posted
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!! )
-------------------- life shrinks and expands in proportion to one's courage -- anais nin Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
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.
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
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!!!
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
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!
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
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.
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
So Far!!
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
posted
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.
posted
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
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
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
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
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
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
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!
posted
"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.
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.
IP: Logged |
LymeOjai
Unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
LymeOjai
Unregistered
posted
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)
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
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
-------------------- Dave Posts: 2034 | From CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
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
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
"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.....
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
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.
-------------------- Dave Posts: 2034 | From CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 4567 | From ithaca, NY, usa | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
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
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 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.
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
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
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[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. Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
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 ]
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
MY BAD teques...
I did get you mixed up with someone else...
My humble appology...
I edited out the previous accusation...
zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
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....
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
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.
-------------------- Dave Posts: 2034 | From CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
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
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
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.
-------------------- Dave Posts: 2034 | From CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
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
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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!
-------------------- ~*~ Carole ~*~ Young at Heart Grandmother of 4 Posts: 140 | From Morristown, NJ, USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
Yo teuges,
Do you understand what sarcasm is?
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Loribelle
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6293
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
[ 22. January 2006, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: lymie tony z ]
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Loribelle
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6293
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[hi]](graemlins/hi.gif)
chicken lady ![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
Young at Heart Grandmother of 4
Printer-friendly view of this topic