Nsa And Your Phone.... [Archive]

JMT

05-12-2006, 06:46 AM

It would not have happened prior to 9/11 because there was no Patriot Act. Actually there was but it had always been rejected by congress. It took 9/11 to get that legislation passed. The problem I have with people who say that there is nothing wrong with this is that most of them do not realize how far this could go. Our current President is a strict constructionist, he believes if it is in the constitution it is law, and if it is not in the constitution it is not law. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention privacy. Americans did not actually have a legal right to privacy until 1965 when the Supreme Court ruled that the bill of rights contained non specific privacy rights. This ruling basically made it legal for people to buy birth control. (Griswold V. Connecticutt) This created the idea of public and private spheres it kept the Gov't out of your private affairs unless they had a reason to believe you were engaged in illegal activities. The worst case scenario with strict constructionists involved is that they would turn the U.S. into a big brother society where all of our activities are monitored. I know this is a little far fetched but with the two new justices on the Supreme Court there is a slight possibility that if the wrong legislation were passed it would be seen as constitutional. Fortunately, congressmans are elected and they would never pass legislation that voters would find too invasive (hopefully).

Sorry, I got off on a rant there. It is just something I have strong feelings about.

guenron

05-12-2006, 06:49 AM

I fear that there is no article of the constitution that this adminstration respects. Starting with Ashcroft, there has been a concerted attack on the principles of our democracy. Now Ganzales, speak of situational law, forget the Bill of Rights. Neocons? Perhaps when the American People awaken from the nightmare created by the absence of checks and balances and we no longer have a rubberstamp national legislature, neocon will mean newly convicted?

mark the shoeshine boy

05-12-2006, 07:08 AM

jim...

this is the barbershop....this is what we are suppose to do in here....let's be gentlemen and discuss our views and state your opinions on the matter...

get a haircut and a shoeshine, too.

I encourage all of us to comment about these ideas....

mark the shoeshine boy

vox_rox

05-12-2006, 09:13 AM

Okay,

The NSA is NOT recording my phone calls (probably) because I doubt the outstretched ear of the American Government quite reaches this far, nor do I think they really care - that much - yet.

Still, I feel the pain that you guys to the south are feeling. There is so much falling off the rails, and so many questions that you people are just not getting answers for, and I really think that, contrary to assertions that you're headed for a Big Brother society, that you are already all suspects in the eyes of your governement.

Maybe I have it all wrong, I live in a different country after all. But we border each other, we get a ton of American television up here, we read your news every day. We're in the loop as much as we can be. And, even worse, now with our new Conservastive government, headed by the ultimately spineless Stephen Harper who, really, would be Brokeback Mountain buddies with G.W. if they weren't both so homophobic, that I can see our country just blindly following the example and going down the same path.

There, just my $0.02 worth (or $0.027 US and falling!).

Peace,

Pierre

PoshRichM

05-12-2006, 10:35 AM

guenron

05-12-2006, 12:01 PM

Sorry, I just don't see the horrendous erosion of rights or other signs of Hell-in-a-handbasket "falling off the rails" movement that keep being brought up--from where I'm sitting, the economy is still going gangbusters (notice how $3.00-per-gallon gas has barely made a dent in prosperity?); people still grouse and complain publicly about the administration and President without disappearing or getting flogged on street corners; and people are still risking death and incarceration to get here, both illegally and legally.

That said, Jim's exactly right about there not being a right to privacy. "Unreasonable search and seizure" is the closest the Constitution gets, and in time of war, scanning phone conversations for mentions of known terrorists and calls for destinations in the Middle East seems pretty reasonable to me.

Ron, care to elucidate exactly which parts of the Bill of Rights have been used as toilet paper by this Presidency? Last I checked, freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, etc., etc., were all in force.

The nation survived the Clinton years, it'll survive the W presidency just as well (better, if you believe in numbers like GNP and unemployment statistics).

-Rich
I shant even broach the establishment clause because it is buried, but for your amusement have your senator (Isn't that Jeff Sessions?) get you copies of the 700 presidential signings directling the executive branches agencies to disregard the laws passed by congress. Is that a good enough start? Here's a thought provoker for you, when an agency of the of the executive is doing pattern analysis of millions of citizens phone calls within the US, you see nothing questionable?
Just an afterthought, when Clinton lied, nobody died.

PoshRichM

05-12-2006, 12:52 PM

I shant even broach the establishment clause because it is buried, but for your amusement have your senator (Isn't that Jeff Sessions?) get you copies of the 700 presidential signings directling the executive branches agencies to disregard the laws passed by congress. Is that a good enough start? Here's a thought provoker for you, when an agency of the of the executive is doing pattern analysis of millions of citizens phone calls within the US, you see nothing questionable?
700 Presidential signings. As in executive orders? Or are we talking about the myriad provisions of the PATRIOT act? Seriously, I want to know which we're discussing.

And for the record, how many pattern-analyzed phone calls are enough to protect the U.S.? What fraction less than all of them will make a sufficient safety net? Are you one, Ron, who howled bloody murder that the Bush administration Should Have Known ahead of September 11, and yet, when the administration makes efforts to catch the next perps before they strike, sues to hamstring their efforts? For that matter, is Lincoln likewise excoriable for having suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War?

And in case you're tempted to quote Franklin on "sacrificing liberty to purchase safety," he never said it (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin).

Just an afterthought, when Clinton lied, nobody died.
Ah, BushLied(R)(C)TM. How short people's memories are. For what it's worth, the intel agencies of the world were convinced of the existence of WMDs, and Clinton-era policy announcements, Congressional action (all of whom were apprised of the intel beforehand) and the entire UN (who have their own intel sources, thanks) voiced their convictions on the matter before the war kicked off. Or were 17 brazenly flouted UN resolutions not enough?

-Rich

Austin

05-12-2006, 12:57 PM

You guys are deep. :wink:

Rik

05-12-2006, 01:09 PM

OK. I'll stir up the pot. I've been very happy with our current administration and feel it's doing an excellent job.

I do however have a problem with unelected judges who have taken it upon themselves to create law rather than enforce it. It would appear they feel they are members of our legislative branch rather than the judicial branch.

Yup, you guessed it. I'm as conservative as they come. :smile:

PoshRichM

05-12-2006, 01:20 PM

Preach it, Rik. :wink:

-Rich

JMT

05-12-2006, 01:22 PM

jim...

this is the barbershop....this is what we are suppose to do in here....let's be gentlemen and discuss our views and state your opinions on the matter...

mark the shoeshine boy

If I offended anyone I am sorry. I was simply offering my opinion. I realize that it is just that, an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own and part of what is great about forums like this is that not everyone has to agree.

Austin

05-12-2006, 01:28 PM

Jim, you offended no one.

Scotto

05-12-2006, 01:39 PM

The wire-tapping "scandal", such as it is, reflected the targeted listening of phone calls exiting the US to known terrorist agents, locations, etc. Members of Congress were informed of this activity (though they seem to have conveniently "forgotten"), and the program was reviewed and renewed by the federal court system every 90 days. What more do you want?

For me, 9/11 changed everything. We are either going to get smart and beat these bastards, or we are going to let them beat us.

Personally, I think the current administration is doing a fine job on security matters, but a terrible job domestically and fiscally. That being said, I won't be voting for a Gore, Kerry, or (Heaven Forbid) Hillary any time soon.

Rik, you can add me to the "B&B Conservatives Club" :wink:

PoshRichM

05-12-2006, 01:45 PM

For me, 9/11 changed everything. We are either going to get smart and beat these bastards, or we are going to let them beat us.

Personally, I think the current administration is doing a fine job on security matters, but a terrible job domestically and fiscally. That being said, I won't be voting for a Gore, Kerry, or (Heaven Forbid) Hillary any time soon.
Amen. The only fiscal bright spot is that W did get some tax cuts passed, and meager though they were, they've proven to have a real, beneficial effect.

What boils my oil is that our pantywaist 40-years-in-the-making GOP Congress can't seem to muster itself to make the cuts permanent, or better yet, beef them up. News flash: if, amid the $3.00 gas situation ($0.45 of which is taxes, but that's another post), the tax cuts are revoked/allowed to expire, that amounts to a double-whammy on the taxpayer!

And Jim, great topic. That's what the Barbershop is for. :biggrin:

-Rich

Scotto

05-12-2006, 01:49 PM

Word, Rich. And don't even get me started on the freakin' AMT, which screws us poor New Yawkers badly. Our politicians on both sides of the aisle are largely a bunch of pathetic slack-jawed mouth breathers with barely an ounce of sense or an iota of courage.

Austin

05-12-2006, 02:25 PM

Rik

05-12-2006, 02:46 PM

It's a shame we're too timid to speak our mind. :w00t:

zaphf

05-12-2006, 02:53 PM

This program isn't illegal, and the people grousing about it "overstepping authority" are the usual suspects. There isn't even a question about it being legal, The NSA asked for (and received) pen register logs from PRIVATE corporations that own that data. The companies that provided it weren’t ordered to. Even the Patriot act isn’t required.

<tinfoil-hat>
The problem is that technology makes that data incredibly intrusive. The NSA's exclamations that they only received numbers and not names/address' isn't much of a comfort. Even something as primitive as a phonebook can provide the data correlation. What the NSA has now, in the form of a database that they own and control, is a complete map of of the “social terrain”. Data mining can provide insight into everyone you know, things you are interested in. Scary right? They can also compare your pattern to other’s. Who knows what your 15 calls a week to toiletry suppliers might indicate!

Is that technology useful for breaking up terrorists? Of course it is! But without any oversight in place, how do we know (or more to the point, people we elect know) what this bureaucracy is doing with that data? Social circle traces could be used to discredit political foes, or maybe someone in the NSA just has a grudge against someone with the larger shaving brush collection than he does.

Knowledge is power and once given power, government does not relinquish it. All of these types of programs may be tactical wins in the war on terror, but they are strategic loses for the war of Western Civilization. Government should never be trusted, history has shown that no government has ever deserved it.
</tinfoil-hat>

PoshRichM

05-12-2006, 03:30 PM

Knowledge is power and once given power, government does not relinquish it. All of these types of programs may be tactical wins in the war on terror, but they are strategic loses for the war of Western Civilization. Government should never be trusted, history has shown that no government has ever deserved it.
Excellently said, and this gets at the heart of my one real qualm with restrictions like these for this sort of war, very much like it did with the Cold War. Habeas corpus was reinstated after the Civil War, and war powers were rescinded after WWI and WWII (though some fun, like higher income taxes, remained). The problem is that conflicts that go on for decades (more than a generation in the case of the Cold War, probably at least as long in the case of the GWOT, provided American testicular fortitude hasn't completely atrophied) accustom people to wartime restrictions, making them appear to be normal, and making their repeal afterward all the more difficult.

Government, whose purpose is to guard and guide a civilization, should be as small as possible--but no smaller. This means I have no problem with our military budget (bump it up!) and few with our legal system (activist judges aside), but immense problems with most entitlement programs.

We really need to resurrect the debate over Congressional term limits. I think lots of the problems above self-regulate when there's no such thing as a career Congressman.

-Rich

JohnP

05-12-2006, 03:35 PM

Cool topic. Sorry HUGE rant to follow...
I personally have no issues with NSA tracking call patterns, or listening to calls from within the US to known terrorists. Essentially my take is that what is happening is NSA/OGA agents are listening to the phones of certain radicals, Al Qaeda leaders, etc. overseas, but if they call one of their sleeper agents here in the USA....voila! now suddenly it is somehow different/wrong? NSA just like military (OK, most of them ARE military) are sworn to protect and defend us against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic. And if known terrorists are chatting on the phone to someone here in the USA, THAT is DEFINITELY the person I want to know about. Bin Laden might have planned or ordered the 9/11 attacks, the Spanish and British railway bombings...but wouldn't it have been nice, if someone had quietly pulled those guys out of line at the airport? Just a thought...and were we allowed to "play to win" it would have happened and many American, British, Spanish, and other citizens would have been alive today who unfortunately, aren't.

I for one would sincerely HOPE that if while listening to a known terrorist's phone in Afghanistan (or wherever) an American agent picked up a call to the US...that he wouldn't have to call the US, wake up a judge somewhere for a bench warrant, THEN hope the phone call was not over before he got it....
But that is exactly what people are trying to say should happen now. The bad guys' phones are being tapped, and when they call people in the USA I REALLY hope someone is listening. Because the guy in the middle east is not the one who is going to carry out a future attack. It is his contact, here in the USA. I do not believe anyone is being paid to listen in on random people here in the US. (what a crappy job THAT would be!) It has already been demonstrated that we have already been infiltrated, and the enemy has already killed in excess of 3,000 civilians here. We need to play hardball. If Joe Al-Zawahiri is on your buddy list, or you make late night phone calls to your old camp buddies in Afghanistan/Iraq, I think you are already suspect at best and dangerous to me and my family at worst. And they are tracking call patterns. So? Big deal, I'm pretty sure the phone company already does this, and your emails? please....if there is even ONE cookie on your computer, someone is tracking you-and not even to save American lives, but just to try to sell you something.
Also, (while I'm in this rant) since when was leaking secret or top secret information potentially harmful to Americans not Treason? and when was it also not treason to then publicize this widely, to both friends AND enemy states.... There are people who have been rotting in prison for decades for releasing much less sensitive information to our ALLIES, and others who have been executed for espionage....and yet somebody can leak to the media and that somehow makes them exempt from treason laws? I'll bet the Al Qaeda planners are now very quiet when talking to their US contacts, and now, I fear, any potential early warning or prevention efforts at saving civilian lives have been thrown away. I personally would like to see some of these people dragged out of their homes and hanged. Or at least shot. I have a very dim view of traitors. And that is EXACTLY what they are, IMHO. If you disagree with a policy, that's one thing. Write your congressman. But if you are gabbing secrets to the media because of some perceived wrong, or to get attention, then blood is on your hands and you are a traitor.
Rik, I completely agree with you about judges, I couldn't state it any more succinctly. I am an American, and I think its ridiculous that we can vote for something only to have one judge slap it down...especially if it is not against the constitution....
I am not entirely happy with how the president is handling things, either, but unlike many, I think he isn't playing hardball enough, and he should be. If you are going to play, play to win. The game will be over sooner, you'll win quicker, and the healing process starts sooner. How can the administration say, out of one side of its mouth, that they are trying to protect us from terrorists, etc, and then out of the other, block any and all attempts to control illegal immigration at both borders, and even go so far as to give the Mexican government intelligence on where civilians are watching with CB's to call the border patrol... And conveniently, now, unarmed civilians (and border patrol agents) are being shot at with automatic weapons, either by drug runners or the Mexican army.... this is completely insane. I think we need to patch the holes in our boat, then it will be much easier to bail water and start sailing. When I first got stationed in San Diego, I was appalled at what was happening. There are more Mexican flags in some areas than American ones, and hospitals, such as Kaiser Permanente in Chula Vista, have had to close their doors and go out of business, because illegals (excuse me, "undocumented immigrants") were walking in circles in the parking lot, waiting to have babies, so their entire families could then come to the US. Oh yeah, forgot to mention they demanded these medical services for FREE. Then, of course, their 80 year old grandparents and uncles and aunts demand social security....so of course somewhere a legal citizen will NOT receive those same benefits...I as a citizen do not get these privileges. They also pay IN STATE college tuition. If that was the case for US CITIZENS, perhaps I would be in college, and not the military like I am. But sorry I just can't swing the 30+ thousand per year out of state tuition at just about every school here.
Finally, while I don't agree with many of the current administrations' domestic policies, come on, Ron, you can do better! Clinton's lies about Monica only hurt himself, maybe a little of our national credibility, and Hillary. On the other hand the fact that he turned over our entire patent database, and signed a treaty ensuring they would have updates....to our "friends" the people's republic of China...might prove a little more damaging. And People keep saying the administration lied about WMD's....not sure where they are getting this. Saddam's own advisors were telling him he had them when we invaded, and the border with Syria was surprisingly porous when everything first started. I've also seen long range weapons stored ominously close to railroad cars full of gas masks and CBR kits....some of my friends actually tried bringing some of the stuff home, I think they got to keep the masks, but not any of the chemical injector goodies (those things are NASTY...we have it good with our cool auto injector hit-me-in-the-leg CBR kits) So maybe they didn't have them when we got there, but I would bet a case of your beverage of choice that they were there when the attack order was given.
Anyway, rant concluded. Felt good blowing all that out!
John P.

zaphf

05-12-2006, 04:15 PM

I'm pretty sure the phone company already does this, and your emails? please....if there is even ONE cookie on your computer, someone is tracking you-a

The phone company doesn't have the government's monopoly on violence. Privacy violations from private companies don't have the same weight of consequence as privacy violations from the government.

I for one would sincerely HOPE that if while listening to a known terrorist's phone in Afghanistan (or wherever) an American agent picked up a call to the US...that he wouldn't have to call the US, wake up a judge somewhere for a bench warrant, THEN hope the phone call was not over before he got it....

Everyone agrees that this power is necessary, but there are ways to add oversight without restricting the actual capacity to do the work. It could be designed that a blanket warrant issued for calls coming from an international even to someone domestic. It's just not how the law is written today, and instead of creating a new law that still offered protection, the administration decided to rely on their interpretation of their war powers.

I agree about press leaks. They are purely political and part of the left's constant demonization of the majority. The proper forum would be for the whistleblower to approach someone in congress with the appropriate clearance. There are checks and balances built into the government for this.

Rik

05-12-2006, 04:39 PM

We really need to resurrect the debate over Congressional term limits. I think lots of the problems above self-regulate when there's no such thing as a career Congressman.

-Rich
Well said!

How can our Congressmen and women accurately represent us when they can't even relate to reality as we know it. I would love it if we could get rid of the professional politicians and have regular folks with common sense representing us.

A guy can dream can't he? :biggrin:

zaphf

05-12-2006, 05:14 PM

I think the experiment of direct election of senators has failed. It should be put back into the hands of the state legislature. That system wasn't perfect either, but at least the senate was then beholden to the state's power as an entity instead of a fickle electorate.

The federal government has forgotten that it was the states that created the federal government, not the federal government which created the states.

mark the shoeshine boy

05-12-2006, 08:04 PM

If I offended anyone I am sorry. I was simply offering my opinion. I realize that it is just that, an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own and part of what is great about forums like this is that not everyone has to agree.

Jim,

Most of the time, I just crack jokes and shine shoes around here...I'm not as smart as these other moderators in here....but it is a pleasure for me to be a part of B&B....ever once in awhile, I take a few minutes and ask a question or two...I want to hear everyones opinions.

Today, was a good day in here...and you didn't offend anyone in here, nor did anyone else....the points-counterpoints were well versed and better than what the newspapers have printed.

Boy, I got an ear full with this question, perhaps tomorrows questions, might be a bit more tamer.....

.....how's your Mother ? Wish her Happy Mothers Day for me....

mark the shoeshine boy

guenron

05-12-2006, 08:06 PM

700 Presidential signings. As in executive orders? Or are we talking about the myriad provisions of the PATRIOT act? Seriously, I want to know which we're discussing.

And for the record, how many pattern-analyzed phone calls are enough to protect the U.S.? What fraction less than all of them will make a sufficient safety net? Are you one, Ron, who howled bloody murder that the Bush administration Should Have Known ahead of September 11, and yet, when the administration makes efforts to catch the next perps before they strike, sues to hamstring their efforts? For that matter, is Lincoln likewise excoriable for having suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War?

And in case you're tempted to quote Franklin on "sacrificing liberty to purchase safety," he never said it (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin).

Ah, BushLied(R)(C)TM. How short people's memories are. For what it's worth, the intel agencies of the world were convinced of the existence of WMDs, and Clinton-era policy announcements, Congressional action (all of whom were apprised of the intel beforehand) and the entire UN (who have their own intel sources, thanks) voiced their convictions on the matter before the war kicked off. Or were 17 brazenly flouted UN resolutions not enough?

-Rich
I would suggest that save yourself from your own professed ignorance. If you don't know what a presidential signing paper is, I suggest you find out now. Your rant has nothing to do with them. You have joined the rest of the howling masses that have no insight beyond the talking points passed out by their local pols or the fourth estate that has deserted the people. I guess you can get inspiration from Rush Limbaugh. Isn't he the fat old white dude who would have every poor (black, brown, or white)drug user put away, while he gets to doctor shop? That's the neocon movement all right.
By the way, you mention the Patriot Act? Odd how scoundrels can wrap themselves in the flag. Just like Iraqi Freedom.. We could have just as easily called it Iraqi Invasion, a rose by any other name.
You see, no one hanging in the right lane learned anything from our experiences elsewhere. The former National Security Adviser, now Secy of State, put it very accurately when responding to questions by the Sep 11 Commission. In reference to the daily PDB, "Why did the president not pay attention to the indications and threat analysis?" Quote, "He was tired of swatting at flies."
Give yourself a break and reduce the visceral and try the intellectual. It really is what separates us from the animals.

Joe Lerch

05-12-2006, 08:16 PM

Actually I don't have a problem with that considering what is going on in the world at this time. I believe the info can be helpful, if they can see if certain patterns or certain numbers being called.I wouldn't if it were done right. Quest had the right answer "get a warrant and you can have whatever you want." I'm very troubled by this blatant violation of the constitution. I keep thinking that the one thing our leaders have to pledge in their oath of office is to protect and defend the Constitution!

What would have happened if this was used and utilized prior to 9/11 ??? It was! And besides, the NSA had Arabic messages on 9/10 that said something "tomorrow's the day." It wasn't translated until 9/12.

What do you guys think ???? I think we need to pay more attention to the thing that defines the LIMITED power of the federal government (the Constitution) and how it's being trampled.

Of course in my sick mind...we need to find out the right numbers of the Iraq embassy or North Korean or any other terrorists type orginization.Those two governments are not terrorist organizations. Iraq was free of terrorists until we got there and gave them a cause to rally around.

If a bunch of us would start calling Osama Bin Laden's brother or something like that, wouldn't that screw everyone up at the NSA !!!! They'd probably send us to Guantanimo for a while.

"Sir...there has been a spike in the calls today"
"Who are the calls going to ?"
"Terrorists groups, sir""and they're all armed with lots of sharp implements."

tell me what you think of this... I think we need to vote all the incumbents out of office and start from scratch with some honest and competent people.

Joe Lerch

05-12-2006, 08:26 PM

The problem I have with people who say that there is nothing wrong with this is that most of them do not realize how far this could go. HAS gone!

Americans did not actually have a legal right to privacy until 1965 when the Supreme Court ruled that the bill of rights contained non specific privacy rights. This ruling basically made it legal for people to buy birth control. (Griswold V. Connecticutt). That is quite WRONG. Griswold just dealt with a certain right. The 4th amendment always gave you the right against search and seizure and has always required a warrant isued under due process. That's what interception of a private communication is. The constitution only mentions papers and such specifically, but that's the only kind of communication there was then. This is NOT an issue, and if we allow it to be placed in doubt we're giving away our sacred constitutional rights.

Joe Lerch

05-12-2006, 08:38 PM

Still, I feel the pain that you guys to the south are feeling. There is so much falling off the rails, and so many questions that you people are just not getting answers for, and I really think that, contrary to assertions that you're headed for a Big Brother society, that you are already all suspects in the eyes of your governement.How true! It takes someone distant from the propaganda to see the real picture.

The beginnig of the end was when the Supreme Court appointed the president instead of letting things progress constitutionally. Since then, it's been a downhill slide. Somewhere along the way we forgot that the government is supposed to answer to us, not vice versa. Now there is absolutely no oversight of the executive branch by the legislature, which is essential for a balance of power. The Constitution basically distrusts power (because it corrupts?) and had a system of balances which is now totally gone.

Joe Lerch

05-12-2006, 09:09 PM

Last I checked, freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, etc., etc., were all in force.Rich I don't know where to start. I can't believe we're living in the same country. Or are you buying into all the propganda?

When you say we're at war, I think of the guy who is on trial for killing his parents and pleads for mercy because he's an orphan.

Before Nazism, Germany had a democratic government. At one point there was a fire in the house of parliament, and the next day the president issued a decree dispensing with most civil rights. The rest is history. Fear is the easiest way to destroy democracy. The first attack is on checks and balances. That's gone now. When was the last time the legislature investigated anything the executive has done and is doing? I don't know how old you are, but there has never been a time in my lifetime when that has happened (even during real wars).

The Declaration of I. tells us that the power belongs to the people. In the Constitution they gave certain powers to the federal government. That's ALL it has. Now, it's dictating to all of us. That's not our system.

We will survive if guys like you take off the rose colored glasses and face reality. Your message is rife with party politics, and the working rule is everything is OK if it's done by my party. Somewhere along the way, the party became more important than the Constitution and what's best for the country.

I'm fed up with the way our rights are being trampled through the use of fear. Somehow, the guys in the boondocks are the most fearful. I was 2 miles away when the planes hit the WTC. I could see everything from my office window. I had to go home in fear to NJ from a locked-down city, and I suffered the heartbreak and the stench of the fires for two months. I don't know many people around here who don't have a friend or relative who was a victim of the attack. A close friend of mine lost a son who was not yet out of his 20s.

But I'll tell you what, I won't sacrafice my rights. I'll take the risk to preserve them.

Joe Lerch

05-12-2006, 09:26 PM

I do however have a problem with unelected judges who have taken it upon themselves to create law rather than enforce it. It would appear they feel they are members of our legislative branch rather than the judicial branch.On the Supreme Court, the most "conservative" judges (Rhenquist, Skalia, and Thomas) overruled statutes far more often than the others.[/QUOTE]

It's popular to say that judges make law when they rule in a way you don't like. But the judiciary has always been the last defense for the average man. The courts interpret the law and in doing so, they have to affect the effect of the law. But when they overrule a law, they're substituting their judgments for the legislatures. That's the true creation of law and the realm of the neocon judges.

Yup, you guessed it. I'm as conservative as they come. :smile: Hugo Black was a conservative (and a great one). You are a neocon (read that "reactionary") you don't want to conserve anything. If you support what's going on, you want to go back (probably beyond) a day when robber barons controlled the country and the religious (or other) convictions of the few were imposed on all.

Joe Lerch

05-12-2006, 09:52 PM

I personally have no issues with NSA tracking call patterns, or listening to calls from within the US to known terrorists.Neither do I, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about half the country being monitored. And prosecutors are not hampered by FISA at all. In a pinch they can do what they need to and get a warrant retroactively up to 72 hours LATER.

Also, since when was leaking secret or top secret information potentially harmful to Americans not Treason? Do you mean like the identity of a CIA agent working under cover to discover Iran's WMDs, with an entire facility being compromised and who knows how many foreign contacts being killed?

I am an American, and I think its ridiculous that we can vote for something only to have one judge slap it down...especially if it is not against the constitution....You can vote for something unconstitutional, like requiring black people to sit in the back of the bus. And people did. It's the roll fo the court to overrule unconstitutional laws. Besides, Rhenquist, Skalia and Thomas did it more than all the other judges combined, during their term.

Clinton's lies about Monica only hurt himself, maybe a little of our national credibility, and Hillary. And Bushes lie killed over 2,000 Americans, maimed more than ten times that and killed or maimed ten times that many civilians. Don't tell me about the bad intelligence that everyone had. Bush didn't divulge critical stuff to Congress. And there's ample evidence that what was relied upon eas cooked. And what about the Downing Street memo that divulged that early on Bush was determined to invade Iraq no matter what. What about the fact that he intended to do it long before 9/11?

You, my man, are ignorant. You are obviously getting your information from the likes of Rush Limbaugh. Try reading a newspaper, any newspaper. If you want something conservative, great, just read the news.

Rik

05-12-2006, 10:35 PM

Jim,

Most of the time, I just crack jokes and shine shoes around here...I'm not as smart as these other moderators in here....but it is a pleasure for me to be a part of B&B....ever once in awhile, I take a few minutes and ask a question or two...I want to hear everyones opinions.

Today, was a good day in here...and you didn't offend anyone in here, nor did anyone else....the points-counterpoints were well versed and better than what the newspapers have printed.

Boy, I got an ear full with this question, perhaps tomorrows questions, might be a bit more tamer.....

.....how's your Mother ? Wish her Happy Mothers Day for me....

mark the shoeshine boy
And here I thought you were going to bring up religion - or are you saving that one for Sunday. :biggrin:

zaphf

05-12-2006, 10:43 PM

And Bushes lie killed over 2,000 Americans, maimed more than ten times that and killed or maimed ten times that many civilians. Don't tell me about the bad intelligence that everyone had. Bush didn't divulge critical stuff to Congress. And there's ample evidence that what was relied upon eas cooked. And what about the Downing Street memo that divulged that early on Bush was determined to invade Iraq no matter what. What about the fact that he intended to do it long before 9/11?

It's the nature of, well, everything to put your best case forward. There was evidence pointing to wmd, yes, it was overplayed. I do not doubt that Bush believed that WMD would be found. Those 2,400+ lives weren't wasted even without WMD in Iraq. No matter how much the media and the left are wishing it weren't so, Iraq isn't a failure. There is every indication that the population has become involved to stabilize the country, which is exactly what needed to happen.

“When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle” -- Louis Veuillot

Jihadism is a threat to western civilization. Unless you want your descendants living under Sharia law you better hope that the moderate Muslim view takes ascendancy because all westernized populations are decreasing due to low birth rates. Unfortunately, moderates don't have a voice in non-democratic power structures. Islam and all Middle Eastern countries EXCEPT Iraq and Isreal are non-democratic.

Too many people equate that opposition to the use of force is somehow noble instead of the gutless renunciation of their will to oppose organized evil.

joel

05-13-2006, 12:40 AM

Hey fellas - while this is the barber shop, and it is a place to shoot the breeze, we still have to remember - this is a place for fun!

mark the shoeshine boy

05-13-2006, 04:51 AM

Hey Fellas,

You sure have helped me understanding this subject. I appreciate all of your views. Be careful not to step on someone's toes by calling them names and maybe getting someone upset.

We might have a lady come in or something.

mark the shoeshine boy

mark the shoeshine boy

05-13-2006, 05:04 AM

http://badgerandblade.com/gallery/displayimage.php?imageid=2422

Scotto

05-13-2006, 06:37 AM

I think this thread has run its course. Some good, thoughtful commentary was posted on both sides. Obviously, no one is going to change their views based on this, so let's keep it civil, or preferably move on.

OK, W's shave: good or bad? :001_rolle

Austin

05-13-2006, 06:57 AM

I think Tina shaves her mustache well. :biggrin:

KUJO

05-13-2006, 09:37 AM

Tina somehow got one hell of a good shine on those shoes...

zaphf

05-13-2006, 09:55 AM

Hey fellas - while this is the barber shop, and it is a place to shoot the breeze, we still have to remember - this is a place for fun!

Debate is fun!

Joe Lerch

05-13-2006, 10:01 AM

No matter how much the media and the left are wishing it weren't so, Iraq isn't a failure. There is every indication that the population has become involved to stabilize the country, which is exactly what needed to happen. This sounds like a direct quote from Rush. Do you ever read ot listen to a news source? They can't even get together on a government in Iraq. If you disagree, tell me who's the president of Iraq. Actually, every indication is that they're in the early stages of a civil war. Your news sources won't tell you that until they're shooting at each other in the street. Do you remember the Iraqi news honcho who was standing on the roof denying everything as you could see the American tanks in the background?

Jihadism is a threat to western civilization. Unless you want your descendants living under Sharia law you better hope that the moderate Muslim view takes ascendancy because all westernized populations are decreasing due to low birth rates. Unfortunately, moderates don't have a voice in non-democratic power structures. Islam and all Middle Eastern countries EXCEPT Iraq and Isreal are non-democratic.And we're helping them grow by giving them a cause and rallying point, with more moderate Moslems agreeing with them every day. They're being joined by more insurgents, who are not jihadists, every day. The make up the people we're figthing has changed remarkably during the war. And let's not get too caught up on the Moslem aspect. Our most extreme right wing Christians have an approach that's not so different from the philosophy of the Taliban. Given their way, every American would need to abide by their religious and moral beliefs.

Too many people equate that opposition to the use of force is somehow noble instead of the gutless renunciation of their will to oppose organized evil.I was not opposed to the use of force when it seemed necesary. Starting wars is not brave (think of all the conquerors in history). Starting them for the reasons we did and carrying it on the way we did is brainless. When you put the whole picture together, it was a concealed grab at controlling Middle East oil. Everything else, including the WMD was an excuse. It breaks my heart that our brave soldiers are in the middle of this. They deserve better.

joel

05-13-2006, 10:49 AM

http://badgerandblade.com/gallery/displayimage.php?imageid=2422

Ok - well if everyone is gonna start debating, then it's time to get serious....... Mark.... I gotta say it.... I think she looks a little funny. Don't get me wrong, she isn't ugly... but she just doesn't do it for me. Looks like they went a little overboard on the collagen implants in her lips. :tongue:

zaphf

05-13-2006, 11:25 AM

This sounds like a direct quote from Rush. Do you ever read ot listen to a news source? They can't even get together on a government in Iraq. If you disagree, tell me who's the president of Iraq. Actually, every indication is that they're in the early stages of a civil war. Your news sources won't tell you that until they're shooting at each other in the street. Do you remember the Iraqi news honcho who was standing on the roof denying everything as you could see the American tanks in the background?

I haven't ever listened to Rush. Most of the news I get out of Iraq is from Iraq bloggers. I think the problem is you read too much of what passes for news in this country. The constant flood of one sided views gets to the best of us.

Jalal Talabani is the President of Iraq, but most of the power actually rests with the PM, and, most of the hard issues in the government were deciding who was to be PM. Give them time.

AQ is on the run in Iraq. The insurgency has lost control of all real estate. The population is informing on insurgents and terrorist cells. Power groups are calling for a stop to the violence. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20060510-0946-iraq-peacemeeting.html)

You don't win arguments by assuming the other person is stupid.

And we're helping them grow by giving them a cause and rallying point, with more moderate Moslems agreeing with them every day. They're being joined by more insurgents, who are not jihadists, every day. The make up the people we're figthing has changed remarkably during the war.

That is a straw man argument and completely false. Appeasment didn't keep 3000 from dying on 9/11. How many terrorist attacks on America or American Embassies (Other than in Iraq) since we invaded Afganistan and Iraq again?

And let's not get too caught up on the Moslem aspect. Our most extreme right wing Christians have an approach that's not so different from the philosophy of the Taliban. Given their way, every American would need to abide by their religious and moral beliefs.

Equating those two groups is mad. Jihadis want nothing less than the elimination of all Infidels and to bring the whole world under Sharia law. Christians want to impose their moral beliefs. Killing all non-believers vs making abortion illegal. Come on.

I was not opposed to the use of force when it seemed necesary. Starting wars is not brave (think of all the conquerors in history). Starting them for the reasons we did and carrying it on the way we did is brainless. When you put the whole picture together, it was a concealed grab at controlling Middle East oil. Everything else, including the WMD was an excuse. It breaks my heart that our brave soldiers are in the middle of this. They deserve better.

The only thing oil had to do with any of this is that it made Sadam a threat. Americans have not been conquerors for a long time, not since WWI marked the end of empire. Name one other nation in the history of history that has had this much superiority of arms that hasn't used it to try to take over the world. If that weren't true Mexico and Canada would be building up arms to defend against the American hoard.

JohnP

05-13-2006, 12:14 PM

Neither do I, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about half the country being monitored. And prosecutors are not hampered by FISA at all. In a pinch they can do what they need to and get a warrant retroactively up to 72 hours LATER.
Joe, somehow I do not believe this is as simple as you make it sound. For one thing, the phones being listened to, as I understand, are mobile phones in the middle east/Afghanistan, etc. And if they happen to call a phone in the US, it isn't like we are going to just go turn off the equipment until it is done. No one is listening to your calls Joe. Furthermore, just because the mobile phone called is in the U.S. does not mean we know WHO it is, nor if the individual is a U.S. citizen. Your sordid telephone life simply is not that important to NSA, and neither is mine, unless Osama starts making us personal calls. Hate to break it to you.

Do you mean like the identity of a CIA agent working under cover to discover Iran's WMDs, with an entire facility being compromised and who knows how many foreign contacts being killed?
Joe, I take that story with an extreme grain of salt. If the story is as you describe, to out the agent? SURE, that is still treason. Treason knows no party affiliation. If you are speaking of the same supposed deep cover agent I think you are, however, I believe giving publicity to her husband's book deal (and perhaps now, her own) is more the goal, and she never was NOC or "black" operative. I just do not buy her story. If you are worried about your identity, you had better keep it secret yourself, before accusing someone else of telling on you at a later date.

You can vote for something unconstitutional, like requiring black people to sit in the back of the bus. And people did. It's the roll fo the court to overrule unconstitutional laws. Besides, Rhenquist, Skalia and Thomas did it more than all the other judges combined, during their term.
Joe, re-read my post. I never said anything about unconstitutional laws. I do not appreciate the implication it seems you just made, either. You have known me long enough to know those aren't the laws I was referring to. And yet there is a growing culture here that if you do not like something, go judge-shopping, and you will eventually find one who agrees with you, and to heck with what the law or the voters actually said.

And Bushes lie killed over 2,000 Americans, maimed more than ten times that and killed or maimed ten times that many civilians. Don't tell me about the bad intelligence that everyone had. Bush didn't divulge critical stuff to Congress. And there's ample evidence that what was relied upon eas cooked. And what about the Downing Street memo that divulged that early on Bush was determined to invade Iraq no matter what. What about the fact that he intended to do it long before 9/11?
Joe, have you seen this "Downing Street memo"? Awfully convenient, I think, that supposedly damning evidence is a FOREIGN document, and therefore nearly impossible for us to TRULY authenticate. Joe, I can type a memo on Government letterhead, signed by the senior official of your choice, implicating you in the JFK Assassination. I could probably even get Dan Rather to proclaim it to be genuine. Doesn't mean it is true. Even assuming it is genuine, just because you want to beat up the drug dealer down on the corner for selling drugs doesn't mean that when you go after him the next time he does it you did not have provocation (Saddam had YEARS to comply but did not) furthermore if when the drug dealer sees you coming he throws his "supply" into the bushes, doesn't mean he never had them. Yet that is what everyone is trying to imply about Bush or his policy. Also I think it is interesting that many of the same people claiming Bush lied, well before we went to war, those same people were telling the same lie. Pots should not call kettles black. Furthermore, I still believe Iraq had/has WMD's. They had more than ample warning to send them across the porous border into Syria or even hide them within Iraq. A nuclear weapon, if you do not count the launch vehicle, is small. Frighteningly small. Easily transportable by truck. Chemical weapons are even smaller, and have almost no "signature" so far as I know, for detecting them unless they have been actually used. Biological weapons can be even smaller, and methods of deployment extremely varied. My personal opinion, is that the WMD's which are now unaccounted for are potentially in the hands of operatives who could (possibly) use them. I sincerely hope this is not true, but if Saddam's top people were telling HIM he had WMD's when we invaded, they at least had to have had SOMETHING that convinced him they were not lying. People simply disappeared too often in Iraq in those days, to try to "bluff" Saddam.

You, my man, are ignorant. You are obviously getting your information from the likes of Rush Limbaugh. Try reading a newspaper, any newspaper. If you want something conservative, great, just read the news.
Joe, again, the blatant insults. Go have a beer. Calm yourself. As I understand, you are an educated man, even an attorney. As such, please act like one. We all know we are going to disagree on some points. You seem to like bringing up Rush Limbaugh or whoever, and if that makes you feel comfortable, that is fine. Consider this, however, that without actually going and seeing for ourselves, we are at the mercy of whatever our favorite network, FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, whoever, feels like spoon-feeding to us. These companies are businesses, not government agencies, and can spin news however they please. As far as the long range launch vehicles, I have not seen these mentioned on the networks, so I don't know if it is hush hush or something, beats me. Joe I am an Iraq war veteran, and saw these launch vehicles with my own eyes, as well as the nearby (less than 50 yd) shed full of CBR equipment-masks, atropine, injector kits, cannisters. Now perhaps these long range weapons just happened to be next to the masks by coincidence, and perhaps there never were any WMD warheads for these launch vehicles, but in my estimation, one does not wear a condom unless he plans to use it. I did not get the warm and fuzzies, if you will. I know there is at least one or two other Iraq veterans on here who could probably back me up. But in this forum it is not so important, the big thing, Joe, is that you need to grow up and learn tact. You can disagree with me, and if you give me genuine proof of your beliefs, I may not like it but I will at least respect your point of view a little more. Calling someone ignorant, or making fun of what you perceive to be their sources of information (because, OBVIOUSLY, the talking head spoon-feeding you YOUR information knows best!-my mommy is smarter than your mommy) isn't going to win anyone over. Perhaps Bush did lie aboutsome things, but I don't think it was about Iraq at all. That IMHO will in the long run become one of America's better accomplishments, even if the light at the end of the tunnel is hard to see right now. I am disappointed about his policies concerning the border, far more than I am his policy in Iraq.

John P.

Rik

05-13-2006, 12:44 PM

I don't know where to start. I can't believe we're living in the same country. Or are you buying into all the propganda?

We will survive if guys like you take off the rose colored glasses and face reality.

You are a neocon (read that "reactionary") you don't want to conserve anything.

You, my man, are ignorant.

Try reading a newspaper, any newspaper.

This sounds like a direct quote from Rush. Do you ever read ot listen to a news source?
.
.

Austin

05-13-2006, 12:47 PM

I love that bunny! :w00t:

Rik

05-13-2006, 12:48 PM

I love that bunny! :w00t:
I crack up everytime I see it!

Kyle

05-13-2006, 01:02 PM

JMT

05-13-2006, 01:15 PM

Jim,

.....how's your Mother ? Wish her Happy Mothers Day for me....

mark the shoeshine boy

She's doing fine Mark, thanks for asking. She's really looking forward to brunch tomorrow. Please pass mother's day greetings on to your mom from me.

Rik

05-13-2006, 01:38 PM

That bunny is definitely in the top 10 of most valued/enjoyed things that I've seen/read on this board. The first time it appeared, I was literally in tears. If we could get the same concept and sub the bunny for a badger, I would nominate it to be our mascot.
Anyone willing to get close enough to a badger and balance a pancake on its head should get a lifetime membership. :biggrin:

ouch

05-13-2006, 01:44 PM

Just an afterthought, when Clinton lied, nobody died.

Julius Caesar- I came, I saw, I conquered.
Bill Clinton- I saw, I conquered, I came.

I know, I know...:frown2:

JohnP

05-13-2006, 05:16 PM

That bunny is hilarious!
John P.

Rik

05-13-2006, 05:25 PM

That bunny is hilarious!
John P.
You can thank Joel F. for that one. He sprung it on us mods a little while ago - I about died. :biggrin:

Joe Lerch

05-13-2006, 07:55 PM

[QUOTE]I haven't ever listened to Rush. Most of the news I get out of Iraq is from Iraq bloggers. I think the problem is you read too much of what passes for news in this country. The constant flood of one sided views gets to the best of us. And what makes you trust bloggers so much? They have no commitment to journalistic standards, and tend to be loaded with inaccuracies and opinnion. The site you gave was to an AP report, which is what they all use. Although I certainly agree about broadcst media, I'll stick by the established news sources; the NY Times, Wall St Jour, Wash Post. You may not like their politics, but the news is reported well, and there's a separation between news reporting and opinion. Just read the news. I also like the BBC. There's a lot of news there that gets filtered on our media.

Jalal Talabani is the President of Iraq, but most of the power actually rests with the PM, and, most of the hard issues in the government were deciding who was to be PM. Give them time.

AQ is on the run in Iraq. The insurgency has lost control of all real estate. The population is informing on insurgents and terrorist cells. Power groups are calling for a stop to the violence.

You don't win arguments by assuming the other person is stupid.I didn't say you were stupid, just questioned how well informed you were and how you bought into a lot of propaganda.

The kinds of things you mention have been going on all along, without anything happening. This very late "show" is very little, very late. Before you get too carried away with this, look at what's happening in Afghanistan (where we won!) the government is holding on by a thread and Taliban is coming back into power. AQ doesn't control the insurrgency; it just stirs it up and is promoting the violence between the different groups. But the insurgency has not rejected or thrown out AQ.

Our forefathers were insurgents too. Just ask the Brits and their colonial supporters.

That is a straw man argument and completely false. Appeasment didn't keep 3000 from dying on 9/11. How many terrorist attacks on America or American Embassies (Other than in Iraq) since we invaded Afganistan and Iraq again? There's no argument. I was reporting fact. The military readily admits that the insurgency has grown and all sorts of information about increased numbers of foreign fighters. We're providing all sorts of great training under fire. AQ is busy with closer targets, but they hit when they want. What I can't believe is that you actually think this proven incompetent government actually had something to do with it.

Equating those two groups is mad. Jihadis want nothing less than the elimination of all Infidels and to bring the whole world under Sharia law. Christians want to impose their moral beliefs. Killing all non-believers vs making abortion illegal. Come on.I didn't equate those two groups. I equated the philosophical approach of the extreme Moslems, with that of the extreme right wing Christians. I would agree with your comparison.

But all religious extremists share a governing approach that invades the individual's privacy. Religious issues are private and, at least under our system until recently, they were not imposed by the government. The Taliban imposed moral and religious requirements on all. If we let our 'taliban" have their way, the government would be Christian and tolerate everyone else. We not only have freedom of religion, but also freedom from having it imposed (freedom from religion). Their goal is to make religion the law, not just on questions of abortion, but on the right to die and birth control, both of which are well established. That's not how our Constitution works, but then who's paying attention to that now?

The only thing oil had to do with any of this is that it made Sadam a threat. Americans have not been conquerors for a long time, not since WWI marked the end of empire. Name one other nation in the history of history that has had this much superiority of arms that hasn't used it to try to take over the world. If that weren't true Mexico and Canada would be building up arms to defend against the American hoard.Not quite! The invasion of Iraq was on the table since the first meeting of the cabinet. Out VP met with the oil execs early on and won't tell us what happened. As the Downing St memo states, Bush was determined to attack Iraq regardless of the facts. That was the plan and WMD was a pretense. You right about the US, we have great philosophy and our people would never tolerate outright aggresion. But that philosophy is eroding with the exective becoming supreme. Iraq is just an example of how it could be. The administrations ties to oil can't be refuted, and now the oil companies are making the greatest profits in history, While New Orleans rots away and our cost of gasoline has doubled in just the last year. Cooincidence?

Joe Lerch

05-15-2006, 07:34 AM

Debate is fun!Joel, I agree. This kind of debate sometimes gets a little heated, but we're big boys and we're civil. I haven't seen any name calling or personal attacks on individuals. We're not about to flame. I guarantee you this is what's going on in real barber shops (besides the usual stuff).

The one thing that concerns me is that I haven't been getting notifications on this thread, and that when I know to come here and look. There's been a whole lot of activity I've missed.

JohnP

05-15-2006, 10:45 AM

Joel, I agree. This kind of debate sometimes gets a little heated, but we're big boys and we're civil. I haven't seen any name calling or personal attacks on individuals. We're not about to flame. I guarantee you this is what's going on in real barber shops (besides the usual stuff).

The one thing that concerns me is that I haven't been getting notifications on this thread, and that when I know to come here and look. There's been a whole lot of activity I've missed.
OK, I admit it you guys are right.....
this stuff IS fun.
John P.

guenron

05-15-2006, 12:40 PM

Read this (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html), then talk to me about Freedom of the Press.

guenron

05-15-2006, 12:41 PM

Ok - well if everyone is gonna start debating, then it's time to get serious....... Mark.... I gotta say it.... I think she looks a little funny. Don't get me wrong, she isn't ugly... but she just doesn't do it for me. Looks like they went a little overboard on the collagen implants in her lips. :tongue:
Mmmm... You sure you are not looking at BO TOX?:001_rolle

zaphf

05-15-2006, 01:16 PM

Read this (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html), then talk to me about Freedom of the Press.

I think I've made my point on the whole NSA thing pretty clear, but I do have to chime in that Freedom of the Press doesn't include freedom from prosecution for violating national security. Particularly since the government is probably aiming for the source, not them. The press has never had immunity from the court orders to reveal their sources.

Sinatra

05-15-2006, 01:47 PM

This is my first post, my name is Pat and I am seventeen years old. I reside in the northeast, upstate New York to be excact, yes that elitist region that is the ire for much of country.

First off let me say that my political opinions are not left leaning in the least, but I have a passion for the law and have actully considered a career in the law. What I find Mr. Bush is doing is trampling on the law and thumbing it in our faces.

I personally could careless if the FBI, CIA, NSA or any law enforcement agency is listening to peoples' telephone calls, with a warrent of course. While the President is listening to telephone calls without a warrent he is simply disregarding the Constitution. I can only hope that Democrats will win the upcoming congressional elections by enough of a majority so that it will enable them to end this madness once and for all. I also hope that there will be future inquires into the Bush administrations activities domestically and abroad. Hopefully we can end this whole mess before the United States becomes anymore of an international embarassment; afterall we are a nation touting liberty, and we are attempting to undue three-hundred years of constant progression in the quest for freedom with a few pen strokes. Shame. History will look at this current period of American history as one of shame, much like the interment of the Japanese Americans (recently on the Rush Limbaugh show the man filling in for Rush claimed that Roosevelt herded the Japanese into interment camps due the discovery of subversion; to this day historians have never found a single case of Japanese subversion).

Pat

Austin

05-15-2006, 02:30 PM

Hi Pat, welcome to B&B. Nice to see you here.

mark the shoeshine boy

05-15-2006, 02:50 PM

pat,

welcome aboard....what a thread for you to jump into...but everyone has to come to the barbershop !!!!

On Japenese subversion...while it may not have happened in the States. There was some in Hawaii. According to the History channel, there was a Japanese dentist that laid out the harbor for the imperial army. I don't recall who else was involved, at this time...however this scared everyone.

Probably an overreaction, to say the least. Sentiments were also very strong for the German communties, too. However they were never hoarded into camps....around st louis many germans were treated poorly to say the least...

guess where a bunch of those old germans worked ??? anheuser busch !!! making beer....don't screw with my beer !!!!

is it beer thirty yet ???

mark tssb

guenron

05-15-2006, 06:31 PM

I think I've made my point on the whole NSA thing pretty clear, but I do have to chime in that Freedom of the Press doesn't include freedom from prosecution for violating national security. Particularly since the government is probably aiming for the source, not them. The press has never had immunity from the court orders to reveal their sources.
Great insight, court orders. We were a land of laws and due process not personalities and lies. G_D help us if we develop a cult of shrub.

JRT

05-15-2006, 07:01 PM

This Thread made me think of the following three:

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), Inaugural Address, January 20, 1953

JRT

zaphf

05-15-2006, 08:48 PM

Great insight, court orders. We were a land of laws and due process not personalities and lies. G_D help us if we develop a cult of shrub.

Who says they don't have any? If they are persuing legal action they almost certainly need them. If they are relying on data given by private companies (ie, phone companies) when they asked them for it, they wouldn't need court orders. It may taint the evidence if they don't get them however.

So far, we just know what a newsman says an "anonymous" source told him/her. In any event, there's been another leak to cover up another leak. If you want to find real evil in government, look to the bureaucracies. They're giving our enemies information useful for political gain.

Political appointees.

guenron

05-16-2006, 06:04 AM

Who says they don't have any? If they are persuing legal action they almost certainly need them. If they are relying on data given by private companies (ie, phone companies) when they asked them for it, they wouldn't need court orders. It may taint the evidence if they don't get them however.

So far, we just know what a newsman says an "anonymous" source told him/her. In any event, there's been another leak to cover up another leak. If you want to find real evil in government, look to the bureaucracies. They're giving our enemies information useful for political gain.

Political appointees.
Despite your healthy skepticism, the article was balanced and objective. In this mornings news we are now seeing Southern Bell scurrying for plausable deniability. Perhaps you need to turn that same skepticism towards those demigods in Washington that you seem to trust without question?

slcsteve

05-16-2006, 06:48 AM

Perhaps some of us should review the characteristics of facism. Can't happen here............right!

zaphf

05-16-2006, 07:44 AM

Despite your healthy skepticism, the article was balanced and objective. In this mornings news we are now seeing Southern Bell scurrying for plausable deniability. Perhaps you need to turn that same skepticism towards those demigods in Washington that you seem to trust without question?

That's an unfair (and untrue) assumption. I didn't make any judgements on either party in this case, because the only evidence provided was hearsay. My comments were on the legal questions in this case, tempered by the fact that there are national security leaks apparently happening. And have no doubt, telling your enemy how you are looking to catch them helps them immensely.

I also have expounded clearly on the fact that I think the entire NSA program is dangerous and should be regulated. I think the "demigods in Washington" clearly have overstepped their authority and are risking our liberties with both this, and their wiretapping exploits. I can think all of those things and still call for the arrest of leakers and the investigation of the newspaper. Someone is risking the security of our country to damage their politcal opponents, which is completely unacceptable.

I don't let my dislikes of a person or a party color my view of any given issue. I learn what I can of an issue and judge it based upon my morality. Sometimes I'll post about it to give someone something to think about (and to help me as well, as writing focus' thought). If you actually knew me, instead of just assuming you do, you would know that there is VERY little I agree about with our current government. Unfortunatly, the only valid alternative is worse. (If you think the left want to protect your freedoms you have a very short memory)

zaphf

05-16-2006, 07:50 AM

Perhaps some of us should review the characteristics of facism. Can't happen here............right!

It is happening here, just not from the people you think, and always for the best of reasons! (Which is how facism always catches hold). There are many subjects now that are taboo to speak against. People are being ruined and driven out for voicing opinions.

Joe Lerch

05-16-2006, 10:56 PM

I think the entire NSA program is dangerous and should be regulated. I think the "demigods in Washington" clearly have overstepped their authority and are risking our liberties with both this, and their wiretapping exploits. I can think all of those things and still call for the arrest of leakers and the investigation of the newspaper. Someone is risking the security of our country to damage their politcal opponents, which is completely unacceptable.So, we have a point of agreement after all. I think the difference between us is that I'm not limiting myself to NSA. It's not unique. It's part of an overall picture that's very troubling. One where the checks and balances built into the system are disappearing and the executive is taking great liberties.

One example is that the Congress has totally neglected its duty of oversight. They do have the power and responsibility to investigate questionable actions by the executive branch. Every time something comes up, we hear a lot of talk about investigations and after some time they're just dropped.

The refusal to challenge the executive is that we're at war, but that's just BS. We've been at war before, and my memory (and Ron's) goes back clearly to the Viet Nam era and before. When we were in a hot, shooting war, the democrats never hesitated to challenged Johnson on Viet Nam. Later, the republicans never hesitated to challenge Nixon. I have to say that our poiticians today are a disgusting lot. Party loyalty (both parties) has become more important than the welfare of the country. I will not accept the war as an excuse for dereliction of duty.

There's no excuse for taking any action that violates the Constitution, except under the most dire circumstances, which I'm yet to see. The President's oath doesn't require him to protect the economy or our borders, etc. But it does require him to protect and defend the Constitution. I'm not seriously suggesting that he shouldn't do those things. But I think the oath focuses our attention on how important the Constitution is supposed to be. Those demigods pay lip service to it and violate it every day.

There was a time when "conservative" meant something besides a political (religiously based) ideology. It did mean conserving something, limiting government and spending, and most of all the Constitution and state's rights. A conservative was a strict constructionist. When Hugo Black read the Constitution he gave the words the most absolute meaning possible. Neo-cons are an embarrassment to conservativism. The current government doesn't know what it means. When it suits their political or selfish goals, they forget everything. Promoting religious goals is OK, states rights are forgotten, and we spy on reporters. Spending is out of control, while we give huge tax refunds to the richest of us to wreck the economy and mortgage us to China.

I don't let my dislikes of a person or a party color my view of any given issue.For me it's not persnal or political. I hate them all. I'm so disgusted, I'd be happy to sponsor a bill that bars all members of political parties from running for office. It's really strange when these conservative views start sounding liberal because of a twisted politicism that turns everything upside down and secretly violates acred rights to control the people. I'm thinking of the book "1984." When I read it in high school it was way into the future. Now it's pretty long ago, but I see it happening here. It used to be said "It can't happen here."

Joe Lerch

05-16-2006, 11:19 PM

It is happening here, just not from the people you think, and always for the best of reasons! (Which is how facism always catches hold). There are many subjects now that are taboo to speak against. People are being ruined and driven out for voicing opinions.So, again we agree. But you don't seem to be associating it with the current government. It certainly is moving towards dictatorial control. The excuses are the same as they were in pre-Nazi Germany: "we need to protect you from the enemy." And then there's the concentration of economic control in a small group of companies. Not only is the country being managed for the benefit of the biggest companies (for example, the oil companies, at the expense of all of us), but we even had the recent bankruptcy laws written by an association of credit and financial institutions.

It's a troubling trend that needs to be reversed. Under our system, the people hold the power and we give some of it to the federal government for our benefit. The government is supposed to answer to us, nor vice-versa.

slcsteve

05-17-2006, 08:04 AM

I thought that this editorial written by one who, most probably, is more qualified to address Constitutional law than most on this forum would provide a bit more food for thought.

http://tinyurl.com/hremm

Joe Lerch

05-17-2006, 08:54 AM

Thanks Steve. That article says it all. I would think that it's something that we all could agree on, certainly, judges of all political persuasions did.

Yet, things have gone so far that everything has a political spin. THe best way to adress issues has become to attack all bad news and throw up a smoke cloud, instead of answering questions. There are still important issues in Congress 9/11 inquiries that were delayed for the election and have now quietly been dropped.

When a person breaks important news, the first thing that happens is that they get attacked, and the news often gets buried in fabricated controversies. Everything is spin andWe overburden the publics attention span, and it quietly creeps by. We're more worried about prosecuting "leakers" than gross violations of the Constitution. After all, they tell the enemy how we do things! But you know what, the government is closer to us and is a much greater threat than the "enemy."

When I raised these NSA infractions recently with a friend, he said "what do you have to hide?" My answer is nothing, but we all have everything to lose, and our children will be the victims.

guenron

05-17-2006, 09:01 AM

I thought that this editorial written by one who, most probably, is more qualified to address Constitutional law than most one this forum would provide a bit more food for thought.

http://tinyurl.com/hremm
Steve,
Certrainly enjoyed his last paragraph..

Riffdiver

05-17-2006, 09:33 AM

Very Interesting topic you started here. What does it have to do with shaving?
But I'm not complaining. I'm VERY interested in what relatively young generation thinks about freedom and constitution.

Ron, you are complaining that no article of constitution has not been violated by current administration. You are very naive, if you think that Clinton admin did not do the same. By the way, they (Clinton admin) dod a lot more then just violate, you/we just did not know about it.
Ron, how far would you go to prevent 9/11? How far would you go, not to let it happen again??????

This country, MY COUNTRY, has one thing noone else have - FREEDOM. That is not just the word, not to one like me. There are HORDS of people who would/do use that freedom to harm THIS COUNTRY.

If Uncle Sam can catch bad guys by listening to my phone conversations, let him do that. I'm shure, he gets a kick out of the fact that the guys marvel and pissing in these pants by holding a shaving brush and discussing the cream wipping technicks.

When it gets down to nitty/gritty( not if, when) how far would you go to stand up???

Riffdiver

05-17-2006, 09:48 AM

slcsteve

05-17-2006, 09:50 AM

zaphf

05-17-2006, 10:14 AM

It's a troubling trend that needs to be reversed. Under our system, the people hold the power and we give some of it to the federal government for our benefit. The government is supposed to answer to us, nor vice-versa.

It's the fault of a single party dominating two branches of government. Governments (and any organization made of people really) always seek power. It's not even necessarily a conscious thing. I'm really not worried about the government becoming a dictatorship at this point in history however, even if they actively want that. The country is so evenly split between our "two parties" with so much hate between them that it's just unlikely. Democracy falls in a hail of cheers, not curses. The most dangerous power grabs by the government have enjoyed bi-partisan support. Campaign finance reform and Hate-Speech laws.

What concerns me is a cultural fascism (and that's not really the correct word) that has basically turned Western Civilization away from reason. Political Correctness (and even now, scientific correctness) Certain topics are complete taboo, and those topics are diverse. Question border security and you get accused of hating Mexicans. The facts become irrelevant as the person not toeing the party line gets demonized and the argument never takes place over the cries to burn the person at the stake. That's not me being dramatic either, there are MANY examples of this happening. Quote the wrong statistics and you become a hate monger. Point out that someone's pet theory may be incorrect and you are a paid shill for someone. Defend someone the Illuminati has condemned and you risk the wrath of the horde. The facts are irrelevant, because you are evil.

Politics doesn't even enter into this. Both sides of the line are guilty. The goals of PC are laudable. At the start of the movement, great things that NEEDED to be achieved were. But the pioneers of social change that PC brought on, I think, would be horrified at the animal that now roams western civilization. Noone has a thick skin anymore.

Riffdiver

05-17-2006, 11:24 AM

Riff

Did you read the editorial? No one is saying that the Clinton administration has clean hands but the blatant excesses of this administration far exceeds anything seen in our past, even the Nixon years. If you care to be so cavalier about your personal freedoms.......that's your choice. As for "standing up", I served with the 82nd airborne and was a helicoptor pilot "standing up" in 1967. That was long before I knew any better than to trust our govenment when they tell us that it's all for our protection.

Steve,
Again, I/you/we do not know all the facts, and how extensive were violationsof other administrations. Nixon got caught, that is how we know that he did what he did. As to be a cavalier, maybe, just maybe, at the time of war,this will help a little bit.

I envy your piloting skils. I did not fly a helicopter. My boots were on the ground.1979.Afgan.

Riffdiver

05-17-2006, 12:09 PM

Steve,
I felt that you have some misstrust in our government. I'm sorry, but the government is the one we elect, isn't it? If we do not trust the people we elect, where are we going? Courts, Judicial system became corrupt. Scandals are popping up like mashrooms aftre the rain.
United States was created as a country of law and personal freedoms. But when others are using our laws and freedoms to harm us, what do we do?
9/11 highjeckers communicated via internet from public libraries.

Everyone can vent steam. What do you suggest we do? It can not continue as is.

Just a thought.

Anthony.

Joe Lerch

05-17-2006, 08:32 PM

Reread Joe Lerch posts.

Joe, I can only suggest, to read and research on the topic. You have a lot to learn about Islam, Islamism and Jihadism. In 1979 Afgan war (Russia) did not start out of the blue. Had disastrous affect not only on Russia ( and soldiers), but for the entire region, with echo's reverberating over the world.

Jihadism assumed they have a power over a super power. Islamism took that as a guiding line. Things are not what they seam.I don't know what this refers to. I had nothing to say about Jihadism or Islam. I just drew a parallel between all religious extremists in terms of their philosophical and political approach.

As far as Islam goes, I think I know a little. I've studied a little Koran and I've had many discussions with a friend who has studied it in detail. i think we are being a little misled when we are told it is a religion of peace. Traditionally. it's not, and there is not much of a reform movement. In other words, any Moslem can feel comfortable with the gneral approach of virtually any sect. The extremists go beyond that, but they follow the same dogma. The tradition of the religion is to spead the faith by the sword. Christianity, on he other hand is the most humane modern religion. It is therefore interesting that extreme Christians would be politically so similar ("our way is the only way and that's how it will be"). As long as extreme Christians influence our goverment, I don't think we'll ever reach any solution with extreme Islam. It can't happen when two extremists with a similar approach are staring across the table at each other.

JohnP

05-17-2006, 08:52 PM

I don't know what this refers to. I had nothing to say about Jihadism or Islam. I just drew a parallel between all religious extremists in terms of their philosophical and political approach.

As far as Islam goes, I think I know a little. I've studied a little Koran and I've had many discussions with a friend who has studied it in detail. i think we are being a little misled when we are told it is a religion of peace. Traditionally. it's not, and there is not much of a reform movement. In other words, any Moslem can feel comfortable with the gneral approach of virtually any sect. The extremists go beyond that, but they follow the same dogma. The tradition of the religion is to spead the faith by the sword. Christianity, on he other hand is the most humane modern religion.......
Who would have thought. At least on this point, Joe, I completely agree with you. One of the things I did to pass the time while I was in Iraq, was to read the Koran. One of those "know your enemy" sortof things. I did not finish it, and it was, obviously, a translation, as I do not speak Arabic, but there are not a lot of words I saw that implied anything at all about being a religion of peace. Lots of talk about the sand running red with the blood of the infidel and the Jew.... Think more "Old testament" style "put them all to the sword, let not one stone lie upon another, slay them with their children and their beasts" kindof stuff, and not so much "New Testament" style "Love thy neighbor as thyself".
Perhaps it is more forgiving when read in the original tongue, but perhaps I just didn't get to that part? I finished perhaps 60% of it before I surrendered to more entertaining reading-got hooked into the Robert Jordan "Wheel of Time" series...(when not dodging mortar fire or experimenting with what exactly IS the best way to cook a plastic tinned T-ration over a fire....)
John P.

Joe Lerch

05-17-2006, 08:59 PM

[QUOTE]It's the fault of a single party dominating two branches of government. Now they're on the verge of dominating all three. Our founding fathers wisely knew that power corrupts and built checks and balances into the system. With those disappearing, we're heade into dangerous territory. The courts have always been the last line of defense for the average man. What concerns me is not the issues everyone is screaming about, but the basic fact that the courts are being populated with pro-business judges, and the traditional protection is disappearing.

What concerns me is a cultural fascism that has basically turned Western Civilization away from reason. Political Correctness It drives me crazy too, and sometimes I make a point of intentionally not going along. This is nothing new. Liberalism is not free of intolerance. When I was in college, demonstarations were rampant and rabid liberals abounded. There was no reasoning with them. All you had to do was use an incorrect phrase and they'd bite your head off. The "conservativism" we see today is the counterpart of this. Neither is pleasant.

The days of tolerance are gone. Recent history has made enemies of the two political parties. The democrats have ben virtually shut out of the government, and virtually every vote goes by party lines. In past times, neither party did this to the other. Things got done because they worked together. That's not happening now, and there's too much of a history between them. Having the democrats in control of one house will help, but too much water has gone under the bridge. I honestly feel like we need to clean house. I would love to get them all out and put in some people that can work together.

Joe Lerch

05-17-2006, 09:11 PM

Again, I/you/we do not know all the facts, and how extensive were violationsof other administrations. How illogical is this? The past does not justify the present. It just has to end.

As to be a cavalier, maybe, just maybe, at the time of war,this will help a little bit.How does this make sense? Supposedly we're fighting to protect the very rights that you're being cavalier about. If they don't mean anything to you why fight? In the process of protecting us against a physical attack by a few terrorists, you're willing to give up fundamental rights that are the foundation of our entire society?

Joe Lerch

05-17-2006, 09:24 PM

I'm sorry, but the government is the one we elect, isn't it? Unless it's the one appointed by the Supreme Court or the one that sliped in by scaring us shitless about terrorism.

If we do not trust the people we elect, where are we going? Courts, Judicial system became corrupt. Scandals are popping up like mashrooms aftre the rain.If you admit this then you shouls also want to clean house.

United States was created as a country of law and personal freedoms. But when others are using our laws and freedoms to harm us, what do we do?We quiver in our pants and we elect an incompetent, corrupt government.

Everyone can vent steam. What do you suggest we do? It can not continue as is.Give the democrats back some cotrol to restore hecks and balances so there's someone to provide oversight. Right now it's just a good old boys club.

Joe Lerch

05-17-2006, 09:37 PM

Think more "Old testament" style "put them all to the sword, let not one stone lie upon another, slay them with their children and their beasts" kindof stuff, and not so much "New Testament" style "Love thy neighbor as thyself".I think you'll find that last one is Old Testament. In any case, the Koran is newer than both testaments, so it's not a matter of when it was written, but just the philosophy of the author.

maybe calling Islam a religion of peace, if it's not misinformed, is just another one of those politically correct things.

We're not as far apart as you think. I'm not a raving liberal and you're not a neo-con. There's a lot of leeway between those two and a lot we can agree on.

Riffdiver

05-18-2006, 05:49 AM

[QUOTE=
If you admit this then you shouls also want to clean house.
We quiver in our pants and we elect an incompetent, corrupt government.

Give the democrats back some cotrol to restore hecks and balances so there's someone to provide oversight. Right now it's just a good old boys club.[/QUOTE]

Joe, this last paragraph negated everything you tryed to say. Pure demagoguery. Democrats just called so, but there is nothing democratic about them. You quoting me, and it reads like 'NY Times'. Nothing of the mind. You just repeating someone else's dream.We were attacked, because Democrats did not do anything to protect us. Blowing up farmacy factory in Sudan does not count.If democrats thought more about country, ruther then perks ( read blowjobs) we would not be in this mess.

I'm sorry, this is an opinion of the republican(conservative one).

Joe Lerch

05-18-2006, 07:35 AM

Joe, this last paragraph negated everything you tryed to say. Pure demagoguery. Democrats just called so, but there is nothing democratic about them. You quoting me, and it reads like 'NY Times'. Nothing of the mind. You just repeating someone else's dream.I was just following the thought that we need to put in someone who will oversee the executive. Politically, I couldn't care less. But what are the chances that we could clean house by just adding different cronies for the ones that are there now?

Let's not get involved with evaluating the NY Times out of this. They've had their problems but for a century they've been the paper of record and they're recognized for it internationally. Let's not confuse their edotrials with news reporting. I read the WS Journal and Oralndo Sentinel online. The news is basically the same in all. The Times tends to give much more detail and background. Don't confuse quality of news reporting with the fact that you don't like what they're reporting. I'll put them up against any other news source for consistent quality of reporting.

We were attacked, because Democrats did not do anything to protect us. Blowing up farmacy factory in Sudan does not count.If democrats thought more about country, ruther then perks ( read blowjobs) we would not be in this mess.This is rewriting history and makes me question your objectivity. The attack happened on Bush's watch and he had all the information to do something about it. He didn't (that investigation was queitly quashed, wasn't it?), and since we now understand his administration's competency, we know why. The republicans were so focussed on blow jobs and prosecuting for them that Clinton's last term he was constantly distracted from his job, yet the attack didn't happen then. BTW, at the times your talking about blowjobs, Clinton was actually working, on the phone with legislators at 2am etc. He didn't take bike rides in the middle of the day, leave the office at 5pm and go to sleep at 9pm. I don't know of any successful executive that does that.

You couldn't have thought much about this because you're taking the party line and accepting all the illogical nonsense. I've been in business long enough to know that the executive I would want on my team is Clinton. His private affairs may not be exemplary, but he was dedicated to his job and competent, and his appointments were not incompetent cronies. We'll never know, but in view of the exhibited incompetence of the Bush administration and what information he knew about 9/11, maybe it wouldn't have happened with a competent executive in control. For example FEMA worked under Clinton.

Then, the peformance of Bush should not be a surprize. It is consistent with every other job he's had and flubbed. If he came from my family or yours, he wouldn't have been propped up constantly and groomed for this job by a right wing fringe hungry for power. The traditional republicans have as much power in the government as the democrats, and that we why we have rule by messages from God. I will not go back to that party until sanity is restored.

You strong support of that nonsense and your message reveal that you care more about party than country. The party can't be wrong, and anyone who's a democrat can't be right, so they must be responsible for everything, even though the Bush administration has been botching things up for 5 years, even though the republicans put the country through hell with a year of impeachment (when nothing got done), and even though anything the democrats did (and they've been out of power longer than Clinton) couldn't possibly have an effect anymore.

Face reality! The present republicans have controlled everything for at least 7 years and they're destroying and corrupting it. And now the Constitution is under siege. I'll put the democrats in there just to stop the bleeding and then, as I said, a curse on both their houses. I'd like nothing better than to start from scratch- clean house.

Riffdiver

05-18-2006, 08:18 AM

Joe, I beg to differ.

You stated that attack happened on this admin watch. This is a chip shot. Please, read more about bin ladden ( do not want to write his name with capital letters). We could have him on the platter from Sudanese. Clinton declined.
He (bin ladden) was sitting in Afganistan for years, we did not do anything. North Korea, Pakistan-India, Somali, Balkans. Did I mention that things are not as simple as they seam?
I have a sense that you are an Intelegent person who can take in more then a single fact and analize a situation and pattern.

By the way, unless you are Bill Clinton, how do you know he was working with legislator at 2AM? And that legislator, it wouldn't be the one who crashed his car at 2AM speeding to a voting session in congress? The session that ended few hours earlier?

I'm not claiming to have all the answers. Oh heck, I do not even know all the problems, but I'm willing to give THEM, MY GOVERNMENT a benefit of the doubt. He did good on economy. He is trying to solve the problem, ruther then apply a band-aid.

It is not a republicans or democrats for me. It's the principal.But I do have a great respect for you. You have the guts to say it. I'll take that any day.

Best to you,Joe.

zaphf

05-18-2006, 08:50 AM

I do not even know all the problems, but I'm willing to give THEM, MY GOVERNMENT a benefit of the doubt. He did good on economy. He is trying to solve the problem, ruther then apply a band-aid.

Never trust anyone with power over you.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And more to the point, power DRAWS corruption. Not saying that the Bush is corrupt, or his government is corrupt, but they seem to play fast and loose with the rules and they bear watching. Fortunately, with the amount of concentrated bile the left has and the pool that's forming from the real conservatives, The Administration is being watched like a hawk.

Riffdiver

05-18-2006, 09:15 AM

Never trust anyone with power over you.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And more to the point, power DRAWS corruption. Not saying that the Bush is corrupt, or his government is corrupt, but they seem to play fast and loose with the rules and they bear watching. Fortunately, with the amount of concentrated bile the left has and the pool that's forming from the real conservatives, The Administration is being watched like a hawk.

I agree. I think, that mechanizm exists to prevent the collapse. I also think, that we, THE PEOPLE have to establish the term on congress and senate.

Carier congressmen or senator has got to stop. That would be a good start. But I also think that they will refuse. As a conservative, I'm not happy with a lot of this admin's decisions. But that is a different page. I simply do not accept the line that republicans are bad and democrats are good. Especially knowing that democrats are not that good at "checks and balances".

Power corrupts.Regardless of party affiliation. I'm with you on that.

Regards.

Riffdiver

05-18-2006, 09:25 AM

Let's not get involved with evaluating the NY Times out of this. They've had their problems but for a century they've been the paper of record and they're recognized for it internationally. Let's not confuse their edotrials with news reporting. I read the WS Journal and Oralndo Sentinel online. The news is basically the same in all. The Times tends to give much more detail and background. Don't confuse quality of news reporting with the fact that you don't like what they're reporting. I'll put them up against any other news source for consistent quality of reporting.

Joe, I think you got it wrong. I have no intention to give them a pass just because they "USE TO BE A PAPER OF RECORD". And yes, in quite a few cases, these reporting is very onesided. And you know that. It's a shame, when reporters become a political pawns. Also, you can take the same news report and present it differently. So different, that it looses the truth.

Sinatra

05-18-2006, 12:29 PM

Riffdiver,

As the youngest member of this forum, your definition of "freedom" is why many of my classmates who once identified themselves as Republicans are now voting Democrat in the upcoming Congressional elections. For many in my age group the reason for this is the Iraq war, domestic spying, and Guantanamo Bay. Many find it appalling that young men, usually from a poor background have to go fight a war for the top income bracket, the fact that the President has admitted to spying on American citizens without a warrent is just appalling, a violation of many of the liberties we have held sacred, and the fact that we have a detention camp far away from prying eyes is disgusting, many people my age have referred to it as a Gulag.

Also another thing, America is not the only nation that is free. The nations of Western Europe are very much a democracy, last international law class I took Britain, France, Italy, and Spain all possess Bill of Rights. Many of them guaranteeing that same freedoms ours do, with the exception of Britain though they all use an Inquisitional system of law.

Also as of know we bear something very much in common with are French breathren, who we very much disdain (for reasons I cannot grasp). We both use unwarrented domestic wiretapping, someting that is banned by all other western European democracies.

Pat

Joe Lerch

05-18-2006, 02:19 PM

He (bin ladden) was sitting in Afganistan for years, we did not do anything. North Korea, Pakistan-India, Somali, Balkans. Did I mention that things are not as simple as they seam?Both of them missed a major shot a BL. Clinton refused to take it because of potential civilian damage, and Bush outsourced to the locals when wee had BL surrounded in the mountains.

By the way, unless you are Bill Clinton, how do you know he was working with legislator at 2AM?It was documented during the impeachment hearings.

I'm willing to give THEM, MY GOVERNMENT a benefit of the doubt. Not me, not after what we're learning about Constitutional violations and the demonstrated incompetence and corruption. "Fool me once shame on me, fool me again #@&$?", as W would say.

It is not a republicans or democrats for me. It's the principal.But I do have a great respect for you. You have the guts to say it. I'll take that any day.Me neither. I want them both around to keep an eye on each other. It's not guts, it's total frustration. As you can see, I'm pretty much of a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution. Starting with the Supreme Court's appointment of the president, the violations of the Constitution have set me on the war path. Recent events just make it worse.

Joe Lerch

05-18-2006, 02:24 PM

The Administration is being watched like a hawk.But the investigative power of Congress (part of their duty to oversee) has not been exercised. With one party in total control, they have delayed every investigation and then quietly allowed it to die. Normally, we would know a lot more about what's going on from the exercise of that power. THe peole that are doing the watching can only scream and complain. They have no supoena power.

Joe Lerch

05-18-2006, 02:33 PM

I simply do not accept the line that republicans are bad and democrats are good. Especially knowing that democrats are not that good at "checks and balances".I don't accept that either, but with all the cronyism being exhibited now, the dems certainly have more motivation to do some checking and balancing. I think the key is obviously not to give either aprty too much power and let them check and balance each other.

With career legislators, the most important skill is learning how to get re-elected. That leaves a lot of room for corruption. If we had some term limits, it would keep any one individual from accumulating too much power. And I wouldn't even mind if they came back after enough time away to let others take over the power.

Joe Lerch

05-18-2006, 02:42 PM

Joe, I think you got it wrong. I have no intention to give them a pass just because they "USE TO BE A PAPER OF RECORD". And yes, in quite a few cases, these reporting is very onesided. And you know that. It's a shame, when reporters become a political pawns. Also, you can take the same news report and present it differently. So different, that it looses the truth.No, I don't have it wrong. They are still regarded worldwide and in this country as the paper of record. And they deserve it.

Like I said, I read the WS Jour and Orlando Sentinel (and others just not regularly) just to keep a balance. They all report the same news and report it well. The Times always goes deeper and gives more background. ANd they do have a few conservative reporters. There aren't sides to the facts, and let's not confuse facts with opinion. That's where the newspapers are especially good, as compared to broadcast media, where they're a little loose about keeping a separation between facts and opinion.

zaphf

05-18-2006, 02:46 PM

But the investigative power of Congress (part of their duty to oversee) has not been exercised. With one party in total control, they have delayed every investigation and then quietly allowed it to die. Normally, we would know a lot more about what's going on from the exercise of that power. THe peole that are doing the watching can only scream and complain. They have no supoena power.

I blame two things for this.

1) There is NO leadership in the democratic party. They've been through 2 election cycles now and havn't moved on past the 2000 loss due to Florida. They have no firm stance on anything. Their only campaign slogan for 6 years has been "We're not Bush!" The democratic party isn't willing to investigate anything. Partly because, the programs in question are truely useful for fighting terrorism and the American people at large aren't bothered by them.

2) The media has whipped up the drama about what is really going on in the administration and the Democrats on the Hill know it's just business as usual. From the news, you would think that we're not winning in Iraq and that the economy is in the crapper. According to the MSM it's only those racists on the right that want the border closed.

I'm fed up with the Neo-Con agenda, but the Left makes me sick.

Joe Lerch

05-18-2006, 02:52 PM

[QUOTE]As the youngest member of this forum, your definition of "freedom" is why many of my classmates who once identified themselves as Republicans are now voting Democrat in the upcoming Congressional elections. I have a son who's college age and he tells me the same thing. One eye opener for me was that they have a totally egalitarian attitude about gays and gay marriage. They see no issue.

Also another thing, America is not the only nation that is free.Our good neighbor to the north is pretty much where we used to be before all the corruption of the Constitution, so they're a lot freer than we are right now, and a lot more liked throughout the world.

slcsteve

05-18-2006, 03:07 PM

I have a son who's college age and he tells me the same thing. One eye opener for me was that they have a totally egalitarian attitude about gays and gay marriage. They see no issue.

Our good neighbor to the north is pretty much where we used to be before all the corruption of the Constitution, so they're a lot freer than we are right now, and a lot more liked throughout the world.

I'm a 63 year old straight married man that's been married for nearly 43 years and I find the gay marriage issue to be a non-issue as well. And since I've opened that can of worms, I also find religion should be relegated to where it belongs and should remain.......in your preferred place of worship.

It's unfortunate that the residents of the great country of Canada suffer their high taxes but at least their country seems to have a greater social resposibility to their citizenry.

Joe Lerch

05-18-2006, 03:15 PM

I blame two things for this.

1) There is NO leadership in the democratic party. They've been through 2 election cycles now and havn't moved on past the 2000 loss due to Florida. They have no firm stance on anything. Their only campaign slogan for 6 years has been "We're not Bush!" The democratic party isn't willing to investigate anything. Partly because, the programs in question are truely useful for fighting terrorism and the American people at large aren't bothered by them. Woah! We're talking about oversight here. This has nothing to do with it. The republicans control everything, and the committee chairmen don't allow anything to get by that's not along the party line. That's it! There's nothing that a minority party can do when the majority unites. THry have no separate subpoena power. Remember when Sensenbrenner shut off the micrphones and wouldn't even let dems have a meeting room? There's no investigation because the republican leaders are protecting their party. So much for the welfare of the country.

2) The media has whipped up the drama about what is really going on in the administration and the Democrats on the Hill know it's just business as usual. From the news, you would think that we're not winning in Iraq and that the economy is in the crapper. According to the MSM it's only those racists on the right that want the border closed.THe media also is not doing it's job. They can do some investigating, and they're not doing nearly as much as they used to. With the executive accumulating all this power, they're worried about being disadvantaged in regulatory and licensing proceedings, so they've been gun shy.

We're not winnig in Iraq. The deaths are mounting, at an accelerating rate every day. Exactly what would winning be now? Are you in total denial? It's got nothing to do with left or right all objective experts and have no ties to the administrat come back from Iraq with the same conclusion.

It's not a question of neocon or left but of reality. The best we can hope for is that a civil war doesn't break out and trap our soldiers in the middle of it. And if it doesn't and we manage to withdraw in peace, it will be no time before they're at each other's throats again. The three side have no use for each other. The best we can hope for is that some division of the country can be reached which keeps them away from each other. We certainly can't hope to receive an honest assesment from our government. Maybe we need to teach their national guard how to build walls between the three groups.

Joe Lerch

05-18-2006, 03:23 PM

And since I've opened that can of worms, I also find religion should be relegated to where it belongs and should remain.......in your preferred place of worship. You gave Sinatra my quote. Even the Christian teachings themselves tell us to gove unto Caesar what is his and onto God what is his. So, separation of church and state is a Christian concept. When government becomes involved in religion is when we run into problems. The Constitution not only provides for freedom of religion but freedom from religion (no imposition of religion).

Plantangent

05-18-2006, 03:36 PM

Time for my rant, sorry:smile: I have spent 18 years in the military, I joined during the cold war in 83, active and guard I've done both. When I joined the military it was obvious who the bad guys were, they were the people who tortured there citizens , spied on there citizens, and lied to the citizens. I'm currently activated to support Iraqi Freedom, but find my self supporting a government that has lied to its citizens, spies on its citizens and has secret prisons with no oversight in the east, I do not know what to think but feel ashamed to be part of it. I think when my current enlistment is up I'll be done and for good, 18 years wasted?

"My country right or wrong", is a thing no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate cause. Its like saying, " My mother drunk or sober"....G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936)

slcsteve

05-18-2006, 03:46 PM

http://www.igopogo.com/Wehavemet01.jpg

Plantangent

05-18-2006, 04:05 PM

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin

guenron

05-18-2006, 09:13 PM

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin

Hey Plant,
20 years, 1 month, and 3 days... 179 days in the grass...
Sucks when the Aristocrats exploit the fear and ignorance of the masses to become the Autocrats. Like CCR sang, "I Ain't No Senator's Son."
Oh well, I like your states motto: Live Free or Die!

Joe Lerch

05-19-2006, 06:53 AM

"My country right or wrong", is a thing no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate cause. Its like saying, " My mother drunk or sober"....G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936)I feel for you, my friend. Somewhere along the way we've lost sight of the fact that patriotism is loyalty to what the country stands for, not the current government. It's the latter type of loyalty that's destroying our democracy.

Just as an example, our leaders pledge to "protect and defend the Constitution" and our daily pledge is to the "United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands." Loyalty to the leader and the party is replacing that. Something like that happens to every nation on the way to totalitarianism. In the advanced stages it's the swastika, the hammer and sickle, or Saddam's (or any other dictator's) picture all over the place. But somewhere along the line there was a transition to loyalty to the leadership or party, something the Bush administration values, probably, higher than anything else. When that distinction gets blurred it spells trouble.

When one is smugly patting themselves on the back for their patriotism or questioning that of others, they should keep in mind that supporting a leader or party which is trashing the foundation of our democracy is not patriotism to the United States, which is defined by the Constitution; war or no war.

And when we make "liberal" a bad word, we politicize our creed. Liberalism and conservativism are just individual perceptions or labels. Our founding fathers were the radical liberals of their time. At a time when kings ruled the world, the idea of individual freedom and rights of the individual presented in the Declaration of Independence was a radical concept. Abraham Lincoln, a republican, was also an extreme liberal at his time, as were the people who demonstrated and died for racial equality in the 20th century. Some day things that are social issues today may be viewed the same way.

So, if you condemn liberalism you're really condemning what we stand for. Similarly, true conservatives have always kept us honest and true to our Constitution. At times in my life I have been both, and I am liberal in some areas and conservative in others. Using either term as a condemnation is a rejection of what we stand for, and it's a ploy conveniently used by the less dedicated among us to divide us and weaken our true cause.

zaphf

05-19-2006, 09:06 AM

Woah! We're talking about oversight here. This has nothing to do with it. The republicans control everything, and the committee chairmen don't allow anything to get by that's not along the party line. That's it! There's nothing that a minority party can do when the majority unites. THry have no separate subpoena power. Remember when Sensenbrenner shut off the micrphones and wouldn't even let dems have a meeting room? There's no investigation because the republican leaders are protecting their party. So much for the welfare of the country.

I don't agree. Republicans had the same issues for 70 years of Democratic majorities and were able to keep watch on them.

THe media also is not doing it's job. They can do some investigating, and they're not doing nearly as much as they used to. With the executive accumulating all this power, they're worried about being disadvantaged in regulatory and licensing proceedings, so they've been gun shy.

I find this highly amusing. Seriously. LOL

We're not winnig in Iraq. The deaths are mounting, at an accelerating rate every day. Exactly what would winning be now? Are you in total denial? It's got nothing to do with left or right all objective experts and have no ties to the administrat come back from Iraq with the same conclusion.

It's not a question of neocon or left but of reality. The best we can hope for is that a civil war doesn't break out and trap our soldiers in the middle of it. And if it doesn't and we manage to withdraw in peace, it will be no time before they're at each other's throats again. The three side have no use for each other. The best we can hope for is that some division of the country can be reached which keeps them away from each other. We certainly can't hope to receive an honest assesment from our government. Maybe we need to teach their national guard how to build walls between the three groups.

We'll have to disagree. I'm not the one who's ignorant of the facts. Violence isn't going to end for awhile, but that doesn't mean we're losing. Crazy people with bombs are basically impossible to stop in a free society. Ok, we're not winning. We already won, and a long time ago. Now we're just stabilizing. No matter how much you wish it weren't so, Iraq is not another Vietnam.

Here's some information:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/Taheri_0606.htm

This is my last post on the matter. I've come to the decision I'd rather think of this board as a great resource for wetshaving and stop my crusade against the forces of doom and gloom.