deal with them militarily in one spot..."
I believe there are also a lot of Muslims in a number of other countries, including Iran. Are you thinking that we should also invade and overthrow that government too?
"Your attempt at twisting my term of religious freaks into accusing all Muslims of said missinterpretations of their religious beliefs is offensive at best. You and everyone with an ounce of common sense should have been able to read what I said and not read into it anything that was'nt. But you did...I suspect you want to goad me into an argument...your feeble attempt won't do it..."
I wanted you to explain your position. I guess you cannot.
"If the extremists in ANY religion are allowed to hide behind there religion as an excuse to take power by terrorism it's simply wrong."
"If these extremists happen to be muslims at this time and if they are also in Iran then yes...we should go there next...are you forgetting the hostage situation a few years earlier? Are you forgetting that the Iranians collectively Hate us? Are you forgetting they have nuclear capabilities? Are you forgetting that extreme muslims want to take over the world? There figurehead president over there is just a puppet to appease the UN. He has no power that the bearded freak behind him does'nt allow him to have."
No, I haven't. But, then again, so do we. If Iran threatens us, you bet, I'd say we need to take them out. I'm not aware that they have done that. Are you?
"I don't know where you came up with wanting to keep people out of the US...I never mentioned that."
I know you didn't. I did. I think it is a preferable approach to invading sovereign nations that haven't done anything to us.
" What I was referring to was folks living here that happen to be of Arab desent..."
I have no problem with that.
"I mean if we're being attacked by folks of Arab desent it would'nt do much good to profile and keep an eye on Asians...now would it...unless of course they were extremist muslims....."
"Gee I hope I cleared you up...."
"Goldwater huh?.......hmmmm........zman you know you're not fooling me with the new name..... hi chicken lady "
What the heck are you talking about? If you're saying Goldwater was a chicken, I don't think so.
You seem to be full of inuendos, Tony, but lack substance.
It's actually somewhat funny, I've noticed when you can't back up your point, you resort to insults. Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
hey teuques...
You are really full of it!
It's sad and very old...
Whatever......
[ 01. January 2006, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: lymie tony z ]
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
No, Tony, I most certainly have not changed my name.
This has been the only handle I have ever used on this board.
See 'ya.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Tequeslady --
I respect your 'no-bones-about-it' and non-partisan discussion points.
It's refreshing also to see that you do not get caught up in some of the sillyless that exists here.
Mo
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
MY BAD teques...
I did get you mixed up with someone else...
My humble appology...
I edited out the previous accusation...
zman
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
The bottom line remains --
this President and his administration lack integrity. (and lack of humanity and Christianity as far as I am concerned.)
Honesty, strength, intelligent address, effective management, support of the troops, communication, forsight and global relations and image are at an all-time low.
You may decide to PERSONALLY agree with what he -- they -- have done.. however that does not change the fact that this administration lacks these essential qualities.. you may PERSONALLY agree with the invasion of Iraq, but that does not make it a justified War. That does not erase the grave mishandlings, and you may PERSONALLY agree with spying while skipping the secret court step (put in place for this, and easy to navigate if circumstances call for it) -- you may PERSONALLY think that's 'OK', but that certainly does not make it so in America. (or at least the America I know and LOVE)
New Yorkers amd many other Americans feel less safe than they did in the days following 911, as documented terrorist recruitment, and Bin Laden's own statements express this invasion has fueled that deadly cause. He basically thanked Bush publicly.
Globally, nations look upon the US as a catalyst to global terror as a result of our actions in Iraq, and our actions contribiting to -- as well as inactions toward thwarting Islamic extremism.
To think the War on terror can be won militarily on the ground in Iraq is ludicrous.
and with 2000+ military men and women lost, and the 'War on Terror' loosing, not gaining.. (remember, this should be a War on a tactic (terrorism), not on Iraq)
as well as a plethora of other failures foreign and domestic..
lack of integrity is ever more scurging. This admin will undoubtably go down as one of the very worst --- ever. TIME WILL TELL..meanwhile, how much time do we have?
Mo
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Oh my God,
The sky is falling the sky is falling!
I PERSONALLY don't think so!
By the way how can you PERSONALLY speak for the eight million new yorkers when you don't even live there anymore...
Besides they should'nt feel afraid anymore...they have'nt been attacked since 2001! So this administration must be doing something right.
There is not a plethora of mistakes with this administration...quite a few but hardly a plethora. Probably not too many more than past administrations that refused to secure louisiana's dike system...the past administrations new full well it was going to happen sooner or later and did nothing.
Perhaps the President did'nt want to tip off the terrorists by going through the court system cuz our records are public...perhaps by being secretive it prevented terrorist attacks the last four years... Of course now all bets are off cuz the media blew the whistle......
I PERSONALLY never agreed with going into IRAQ but the bottom line is...we did...the war there has been won...the battles against terrorism linger on. Just like they do in Israel and Palestine. I doubt these folks will ever GET IT!
How much time do we have??
About six years.....if you believe the Mayan callender..... the doom and gloom folks or even the Rapture folks who are aglow with belief that the end is near... I personally don't know for sure...but I'll be glad to get rid of this lymie body...one way or another......
The bottom line...I PERSONALLY don't really care what you PERSONALLY think...Mo...you've been preaching the same broken record for a long time now....time to move on.
And life goes on...for some of us....
Posted by David95928 (Member # 3521) on :
This is interesting.
Pseudoconservativism is among other things a disorder in relation to authority, characterized by an inability to find other modes for human relationship than those of more or less complete domination or submission. The pseudo-conservative is a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their abolition. [He] sees his own country as being so weak that it is constantly about to fall victim to subversion; and yet he feels that it is so all-powerful that any failure it may experience in getting its way in the world cannot possibly be due to its limitations but must be attributed to its having been betrayed.
Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays, 1965.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Many analysts believe the first thing we must work to set straight to begin to mend Midle Eastern relations is to rectify American support/looking the other way -- in response to Israel's atrosities against the Palastinians.
Isreal has, to their credit, taken some respectful steps of late...but there is a long and poignant history of US acceptance of their terrorist actions against Palastine. Looking the other way in cases of genocide.
Just one of the core isues that runs deeper than the 'axis of evil' rhetoric, the great hypocracy.. and the idea that Islamic extremism just appeared out of nowhere.
Now, if you look beyond rhetoric and YES, consider the views of other nations.. (it's scary how this admin has encouraged so many Americans to disregard the rest of the World in this -- this isn't the Wild West, folks..not having World support is extremely deleterious to our standing -- and we NEED their help and support to effectively work globally on Terror) In addition, our actions in Iraq are pointed to - even by Bin Laden himself -- fueling Islamic extremism and hatred for America. The greatest recruitment campaign they could have asked for.
Because we have not been attacked again the way we were on 911 is a simplistic view, and considering all pertinant cause and effects of the Iraq War..should not be accepted as 'proof things are working'.. NYers by and large do not feel safer, and since they suffered the brunt of the attacks and big cities are the likely target of future attacks (not if, but WHEN has been a quote used by many top experts), perhaps NYers lrgitimate concerns should at least be considered..certainly not so easily blown off.
These groups are notorious for patient, careful planning and suprise attack. They are fine with things taking years.
(That statement also completely ignores the attacks in London, Madrid, and Jordan.)
And, I'd say 'plethora' is accurate. As far as administrative blunders and harmful actions go.. both foreign and domestic. Would you like me to list them? There is no comparison to other administrations.
Also, the step GWya openly admits he didn't think he need bother with regarding spying... is not justified by the need for secrecy.. the court is set up to move swiftly and secretly.. and even if he thinks he has to move faster than that, he/they have 72 hours after the fact to submit the required info. He chose not to. Yep - this is another one of the impeachable offences.
What it comes down to is whether the Repoblicans and Democrats have the courage and dignitiy to put the country's welfare over the coming election aspirations and do their job's first. Congress (as a whole) has let us down as much as the admin IMO.
(PS: Interesting piece, David)
Mo
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
More blah blah blah...
by definition they could'nt be guilty of a "plethora" of misdeeds...
This obsession you have against dubya is not healthy for you...
David....outdated little ditty...his comments were made durring an anti war period in our history and should be judged as irrelevent and immaterial at this juncture and time. IMO
zman
Posted by David95928 (Member # 3521) on :
Actually, in 1965 public support for the war in Viet Nam was quite high. Given how publication tends to go, it was probably written in 1963. This still seems extremely relevant to me because the kinds of psychological defenses that people use have been pretty stable throughout the time they have been studied. There is quite a bit of research, including current on authoritarian personalities.
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
David, How old are you?
I was fifteen in 65 and I certainly remember division on the war back then...
It only grew...
I hope it does'nt happen this time...
If you think the threats are imagined...where have you been?
zman
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Zman, wasn't it you that said the following in response to various of Mo's posts? I guess it just depends on what each of us thinks is important, eh?
"Oh my God,
The sky is falling the sky is falling!
I PERSONALLY don't think so!"
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: David,
If you think the threats are imagined...where have you been?
zman
Posted by Limping Lily (Member # 5099) on :
can i put my 2 cents in? i believe it was Jefferson who said something about the price of freedom being ETERNAL vigilance,concerning everything,especially our government, which if you've all done your homework, is US! "WE THE PEOPLE".....it's all in the Bill of Rights. the main reason we always have to deal with these aftermaths is because of grassroots apathy and ignorance of abuse of power,even locally. how many people go to their town meetings? that's where abuse of power starts, along with corruption! Evil prevails when good men do nothing. 'nuff said!
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Yo teuges,
Do you understand what sarcasm is?
Posted by Loribelle (Member # 6293) on :
[IMG][/IMG]
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
[ 22. January 2006, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: lymie tony z ]
Posted by Loribelle (Member # 6293) on :
[ 24. January 2006, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Loribelle ]
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
OK Lori,
Perhaps I woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
I should probably stay off the internet durring my monthly flare cycles...
My brain and emotions don't always click on all eight cylinders durring this time....
Sorry......zman
Posted by Loribelle (Member # 6293) on :
's OK, friend, feel better...
Posted by caat (Member # 2321) on :
wow. lol.
Mo, I so admire your courage... I honestly do. Coups to you!
Hey every one, has anyone considered this might be a strategic build up in preparation for a world war 3?
Peak oil is either over or around the corner. Probley no one knows for sure when it was or when it will be, but even experts in the oil industry are nervous.
China and India are needing more oil than they ever had before. Former Russian states seem to be having problems with their oil supplies. Think about it.
Afganistan hasn't any or hasn't much oil, but geographically it has always been a potential staging point and thought of as a key point to hold in Euopean invasions of Asia. It's right next to India. It's been invaded over and over again by many countries trying to expand their power. Of course, no country was able to use that position all that well, but that hasn't stopped that historical trend.
I don't think the US goverment is all that concerned about Bin Laden. Regardless of how shocking 911 was. Sure, they're concerned, but not more concerned than about Columbian rebels or the rocky mountain survivalists group that the Oaklahoma bomber was associated with. Or the white supremist's groups which bomb churches etc and fund their organizations through counterfeight operations and robbing armored bank trunks. Personally those guys scare me a lot more than Bin Laden...
I just wish that these mega companies would start investing in safe and self sustaining alternative energies before we run ourselves into the ground. A war for the oil isn't going to help in the long run anyway- not for future generations. We will eventually run out even if dubya gets his misguided fantasy of the US militarily holding most of the oil reserves in the world. Remember, we are not bigger than China... China has patience...
As someone at a bus station once said, any carbon based alternative energy is just not going to work- there will be too limited a supply. Whether that means we use up all the cooking oil to run deisel cars or we run out of something else.
Right now we don't have the technology to produce enough safe non-carbon based alternative energy. Nuclear energy is not safe and it's waste is dirty.
It takes an incredible amount of energy and resources to make solar pannels.
But if scientists were funded and allowed to work on it I think there is a very good chance we could come up with clean alternatives and could avoid a very bad scenario when oil runs out.
With that and world wide public pressure for voluntary birth control we might actually be able to have peace on earth some day. Just imagine. Someday we might not have to live through what so many people in the rest of the world are so upset about.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
The Swedish government has already converted to Ethanol - and give huge incentives to homeowners to do the same.
Ethanol is carbon-based as well, but at least it would serve as an interim alternative, for which we have the natural resources.
We are (still holding, but not for long. IMO) a country in the front running in technological potential, and certainly have the work forces.
In fact, I think it is an enourmous opportunity economically, not only to secure our future and National Security , and to protect the environment for our children (!!), but to increase home-based jobs exponentially, and to eliminate the motivation for Imperialism..
but we could also teach and sell cutting edge technologies to the rest of the World.
I agree..imagine the potential of independant energy resources. I don't suspect Sweden will ever be a target of Terrorism, either. Our incestuos relations with Saudi Arabia and throughout the Middle East have created a terible mess.
The PNAC had the plan (control of the Midle East oil interests) we see in motion set forth years ago. If you read it, it is eerily spot on as far as what we are doing in the Midle East now. Also no cooincidence that those then and now (same folks named then are major players in this admin), and are all oil men.
Imperialism.. fueled by classically facist tactics to string the public along.
It's the oldest tactic in the book.. manipulate the pubic based on fear, trump up nationalism, all dissent is consisered treasonous.. (or at the very least, considered idiotic.. hence the term 'far left wackos')
inflate these illusions to get the piblic behind War, and take over the region involved for strategic positioning. (in this case, to secure the oil)
Why is it every military base in Afghanistan is along the pipeline? Why did we really go into Iraq, if the 'intelligence supportring it' as we now know -- was just not there? Why did we go in the name of 911 when there was no connection (as investigated extensively by the independant 911 commission)? Why did Bush plan it before even those flawed reports were released?
The rest of the World, by and large, sees this as the U.S. government's postition. Cetrainly as well, the Middle East sees this, it's not like they haven't been through it before.
Imprialism...for control of the oil states.
They have seen it as such since the inception of the Iraq invasion. China doesn't even need much patience in the scheme of things..
Much of the World is sitting back and watching the U.S. implode.
Iraq, the status in the War on Terror, the rampid propaganda and manipulation of public perception in the U.S., oil control, (indicted) curruption running deep, violating international law, the administration breaking the law through the NSA programme, the torture policies, Katrina, recently we hear that 25 billion was literally squandered in rebuilding funds..and on and on.
(IMO, in this form of government, Congress is our only hope, and so far they have been far too politically concerned to do their job fighting for American interests, we need some more mavericks..)
I have several friends internationally, some in circles of governments.. and that is how they see us right now. They worry for the citizens, however this is the view of our current administration. A nose dive.
A big concern is how long we can operate this way, and how much damage we have incurred, as these views have been formed and solidified internationally for years now.
The thing I am most personally enraged over is how 911 has been exploited by this administration in order to further it's Imperialistic goals, and that this administration has amplified the threat of further attacks like 911 ten-fold..
Mo
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Oh stop whinning and go gas up while the lines are short and gas is only a little over two bucks a gallon!
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Spoken like a true apathetic American. How sad.
quote:Originally posted by LabRat: Oh stop whinning and go gas up while the lines are short and gas is only a little over two bucks a gallon!
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
I thought this thread was about the NSA...
Dubya will be cleared of any wrongdoing in his actions to "spy".
The economy of the world would implode if fossil fuel is not used at this point in time that is why alternative fuels have not had a chance YET.
Some of the car makers are finally gettin it but not all.
The military has to start using alternative fuels for it to change.
Ethanol is replaceable fuel source but IMO not the best neither is nuclear.
The best so far seems to be the hydrogen car.
However, how do you base an economy on hydrogen?
America is not IMPLODING...and your international friends can stop worrying...
America has'nt been liked for a long long time...and we are NOT imperialistic facists and I'm getting sick and tired of you calling us that!
Why don't you go move to one of your allies countries and stay their. Maybe you should be worried about the NSA. Frankly I'm not.
I'm not worried about WWIII either...it ain't gonna happen.
I think the reason congress is stymied is cuz they're afraid to do anything against a current pres who on the surface seems to be doing what is necessary to keep the american folks safe....
Yeah yeah I know he's screwed up a lot...but hey the other side never did anything about louisiana either...
Besides the bird flu or some other world wide epidemic is going to take care of a lot of the unrest in the world.... We'll all finally realize that we can't do without each other and about that time an asteroid will hit us and only a handful(if that) of humans will survive...if not the cockroaches and ants...the real insects of this world will inherit it....at least they know how to work together.....
zman
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Quite a glim picture you paint there, Zman..
IMO we have allot of hope if the people start getting more actively involved. It's well beyond necessary.
Greetings Sir FartsAlot!
Thank you kindly for the advise..
At least I know I don't have to worry about you, I'd wager you're repleat with natural resources.
Mo
Posted by caat (Member # 2321) on :
>>>>America has'nt been liked for a long long time...and we are NOT imperialistic facists and [...] Why don't you go move to one of your allies countries and stay their.
LMAO!! OH!!! He said it!!! He did!! LOL!!
I have to admit, I was just waiting for these classic points of reason... You couldn't ask for better...
I better go before I start antagonizing people.
bye Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Yeah yeah yeah,
I said IT!
I just get tired of someone calling the US a bunch of incestuous,facist,imperialistic,oil grabbing,war mongering whatever......
These folks won't leave here cuz they're safe to say whatever they want...not like in other countries...they would'nt have the guts to criticize a govt say in China or Uganda...
They're protected here and yet they mock the very same govt that protects them...
I'm all for making it better but not by calling it names......or riddicule...especially when they don't have a better plan in mind.
Go ahead and laugh your *** off......but be glad you don't live somewhere else where your *** can be chopped off and your breasts as well and nobody there will give a rats *** .......zman
Posted by David95928 (Member # 3521) on :
Perhaps there is a contrast between obedient patriotism and idealistic patriotism.
My definitions would be that obedient patriotism is of the "my country right or wrong..." variety. People who hold this value often get EXTREMELY irate with people who don't hold to that view. Idealistic patriotism values the principles upon which the county was founded and has an expectation that we should aspire to being a good neighbor, support equal opportunity and fairnes, scupuloulsy adhere to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, the doctrine of separation of powers and, for me anyway, the separation of church and state. Former president Jimmy Carter would seem to fall into this category.
It seems to me that the country actually needs both types and I have to say that I find it extremely offensive when people assert that if I don't agree with them I have no right to my citizenship.
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Look David,
Idealistic patriotism is all well and good in peace time...at present we are at war...or did you miss that.
I am not blindly obediently patriotic...I just know that durring a war idealism is not needed nor does it help matters.
Idealisticly the nut cases over there want all the power and have used their religion errantly to amass the poor and hopeless against what could be a way of life that they might readily accept.
A way of life that allows for freedom of thought,religion, etc...the american way of life.
And no I don't expect them to buy it all...but at least enough of our good points that would stop all the needless killing.
Now Hamas has power...the ball is in their court. What are they going to do with this opportunity? Are they going to turn the other cheek and negotiate or are they going to go berserk?
We'll see...zman
Posted by 3greatkids (Member # 3838) on :
Idealisticly the nut cases over there want all the power and have used their religion errantly to amass the poor and hopeless against what could be a way of life that they might readily accept
Lymie z>>>>>>>
The nut cases over here want all the power and have used religion errantly to amass the CEOs and upper income brackets against middle america.
Ripping the backbone out of a once thriving and strong community.They have negotiated our wealth and power over seas.Tariffs have left us high and dry.Pensions dried up,factories closing,and we are told it is a lack of skills??
Americans lacking skills?Cut some CEO salaries,a few VP jobs.
Heck we don't need Hamas or any other country to do us in,we are letting our leaders to it for us.Negotiating our country away.
Posted by HaplyCarlessdave (Member # 413) on :
This kind of surveillance, which hones in on people who are aware of how scummy the leaders of the country are, is wasting resources, and is getting all the ...'law-enforcement'...(yeah,right...) jokers barking up the wrong trees, actually HINDERS any kind of REAL war on terrorism- - anybody who's planning to blow up the pentagon or something (I wonder if the bots honed on that phrase and now my phone wil automatically be tapped.) is NOT gonna waste time trying to waken others to what needs to be fixed to make the people in our country happier! The ...'patriot act'... will be put to rest and will go down in history with quite a negative tone, IF democratic rule is to survive! DaveS
Posted by HaplyCarlessdave (Member # 413) on :
quote:Originally posted by LymeOjai: One last thought on the current uproar on wiretapping, loss of liberties etc.
I can't quite understand why to some folks the president (commander-in-chief) cannot be trusted to use necessary cautions in deciding upon whom eavedropping is appropriate, yet they find it okay to allow a politically appointed federal judge to make the decision.
Thats basically a separation of powers issue- whether or not the president can be trusted (and georgie b. has pretty much shown himself to be totally untrustworthy) is merely incidenal! The president simply does not have the authority to order wiretaps- it is against te law for him or her to do so. This is polisci 101 stuff that even musicians know! (Somebody probably said this, given the length of this log, but it can't be ove-emphasized! DaveS
DS
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Noon one argues that the President should take whatever steps toward valid tracking of Terrorists that he can.
That simply is not the issue.
The issue is circumventing the law in doing so. Then boldly saying that is his right/choice to do so.
Also that this has been going on for five years.
If they thought the law was too cumbersome, they have had plenty of time to ask that it be revised and state why.
Another issue is the way that the secret court is set up, they have 72 hours after the fact to submit the information to the court.
If indeed these wire-taps are with valid reason, surely submission would not be a problem.
Then there is the fact that Bush was taped in '04 speaking about these taps, and stated that their is a court in place for this, and that any wire-tapping that goes on goes through that court..every time.
This was an outright lie, because wire-taps long before and well after that have gone on without using FISA.
Some of you may say despite all that that 'he has every right to do what he wants'..
but the fact is, circumventing the law is not acceptable even from the President..
and it goes against the very core values of our founding fathers for this to go unckecked, for it to go on at all.
These the very values and freedoms some of the same people will say we are fighting for in Iraq, and the President makes claims that we must take down 'all tyranies' for.
I also do not think our founding fathers would have thought America should pledge and proceed to take down all tyranies in the World, and order Democracy at the point of a gun. Especially when we at home are in such great need.. even if we were not.
Then... to top it off.. we claim to support freedom and Democracy, yet are at the same time denouncing other countries for not having the exact kind of Democracy WE expect.
Masterfully constructed rhetoric.
Why are we not in Sudan where many millions have died and are still dying?
Could it be because they have little oil or other resources??
Nah.
We are fighting for 911, don't you know..
even tho the killers were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
We are fighting in Iraq to keep them from bringing it to our shores..
Who? The insurgents? Those who cannot even afford a plane ticket here and are solely fighting the occupation?
This War against Terror cannot be won militarily.
It must be won politically, and with special forces and intelligence targeting known Al Qaeda groups.
In Iraq, we need to now take this opportunity to get the Shiite to allow the Sunni to have a stronger role in government... other wise their Civil War will last for generations.. as it has been waged in deep beliefs for generations before this.
The insurgeny strenghtens so long as they realize we are NOT leaving as we promised.
So long as the PERMANENT military bases we built are still there and operating.
Think.
Mo
Posted by David95928 (Member # 3521) on :
Well said!
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
I've been reading all of the hyperbole concerning the president's conducting surveillance on our enemy and whether he has the constitutional right/obligation to do so. I've read several opinions here on how illegal his actions are, but opinions about the law do not satisfy the requirement to know the law.
For example:
quote:but the fact is, circumventing the law is not acceptable even from the President..
The problem I see is that many are making statements like the one above, but do not state case law to back up their statements. I have been doing some research on case law relative to the president's powers to authorize surveillance in order to collect foreign intelligence information. I found several websites that list the following precedent setting cases:
United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970), in which the court held that federal statutes prohibiting wiretapping do not "[forbid] the President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest."
Another relevant case is United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), where the court held that no judicial warrant was necessary where "surveillances ... were 'conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.'''
Then there's United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), where the court sustained the federal government's position, summarized as follows:
``In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs''
The court explained why the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless electronic surveillance:
``For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], ``unduly frustrate'' the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities''.
``First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations''.
United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984), was a terrorism case in which the court, among other rulings, upheld the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The court wrote:
``Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment''.
Those cases are pre-FISA, of course, and FISA is the statute the administration supposedly "violated."
So maybe some would argue that the pre-FISA cases don't apply. Such a claim does not hold water, since Congress cannot by statute or otherwise strip the executive branch of its constitutional powers.
But there is a post-FISA case that specifically addresses the question whether the passage of that statute could have changed the pre-existing principle that the President has constitutional power to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.
In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, decided in 2002 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the very court which is responsible for interpreting and applying FISA, sites the following:
``The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power''.
OBTW - the plantiff in re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 was the ACLU (now there's a surprise).
Lots of Bush detractors agree that he is doing the right thing by intercepting international messages between al Qaeda terrorists and their agents in the U.S.
The major complaint seems to be that in a handful of cases, they want the administration to follow a different procedure--a procedure which, on their telling, will not encumber the administration's ability to carry out the international surveillance in question.
The problem is, you can't base a technical legal argument on what you think the law ought to be. You can only base a technical legal argument on what the law actually is.
And the current state of the law, as uniformly stated by the federal courts, is that the NSA's international surveillance program is a legal implementation of the President's constitutional powers.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
I get so sad when such nice and intelligent, caring people reach so far to defend this President and his administrators, because I feel they have been duped...
Our excecutive administrators abused the Constituion and subsequent laws brutally and you don't mind? Don't you stand first and foremost for Democracy? Or is this view Partisan?
Most of the cases you list, LymeDad ..were pre-FISA law. The President himself, when asked about this very thing.. in a press conferance, ON TAPE through 2004/5 ..assured he was following FISA law and even described it to the public.
Then, once called to the carpet, they have given several conflicting reasons for doing this, contradicting themselves, and always including some kind of blame for anyone questioning - to make it seem (to the public) like those questioning the Predident of what is supposed to be a model Democracy -- make it sound like those who question do not want spying on terorists to be conducted at all!!!
In fact, the usual blacklisting is being done, again. Soon, no organization or view except those on the far Right will be considered credible by ultra-Conservatives, and that is a tradgedy. That is not an American Democracy, at least not the one I grew up in.
Firstly, they accused the NYT of endangering National Security! Now, they say they can't reveal the details because of National Security.. as tho Al Qaeda didn't know that we spy? They want to operate outide the LAW and disclose this to noone, operating with no checks or balances? The President now (and even in his SOTU speech) said Congress knew? When only a very small circle if the same ideological mindset knew anything, and they also think the President is above the Law.
What is this, high school? These men are supposed to operate on HIGH standards..
There are allot more than a handful of cases, as well, and I pray simply that the truth comes out in the hearings, but that is a prayer that has not been answered over these past few years.
In addition...the President stated in his SOTU address two nights ago - that we could have caught Al Qaeda on 911 with this program..
I have a huge problem with exploiting 911 to garner support for Bush policies, and they are milking that tradgedy dry.
No time in this post, but if you take the fiscade off that statement, it makes no sence and appahrently is used to sway public opinion..again.
You have allot of points here, but you hit on one I can write about quickly and I'll get back..
Conservatives such Rush are falsely claiming that the administration's authorization of domestic surveillance by the NSA without warrants is legal under FISA.
In fact, FISA, enacted in 1978... contains provisions that limit such surveillance to communications "exclusively between foreign powers,"
....specifically stating that the president may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order only if there is
---"no substantial likelihood" --- that the communications of "a United States person" -- a U.S. citizen or anyone else legally in the United States --
will be intercepted.
...such provisions do not allow for the Bush administration's authorization of domestic surveillance of communications between persons inside the United States and parties outside the country.
FISA also allows the president and the attorney general to conduct surveillance without a court order for the purpose of gathering
"foreign intelligence information" for "a period" no more than 15 days "following a declaration of war by the Congress."
This provision does not permit Bush's conduct either..... as he acknowledged that he had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since 2001, and said that the program is "reviewed approximately every 45 days."
There's allot more I'd like to address maybe later..
The really frightening thing is they just hoodwinked Congress (assisted by a bad performance by Democrats in the hearings, no doubt) .. into pushing through as fast as lightening this Alito confirmation. (cloture was called for within days, faster than in any other appointment) The public and the hearings heard/went into very little about his ruling history relating to unitary excecutive powers (and other things dealing with coorperate power, and consistantly ruling against the little guys).
I fear if this goes to the Supreme Court, the court has been purposely and dutifully in a most PARTISAN WAY padded by Alito and Roberts to err toward excessive excecutive power that in reality moves us away from our Constitution -
if the judges scAlito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts rule according to their consistant records.
Then we will see the last embers of Democracy stamped out entirely, with no branch to check the excecutive branch objectively.
The ONLY way we are going to have any hope of getting America back on track is if the PEOPLE rise, and many of them don't even know how desperate things are because they do not have acess to the information in their day to day.
Do you know how many TRULY Conservative friends and family I have that once they look at the details of something themselves, they are very concerned about many things that have gone on, and the future?
You can't listen to the extreme Right and get any kind of truth in these matters. Plain and simple.. they are manipulating minds.
Anyway - I got off track...but not really. It's all tied together.
Mo
[ 02. February 2006, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Pomo, (poor mo) Wednesday's child for sure. With so many problems in this world, she wails about the least important.
It is written, do not pick these posies but the sign is useless because the wind cannot read.
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
Mo,
quote:All the cases you list, LymeDad ..were pre-FISA law. The President himself, when asked about this very thing..
Not much time to write this morning; however, please re-read my last post.
In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, decided in 2002 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the very court which is responsible for interpreting and applying FISA , sites the following:
``The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power''.
However, I'm not sure that the president has any real chance of winning on these types of issues.
If he authorizes wire-tapping on suspected terrorists operatives between people located within our borders and agents outside the country and is able to prevent an attack, no one will ever know.
If he fails to use all resources at his disposal and with the authority of the consitution and we are attacked, he will be blamed for not doing his job properly.
I just hope he continues to battle our enemy as hard and as aggressive as he has up-to-now.
War is a very difficult proposition. The president of the United States is given the power under the constitution to deal with all foreign matters, especially during a time of war.
We're spending way too much time worrying about our so-called civil liberties (especially when there has not been one case sited as to anyone having lost a single liberty because of these surveillances)when if he fails to do his job properly, those very liberties will be taken from us by our enemy.
I'm considering adding a signature block to all my postings here and on other boards to read:
"We are at war with Isamic terrorists, not with our president"
LymeDad
ps: Mo, don't worry yourself over my being duped by anyone. I can actually read and think for myself - hard for some to believe, but true nontheless.
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
tequeslady,
I'm quite sure LabRat can speak for himself, but I couldn't resist writing a reponse to your comment toward him on January 25th, i.e.,
quote:Spoken like a true apathetic American. How sad.
However, it seems that LabRat has retired from the military after at least 20 years service to his country. I doubt that that qualifies him as being apathetic.
Sometimes it pays to know your audience before you make comment.
Just a thought.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
I think the reason the President may not slip out of this one - is simply he did not follow the Law, also because he could have done all he needed to do WITHIN the law.. especially with the 72 hour time frame to submit the info -
and if that was too constraining, considering all the power you are emphasizing he has, he could have had this law revised. NOWHERE does it say he can decide to ignore laws as he sees fit, and then rely on trumped up public opinion and stretching of the truth afterwords to support him.
This particular infraction has been going on for five years, and on top of that, he lied about it to most of Congress and the public intil a long-time American responsibility was taken, and excecutive power law-breaking was exposed.. we are who we are as a country because we HAVE whistle-blowers. (at least we still have a few)
NOONE, especially me, is putting civil liberties above National Security. Neither will I let exploitation of fear and terror threats manipulate me into thinking our Laws do not apply to the President.
My comment about being duped was not regarding your ability to read and think for yourself, I simply question what you are reading and what you are not (and why), as I am utterly perplexed that some folks who claim to stand for Democracy are unconcerned and even defending a long list of abuses by the current administration (and some members of the republican party).
I do not question you and LabRat's dedication to your country and I revere you both for your service, but at the same time that makes your stances on the Bush administration all the more confusing. You seem to have no concern or consideration regarding excecutive power abuses, and advocate for unitary excecutive power.
This kind of power is exactly what we clainm we are fighting in the Middle East.. unlimited power without checks and balances. Yet we should not be even looking at what is going on here in that regard?
I just don't understand.
I do not question your Patriotism (tho LabRat questions mine) I question your perceptions and why you do not look with discerment upon the executive branch on particular and upholding Democracy and the Constitution you have fought for.
I honestly have to wonder if party affiliation and loyalty is effecting your judgement. There are many moderate conservatives raising the same points I have.
On that case involving the ACLU, do you have further info or details?
What I find disturbing is the ACLU has been on the FOX hit list for months.. in a Swift-boat style smear campaign. This an organization that has advanced American civil freedoms and made us as great as we are, differentiated us from cultures dominated by power and extremist ideologies. They have played a role in making us great and protecting the little guy.
They have among other things recently exposed the fact that peace activists and other total innocents have been spied on, arrested, indicted, and jailed. That citizens of this country have been taken and held without warrant.
Fox started in on them soon after they started running documentaries on the specifics of the Patriot Act (alarming ones) and many other things of concern to individuals and freedoms. They also produced a documantary on the profoind impact the Supreme Court has on our PERSONAL lives, and how a court leaning toward one ideology or another threatens our society to the core.
In any event it seems, in your post, you are writing the decision off in the case you sited just because they were involved..
that's one example of why I feel you may be slanted in your thinking..
on the other hand, how could you think otherwise regarding this President and all questions raised regarding his acrions when your lives have been dedicated to standing behind the Commander in Chief?
As you SHOULD, and questioning him is simply not an option when you are in the military. I understand that totally. in fact, we obviously NEED you to feel that way in service.
However, his policies are not decided nor controlled by the military, and the People and our representatives (in America, anyway) MUST be keeping tabs on the excecutive branch.
You know the NSA business is not the only major issue that has come up.
If you prefer his choices, I understand..that's entirely beside the point of my concern, tho. Two thirds of the country feel the President lies to the public .. and many of them have not seen documentaries such as the ACLU or WorlLink TV provide from international sources, as they will only be aired these days on non-profit cable stations. Actually, only one station to my knowledge.
- are all those folks standing on completely invalid ground to distrust this administration based on their performance?
Mo
[ 02. February 2006, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
[ 06. February 2006, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: LabRat ]
Posted by David95928 (Member # 3521) on :
Mo, it's great that you don't resort to sarcasm and name calling. In my opinion such behaviors are signs of knowing one is advancing a weak argument.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
I stand by what I said.
quote:Originally posted by lymedad: tequeslady,
I'm quite sure LabRat can speak for himself, but I couldn't resist writing a reponse to your comment toward him on January 25th, i.e.,
quote:Spoken like a true apathetic American. How sad.
However, it seems that LabRat has retired from the military after at least 20 years service to his country. I doubt that that qualifies him as being apathetic.
Sometimes it pays to know your audience before you make comment.
Just a thought.
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Ya know Mo and Teuques and David...
You guys complain constantly about name calling, attacks etc
Look nobody likes being called a DUPE! Either...
Like you folks are the only folks with brains and we're all "sheep" following the "facist,imperialistic,outlaws of government"!
No wonder we question your patriotism and rightly so....
Especially in a time of War, that as yet, none of you understand...... It isn't a meere political game folks...it's real people killing and being killed.
I dare say that it's going to continue for quite some time....
As long as their are Christians,Jews. As long as their are extremist muslims that want to destroy any democratic way of life in favor of a theocracy and the belief that they are the only true "belivers".
Look folks,,,,lesson one about war....
If you play nice and fair....you lose!
Plain and simple....
Don't be DUPED into believing otherwise.
Like Patton said..."No poor dumb bastard ever won a war by dieing for their country...
They made the other poor dumb bastard die for his".
zman
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
Tequeslady,
quote:I stand by what I said.
I had little doubt that you wouldn't.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
2004 speech in Buffalo, similar one given in Pittsberg:
BUSH: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Wiretaps are conducted around the country every day. The FISA Court alone approves something like a half a dozen a day in highly classified national security or espionage related cases. Bush can tap up to 72 hours prior to asking permission.
The issue here is why the President decided to go around the normal rules.. why he chose to make himself above the law.
Additional info on the FISA court in response to those Bush apologists suggesting he had no time to go to the court (Rush and others are saying that it could take "10 to 12 days" or longer (!!) to get approval back from the court which ACTTALLY often gives appropral in hours, if not minutes).
For some 20 years plus - there were over 15,000 surveillance warrants issued by the FISA court, clearly displaying that the process is quite favorable to the government seeking such wiretaps. The amount of surveillance warrants which were rejected during that same 20 + year period, ZERO...in all that time not one request was denied.
From 2002 until now, four such requests were denied. (!!)
~~ So from the time the act was established until 2002, nobody seeking a warrant was denied. Then, the Bush Admin was turned down four times. Why? And could that be why they simply decided to go around the FISA court??
And why did he lie to the public about that, with emphasis??
Mo
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Good to know.
quote:Originally posted by lymedad: Tequeslady,
quote:I stand by what I said.
I had little doubt that you wouldn't.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Having served in the military does not exempt one from making apathetic comments. LabRat has proven that.
quote:Originally posted by lymedad: tequeslady,
I'm quite sure LabRat can speak for himself, but I couldn't resist writing a reponse to your comment toward him on January 25th, i.e.,
quote:Spoken like a true apathetic American. How sad.
However, it seems that LabRat has retired from the military after at least 20 years service to his country. I doubt that that qualifies him as being apathetic.
Sometimes it pays to know your audience before you make comment.
Just a thought.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
I did not call you a dupe, labrat. I said you made an apathetic comment.
By the way, I thought the "reason" we went to Iraq was because of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Are you saying it was because of oil?
"Oh stop whinning and go gas up while the lines are short and gas is only a little over two bucks a gallon!"
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: Ya know Mo and Teuques and David...
You guys complain constantly about name calling, attacks etc
Look nobody likes being called a DUPE! Either...
zman
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Posted by meg (Member # 22) on :
Guess I don't have the market on the Smart*** department.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Please specify why you question my patriotism? Because I don't agree with YOU? That is hilarious.
And NO, I don't think it's a political game either. People are dying. That is very real. I still don't agree with our invasion of Iraq. It was a lie from Day 1. Don't you care about the truth? Doesn't it bother you that there were plans to invade Iraq way before 9-11?
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: Ya know Mo and Teuques and David...
You guys complain constantly about name calling, attacks etc
Look nobody likes being called a DUPE! Either...
Like you folks are the only folks with brains and we're all "sheep" following the "facist,imperialistic,outlaws of government"!
No wonder we question your patriotism and rightly so....
Especially in a time of War, that as yet, none of you understand...... It isn't a meere political game folks...it's real people killing and being killed.
I dare say that it's going to continue for quite some time....
As long as their are Christians,Jews. As long as their are extremist muslims that want to destroy any democratic way of life in favor of a theocracy and the belief that they are the only true "belivers".
Look folks,,,,lesson one about war....
If you play nice and fair....you lose!
Plain and simple....
Don't be DUPED into believing otherwise.
Like Patton said..."No poor dumb bastard ever won a war by dieing for their country...
They made the other poor dumb bastard die for his".
zman
[ 06. February 2006, 04:44 AM: Message edited by: tequeslady ]
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
NO Teuqes, It is not because you don't agree with me that I question your and others patriotism.
The fact that this administration made mistakes and got us in this war is not the issue anymore...
we're there...and no amount of belly acheing is gonna change that. What it does do is undermine the efforts of the military. This is why I question your patriotism.
The constant barrage of mute points about the administration is exactly what Osama and the other extremists are counting on...
When one is engaged in war one must take care of that first....then deal with the why's and wherefore's after it is won...not durring.
Ya get it now?.......I can't make it any plainer than that for ya'll......zman
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
I suspect we're all dupes to some extent, one thing for sure, we can only guess at what the future holds. There are some clues, at least I see them as clues. It's a fact that we've been under attack for a very long time and we've been without a president who would do anything serious about it. The attack on the trade center was a gross mistake by our opponents for a number of reasons, not the least of which was a sitting president who could turn to his father for advice!
I find it distressing that everyone in the world with a pen hates Bush and America. It worries me the French agree with us now and want to be our friend. With a big unhappy raghead population, are they worried?
It looks like Iran and the religious idiots running the country have pushed themselves into the cross hairs, seems through luck or careful planning we're in a pretty good position to stop their nuclear ambitions. Why would we want to do that? Why not live and let live! Orrr, maybe it would be easier to stop and change things now and save a lot of lives that would be lost in a future conflict.
To be sure most of the Democratic Party will find fault with whatever Bush decides to do! I feel they have little concern for what happens to America just as long as the problem can be presented as Bush did something wrong!
Take a look at this slick, well made thread, with collage professors, New York Times, Nobel Prize winner and a retired female officer, (who made the most sense) and wonder who put the money up for it! Made with the benefit of hindsight and a lot of conjecture, looks to me like the sole purpose was to savage Bush and to reduce his power and to paralyze the country's war fighting abilities!
On two occasions the ragheads have tried to turn the American people away from Bush. Why do they have our best interest at heart?
I disagree. I think it IS an issue that we were lied to. Then, now and into the future.
I support our troops, because they are following orders. They joined the military to protect us. I want them to have the very best.
However, that does not mean I agree with the lies this administration made. Yes, we're there, so why do I care? 1. Intentional lies are important, because if they'll lie to us one time, they'll lie again. A lot of people have died due to this lie.
2. Now, we're setting the stage to go to Iran. Surprise, surprise. Should we jump right in now and believe what they're telling us about Iran? Given their track record, we'd better not just believe that whatever comes out of their mouth is the truth.
So, let's take a serious look at this one BEFORE it gets started. That adheres to your rules now, doesn't it Tony?
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: NO Teuqes, It is not because you don't agree with me that I question your and others patriotism.
The fact that this administration made mistakes and got us in this war is not the issue anymore...
we're there...and no amount of belly acheing is gonna change that. What it does do is undermine the efforts of the military. This is why I question your patriotism.
The constant barrage of mute points about the administration is exactly what Osama and the other extremists are counting on...
When one is engaged in war one must take care of that first....then deal with the why's and wherefore's after it is won...not durring.
Ya get it now?.......I can't make it any plainer than that for ya'll......zman
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
I'm quite sure they don't. I also don't think Bush does.
quote:Originally posted by LabRat: Why do they have our best interest at heart?
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Sooo, ya figure Iran will mature into a civilized society and will act more responsible once they have some nukes? I don't believe I agree with that.
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
Interesting commentary from both sides of this issue.
I've been wondering, however, why we, as civilians, think we have the need to know what the "Commander-in-Chief" of the U.S. military has been planning in response to the war on terrorism.
Having held a fairly high federal security clearance I was taught that "need to know" was as important as being cleared for a specific level of information.
Can any of us say we have the "need to know" specifically what our "Commander-in-Chief" is planning to do to execute his plans for the war against terror??
A primary focus of the president's authority is to conduct the foreign affairs of the U.S. particularly as it relates to a declared war against an attacking enemy, in this case Islamic terrorists.
President Bush stood in front of the American people during his state-of-the-union address in November 2001 and told us exactly what he was going to do. He has not backed down an inch on what he said.
It could very well be that the President has been planning an air war against Iran's nuclear power plants. Iran has clearly stated its goal to gain nuclear capacity and has clearly stated it's intention of destroying our ally, Israel.
What better place to conduct surgical air strikes against Iran than from protected air bases in Iraq??
We've vested George Bush with all the powers of the executive branch of our government. I am personally pleased with the results he has attained.
Those who disagree with President Bush's handling of the war have an opportunity to do something about it in November of 2008.
It is my opinion that we have an obligation to stand behind our elected leaders and provide our enemy with nothing less than a united front as a country.
To do otherwise will surely cause us great harm as a nation. To do otherwise provides our enemy with hope and encouragement. To do otherwise causes harm to those who are fighting this war for us.
We are at war with Islamic terrorism, not with our own president.
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
LabRat,
quote:Take a look at this slick, well made thread, with collage professors, New York Times, Nobel Prize winner and a retired female officer, (who made the most sense) and wonder who put the money up for it!
I watched the video twice. Very interesting group of commentators, I was surprised to see Ellesberg & Norman Mailer in the clip, NOT !!!
I was especially disheartened by LtCol Kwiatowski's involvement in this type of propaganda.
I agree with your assessment, especially that of the piece being hind-sight driven and clearly designed to smear Bush and nothing else.
I'm really saddened sometimes where my country is heading.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
We elected him President, not King. We are supposed to have a limited Constitutional government. The checks and balances are there for a reason.
Since you mention the WAR ON TERROR... I might have missed it somewhere... did Congress ever declare War?
I understand what you're saying about strategic battle plans. There are too many leaks. What bothers me is his whole pretense for going over there in the first place. A pack of lies.
You have a lot of good hypotheses about why he might have gone over there, but by now, he should have fessed up. He hasn't.
And no, I'm not going to lay down and merely accept what he and his ilk are doing until 2008. Do you really think that our Founding Fathers would agree with you?
I am very unclear as to whom is the biggest threat to the United States and its Constitution. Certain elitists in our government and elsewhere... or other nations.
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Well, hurumpfff! I can see people setting around, picking brains for scraps of info to use to sell the war. I really am surprised no wmd's were found, and you know, the jury may still be out on that subject. We won't know till someone tells us where they are, if they exist. There were stories about a pea under the chestnut shell before the war. Even stories some of the stuff wound up in North Korea. Remember the train that blew up a town! That female officer, hmmm, if I were Bush, she could kiss her pension good by.
No king in history has had the power Mr. Bush has at his disposal, or faced the dangers I might add. You don't get to be president less your tough as nails! He's been a busy boy since he took office, lots of problems. He's done as well as any man could and better than most. Some dislike him for different reasons but the way I see it, he was in the right place at the right time and we were damn lucky to have him as our president!
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
tequeslady,
quote:Since you mention the WAR ON TERROR... I might have missed it somewhere... did Congress ever declare War?
You can throw up a wall of semantics if you wish, but yes Congress did declare war on terror:
quote: The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. It passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
quote: You have a lot of good hypotheses about why he might have gone over there, but by now, he should have fessed up . He hasn't.
What should he fess up to and to who should he "fess up"?? You, me ?
I'm not sure the president has time to "fess up" to every decision he makes while exercising his consitutional duties as commander-in-chief.
quote:And no, I'm not going to lay down and merely accept what he and his ilk are doing until 2008.
I don't think anyone expects you to "lay down and merely accept" anything. I think we should all be expected to show our enemy that we are a united people. I also believe we have the obligation to show through our words and deeds that the biggest mistake anyone can make, country or religion, is to attack the United States.
I think you as well as everyone else in this country has a right to express their opinion in public and in private.
What bothers me more than anything else is the clearly political bashing of our president by just about every faction within our government, our press and every left-leaning organization in the country.
There is absolutely nothing that Bush can do to come out on top of any issue. History will record his successes and his failures. I happen to believe that history will show him to be a true patriot and a great leader when we really needed one.
quote:Do you really think that our Founding Fathers would agree with you?
I'm sure your question was rhetorical, but just in case it wasn't - YES ! Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
WMDs:
A little birdie told me:
Watch for the discovery of WMDs hidden in Syria by Hussein.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Oh No..
Aren't we threatening enough nations at the moment? Leave the poor Syrians alone.. ~~ besides, I happen to have it on good authority that Saddam hid the WMD's on the grassy knoll..
Seriously, I don't understand. Show me your proof that Saddam hid stuff. I bet Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld would be really interested in knowing that...it would get them out of a big mess. How COULD he if we had every inch of Iraq covered with satellites? I think the WMD thing has been exhausted entirely, or they would have found something within the exhaustive investigations.
On the spying - LymeDad..
The arguement isn't that citizens need to know exactly what the President is doing in detail.. it's quite simple..
That which we need to know and expect and are entitled to is the knowledge that the President is following the Constitution, and the statues of law, particularly referring in this instance to the FISA Law set up in 1978 very carefully by a comittee stating that IT would be the EXCLUSIVE means by which the President could authorize ELECTRONIC SURVEILANCE. The Law is highly specific to that, and it states it is exclusively the way to deal with electronic surveilance.
The President lied to the public in '04 (quoted above)stating he was following that (problem #2 here, lying to the public about his following FISA)..
2004 speech in Buffalo, similar one given in Pittsberg:
BUSH: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Attorney General Gonzales appears to have been lying about this when asked questions pertaining to his view of the 'inherant power' we keep hearing hin talk about now, he appahrently lied about his views of this in his confirmation hearings.. (when the tapping was well underway and he was involved) ...an A.G. who, by the way, has NEVER parted from the President on ANYTHING. (another thing I personally find disturbing)..
It's simple, and all the dancing they are doing throwing out bones of fear (or chumming, if you will..),
then justification by using Terror as a sheild, even CHANGING the name of it to 'the Terrorist Surveliance Programme' - that is pure PR, it's harder to question a programme of that title!
then attacking NYT for reporting it, THEN -- throwing out old Supreme Court cases and acts of earlier Presidents that were either before FISA, or having to do with something entirely different than wire-tapping ..ALL this dancing is not wiping away the simple yet paramount concern Americans have..
That is that there are Laws, and a checks and balance system which separates us from the very countries we have called enemies...SO LONG as all branches comply. That includes the excecutive branch.
That the President, even in War time, does not have a 'blank check'.
I counter the arguement that in War time he should be left to do as he sees fit with no checks and balances.. because I contend THAT is the time we need these protections in place more than ever.
During intense War times there is a heightened propensity for power abuses, as we saw with the torture incidents which came from allot higher up than the poor men and women who took the fall. There were allot more abuses in history as well, FISA drafting and implementing was responding to just one element of those.
Certainly ..with today's increased communications technologies, we have MORE propensity for abuses than even in 1978 when they enacted FISA. We must fight Terror, and we must protect against abuses of Power.
That is a core American principle that cannot be brushed aside. We fought a revolution for that one.
FISA is secret, FISA is quick (that's the fact, despite the rhetoric).. FISA is there to provide the necessary checks. Not to mention, in case it isn't quick enough, they have 72 hours after the fact to submit.
Furthermore, if FISA was not working for them.. they have had years to go to the Intelligence committee, who has an impeccable record of NOT leaking (another bogus arguement by the admin, they would not have been a security liability, that is more smoke and mirrors to say that).. and they have been a bi-Partisan support system for the President throughout this War!!
They are all and have always been (and I am too, for that matter) in agreement that Al Quaeda operatives should be surveiled by all means lawful and available.
They would have granted a provision to FISA if they had been presented with that problem. Most of them said that today as well, and their record of staunch support stands behind them.
But they were not ever approached about this. Not once.
FISA was skipped, after turning down the first cases in many years (see my last post).. could that be why? Because these taps would not have MET the requirements????
Bottom line, the President CHOSE to BYPASS FISA.. thousands of taps and other surveilance have taken place..he authorized this and the NSA ran with it.
~~ and yet the first we hear of this from the admin is only after the Times puts out a story..
and now we hear all the reasons (from the White House and Bush) as to why it should be OK. Again, using fear of terrorism as the lead arguenment in order to gain public support.
Furthermore, the President both publicly and through Gonzales is not ofering a solution, or proposing FISA be changed even now..
he is simply hiking up his jeans in thet Texan sort of way and saying 'I have the power, like it or not, and I am going to do what I think I should do. Period.'
Beyond all the obvious problems with the above .. and even beyond the concerns as to who, how many, and what has been listened to .. and even tho he CLAIMS it is the thing he must do to protect US..
there is the concern as to where this goes from here.
If he has unbridled 'inherent powers'.. where does it end?
Then, theoretically, they could search, and seize, and invade homes..all without warrant?? What more might they be doing that has not yet been leaked?? And what of our Laws?
The President and Gonzales' and some others sweeping and blatant claims that the President has 'inherant powers' that superceed all Laws is what is so frightening. How can we draw any lines then? Should he have nothing that checks him at all? Is that what you are saying? Will you be OK with the next President picking and choosing which laws to follow in War (even if he is one you do not personally agree with so well)? Would you write a blank check to absolutely anyone else as well?
Think about it, because this will set a tone for the future Presidents as well..
I am surprised you are OK with this, but, respectfully.. even if you are, it pales in comparison to the concerns on the table regarding basic American rights and the need we have to have a BALANCE of power.
NO one branch is supposed to have ultimate power over all the others.
The lying is gettin very old as well. These things only weaken us, they do not make us strong as you say. How can we fight Terror strongly when it is done warrantlessly and not abiding by our own laws?
The Founding Fathers are not at peace with the Bush era, I'd wager.
The President must (and CAN) uphold the Constitution even in time of War, and he must follow Laws and a system of checks and balances.. (one that is approproate, of course)
OR, and I quote you:
"To do otherwise will surely cause us great harm as a nation. To do otherwise provides our enemy with hope and encouragement. To do otherwise causes harm to those who are fighting this war for us."
Mo
[ 07. February 2006, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Well, I was rested and read a little more than half Mo, which is pretty good. It was generally well written but dry, boring and uninteresting. As I set here wondering who I can con into fixing me breakfast, I wonder why our opponents haven't gone all out to counter your points. Surely they must think, ''we gotta figure a way to shut her up before she gives up our game plan''. To be fair and balanced, or give some appearance of being on our side, could you post some of the rules the terrorist must abide by in their war on us. I mean, you can really get down to the ``I's'' and ``T's'' when it comes to what hoops our president must jump through to save your sorry butt and you seem to have written on the back of your hand every ``lie'' he or his ``cronies'' ever told. I can't recall you ever complaining about anything the terrorist have ever done. I've heard you ***** about the Jews having a homeland, but not a peep when a Jewish grocery store is blown up with mothers and children inside. I guess there's just so much complaining one person can do, sort of have to take sides.
So it seems to me your more of a hindrance than a help, or you would be if you could be!
Well, to be fair, I do recall, under pressure, you called the ragheads, ``MF''s once. See, your not all bad! Now practice spitting and scraching and you can hang out with us guys!
Uh, how's for some ham and eggs?
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
LabRaticus Eroneous ~~
Me thinks I have finally gained some insight into that mind of yours after all these years.
Ham and eggs for breakfast??
Dearest Sir FartsAllot..what you need is a good colon cleanse, and then maybe we can sit down and have a real conversation.
That leap straight to what the Terrorists are doing just isn't cutting it anymore.
This isn't about what the Terrorists are doing, and raising these questions does not make someone a friend of Terrorism.
This is about what the President is doing and whether he is above the Law, and in so doing can keep what he is doing from Congress, FISA, and everyone else woth absolutely no oversight when it comes to domestic spying. Moreover, it's about Presidential powers and disclosure in general.
Arlon Spector, Lindsey Graham and a couple other Republicans on the comitte, plus present and former officials within the workings of National Security also question the programs legalities and the actions of Bush. Ashcroft did as well.
It's not about dotting i's and crossing t's.. it's fundamantal, as I wrote above if you actually read my post.
Further, if all of this is on the up and up...and as necessary as they say..
why won't they simply present the whole program to the intelligence committe in secrecy (as they have a history of not leaking).. and even to them not have to disclose all, just the general programme.
Why don't they just present it and set things straight? Instead Gonzoles, representing Bush as his client before the Comittee.. is blowing smoke around the questions.
To assert this is no big deal, or that it is wrong to question this is about as unAmerican as you can get on this topic, IMO.
Would you settle for this (taking a domestic spying program totally on his or her word with the NSA) from a President whom you did not staunchly support personally?
Mo
Posted by David95928 (Member # 3521) on :
Do "the guys" agree that President Hillary Clinton should be able to disregard all laws and render the judiciary and congress irrelevant if she hoodwinks congress into declaring hostilities against a foreign entity? Actually, I kind of like it.
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Boy! It's hard to get all the way through one of your post. OK, I'll get some drain-o next time I'm at the store.
The founding Fathers, hmmm! I got a good one for you. Ever see a law library? How did all those books come from one sheet of paper? At least one of the framers refused to believe that a rock could fall from the sky! What has remained constant since they sat down and wrote the constitution? Only thing that comes to mind is the bayonet!
Ohhh, I see! This is why the big fight over supreme court justices. These guys can look at the constitution and see that the founding fathers wanted everyone to have socialized medicine and a mar-sadies Benz! The shortest distance between two points is a line with the least amount of curve in it! So if the country is here and you want to take it over there and you know the people will never go along with it going through congress, and then you let the Supreme Court find the change constitutional. Pretty savvy no!
If the founding fathers were alive today they wouldn't last ten minutes, what with jaywalking, littering and no smoking laws! I'm not supporting change, I don't like change, if you do, don't leave your car keys in the same place twice!
Now what about those rules the terrorist have to follow.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
They declared WAR on Iraq?
quote:Originally posted by lymedad: [QB] tequeslady,
[QUOTE]Since you mention the WAR ON TERROR... I might have missed it somewhere... did Congress ever declare War?
You can throw up a wall of semantics if you wish, but yes Congress did declare war on terror:
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Actually, I think they would have done just fine. They would have had the guts to not allow the crap to happen that we have so willingly accepted. Do you believe for one minute that they would have accepted the Patriot Act?
By the way, I think we have WAY too many laws.
quote:Originally posted by LabRat: If the founding fathers were alive today they wouldn't last ten minutes, what with jaywalking, littering and no smoking laws! I'm not supporting change, I don't like change, if you do, don't leave your car keys in the same place twice!
Now what about those rules the terrorist have to follow.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
So, what's the plan, LabRat? Take over the entire world?
quote:Originally posted by LabRat: Sooo, ya figure Iran will mature into a civilized society and will act more responsible once they have some nukes? I don't believe I agree with that.
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
I don't think that is true. Different time, different men, different weapons. This isn't ment as a reflection on them, we couldn't fend for ourselves either! They will always be great, right time, right place, right men and they had some luck!
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
That would be a good topic for a fireside chat. First off, I'm not Mo. I don't know what's going on right this minute. The goal is to defeat terrorism and those that support and finance it and allowed it to come about. How we get there, and this is just my thoughts, is any way we can by any means we can and as soon as we can, however long that takes.
The riots that are taking place were sparked by a cartoon character of Mohammad saying ``stop the jihad, we're out of virgins''! I use to think more of muslins before I knew anything about them!
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Just a thought which is not on topic but relevent to muslims behavior...
If the majority of muslims condemn the behavior of the extremists and remark that it is not in line with the muslim faith...
Why don't the majority of muslims police their religion? Why don't they stop harboring the extremists?
Why does'nt the main muslim make it a religious crime to keep acting the way the extremists are acting and declare a jihad against this behavior?
Then the rest of the world could live in peace!
I suspect the muslim majority is talking out of both sides of it's collective mouth.
In reference to the U.S. taking over the world... It would never happen...but something like it should happen.... America is'nt perfect but it's a dang site better than ANYWHERE else I've ever been.
zman
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Yes Tony, that question has been ask, the answer has always been too little, too late!
Hey Tony, have you seen a rule book for the terrorist? I think Mo's looking for one. The Democrats haven't come up with one, leastwise no one has mentioned it. I'm beginning to think we're the only ones fighting with a gun in one hand and a rule book in the other! Hmmm! Haven't given it much thought but seems like something a terrorist or a leftist would come up with! Anybody seen one?
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
quote:"Once war is forced upon us, there is no alternative than to apply all available means to bring it to a swift end; in war, there can be no substitute for victory."
General Douglas MacArthur
I'm sure that every president in office during a major war has had detractors. I imagine that FDR, Harry Truman, etc. all had their political counterparts criticize their policies and actions during their war.
However, the venom of those who oppose George Bush is really remarkable. To suggest that George Bush is more of a threat to our way of life than our enemy is really astounding.
I wish someone would publish the names, addresses and phone numbers of those American citizens who have had their civil liberties stolen by George Bush and his "cronies". I'd really like to talk to them personally.
Our enemy is currently showing its true character on television every night. Those folks we see throughout the world burning our flag, along with the flags of Israel and Denmark, are the people we are at war with, not our president.
[ 08. February 2006, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: lymedad ]
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
David,
Remember you started the Hillary "thing":
quote:Do "the guys" agree that President Hillary Clinton should be able to disregard all laws and render the judiciary and congress irrelevant if she hoodwinks congress into declaring hostilities against a foreign entity? Actually, I kind of like it.
There is a political bumper sticker that is being used by both Democrats and Republicans:
"RUN HILLARY RUN"
Its placed on the back bumper of Democrat's cars and on the front bumper of Republican's cars.
(I just couldn't resist)
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
Mo,
I missed your comment in my initial reading of your post:
quote:NO one branch is supposed to have ultimate power over all the others.
I disagree.
The executive branch of our government is given the sole authority/responsibilty to conduct the foreign affairs of our nation. The president is the Commander-in-Chief of the military and the primary focus of the CINC is to wage war.
Although not a declared war, Congress did abdicate that necessity:
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)
The balance of powers has nothing to do with our need to win this war at any cost.
On September 12, 2001 the Iraqi government made the following statement:
"The attacks on the United States serves as a lesson for all tyrants and oppressors"
As for me, that statement alones stands as sufficient provocation for the war in Iraqi.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Pretty funny... I don't really identify with either group any longer, but I'd be putting it on the front bumper.
quote:Originally posted by lymedad:
There is a political bumper sticker that is being used by both Democrats and Republicans:
"RUN HILLARY RUN"
Its placed on the back bumper of Democrat's cars and on the front bumper of Republican's cars.
(I just couldn't resist) [/QUOTE]
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
When I get a chance, I'll try to find a story or two about individuals.
The point is... you've given them the POSSIBILITY to trample your civil liberties. You're merely trusting that they won't. I don't think this is a wise move.
quote:Originally posted by lymedad: [QUOTE] [b] I wish someone would publish the names, addresses and phone numbers of those American citizens who have had their civil liberties stolen by George Bush and his "cronies". I'd really like to talk to them personally.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
LymeDad ~~
Noone but the President, Gonzales, and the heads of NSA know how many American citizens have been spyed on..noone else knows if it was five citizens or 50,000, or if this is a dragnet operation. ..and they are refusing to tell ANYONE else for purpose of oversight.
not having any oversight whatsoever is not OK.. further, if it was only suspected AlQaeda communications, as they claim and reporters wrongly echo.. (no proof of that).. if it was/is..then what's the problem with describing the programme to the secret FISA court as Spector urges along with several Republican collegues?
What of the President and Gonzales simply stating this is legal, yet not answering any questions to that effect?
This is well beyond the intended 'inherant powers' during 'wartime' and has pushed well past established statutes and proceedural guidelines.
The Congress and Judiciary branches, since 911, have given the Bush administration everything they have asked for by way of funding and revisions to legislation, ammendments, ect, ect ect all along the way. The excecutive branch kept this from them and never appealed for approval, which they may well have gotten, so long as the operation was deemed necessary.
The pure power play asserted by the White House here is way out of line. That's what has allot of moderate Republicans upset as well.
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many.... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." America must always maintain our constitution with the deepest vigilance. A determined effort is needed now to protect our most sacred liberties and to ensure that our Constitutional democracy will be preserved for our children and grandchildren."
- James Madison, Federalist Papers 47 Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Now MO, about these rules our enemies have to play by, your oddly silent on the subject. I get the picture of you holding on to one of America's sleeves to prevent a good solid punch being landed, all the while leaving an opening for a hook to come out of nowhere and land squarely on our chin. Can't you be more fair, give our government & soldiers a downhill playing field in this war. If you could just spend half your time and energy critiquing the action of our raghead opponents, maybe you wouldn't come off so anti-American! You don't seem to accomplish much, just shuffling papers and trying to dress a minnow up as a whale! (Aside from driving the rest of us nuts!)
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
ALL forms of Terrorism are evil.
If there was a 'Terrorists' rule book, I would expect the United States government and military commanders to follow it as well.
Mo
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
LabRat, I would say to you... Do you think anyone American is perfect? Do you think they always have America's best interest in mind and always place it above their own self-interests?
If I believed that, I would agree with you. Thing is... I do not.
By the way, I think Mo pointing out where we are going against the very foundations of what this country was built on is VERY American and patriotic. It takes guts. It would be much easier to do what most people do... go along with the masses. Closing ones eyes to Constitutional infringements and just trusting those in power, after they have done this, to not abuse this power, is of course, much easier.
But, in my opinion, that's also how we're going to wake up one day with our Constitution gone and a World Government in power. I personally do not want that.
quote:Originally posted by LabRat: Now MO, about these rules our enemies have to play by, your oddly silent on the subject. I get the picture of you holding on to one of America's sleeves to prevent a good solid punch being landed, all the while leaving an opening for a hook to come out of nowhere and land squarely on our chin. Can't you be more fair, give our government & soldiers a downhill playing field in this war. If you could just spend half your time and energy critiquing the action of our raghead opponents, maybe you wouldn't come off so anti-American! You don't seem to accomplish much, just shuffling papers and trying to dress a minnow up as a whale! (Aside from driving the rest of us nuts!)
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Osama was NOT in Iraq!! I too think that we should rip his head off. However, doing that has NOTHING to do with our invasion of Iraq.
You're doing the same thing that the media and the Bush administration did when we first invaded Iraq. Equating the two.
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: NO Teuqes, It is not because you don't agree with me that I question your and others patriotism.
The fact that this administration made mistakes and got us in this war is not the issue anymore...
we're there...and no amount of belly acheing is gonna change that. What it does do is undermine the efforts of the military. This is why I question your patriotism.
The constant barrage of mute points about the administration is exactly what Osama and the other extremists are counting on...
When one is engaged in war one must take care of that first....then deal with the why's and wherefore's after it is won...not durring.
Ya get it now?.......I can't make it any plainer than that for ya'll......zman
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Is that the best you can do MO. 3-4 small half hearted sentences and even while your doing that, you find a way to smear and insult America!
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Not agreeing with what the administration is doing, does NOT equate with smearing America.
What would it take for you to say ENOUGH... I don't like how our government is twisting the Constitution and we need to do something about it? What would have to happen?
I'm just interested in what your litmus test is?
quote:Originally posted by LabRat: Is that the best you can do MO. 3-4 small half hearted sentences and even while your doing that, you find a way to smear and insult America!
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
I'm happy as a clam!
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
tequeslady,
quote:Do you think anyone American is perfect? Do you think they always have America's best interest in mind and always place it above their own self-interests?
I know your question wasn't addressed to me, but I didn't think you'd mind if I commented anyway.
I feel like I need to look beyond the imperfections of my country in these times. On boards like these and in other forums, there are so many people running our leadership into the ground, comparing our president to Adolf Hitler, making assinine comments like:
quote:If there was a 'Terrorists' rule book, I would expect the United States government and military commanders to follow it as well.
quote:However, I am working on a "Plan B." Jews with their eyes on the horizon got the hell out of Germany before 1933. I am holding that lesson close to my heart.
This type of rhetoric demands rebuttal. We do not have a perfect society or a perfect government. However, I've lived in other countries governed by other than democratic leaders and although we're not perfect, we're heads and shoulders above anything else I've seen.
Bottom-line, it's hard for me personally to find much fault with our elected leaders when I feel so compelled to protect them against such hatred.
George Bush is a human and as such is imperfect. I believe he is doing what he feels is the best for America. He was elected to his position on two occasions (we can argue the way the elections were handled another time)and I believe we owe him the opportunity to win this war, regardless of the cost.
We are at war. My son is fighting in that war. Whatever our president and congressional leaders need to do to protect him and his comrades is okay by me.
I'll worry about whether my phone is tapped when the war is won.
I'll worry about whether George Bush had the right to order surveillance against suspected terrorists without a warrant when my son is home victorious.
I'll worry about whether the executive branch of our government gained too much power after the Islamic radicals are in their heaven surrounded by their own personal 40 virgins.
Until we win this thing, I'll support whoever is in office, Republican or Democrat. It's not about politics, it's about victory. We can't afford to lose, our way of life is at stake.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
I don't agree with you on the war or George Bush, LymeDad. But, if my son was there, I'd probably think the same way as you. I understand. I hope he's home soon.
Understand that I love this country. It worries me that if we continue on the path we're on (and it started long before Bush), we won't recognize our country before very long.
Since I used to be a Republican (and I'm most definitely NOT a Democrat), I feel as if I should be especially vigilant when one is in office. I've noticed far too often that Republicans tend to fall asleep when one of their own is President.
If Clinton would have proposed, or done, half the stuff that Bush has done, we would have wanted his head on a platter.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
You have NO litmus test?
quote:Originally posted by LabRat: I'm happy as a clam!
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Wrong again teuqes,
I'm not equating anything.
I just agree with lymedad. We've both been in other countries and in war.
Our perspective is much different than those who have not. We actually know,and have experienced firsthand, what all the negative, name calling, attacks on our gov., officials durring a time of war can do to those in combat.
NONE of it is good.
We're not blind or dupes or sheep laying down our civil liberties...we're simply backing our troops by showing solidarity...
Which we think is more important at this time.
We're not fearful or paranoid or outraged cuz we've lived through a lot of things you and mo and probably davey have not experienced. And we survived.
However we know what it's like to be fighting a war and having folks at home protest and undermine our reasons for being their.
We have had to deal with unfair treatment all our lives for having been their. I personally believe that I have been repeatedly discriminated against because I chose to enlist long ago. It never ends. It still happens in some circles...the circles that have the righteous college grads from that era in charge. Whatever.... I deal with it.
If you used to be a rep and are not a dem...then where may I ask is your comitment? Anywhere?
Yeah yeah I know...a concerned american...
Why are'nt you in politics? Why are'nt you fighting somewhere instead of bellyacheing?
The terrorists AKA anything under that category don't have RULES....that's the point....
We are fighting by their rules....none...and if you think we can defeat them any other way...you and your buddies are saddly mistaken....zman
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: "Wrong again teuqes,"
Actually, it's teques, not teuqes.
"I'm not equating anything."
---When you talk about Osama and the war in Iraq in the same breath, it sure sounds like it.
"I just agree with lymedad. We've both been in other countries and in war."
"Our perspective is much different than those who have not. We actually know,and have experienced firsthand, what all the negative, name calling, attacks on our gov., officials durring a time of war can do to those in combat.
NONE of it is good."
"We're not blind or dupes or sheep laying down our civil liberties...we're simply backing our troops by showing solidarity..."
---There's a difference between backing the troops and agreeing with the administration.
"Which we think is more important at this time."
"We're not fearful or paranoid or outraged cuz we've lived through a lot of things you and mo and probably davey have not experienced. And we survived."
"However we know what it's like to be fighting a war and having folks at home protest and undermine our reasons for being their."
"We have had to deal with unfair treatment all our lives for having been their. I personally believe that I have been repeatedly discriminated against because I chose to enlist long ago. It never ends. It still happens in some circles...the circles that have the righteous college grads from that era in charge. Whatever.... I deal with it."
---I am truly sorry if you have been treated badly for having served in the military. I think that is disgusting. I appreciate the fact that you did serve. I know you did it because you loved this country.
---That does not mean that I have participated in the discrimination you experienced. You can't group everyone together. Before Lyme, I used to hire quite a few retired military folks.
"If you used to be a rep and are not a dem...then where may I ask is your comitment? Anywhere?"
---Just because someone thinks that both major parties have gone south, does not mean they don't have strong beliefs. There are other parties, you know. I vote for the individual. I don't just listen to their sound bites. I check their voting records, etc. I look to see if they put their votes where their rhetoric is.
---I don't care WHAT party someone is in. If they are strong Constitutionalists and their actions back up their patriotism, they will likely get my vote. I have voted for several Libertarians. I did vote for Reagan. I was in college at the time. I remember how excited I was the first time he won. I was jumping up and down. I always liked how he talked, but in the end, I think he was a puppet. In my opinion, he's still one of the best we've had for awhile, but he had a lot to improve on.
---If you really want to know of someone I support, then check out Ron Paul.
---I rarely ever disagree with this guy. He's true blue and very much a Constitutionalist. He hasn't sold out.
"Yeah yeah I know...a concerned american..."
"Why are'nt you in politics? Why are'nt you fighting somewhere instead of bellyacheing?"
---How do you know I don't participate? What do you mean by fighting? I fight the way I can at the present, given my illness.
"The terrorists AKA anything under that category don't have RULES....that's the point....
We are fighting by their rules....none...and if you think we can defeat them any other way...you and your buddies are saddly mistaken....zman "
---Tony, I have said several times that I think we should rip Osama and his henchmen's heads off. I just don't see how overthrowing Iraq equates to avenging 9-11. I think we were lied to. I don't think Bush, et al. is operating in America's best interests. Their own, maybe, or maybe an unseen agenda to further us closer to a World government. They have done very well at that.
---It has happened in country after country in history. Create an emergency, then come in and rescue the populace. The people are so scared, that they are willing to have government "save" them by allowing all kinds of new laws that allow for infringement of their freedom. I believe that is happening now and quite frankly, it happened with Clinton too.
---I know you love America. I understand what you are saying about supporting the troops and believe me, I do. I am grateful that they are willing to put their lives on the line to protect us.
---You seem to agree with everything that has been happening in this administration. Or, possibly, are you just getting stubborn because you're taking it that people are playing politics here... democrats vs. republicans?
---I hear you that you think that Americans need to support Bush now while we're engaged in the conflict. I understand and wish it were that easy. What goes through my head is ... we're now looking like we're going to do the same thing in Iran. Who knows what country after that?
---At what point should we question the motives here? Never? When we're through invading nations? By the looks of it, that will never come to an end. If we keep waiting on the sidelines, it is my belief we will not have a country that looks anything like the America we love. I'm sorry, I will not stand silently by and let that happen. War, or no war.
---P.S. I care about the troops too. I don't want them sent anywhere to fight and die for a cause that isn't about protecting America.
[/QB]
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: "Just a thought which is not on topic but relevent to muslims behavior..."
"If the majority of muslims condemn the behavior of the extremists and remark that it is not in line with the muslim faith..."
"Why don't the majority of muslims police their religion? Why don't they stop harboring the extremists?"
--- They probably wonder the same thing about us policing what our government is doing.
"Why does'nt the main muslim make it a religious crime to keep acting the way the extremists are acting and declare a jihad against this behavior?"
--- Why aren't Americans calling Bush and his administration to task over their lies and an invasion of a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with avenging 9-11.
"Then the rest of the world could live in peace!"
"I suspect the muslim majority is talking out of both sides of it's collective mouth."
---As is America. We say we want peace, while we invade and overthrow sovereign nations.
"In reference to the U.S. taking over the world... It would never happen..."
--- Why is that?
"but something like it should happen...."
---Ever read some of the papers by our Founding Fathers? If not, I suggest you do.
"America is'nt perfect but it's a dang site better than ANYWHERE else I've ever been."
---We were told to be "ever vigilant", or we'd lose what our Founders gave us. There's a reason why America is a better place to live than other countries. I want it to stay that way. I do not think we are on that path.
zman [/QB]
[ 10. February 2006, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: tequeslady ]
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
LymeDad,
Apologies, I'm going to cut your last post up to respond.. something I try not to do, because I dislike it when mine are responded to in this manner, as it sometimes takes ideas out of context.
Your post is a few behind the reply tho - so that's why...
Lymedad said:
quote:Bottom-line, it's hard for me personally to find much fault with our elected leaders when I feel so compelled to protect them against such hatred.
I have to clarify.. labeling the concerns and information raised as hatred is misleading and dismissive.
To be clear -- these points are not 'venom' or 'hatred', this has been put out there as a response for years, and is still being put out on Faux News as a response to the mountain of concerns regarding our administrators.
I cannot understand the comment as anything other than deflection.
We are talking about elected, acting officials and high administrators of the United States of America.
These people have the highest positions in our land, and a responsibility and accountability that come with them.
Responsibility and accountability of our government is at the core of American values and tradition.
Valid issues raised regarding their conduct and performance, therefore, to my mind.. cannot be rightfully labeled as 'hatred'. And certainly ---- the number and significance of the issues raised over the past few years, compounded astonishingly over the past few weeks and months ---- are worthy of serious consideration if you go by American standards as we kave known them to be since the birth of our nation.
These issues are also not Partison for me, and they should not be for anyone. We are talking about our acting government.
quote:George Bush is a human and as such is imperfect.
Clearly --- but that is not his crime, much more than that has been documented already.. by way of President lying on numerous occasions to Congress, the public, and the World.
A newly retired CIA agent today stated that the administration knew well ahead of time that Saddam was YEARS away from WMD capability, nuclear capability.. and that they were fully briefed on the very real threat of insurgency..we were told this was 'unforseen'.
Today, we have lies about Katrrina (was told the levy's would break days ahead, was told they had broken at the time they broke, they were told months and years ahead of the very real threat..we were told it was 'unforseen') and Abromoff (has socialized with him on the Crawford ranch and is in over a dozen photos - conversations about the kids.., as Abromoff reports..he has intimate ties through Cheney, other intimate business connections - ect, ect...yet Bush says he doesn't know the guy)
911, and on and on -- we have on the table, as well as lies regarding CIA intelligence, and the NSA programme we have on the table as well. There have been more lies and contraditions between Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales than I can keep up with.
This week - Bush 'declassified' the info that an LA building who's name he did not even get right.. was (as he made it sound) under imminent threat bu Al Qaeda - (fact is ..they unraveled this over time well before the threat was imminent, thank God) ..
and we were told this week the news just as the NSA thing is making them nervous.. just as they have the Patriot Act up for review.. yet this admin takes something as solemn as that, that happended in '01, that has nothing to do with wire-tapping (they got the info through other means)
-- and while making the case that 'leakers' are 'traitors' ...they leak this info at this moment and clearly exploit it for polotical gain.. more as a political life-raft in my view at this time.
The Libby case has uncovered (by his testimony)that his 'supervisors' ..who are Cheney and Bush .. AUTHORIZED the outing of a CIA agent for revenge and to silence her husband during the time in which they KNOWINGLY misled this nation into WAR by claiming Saddam bought uranium from Niger.
All of these things hold varying levels of shock and awe.. and are dispicable at varying levels as well.
The most horrifying being lying about the core elements surounding Iraq and exploiting 911. Thousands upon thousands have died or been crippled for life in various ways as a result of these LIES. You may agree with the idea or ideals, but that does not excuse nor change the President and the administration's actions.
It is not so much about ideological differences regarding opinions on the Iraq War, as it is about an administration who lies and manipulates.
I am both dismayed and outraged at this administration's continued exploitation of 911. This is a form of blasphomy as far as I and the souls lost that day and their families are concerned.
(note: none of the above mentions domestic abominations related to coorperate gains that have had tremendously negative impact on children, the poor, the disabled, healthcare, and the environment that have been devastating.. ie: inclusive but certainly not exclusive -- just the most recent event.. is the slashing of 40 BILLION to medicaid, medicare and other programs impacting the most needy and disabled, such as Lyme patients and children most ill and impoverished.. while within days approving a 70 BILLIONdollar tax cot for the WEALTHY)
Even the 'little things' are devastating to our society. Folks need to WAKE UP. Our kids will pay for all of these things mentioned in profound ways.
Our kids here, and the nation's kids 'over there'.
quote:I believe he is doing what he feels is the best for America.
I no longer believe that.
quote:He was elected to his position on two occasions (we can argue the way the elections were handled another time)and I believe we owe him the opportunity to win this war, regardless of the cost.
No!! These are costs that are much too great, and there is no direction or solution for this War!
quote:We are at war. My son is fighting in that war. Whatever our president and congressional leaders need to do to protect him and his comrades is okay by me.
I hold very deep reverence and concern for our military everyday.
I cry on a regular basis regarding this. I consider this administration a far greater danger to our troops than the War on Terror at this time.
I also pray you and your family fare as well as possible through it all, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your intent and your service. That service is not what is in question.
I too FULLY expect the administration to do all they can to protect them.
quote:I'll worry about whether my phone is tapped when the war is won.
I want to clarify something else -- Americans and Congress concerned about this programme are not concerned with their own privacy and WANT all actions against the terrorists who threaten the nation now TAKEN, effectively.
-- they are concerned with an adminisration operating as tho they are above the Law, and refusing to offer info in even the most approproiate and safe venues.. only putting forth as Attorney General who is acting as tho he is the President's personal attorney.
This act begs the question as to how many other illegal programmes exist, as this happens to be one that the whistle was blown on. Despite the propaganda..this was not a threat to National Security to expose it (as tho the terorists did not know we used wire-taps!).. this was a threat to the administration, and they are in rare form dancing around this one and that is frightening.
The media...Rove threatening his own party with lack of campaign support to keep quiet..(as reported in a conservative publication)
The concern is operating ILLEGALLY, brazenly.. with no clear reason as to WHY... other than putting the threat of Terror out there as a smoke screen.
I'll remind you, this is America.. we have to protect HER. I am done being bullied with the rhetoric of fear. Wartime and fear have been an age-old backdrop for abuse.
If the programme is legit..it should have SOME form of oversight, and that oversight could have been ammended years ago.
Hope that is clearer..and I hope they disclose it to the proper oversight agency. They have not as of yet.
quote:I'll worry about whether the executive branch of our government gained too much power after the Islamic radicals are in their heaven surrounded by their own personal 40 virgins.
If we wait till then, if we let it all go.. what right do we have to be invading countries and 'reforming' them into a democracy as tho we are a shinimg example.. if democracy is lost at home?
That is how the Muslim World and much of the rest of the World view us already.. as a very poor example. As Imperialists using democracy as a facade. ..just read from international authors, historians, journalists, experts..and you can see that clearly. This War agaisnst terror must be won politically, it cannot be won militarily.. it is impotant to realize that for the sake of the troops and for the sake of National and World Security.
In addition, how can we win this 'War' when they view us this way?
quote:Until we win this thing, I'll support whoever is in office, Republican or Democrat.
I disagree, we cannot afford that under the circumstances!!
Your next sentance qualifies my opinion in that:
quote:It's not about politics, it's about victory. We can't afford to lose, our way of life is at stake.
AGREED!!
The other thing that frightens me..is when I tune into Faux News.. they have taken most of these issues and either reported completely wrong info, or spun it like a top.
I am shocked and dismayed at the lengths they have gone to manipulate a Middle American audience. I consider the levels of manupulatiin from actual reporting to constant inuendos, to inciting rage against all other views -- criminal levels of propaganda. They are comlicit.
What is shocking is they are largely the only one's still mutilating the news to this extent.
others are not much better... but I see Fox as doing frightening things with their audience that are more evident than ever these days.
People MUST in this day look to a range of sources. It is shocking how separated the media has become, and how the White House and Fox have closed in to claim FOX is the only network not 'attacking' the President... that the Presodent is under 'seige' by the media.. yet it is fact the majority of media outlets are coorperate owned and to an extent beholden to the republican party in charge. They have for years been leaning Right. STILL ARE, considereing reality.. Bit now there is so much happening that most (except Fox) are reporting SOME of it.
Step back and think about all that for just a second............... if you choose a range of sources still available you would see.
We cannot possibly have a functioning Democracy without an INFORMED public.
As for American compliance with a commitment not to perpetrate terrorist acts.. yes, I belive that is a requirement to fighting terrror -- and it will take an owning up to the factual terrorist acts perpetrated by our OWN government and those we have supported who have committed those acts over decades in order to hope to truly attain peace.
A list I will post another time, and all are SOLELY at the fault of the higher administrators, to be clear.
Just one recent/real time act is the use of depleated uranium in Iraq and the Midle East and Asia both now and in the Gulf War. It is pure poison causing horrific conditions, totally against the Geneva Convention.. an obscene WMD -- and devistating the health of our troops, the land for **generations**, and the children of these nations.
Another one of those things they don't tell folks on 'the News'.
Mo
[ 11. February 2006, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Mo...
We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. At least, that's what the Founding Fathers said they gave us.
I've written about the difference before.
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Yes, thanks -- I think that's a better term - a Democratic Republic I guess is what I mean when I too loosely say 'Democracy'..
Kara used to clarify that as well.
Mo
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Yes, but Mo, it is not just a term.
``Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths."
Excerpted from James Madison's Federalist Paper #10
quote:Originally posted by Mo: Yes, thanks -- I think that's a better term - a Democratic Republic I guess is what I mean when I too loosely say 'Democracy'..
Kara used to clarify that as well.
Mo
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Tlady Litmus isn't a word you would use in this text. Communicating with you seems to be on a par with petting a porcupine, difficult and not particularly rewarding.
I believe you're asking what Bush would have to do to tick me off? IMO Mr. Bush is doing just fine. We're just about finished with our second ``war'', we've gone through a natural disaster, had no further attacks inside of America and there are no shortages or lines for food or fuel!
What I find disturbing is a few unelected people who would like to tell me and the country their version of how the world works and what we should be concerned about, usually over and over! It seems to me these folks have no common sense and may be incapable of thinking on their own, yet they somehow know everything! I'm just green with envy that from the comfort of their hovel, they ferret out the best kept secrets of the world, at least those of President Bush anyway!
You don't like Bush. I DON'T CARE! You don't think we should be in Iraq. I DON'T CARE! I do and we are, and better sooner than later imo.
Posted by David95928 (Member # 3521) on :
If you like President Bush, I DON"T CARE If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, I DON"T CARE.
He's a patholigical liar and the net effect of his decisions has been to greatly broaden the area of influence of Iran and cause our forces to be less able to respond to real emergencies. IMO.
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
OK, you stated your thoughts on the subject. I think just the opposite.
Posted by David95928 (Member # 3521) on :
It's a two-way street.
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Not really, one of us is wrong.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LabRat: [QB] Tlady "Litmus isn't a word you would use in this text. Communicating with you seems to be on a par with petting a porcupine, difficult and not particularly rewarding. "
No, I don't agree with you. You like to fight wars. It doesn't appear to matter to you whether we are/were lied to. Doesn't matter if all kinds of legislation was passed that gives the government the ability to take away your rights.
You are apparently content to wait to see whether they execute their new power. People in Germany did much the same thing. When they finally decided Hitler was not what he said he was, it was too late.
"I believe you're asking what Bush would have to do to tick me off? IMO Mr. Bush is doing just fine. We're just about finished with our second ``war'', we've gone through a natural disaster, had no further attacks inside of America and there are no shortages or lines for food or fuel! "
Ok, so as long as YOU don't feel any impact yet, it's okey dokey.
"What I find disturbing is a few unelected people who would like to tell me and the country their version of how the world works and what we should be concerned about, usually over and over!"
One has to be ELECTED to have any knowledge?
"It seems to me these folks have no common sense and may be incapable of thinking on their own, yet they somehow know everything! I'm just green with envy that from the comfort of their hovel, they ferret out the best kept secrets of the world, at least those of President Bush anyway!"
I read the Constitution and a large number of the Founding Fathers' documents. Try it. You'll be amazed at what you learn.
"You don't like Bush. I DON'T CARE! You don't think we should be in Iraq. I DON'T CARE! I do and we are, and better sooner than later imo. "
So basically, no matter what anyone says to you, you're not willing to open your closed mind and consider it.
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Speaking of equating...Tlady...
Equating our situation to that of the german folks in Nazi Germany is astoundingly inaccurate!
You forget that dubya will be gone in a few short years...
Come on now...
This thread was about illegal wire tapping... Did you catch Meet the press Sunday?
Seems to me Daschle can't remember too much about being informed....kinda like not remembering what he did with his aid's body!
Oh well...zman
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
OK, I got things to do that are not important so I'll take a little time, this time to give you a GED on a military point of view. This is not a discussion so please pay attention.
First off and probably least important, the constitution was written a long, long time ago. It can mean almost anything to anybody. I must confess, I don't think I've read it all the way through. What I did read didn't jive exactly with the laws I saw on the street. Then was then, now is now!
To say that any military man enjoys and wants to fight wars misses the mark. Normally it's the military that's the first to die, though in this war it may be safer to be in the military. The military man wants to come home from work and play clutch bottom with his cute little foreign wife he married during his last conflict. No sane person wants a war, sometimes there is just no choice.
Your Hitler phobia, I can see no valid comparison in any shape or form, look under your bed, there's nothing there!
``One has to be ELECTED to have any knowledge?''
No, but even a mob has a leader! I would think our president has a pretty good intelligence service at his disposal where as you have...what?
``So basically, no matter what anyone says to you, you're not willing to open your closed mind and consider it. ``
I learn something everyday. Yesterday I learned about the ascending and descending orbits of satellites. I've been trying (for weeks) to figure out all the new navigating equipment my wife has put in our plane. If you try and tell me Bush and Hitler are in the same league, you're wasting my time. If you tell me Bush is a terrorist, you're wasting my time. If you tell me Bush lied, you're wasting my time! If you tell me peace is the way, well what the hell have you told me? Nothing! If you tell me this world will straighten it's self out to everyone's satisfaction without violent conflict, you've pretty much told me that you're to be discounted as a fool and pretty much anything you say should be suspect.
The unfortunate thing with youth is history just started, ya got nothing to put on da scales!
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
LabRat, your dismissal of the Constitution and blank check written to this President concerns me. Not cuz it's you saying it, that doesn't surprise me - but because of the number of people still beholden to Bush that are thinking this way.
There are vary real concerns about the American demise under the shroud of fear put aggressively forth by this admin at every turn..USED to win elections.. about the loss of freedoms and frightening articles in the Patriot Act - and abuses of excecutive power, while lying to the public. These are not a simple statements of "Bush is like Hitler" ..
There's a huge difference between saying "Bush is a Nazi" and saying something to the effect of "some of the changes in American society since 9/11 are disturbingly similar to things that happened in Germany during the Nazi rise to power in the 30s." People like Rush and Bill O are going to color statements with the same brush - "The liberals are calling us Nazis." Effective dismissal tactics used for years (not so effective anymore, I don't think)
Small (and certainly large) steps in the general direction of fascism need to be recognized, pointed out, and challenged. Nazi Germany didn't get that way overnight. Nazi Germany didn't get that way because the German people are more prone to evil deeds than we are.
It does us no good to remember the lessons of Nazi Germany if we aren't willing to speak up in our own country.
Mo
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
There are allot of letters published and posts on the web of concerns raised by those who lived through Nazi Germany.
I am citing just some of the points to consider below. It is irresponsible to call the considerations absurd, IMO.. because they are centered squarely in American values. It's our responsibility to protect these values and consider the dangers, especially regarding the excecutive branch.
**snips from an article published on Monday, January 26, 2004 by the San Francisco Chronicle
Are Parallels To Nazi Germany Crazy? by Harley Sorensen
........Perhaps their memories help explain the attitude of Germans toward the Bush administration these days.
They've been there, they've done that. They know what a corrupt government smells like.
**snips included from a website called: "A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust." The passages in quotations below are taken from the site.
"With Adolf Hitler's ascendancy to the chancellorship, the Nazi Party quickly consolidated its power. Hitler managed to maintain a posture of legality throughout the Nazification process."
Whether by chance or design, Bush is the most powerful American president in modern history. Not only does he have both houses of Congress beholden to him, but the majority of the Supreme Court is acting like a quintet of Bush lapdogs. And it all appears legal.
"Domestically, during the next six years, Hitler completely transformed Germany into a police state."
Civil libertarians insist that this is happening here now, with the USA Patriot Act in force.
"Hitler engaged in a 'diplomatic revolution' by negotiating with other European countries and publicly expressing his strong desire for peace."
Nobody can accuse Bush of being overly diplomatic, but, like all political leaders, he is an apostle for peace, even while starting two wars during his brief tenure.
In 1933, the Reichstag, Germany's parliament building, was burned to the ground. Nobody knows for sure who set the fire. The Nazis blamed communists. "This incident prompted Hitler[,then Germany's chancellor,] to convince [German President Paul von] Hindenburg to issue a Decree for the Protection of People and State that granted Nazis sweeping power to deal with the so-called emergency."
The Reichstag fire parallels the Sept. 11 attacks here, and Hindenburg's decree parallels our USA Patriot Act.
Soon after Hitler took power, the concentration camp at Dachau was created and "the Nazis began arresting Communists, Socialists and labor leaders ... . Parliamentary democracy ended with the Reichstag passage of the Enabling Act, which allowed the government to issue laws without the Reichstag."
With Bush leading all branches of government around by the nose, there's a question whether parliamentary democracy still exists here. Certainly, concentration camps exist, if we're willing to call the lockup at Guant�namo Bay what it really is. And the USA Patriot Act allows the president to effectively take citizenship rights from any American-born criminal suspect.
"Nazi anti-Semitic legislation and propaganda against 'Non-Aryans' was a thinly disguised attack against anyone who had Jewish parents or grandparents. Jews felt increasingly isolated from the rest of German society."
How comfortable do American-born Arabs feel in the United States today?
While the German concentration camps were being built and Jews were being persecuted, in 1936 Nazi Germany hosted the Olympic Games and put its best face forward to the world. We have the Super Bowl.
In the mid- to late 1930s, Germany was able to annex nearby territories without firing a shot. That was because of the threat of the German military, the strongest in the world at the time. That might be compared with the sudden flexibility of Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Libya, all of whom are aware that Bush will do more than just threaten; he'll do it.
When one is comparing then and now, I think the most interesting factor is that most German Jews remained in Germany until it was too late. They just couldn't believe Hitler was as dangerous as some people said he was. The more prescient Jews (most often those who could afford to do so) got out, however.
Hitler came to power in 1933, but the killing of Jews (and others) didn't begin until five years later, in 1938, with the historic Kristallnacht ("Night of Broken Glass") on Nov. 9. On that day, "nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire and 76 were destroyed. More than 7,000 Jewish businesses and homes were looted, about 100 Jews were killed, and as many as 30,000 Jews were arrested and sent to concentration camps to be tormented ... ."
We haven't seen anything like that here, nor does it appear to be one the horizon, yet one must wonder about the hundreds shut away in Guant�namo Bay and in other lockups in the United States and throughout the world.
I haven't space here to list all of the apparent comparisons between then and now, but you can see them for yourself by reading the teacher's guide mentioned earlier.
My conclusion is that some comparisons between modern times and Nazi Germany are valid, and some are not. Enough are valid, in my opinion, however, for us to be wary, and as vigilant as humanly possible.
I would hope that Congress, the Supreme Court and the president himself start reeling in the power of the presidency. It has been expanding ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt, if not before, and now it is way out of proportion to what the Founding Fathers had in mind for our system of checks and balances.
Our current president has the power to turn the world into turmoil with a mere stroke of the pen. No man should have that much power, no matter who he is.
Mo
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Oh for Christ sakes! We've been over this so many times, have you got AAD! I'm just not willing to spend the day trying to explain to you what I explained to you yesterday and the day before and the day before! Let's just say, once again, Mo don't know and let it go at that.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
If you haven't even read the Constitution, you clearly have no knowledge of what this country was founded on. Unbelievable! I guess it wouldn't be a big leap to assume that you haven't read any of the other writings of the Founders either.
I can't believe you even admit to not reading the Constitution, but yet think you can speak to what this country should do. If you haven't read this, how do you know what you're fighting for. McDonald's?
I agree with your statement that some of our laws do not correlate to the Constitution. Exactly. Congress does not check Constitutionality of a law before they vote on it. A law to do just that was put before them some years back and they did not pass it, because they said it would cost too much. Of all the things that we spend money on, the very thought of them voting on laws without knowing if said law is Constitutional is absolutely wrong.
Did you know that for many years, there have been attempts to have another Constitutional Convention to re-write the Constitution. If you haven't even taken the time to read it, how do you know what the difference would be? If you're military, didn't you take some kind of oath to defend the Constitution? If so, how do you know what you're defending if you haven't read it??
Unbelieveable.
Why do you think we have a free country? Before you say, our military... a lot of other countries have militaries too, but do not have the freedom we have enjoyed. It is the document you admit you haven't READ. The principles have not changed from then to now. They are basic principles.
It doesn't take an intellect to play with a gun. Which by the way, I support. I guess you must like our Founders a little bit. They wanted the populace to be armed. Do you know why? Why don't you go check.
By the way, I am not a pacifist. It's important to figure out WHO is the enemy however, before you start shooting. I do not think we are going after the enemy currently.
Why aren't we going after Bin Laden? Is it because there are such close business ties between the Bin Laden family and the Bush family? Why when all air traffic had been shut down after 9-11, was the Bin Laden family flown out of the U.S.? Why now? Have you ever researched the tie?
you said..."The unfortunate thing with youth is history just started, ya got nothing to put on da scales!
Have you heard of books? Sorry to disappoint your premise, but I am not a "youth". But then again, even many of the youth have read the Constitution. You have not. And you call yourself an American?
quote:Originally posted by LabRat: [QB] OK, I got things to do that are not important so I'll take a little time, this time to give you a GED on a military point of view. This is not a discussion so please pay attention.
First off and probably least important, the constitution was written a long, long time ago. It can mean almost anything to anybody. I must confess, I don't think I've read it all the way through. What I did read didn't jive exactly with the laws I saw on the street. Then was then, now is now!
To say that any military man enjoys and wants to fight wars misses the mark. Normally it's the military that's the first to die, though in this war it may be safer to be in the military. The military man wants to come home from work and play clutch bottom with his cute little foreign wife he married during his last conflict. No sane person wants a war, sometimes there is just no choice.
Your Hitler phobia, I can see no valid comparison in any shape or form, look under your bed, there's nothing there!
``One has to be ELECTED to have any knowledge?''
No, but even a mob has a leader! I would think our president has a pretty good intelligence service at his disposal where as you have...what?
``So basically, no matter what anyone says to you, you're not willing to open your closed mind and consider it. ``
I learn something everyday. Yesterday I learned about the ascending and descending orbits of satellites. I've been trying (for weeks) to figure out all the new navigating equipment my wife has put in our plane. If you try and tell me Bush and Hitler are in the same league, you're wasting my time. If you tell me Bush is a terrorist, you're wasting my time. If you tell me Bush lied, you're wasting my time! If you tell me peace is the way, well what the hell have you told me? Nothing! If you tell me this world will straighten it's self out to everyone's satisfaction without violent conflict, you've pretty much told me that you're to be discounted as a fool and pretty much anything you say should be suspect.
The unfortunate thing with youth is history just started, ya got nothing to put on da scales!
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Mo is right about what happened in Germany. Go check it out.
Who was it that said something like we should study the past, or we would be doomed to repeat it.
By the way, labrat.. it's ADD.
quote:Originally posted by LabRat: Oh for Christ sakes! We've been over this so many times, have you got AAD! I'm just not willing to spend the day trying to explain to you what I explained to you yesterday and the day before and the day before! Let's just say, once again, Mo don't know and let it go at that.
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
I can finally die in peace, I've now heard just about everything.
I was surprised to discover from Mo and tequeslady that:
George Bush is about to start his dictatorship of the United States in the same fashion as Adolf Hitler.
George Bush or some of his ``neocon'' cronies were responsible for the attacks of Sept 11 so that he could begin his reign of terror on the United States, similar to Hitler's manipulation of the burning of the Reichstag, Germany's parliament building
George Bush has started two wars during his brief tenure. Here I thought we were attacked on Sept 11, 2001 - silly me.
George Bush won the election through a campaign of fear not by winning a majority of the electoral college votes.
If you can't recite the constitution verbatim, you don't have the right to an opinion concerning that document or what it stands for.
If you don't know the constitution by heart you can't possibly dedicate your adult life to defending what it stands for.
If you haven't read the entire constitution you can NOT call yourself an American.
The terrorist detainee facility at Gitmo is the same as the concentration camps at Dachau and Auswitch.
The U.S. military is no longer pursuing Osma bin Laden because he has family ties to either George Bush or Dick Cheney (couldn't tell which one).
Wow, you two are something else.
I had no idea I was a member of the same board as constitutional experts, military intelligence experts and historical experts all within two people.
I had no idea that the two of you were privy to the precise thoughts of Jefferson, Hamilton and Hancock, et al.
I had no idea that everyone but a few of us has memorized the entire constitution. Here I thought that knowing the principles of the constitution was enough to want to defend what he stands for.
I had no idea that the detainee facility at Gitmo had as it guests common criminals. I thought they were terrorists, who if released would rejoin the effort to kill more Americans. Hell, just let `em all out today.
I had no idea that they were committing genocide in Cuba. I wasn't aware of the gas chambers and the ovens there.
I had no idea that my son was on vacation in Afghanistan. Here all the time I thought he was pursuing the Taliban and al-Qaida, especially Osama bin Laden. I think I'll call his commanding officer and ask him to cancel his vacation, his mother is worried about him.
You folks are absolutely unbelievable.
BTW: it's AADD (Adult Attention Deficit Disorder) or AAD Disorder
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Okanogan County Commissioner Dave Schulz says he's convinced his county is a designated home for a "concentration camp'' in case of civil unrest. Schulz says he has copies of documents, although he hasn't been able to confirm the rumor.
Federal officials say they have no idea where the commissioner got the notion of civilian detention camps.
A Federal Emergency Management Agency spokeswoman says it sounds like an urban legend and a Pentagon spokesman says he's not aware of any planned camps in Okanogan County or elsewhere.
Rumors of planned U.S. detention facilities appear on dozens of Web sites.
Schulz says he thinks the plan has been written in the event of a national emergency where martial law is necessary, and hopes it never becomes necessary.
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: Speaking of equating...Tlady...
Equating our situation to that of the german folks in Nazi Germany is astoundingly inaccurate!
You forget that dubya will be gone in a few short years...
Come on now...
This thread was about illegal wire tapping... Did you catch Meet the press Sunday?
Seems to me Daschle can't remember too much about being informed....kinda like not remembering what he did with his aid's body!
Oh well...zman
[ 15. February 2006, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: tequeslady ]
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Well, you are good at twisting things, aren't you lymedad? (edited)
I didn't say that Bush was aware of the 9-11 plane crashes long before they happened. I didn't say that a rogue group of our government had any hand in the disaster of that day. You did.
I did say that I found it odd that when all air traffic had been shut down after the crashes, the government shuttled the Bin Ladens out of this country via plane. Yes, I do find that odd. In addition, I find it rather odd to find out the long standing business relationship between the two families.
I also did say that they took advantage of that horrible day to rush some of the most anti-American legislation ever through Congress.
But, you are right in that I think that if you haven't read the Constitution nor any of the Founding Fathers' other documents, that you likely do not have a good basis of what this country stands for. I am shocked that you do not think it is your duty to do so.
You talk and talk about being such a patriotic American, because you are ex-military. That alone does not make you patriotic. Why not learn what you were fighting for? The Constitution is a not a long document. Read it.
That probably explains why you think the Patriot Act is ok too. I'm sure you haven't read that either. Why don't you read it and then decide for yourself whether you think it's a good document?
By the way, no one said you needed to memorize the Constitution. It's a short document and easy to reference. But, you admitted to never reading it. That's a very different thing, don't you think?
I don't know why I am wasting my time. You seem so willing to accept anything that is in the major media. You're not willing to do any research at all.
OPEN YOUR EYES!!!
quote:Originally posted by lymedad: I can finally die in peace, I've now heard just about everything.
I was surprised to discover from Mo and tequeslady that:
George Bush is about to start his dictatorship of the United States in the same fashion as Adolf Hitler.
George Bush or some of his ``neocon'' cronies were responsible for the attacks of Sept 11 so that he could begin his reign of terror on the United States, similar to Hitler's manipulation of the burning of the Reichstag, Germany's parliament building
George Bush has started two wars during his brief tenure. Here I thought we were attacked on Sept 11, 2001 - silly me.
George Bush won the election through a campaign of fear not by winning a majority of the electoral college votes.
If you can't recite the constitution verbatim, you don't have the right to an opinion concerning that document or what it stands for.
If you don't know the constitution by heart you can't possibly dedicate your adult life to defending what it stands for.
If you haven't read the entire constitution you can NOT call yourself an American.
The terrorist detainee facility at Gitmo is the same as the concentration camps at Dachau and Auswitch.
The U.S. military is no longer pursuing Osma bin Laden because he has family ties to either George Bush or Dick Cheney (couldn't tell which one).
Wow, you two are something else.
I had no idea I was a member of the same board as constitutional experts, military intelligence experts and historical experts all within two people.
I had no idea that the two of you were privy to the precise thoughts of Jefferson, Hamilton and Hancock, et al.
I had no idea that everyone but a few of us has memorized the entire constitution. Here I thought that knowing the principles of the constitution was enough to want to defend what he stands for.
I had no idea that the detainee facility at Gitmo had as it guests common criminals. I thought they were terrorists, who if released would rejoin the effort to kill more Americans. Hell, just let `em all out today.
I had no idea that they were committing genocide in Cuba. I wasn't aware of the gas chambers and the ovens there.
I had no idea that my son was on vacation in Afghanistan. Here all the time I thought he was pursuing the Taliban and al-Qaida, especially Osama bin Laden. I think I'll call his commanding officer and ask him to cancel his vacation, his mother is worried about him.
You folks are absolutely unbelievable.
BTW: it's AADD (Adult Attention Deficit Disorder) or AAD Disorder
[ 15. February 2006, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: tequeslady ]
Posted by meg (Member # 22) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tequeslady: [QB] Well, you are good at twisting things, aren't you labrat?
But, you are right in that I think that if you haven't read the Constitution nor any of the Founding Fathers' other documents, that you likely do not have a good basis of what this country stands for. I am shocked that you do not think it is your duty to do so.
You talk and talk about being such a patriotic American, because you are ex-military. That alone does not make you patriotic. Why not learn what you were fighting for? The Constitution is a not a long document. Read it.
That probably explains why you think the Patriot Act is ok too. I'm sure you haven't read that either. Why don't you read it and then decide for yourself whether you think it's a good document?
By the way, no one said you needed to memorize the Constitution. It's a short document and easy to reference. But, you admitted to never reading it. That's a very different thing, don't you think?
I don't know why I am wasting my time. You seem so willing to accept anything that is in the major media. You're not willing to do any research at all.
OPEN YOUR EYES!!!
Well, you really are out to make a personal attack on those who do not believe as you do...thats evident.
I may not agree with Mo on many areas, but she can refrain from personal affronts most of the time.
If there are no differing opinions, there can be no discussion....only one way conversations.
On the topic of Bush removing Bin Ladens family....I'm wondering what you would think the outcome would have been if he had left them in New York?
Would it have been a pretty picture to see them beaten to death in the streets? Would that have insensed the Arab world to further action against us? The rage was high after the towers were hit.
Why in the world would you find it "odd" to fly them out of the country?
Sometimes its more noble to do the right thing.
You might want to double check who's posts you are responding to, names are mixed up......
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Meg:
To have a discussion about what the proper role of government is, it is important for someone to have read the Constitution.
Sorry you do not agree.
Actually, I think we should have held the Bin Laden family. Certainly, we should have questioned them. We could have put them in protective custody.
you said... "Would it have been a pretty picture to see them beaten to death in the streets? Would that have insensed the Arab world to further action against us? The rage was high after the towers were hit."
No, I think it would be better to invade one of the Arab's sovereign nations and overthrow their government. A country where Osama Bin Laden was NOT located and had nothing to do with 9-11. I'm sure that doesn't anger the Arab world at all. I'm sure that won't "further action against us".
I noticed you didn't say anything about the long standing business relationship between the Bush and Bin Laden families.
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
Hey Tlady, I have read the constitution and the declaration and the patriot act...
You have misquoted labrat and lymedad...
I suspect you have errantly read someone els's post and attributed them to me in your accusations that I am rude and insulting...
Take a deep breath and get the posters correct will ya!
Lymebrain notwithstanding...
The comparison of Hitler burning the reichstag and 911 was inferred in the excerp Mo posted....
It's ridiculous and liberatarian(socialistic)...
Check where they're comming from before you side with them....
Bin Ladens family ousted him a long long time ago...so there was'nt much connection to him and his family...
I've read the bible,Koran,third reicht,mao's little read book etc etc etc...
If Bush is a little crazy just think what we're fighting... If he did'nt act a little crazy the enemy would'nt fear us and would walk all over us... If you walk down any NY city street and get accosted...if you act crazier than your assailant chances are they'll be more afraid of you than you of them and they'll get the hell away from you.
In the mean time...we're not all that blind...
What we are is a nation spearheading a war on terror that has been going on unchecked for years prior to 911..... Sometime somewhere the line had to be drawn....
We drew it...more correctly THEY drew it....
We just said....NO MORE...
They don't follow they're prescribed rules either...Bin Laden never had the authority to declare a Jihad in the first place...
They don't follow their Koran either...
My point goes back to you and Mo insisting there is some kind of rule book in war...yeah like the geneva convention that was followed by our opponents down thru the years of war...give me a break...
Daschel could'nt remember what he talked about with the president when the president had the meeting to disclose the wiretapping he was going to do...the guy sitting next to him handed him some memory pills.... It was pretty apparently biased...
Oh wow...looka me...I actually got back on the topic of this thread......WOW!
zman
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Wow! That'll teach me to go to bed early!
OK, Tlady, you have a mental problem, but that's ok because most of us do and we are still able to function in society as long as the sailing is pretty smooth. Reading, understanding and retaining the constitution was obviously important to you so you did it, it was not to me so I didn't. Now we can sit here and say,'' how can that person be like that ``, or we can accept each other as we are! I had two friends, one took a shower every night but changed his underwear every other day, the other changed his underwear every day but showered every other day. Each called the other a scrounge!
The point I would like you to come away with is that in the great overall scheme of things is things would go smother if we all depend on one another, which we do. We need correct information to make good decisions. If out opponents can provide us with bad inflammatory information, (like Viet Nam) He can divide and cause great harm. The last thing that worked well in the last war is the first thing your going to see in the next war!
Mo has to be a propagandist or a moron to repaste all the left leaning crap she hangs up and expects to convince us to storm the white house and string up gee wya! You may think the sun shines out her rear and believe every word she hangs up for the world to see. Here's something you can take to the bank, if we are every defeated, all that reading the constitution will be for naught!
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Let me understand... I have a mental problem because I think you should read the Constitution at least once.
you said... "We need correct information to make good decisions."
However, you seem to not want any correct information. I suggested you read the Constitution and the Patriot Act and THEN, decide for YOURSELF. You don't want to do that. Apparently, you'd rather read news articles or watch TV and follow whatever someone ELSE's interpretation is of said documents.
I agree with you that if "we" are defeated, no reading will have done much good. That's why I am suggesting you do it now. It might redefine for you who the "we" is.
quote:Originally posted by LabRat: Wow! That'll teach me to go to bed early!
OK, Tlady, you have a mental problem, but that's ok because most of us do and we are still able to function in society as long as the sailing is pretty smooth. Reading, understanding and retaining the constitution was obviously important to you so you did it, it was not to me so I didn't. Now we can sit here and say,'' how can that person be like that ``, or we can accept each other as we are! I had two friends, one took a shower every night but changed his underwear every other day, the other changed his underwear every day but showered every other day. Each called the other a scrounge!
The point I would like you to come away with is that in the great overall scheme of things is things would go smother if we all depend on one another, which we do. We need correct information to make good decisions. If out opponents can provide us with bad inflammatory information, (like Viet Nam) He can divide and cause great harm. The last thing that worked well in the last war is the first thing your going to see in the next war!
Mo has to be a propagandist or a moron to repaste all the left leaning crap she hangs up and expects to convince us to storm the white house and string up gee wya! You may think the sun shines out her rear and believe every word she hangs up for the world to see. Here's something you can take to the bank, if we are every defeated, all that reading the constitution will be for naught!
[ 15. February 2006, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: tequeslady ]
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Oookkk!
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
The last few posts by the person who calls themselves teques lady have begun to sound somewhat personal, not only those addressed to me, but to others as well.
I've been talked down to by people in much higher positions in life than Ms teques could possibly attain, so she can't hurt my feelings. I consider the source of those types of attacks.
My last post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek concerning the posts by Mo and Ms teques, but they were all based on responses to their writings (if you need chapter and verse, I can supply same).
I'm 58 years old. I was raised in the school systems in Missouri in the late '50s and early 60's. I read the constitution, the Bill of Rights and several other papers written by the founders of our country while in school.
Having read the constitution some 40+ years ago didn't make me an expert on the laws or documents of our government. Having read the documents does not make me, or anyone else, an authority on the meaning of those documents.
I don't believe I'm a super patriot because I served in the US military for more than 25 years.
I'm a patriot because I love my country, right or wrong. I served in the military because of my love for my country, not the other way around.
I know why I love my country and I know what my country stands for.
I also know that my president is not Adolf Hitler, nor does he pose the same threats that Hitler did to the German people, the Jewish people or to the world during his reign of terror.
I believe that the American people are a lot smarter than Ms teques gives us credit for. We know when we see a true leader and man of conviction.
We've lived through presidents who said one thing and did another. We've lived through presidents who have cut our military to the bone and then deployed them to multiple theaters. We've lived through presidents who have threatened to make people pay for their aggression and done nothing to back it up.
Our form of government and our people can withstand even the likes of John Kerry, Jane Fonda and Ted Kennedy, so GWB won't be a huge obstacle to our continuing as a nation even if he makes a few mistakes.
I lived through the same rhetoric from the "left" in the mid-60s and early-70s. You spat on the military back then upon our return and your spitting on those in uniform now.
You're just doing it in a more covert way this time. Supporting the far-left agenda that divides our nation during a time of war is nothing more than providing aid and comfort to bin Laden and the rest of the Islamic jihadists.
Standing behind a group of people that will show such hatred and contempt for a president during a time of war is a spit in the face of the men and women serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is NOT an opinion, it is a fact! Don't for a moment tell me I don't know what I'm talking about on this point. I have a son who is serving in-theater. I know how he feels, I know how the majority of his comrades feel.
You may talk about how much you admire and support our troops, but your actions and your rhetoric say the opposite.
Your type couldn't bring us down as a nation during the 1960s and 1970s and you won't succeed this time either.
Finally, I want to thank Ms teques, you've taken the gloves off, "Fights On".
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Yeesh... I missed this thread's developments somehow..
so quickly you guys gang up. Like monkeys on a cupcake.
I don't see personal attack by t-LADY, I see some hard hitting confrontation on the issues. There's a difference.
Without having the time to go through all the points, what stands out to me is that the thread is not addresing the changes in the US society under this admin that are similar to Nazi Germany.
Like I said, not that 'Bush is Hitler' .. but the changes in our country as they parallel to pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany outlined above. There are distinct parallels that cannot be enied and should at least justify consideration, if not alarm.
That's where the Coinstitution comes in, as a guildeline.
As American as some of y'all claim to be, I find your pushing aside of these issues reaaallly disturbing.
Shouldn't they matter in defending America?
Also, LymeDad.. once again.. supporting the troops does not require support of this administration. Quite the contrary in this case. When the troops and American citizens are under the 'rule' of an odious and dishonest, negligent administration who lies and abuses power.. dissent is most patriotic and in my view fighting for our troops.
IMO you cannot claim that is is NOT in their support unless you can speak to the administrations actions and justify them specifically.
You cannot, IMO, pooh-pooh the points raised here if you claim the articles of the Constitution don't matter in this, and that we must support this President in a time of War despite the infringement of that document and all it stands for.
(..and can we at least move on from claiming Saddam was tied to Osama?!?! This has been well proven, yet some still believe it because thay want to, and because the administration still draws that illusion)
Mo
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Mo, the left needs you to run for office! You can't accomplish anything down here in the trenches. Get up there where you can get your fingers in ``the big till''. That Hitler thing might be just the ticket to spring you in to, at least state office. You and your friends could pursue your anti- America agendas to your hearts content. The draw back, (and there always is ) is you have to get enough people who feel as you do to vote for you. If a crack head can get elected as mayor of Washington, any office you choose should be duck soup! There is a down side to all this. Say you only get ten votes and the other guy has a land slide, that would indicate your ideas ain't so hot! Oh, by the way, now that you've discovered this conspiracy, what are you gonna do about it?
Posted by lymie tony z (Member # 5130) on :
It strikes me incredulous that those who think of themselves as reasonably inteligent don't see the correlation between bad mouthing this administration and American politicians as a whole as being harmful to our troops morale...
I can only deduce that there is a different agenda on their minds...
zman
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lymedad: The last few posts by the person who calls themselves teques lady have begun to sound somewhat personal, not only those addressed to me, but to others as well.
I've been talked down to by people in much higher positions in life than Ms teques could possibly attain, so she can't hurt my feelings. I consider the source of those types of attacks.
Thank you for the insult. But how are you so sure, big shot?
My last post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek concerning the posts by Mo and Ms teques, but they were all based on responses to their writings (if you need chapter and verse, I can supply same).
I'm 58 years old. I was raised in the school systems in Missouri in the late '50s and early 60's. I read the constitution, the Bill of Rights and several other papers written by the founders of our country while in school.
Then why did you say this, "I must confess, I don't think I've read it all the way through." ? You said this in this thread.
Having read the constitution some 40+ years ago didn't make me an expert on the laws or documents of our government. Having read the documents does not make me, or anyone else, an authority on the meaning of those documents.
Clearly, it doesn't. However, it IS helpful if you read it though. It also gives us more insight into what their intentions were if you read their other documents, letters, etc. They made it very readable, because it belonged to the PEOPLE.
As opposed to most of the legislation put out today. Even they don't read much of that and even admit it. They appear to have not problem voting on it though.
I don't believe I'm a super patriot because I served in the US military for more than 25 years.
Nice to know.
I'm a patriot because I love my country, right or wrong.
Yes. But, there is a big difference between loving your country and loving a rogue group of people that are currently in power in our government.
But, you seem to equate the two. It doesn't make any sense to me, but I'll play. Let's say we sometime had an administration that was overthrowing our Constitution, and thus our form of government... would you "love" them then.. "right or wrong"?
If not, what would it take for you to know they were doing that? When you were sitting in a concentration camp?
This is why I wanted you to read something. Our founding fathers told us to guard our liberty. They could foresee that perhaps at some point in the future there could be a major problem and an unscrupulous group of people could take control of OUR government. It is not THEIRS... it is OURS.
Following them blindly is not what the Founders had in mind.
Love your country, but protect it from enemies both foreign and in the U.S. It appears that might be a few such people in government today.
I thought you pledged allegiance to the Flag and the Contitution.... not the power elite. There is a very big difference.
I served in the military because of my love for my country, not the other way around.
I know why I love my country and I know what my country stands for.
In your mind, what does it stand for?
I also know that my president is not Adolf Hitler, nor does he pose the same threats that Hitler did to the German people, the Jewish people or to the world during his reign of terror.
No one said he was Hitler. There does seem to be a correlation however to some of the policies that are being implemented.
How do you know he doesn't pose the same threats? What is it that tells you that?
I believe that the American people are a lot smarter than Ms teques gives us credit for.
Oh, I am counting on that. That's why I take my time here. But, it requires you to actually take a look at what's going on. You don't need to take anyone's word for it, go check statements out in the legislation. Then, you will have the knowledge to determine what is the truth.
I challenged you to do that. You do not seem to be interested. Why is that?
We know when we see a true leader and man of conviction.
How exactly are you determining that with Bush? Seriously. His prepared sound bites? Have you taken the time to compare them with his actions? Have you taken the time to really read some of the legislation he is pushing?
We've lived through presidents who said one thing and did another. We've lived through presidents who have cut our military to the bone and then deployed them to multiple theaters. We've lived through presidents who have threatened to make people pay for their aggression and done nothing to back it up.
Our form of government and our people can withstand even the likes of John Kerry, Jane Fonda and Ted Kennedy, so GWB won't be a huge obstacle to our continuing as a nation even if he makes a few mistakes.
However, with each of these, we have eroded our Constitution more and more. I equate it to you sticking your foot in a bath of hot water. It feels really hot when you do that. But, if you have the temperature lower at first, get in and slowly turn up the temperature, before long you can get it higher than when you originally stuck your foot in the tub to try it and it was too hot.
In other words, they have taken their time and some people don't even seem to have noticed. But they most assuredly are getting us to their end goal ... World Government.
I remember 20 or more years ago, when someone talked about this being the elite's intentions... people would think they were delusional. I remember comments... that'll never happen. Well, look where we are now. The elite even talk about it in the newspapers.
Did you ever check out the Council on Foreign Relations' website and read some of the things these people believe? Do you understand how much of your government and media are part of this supposed "neutral" organization? Do you understand that they talk about making the U.S., Mexico and Canada more and more intertwined? It sounds like our borders would eventually be non-existent. Do you understand that they freely talk about not having national governments with any power, that the power, both jurisidictionally and militarily should reside in the U.N., totally dwarfing our Constitution.
Which is one of the reasons I wanted you to at least read it through once, since you admitted to never having done that. If you don't understand clearly what it says and does for us, you will not understand the difference between it and the U.N. Charter. They look much the same at first glance, but are not. The U.N. charter enumerates rights that they give to the people, vs. our Constitution names some that are given by God ... not government. Rights given to us by God belong to us individually and cannot be taken away by government. The same is not true with the UN Constitution. Also, our rights were not limited by our Constitution. They did in fact limit the federal government though.. enumerating what they were to be involved with. All other things were supposed to be left to the states and the people. They didn't want our federal government to have this much power. They wanted it closer to us (states and local), so our votes, etc. would allow us to have more of an impact.
Remember what they left. They didn't want that repeated here. We are letting that happen however. We were told to be "ever vigilant" and we are failing, badly.
lived through the same rhetoric from the "left" in the mid-60s and early-70s. You spat on the military back then upon our return and your spitting on those in uniform now.
Sorry to disappoint you, but that wasn't me. You seem to always come back to something like this instead of debating the facts. We can arm wrestle over who is more patriotic. You don't have any advantage over me for patriotism.
Plus, yet once again, I hate to tell you but I've never voted for a Democrat in my life. You see, I used to have my eyes closed in the past too. Not that I think the Democrat party is any better, but I certainly look at each INDIVIDUAL now. I think both parties are totally controlled at this point though. It's kind of like the elite puts some marbles in a bag and says... choose. And we think we've really had a free election. NOPE.
I think we have to get away from this 2 party system and allow for equal time for each candidate. Plus, the American people are going to have to start getting more involved and taking time to read some of the legislation being proposed/passed.
This is OUR country; we have let it be hijacked by the elites. If we want to maintain any semblance of the freedom and liberty that we have enjoyed, we'd better get off the couch, start doing some work to get better educated and get involved.
You're just doing it in a more covert way this time. Supporting the far-left agenda that divides our nation during a time of war is nothing more than providing aid and comfort to bin Laden and the rest of the Islamic jihadists.
Standing behind a group of people that will show such hatred and contempt for a president during a time of war is a spit in the face of the men and women serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I will point out when I think he is hurting our country anytime. War or no war. Plus, this new pseudo-war that he and his ilk have gotten us involved in looks like it will go on forever.... skipping from country to country.
If we follow your logic, is there ever a time when we should step back and look at what is really happening and whether we think this is beneficial to our country?
This is NOT an opinion, it is a fact! Don't for a moment tell me I don't know what I'm talking about on this point. I have a son who is serving in-theater. I know how he feels, I know how the majority of his comrades feel.
I am tired of reminding you that I support our troops. This is not their fault. They follow orders. I know they are trying to do their best to defend us. It is the people pulling the strings that have sent them into harm's way to not protect America, but apparently to further the elite's economic interests. Follow the money...
You may talk about how much you admire and support our troops, but your actions and your rhetoric say the opposite.
Nope.
But you attempt to use this over and over again. Is it an attempt for you to not do any of the work required to actually see for yourself?
If you don't want to take the time to do that, ok. But, be honest with yourself and us. Stop it with the smoke and mirrors.
Your type couldn't bring us down as a nation during the 1960s and 1970s and you won't succeed this time either.
Finally, I want to thank Ms teques, you've taken the gloves off, "Fights On".
You want to "fight" with me? Knock yourself out. Be advised though that you're going to have to read something.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
I can only speak for myself, but, Yes, Tony, there is.
GETTING PEOPLE TO WAKE UP!!!!
If we love this country, we'd better get involved before everything we knew and loved all these years, is gone.
By the way, what did you think about the planned little "retreats" that Halliburton is building in America? (a few links in a previous post in this thread).
What do you think about the proposed National ID cards?
What do you think about Bush wanting to overthrow Posse Comitatus?
Yes, I have problems with all these things. I personally, do not want to live in a government funded "retreat" behind barbed wire, nor do I want to be asked for my papers when sitting in a cafe, nor do I want to see the military and their tanks rolling down our streets.
If you call that anti-American, I think you should check again.
Finally, I am not "bad mouthing politicians as a whole". I think there are still some good ones. In fact, the article on National ID Cards was written by one of these individuals.
Tony, there is more to you than this. At least I thought there was.
Cheers.
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: It strikes me incredulous that those who think of themselves as reasonably inteligent don't see the correlation between bad mouthing this administration and American politicians as a whole as being harmful to our troops morale...
I can only deduce that there is a different agenda on their minds...
zman
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
Some of Tequeslady's points above are very important and should be addressed in this discussion.
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
Ms teques
Not much time this morning but I wanted to respond to just a couple of your rantings:
quote:Thank you for the insult. But how are you so sure, big shot?
You're welcome. I'm not a big shot. I've clearly identified who I am. I'm a 58 year old retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant.
I'm sure of my statement purely by the tone and tenure of your writings.
quote:Then why did you say this, "I must confess, I don't think I've read it all the way through." ? You said this in this thread.
I find it amusing that you demand that others read specific documents in order to convince them of your superiority, yet you can't even read this thread and keep the authors straight.
You will not find the statement you quoted in any of my posts.
quote:posted February 14, 2006 11:06 AM
Title: Pentagon to review possible database misuse (Page 5
First off and probably least important, the constitution was written a long, long time ago. It can mean almost anything to anybody. I must confess, I don't think I've read it all the way through. What I did read didn't jive exactly with the laws I saw on the street. Then was then, now is now!
LabRat
The facts are that LabRat made that statement, I'm sure with tongue firmly in cheek.
quote:Yes. But, there is a big difference between loving your country and loving a rogue group of people that are currently in power in our government.
It's your opinion that the current adminstration is "rouge", I don't share your opinion.
I love my country, right or wrong, not any individual in government or anywhere else.
As I said in my last post, don't worry so much about the American people, we're a whole lot smarter than you give us credit for.
You continue to quote publications like The Village Voice, no wonder you're so paranoid about the future of our country.
That's all I have time for this morning Ms teques, but I'm sure we'll continue our "discussions" later.
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Well mo, go ahead and discuss it with her. I'm sure not going to type reams for her to disagree with, like I use to do for you and shoprat. That was a big waste of time!
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
quote:Originally posted by lymedad: Ms teques
Not much time this morning but I wanted to respond to just a couple of your rantings:
quote: Thank you for the insult. But how are you so sure, big shot?
You're welcome. I'm not a big shot. I've clearly identified who I am. I'm a 58 year old retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant.
I'm sure of my statement purely by the tone and tenure of your writings.
Is that how you evaluate Bush? By his tone and tenure? Certainly would explain a lot.
Is it too much to ask that you actually look further into some of the things he's doing? Or, are you really that lazy?
quote: Then why did you say this, "I must confess, I don't think I've read it all the way through." ? You said this in this thread.[/b]
I find it amusing that you demand that others read specific documents in order to convince them of your superiority, yet you can't even read this thread and keep the authors straight.
It has nothing to do with your belief that I am superior to you. I appreciate the thought though, but I never said anything of the kind.
I am suggesting that you READ SOMETHING. If you think that what I am saying is a bunch of lies, then go read the documents yourself. But no, you'd rather take pot shots at me. Yet another, diversionary technique.
You will not find the statement you quoted in any of my posts.
Actually, you're right. I have been guilty of getting you, labrat and tony confused. The thoughts are so much the same. Still, my fault.
quote:posted February 14, 2006 11:06 AM
Title: Pentagon to review possible database misuse (Page 5
First off and probably least important, the constitution was written a long, long time ago. It can mean almost anything to anybody. I must confess, I don't think I've read it all the way through. What I did read didn't jive exactly with the laws I saw on the street. Then was then, now is now!
The facts are that LabRat made that statement, I'm sure with tongue firmly in cheek.
Hhmmm... I took him at this word. If it was not the truth that he was speaking, he has the opportunity to take it back.
[QUOTE]Yes. But, there is a big difference between loving your country and loving a rogue group of people that are currently in power in our government.
It's your opinion that the current adminstration is "rouge", I don't share your opinion.
I love my country, right or wrong, not any individual in government or anywhere else.
As I said in my last post, don't worry so much about the American people, we're a whole lot smarter than you give us credit for.
You continue to quote publications like The Village Voice, no wonder you're so paranoid about the future of our country.
That's all I have time for this morning Ms teques, but I'm sure we'll continue our "discussions" later.
You didn't address anything, dad. Your duck is quite transparent.
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
Ms teques,
quote:Is that how you evaluate Bush? By his tone and tenure? Certainly would explain a lot.
No, I have evaluated Bush by his actions and I approve. Hope that explains even more.
I have evaluated you by the only means I have; the tone, tenure and substance of your posts.
quote:It has nothing to do with your belief that I am superior to you. I appreciate the thought though, but I never said anything of the kind.
Don't get too excited, I don't believe you're superior to me or anyone else.
I do believe you try to convince others of your own self-importance, but as far as I can tell it hasn't worked.
quote:Actually, you're right. I have been guilty of getting you, labrat and tony confused. The thoughts are so much the same. Still, my fault.
I accept your apology and I'm quite comfortable being in the same company of the aforementioned labrat & tony.
quote:You didn't address anything, dad. Your duck is quite transparent.
I have no idea what my duck being transparent means. If it's a good thing - thank you, if not - I don't care.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Yet, you haven't remarked about the content of the following:
Okanogan County Commissioner Dave Schulz says he's convinced his county is a designated home for a "concentration camp'' in case of civil unrest. Schulz says he has copies of documents, although he hasn't been able to confirm the rumor.
Federal officials say they have no idea where the commissioner got the notion of civilian detention camps.
A Federal Emergency Management Agency spokeswoman says it sounds like an urban legend and a Pentagon spokesman says he's not aware of any planned camps in Okanogan County or elsewhere.
Rumors of planned U.S. detention facilities appear on dozens of Web sites.
Schulz says he thinks the plan has been written in the event of a national emergency where martial law is necessary, and hopes it never becomes necessary.
You did comment on the messenger.. the Village Voice. There are other sources. Go look. You do not seem to care enough to even look any of this up.
By the way Mr. dad... sticks and stones, you know... Keep up the digs. You're not hurtin' me at all.
quote:Originally posted by lymedad: Ms teques,
quote:Is that how you evaluate Bush? By his tone and tenure? Certainly would explain a lot.
No, I have evaluated Bush by his actions and I approve. Hope that explains even more.
I have evaluated you by the only means I have; the tone, tenure and substance of your posts.
quote:It has nothing to do with your belief that I am superior to you. I appreciate the thought though, but I never said anything of the kind.
Don't get too excited, I don't believe you're superior to me or anyone else.
I do believe you try to convince others of your own self-importance, but as far as I can tell it hasn't worked.
quote:Actually, you're right. I have been guilty of getting you, labrat and tony confused. The thoughts are so much the same. Still, my fault.
I accept your apology and I'm quite comfortable being in the same company of the aforementioned labrat & tony.
quote:You didn't address anything, dad. Your duck is quite transparent.
I have no idea what my duck being transparent means. If it's a good thing - thank you, if not - I don't care.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
It is the "rapid development of new programs" category that I'm most concerned about.
Now, how have we gotten along all these years without such camps? Why do we need them now?
"The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs. "
You disregarded another of the posts on this same issue. I'll repeat it for you here.
Concentration Camps in Okanagon County?
KXLY News February 27 2003
Okanogan County Commissioner Dave Schulz says he's convinced his county is a designated home for a "concentration camp'' in case of civil unrest. Schulz says he has copies of documents, although he hasn't been able to confirm the rumor.
Federal officials say they have no idea where the commissioner got the notion of civilian detention camps.
A Federal Emergency Management Agency spokeswoman says it sounds like an urban legend and a Pentagon spokesman says he's not aware of any planned camps in Okanogan County or elsewhere.
Rumors of planned U.S. detention facilities appear on dozens of Web sites.
Schulz says he thinks the plan has been written in the event of a national emergency where martial law is necessary, and hopes it never becomes necessary.
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
Ms teques:
I wasn't going to bother, but stupidity got the best of me.
You wrote:
quote:Yet, you haven't remarked about the content of the following:
The EPA has agreed to set guidelines for the testing of pesticides. Sounds good to me.
KBR Awarded U.S. Department of Homeland Security Contingency Support Project for Emergency Support Services
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement awarded a contract to have temporary detention and processing facilities built. Sounds good to me.
I even read the paragraph about the Okanogan County Commissioner nutbag. I especially liked the part where it said,
``he's convinced his county is a designated home for a "concentration camp'' in case of civil unrest''. And then says, ``he has copies of documents, although he hasn't been able to confirm the rumor''.
Let me get this straight; he has copies of the documents by can't confirm the rumor???
Where in the world is Okanogan County, I'd like to get some of whatever they're smoking.
As far as the Village Voice is concerned, I refuse to read anything from a webpage that shows a woman sucking on another woman's breast.
Sorry just can't go there. It kind of left me with the feeling that the publication just wasn't the type that would have much political credence.
Now What???
OBTW: I especially appreciated the mature response on your last post, something about "sticks and stones"?? Cool response - Excellent Point - You got me there.
Posted by lymedad (Member # 8074) on :
Ms teques:
quote: It is the "rapid development of new programs" category that I'm most concerned about.
Now, how have we gotten along all these years without such camps? Why do we need them now?
What part of Texas do you live in???
Don't you think that "rapid development" may even be too late???
How have we gotten along?
Weren't you one of those who said we should spend more of our efforts in stopping the flow of terrorists from crossing our borders??
Now I'm really confused !!! Mo - Can you help me here???
Posted by Mo (Member # 2863) on :
As far as the Village Voice article -- I'd say they don't need Ashcroft's concentration camps, they've got Gitmo.
There are 500 detainees held there without charges or legal representaion. This is already in direct violation of the US signed treaties and international human rights laws as far as detention and treatment.
As far as ICE, I definately see allot of justification for NOT trusting Haluburten's gleaming description -- nuff said there.. to take this at face valie is less than discriminent.
I also feel we have more than enough evidence over the past few years to question ANY major government programme poised to 'serve' us.. after Katrina, still Katrina .. and everything else. This administration appoints cronies and contracts old friends to do these jobs, and more often than not they have proven to fail miserably.
That must be considered IMO.
On these 'camps' for immigrant detainees.. I have to say (again, given the government track record, and most certainly Haliburten's.. by the way, is there no crisis thay are not cashing in on with a quick fix?? Is not mismanabed gazillions to rebuild Iraq enough? Can't they let someone else have a crack at this one?)
Seriously..this should raise at least some questions..
"provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S"
.. "Emergency influx of immigrants into the US??" -- I would think we all would have red flags going up here...
The politicians on both sides are actively FOR immigration, not curtailing it!!
I'd wager that's not what the detention centers are for at all. Anybody want to take a wild guess at what they ARE for?
when we hear of govenment plans for the mass erection of "detention centers" to hold "illegals" when they clearly are not concerned with illegals at all, that should give anyone with any sence of scrutiny cause to worry.
Mo
(Lymedad, I don't get the sence Tequeslady is trying to 'convince anyone of her own self-importance' .. I think she is pushing to engage discussion on point.. which is sometimes a hard thing to do around here, you have to admit, and some of us would be better for it IMO)
[ 17. February 2006, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posted by LabRat (Member # 78) on :
Let's see here. Mo is a patriot, loves and stands behind our troops, each and everyone, yet wants lawyers assigned to all the pw's at gitmo. In her defense, she didn't think this stupid idea up, some other lefty did, the bad part is she jumped on the bandwagon. That makes her unreasonable and you have to discount anything she says. (which you would be wise to do anyway!) Why don't you rush down there and Volunteer as a candy stripper.
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
Well, dad, most of the story is made up of quotes from a professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington University Law School and it was published in the LA Times.
Note: He also writes editorials for the Los Angeles Times. Perhaps you would like to check those out, if that is a more palatable paper for you from which to read the information.
---------------------------------------------
General Ashcroft's Detention Camps Time to Call for His Resignation by Nat Hentoff September 4 - 10, 2002
Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional and public-interest law at George Washington University Law School in D.C. He is also a defense attorney in national security cases and other matters, writes for a number of publications, and is often on television. He and I occasionally exchange leads on civil liberties stories, but I learn much more from him than he does from me.
For example, a Jonathan Turley column in the national edition of the August 14 Los Angeles Times ("Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision") begins:
"Attorney General John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be 'enemy combatants' has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace." Actually, ever since General Ashcroft pushed the U.S. Patriot Act through an overwhelmingly supine Congress soon after September 11, he has subverted more elements of the Bill of Rights than any attorney general in American history.
Under the Justice Department's new definition of "enemy combatant"--which won the enthusiastic approval of the president and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--anyone defined as an "enemy combatant," very much including American citizens, can be held indefinitely by the government, without charges, a hearing, or a lawyer. In short, incommunicado.
Two American citizens--Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla--are currently locked up in military brigs as "enemy combatants." (Hamdi is in solitary in a windowless room.) As Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe said on ABC's Nightline (August 12):
"It bothers me that the executive branch is taking the amazing position that just on the president's say-so, any American citizen can be picked up, not just in Afghanistan, but at O'Hare Airport or on the streets of any city in this country, and locked up without access to a lawyer or court just because the government says he's connected somehow with the Taliban or Al Qaeda. That's not the American way. It's not the constitutional way. . . . And no court can even figure out whether we've got the wrong guy."
In Hamdi's case, the government claims it can hold him for interrogation in a floating navy brig off Norfolk, Virginia, as long as it needs to. When Federal District Judge Robert Doumar asked the man from the Justice Department how long Hamdi is going to be locked up without charges, the government lawyer said he couldn't answer that question. The Bush administration claims the judiciary has no right to even interfere.
Now more Americans are also going to be dispossessed of every fundamental legal right in our system of justice and put into camps. Jonathan Turley reports that Justice Department aides to General Ashcroft "have indicated that a 'high-level committee' will recommend which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to Ashcroft's new camps."
It should be noted that Turley, who tries hard to respect due process, even in unpalatable situations, publicly defended Ashcroft during the latter's turbulent nomination battle, which is more than I did.
Again, in his Los Angeles Times column, Turley tries to be fair: "Of course Ashcroft is not considering camps on the order of the internment camps used to incarcerate Japanese American citizens in World War II. But he can be credited only with thinking smaller; we have learned from painful experience that unchecked authority, once tasted, easily becomes insatiable." (Emphasis added.)
Turley insists that "the proposed camp plan should trigger immediate Congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties." (Emphasis added.)
On August 8, The Wall Street Journal, which much admires Ashcroft on its editorial pages, reported that "the Goose Creek, South Carolina, facility that houses [Jose] Padilla--mostly empty since it was designated in January to hold foreigners captured in the U.S. and facing military tribunals--now has a special wing that could be used to jail about 20 U.S. citizens if the government were to deem them enemy combatants, a senior administration official said." The Justice Department has told Turley that it has not denied this story. And space can be found in military installations for more "enemy combatants."
But once the camps are operating, can General Ashcroft be restrained from detaining--not in these special camps, but in regular lockups--any American investigated under suspicion of domestic terrorism under the new, elastic FBI guidelines for criminal investigations? From page three of these Ashcroft terrorism FBI guidelines:
"The nature of the conduct engaged in by a [terrorist] enterprise will justify an inference that the standard [for opening a criminal justice investigation] is satisfied, even if there are no known statements by participants that advocate or indicate planning for violence or other prohibited acts." (Emphasis added.) That conduct can be simply "intimidating" the government, according to the USA Patriot Act.
The new Steven Spielberg-Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report, shows the government, some years hence, imprisoning "pre-criminals" before they engage in, or even think of, terrorism. That may not be just fiction, folks.
Returning to General Ashcroft's plans for American enemy combatants, an August 8 New York Times editorial--written before those plans were revealed--said: "The Bush administration seems to believe, on no good legal authority, that if it calls citizens combatants in the war on terrorism, it can imprison them indefinitely and deprive them of lawyers. This defiance of the courts repudiates two centuries of constitutional law and undermines the very freedoms that President Bush says he is defending in the struggle against terrorism."
Meanwhile, as the camps are being prepared, the braying Terry McAuliffe and the pack of Democratic presidential aspirants are campaigning on corporate crime, with no reference to the constitutional crimes being committed by Bush and Ashcroft. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis prophesied: "The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people." And an inert Democratic leadership. See you in a month, if I'm not an Ashcroft camper.
[ 21. February 2006, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: tequeslady ]
Posted by tequeslady (Member # 6832) on :
quote:Originally posted by lymedad:
The EPA has agreed to set guidelines for the testing of pesticides. Sounds good to me.
ALERT: EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
(Tell Congress to strengthen EPA's human chemical testing rules here!)
Despite receiving over 50,000 letters from citizens, Congress, and EPA's own scientists opposing the proposed rule, the EPA has published a new federal regulation that will continue to allow observational studies of chemical and pesticide exposure on human subjects. On August 2, 2005, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children, without exception. But the EPA's newly proposed rule, is ridden with exceptions where observational chemical studies may be performed on children in certain situations like the following:
1. Children who "cannot be reasonably consulted," such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns, may be studied. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be studied. 2. Parental consent forms are not necessary for studies with children who have been neglected or abused. 3. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.
"The fact that EPA allows pesticide testing of any kind on the most vulnerable, including abused and neglected children, is simply astonishing," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. Even EPA's own scientists are speaking out against the agency's proposed rule. "I am somewhat dismayed that this rule was presented in such a complex -- and I would have to say, tricky -- way," said Suzanne Wuerthele, a regional toxicologist for the EPA.
Tell Congress to advise the EPA to strengthen this rule here!
OCA's focal concerns with this proposed rule specifically involve the following portions of text within the EPA document (Note: This is in regards to the proposed rule: PDF --- HTML). The issues below are discussed by the EPA in their final published rule but are not mitigated. See excerpts here. EPA's full final rule is here..
70 FR 53865 26.408(a) "The IRB (Independent Review Board) shall determine that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children, when in the judgment of the IRB the children are capable of providing assent...If the IRB determines that the capability of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted, the assent of the children is not a necessary condition for proceeding with the research. Even where the IRB determines that the subjects are capable of assenting, the IRB may still waive the assent requirement..."
(OCA NOTE: Under this clause, a mentally handicapped child or infant orphan could be tested on without assent. This violates the Nuremberg Code, an international treaty that mandates assent of test subjects is "absolutely essential," and that the test subject must have "legal capacity to give consent" and must be "so situated as to exercise free power of choice." This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)
70 FR 53865 26.408(c) "If the IRB determines that a research protocol is designed for conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects (for example, neglected or abused children), it may waive the consent requirements..."
(OCA NOTE: Under the general rule, the EPA is saying it's okay to test chemicals on children if their parents or institutional guardians consent to it. This clause says that neglected or abused children have unfit guardians, so no consent would be required to test on those children. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)
70 FR 53864 26.401 (a)(2) "To What Do These Regulations Apply? It also includes research conducted or supported by EPA outside the United States, but in appropriate circumstances, the Administrator may, under � 26.101(e), waive the applicability of some or all of the requirements of these regulations for research..."
(OCA NOTE: This clause is stating that the Administrator of the EPA has the power to completely waive regulations on human testing, if the testing is done outside of the U.S. This will allow chemical companies to do human testing in other countries where these types of laws are less strict. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)
70 FR 53857 "EPA proposes an extraordinary procedure applicable if scientifically sound but ethically deficient human research is found to be crucial to EPA's fulfilling its mission to protect public health. This procedure would also apply if a scientifically sound study covered by proposed � 26.221 or � 26.421--i.e., an intentional dosing study involving pregnant women or children as subjects..."
(OCA NOTE: This clause allows the EPA to accept or conduct "ethically deficient" studies of chemical tests on humans if the agency deems it necessary to fulfull its mission. Unfortunately, the EPA report sets up no criteria for making such an exception with any particular study. This ambiguity leaves a gaping loophole in the rule. Without specific and detailed criteria, it could be argued that any and every study of chemical testing on humans is "necessary." This loophole in the rule must be removed, based on this inadequacy of criteria and definition.)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[hi]](graemlins/hi.gif)
chicken lady ![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[kiss]](graemlins/kissing.gif)
's OK, friend, feel better...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[tsk]](graemlins/tsk.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[spinning smile]](graemlins/spinsmile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)