 
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
1 edit | so.... does anyone else see something wrong with this picture ?
removing the right of it's citizens to privacy and removing their right to seek damages from the companies responsible for giving out their personal information.
i see lots of companies, and less and less actual "people" involved.
(side note what's next, instead of collecting taxes, using CC numbers and withdrawing money from peoples accounts when it's needed ?) | |
|  | nutcr0cker
join:2003-04-02
Chandler, AZ
| Re: so.... Hmmm... so immunity for the crooks that treat our privacy like their public data. but nothing for small businesses ruined by lawsuits. Maybe Roy L. Pearson, Jr can sue the fellow republiCONS for another 65 billion »www.overlawyered.com/2007/04/roy···_mi.html | |
| | 
pinot noir6
Premium
join:2007-04-23
Columbus, OH
1 edit | said by BonezX  :does anyone else see something wrong with this picture ? removing the right of it's citizens to privacy... Yes indeed, I see something wrong with this picture!
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father.
NOTES
In 1755 (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755), Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
This phrasing was also the motto in Historical Review of Pennsylvania, attributed to Franklin
It's important to note that this sentiment, with many variations, was much used in the Revolutionary period by Franklin and others. | |
| | | 
anicetoemma
Naruto
Premium
join:2005-09-30
Chicago, IL
clubs:
| Re: so.... It will be a glorious day when Bush goes down for this, although we all know he won't. There is always some standup guy to take the blame for all this, even though we know it too be BS.
The NSA could not get away with something like this without the approval of the President, so the President should be the one too blame. I'm not trying to take away the blame from the telcos, they know better than to abide by whatever the government wants...look at Google as an example. AT&T and any other telco that assisted with the datamining should definitely be hauled into court, but then again Bush owns the Supreme Court so where will that get us!?
For the People and by the People, yeah right, what a load of crap. We lost this nation long ago when we let jackasses like Bush convince us we needed more protection. Doesn't help with all these Protesters whining about every little piece of BS. These are the things that are eating away at our liberties, everyone wants their solutions to be enacted as law. What happened to the old die hard reap what you sow attitude America use to have? Now it seems we are breeding a bunch of pussys that need laws to protect them. We have turned into a bunch of f***ing a**holes, like the Brits! ;p | |
| | | | Rocketbob
join:2006-06-08
Stillman Valley, IL | Re: so.... I couldn't have said it better. Remember Bush said the constitution was just a GD piece of paper! | |
| | | bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA | "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." - Patrick Henry | |
| | | 
ph03n1x
join:2003-02-15
Sanford, FL
| said by pinot noir6 :said by BonezX :"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father. I hate to nitpick, but I see this all the time and I take issue with two things: 1. The quote is "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" 2. This statement was made by a diplomat named Richard Jackson and appeared in several works _published_ by Benjamin Franklin. | |
| | Blackened
Your Freedom Fries Are Stale
join:2003-09-29
| Ok so let me get this straight. Constitution is made which includes a Fourth Amendment on search and seizure. Consequently, later, a FISA bill passes into law, which gives orders on the legal process of wiretapping Americans or foreign individuals who are here, explicitly related to terrorism. Executive branch gives Legislative branch (and the American people) the finger for inquiries into breaking the law on illegally spying on Americans. Then Executive branch, not being able to pass laws by itself, goes to Legislative branch asking them to pass laws making the Legislative branch's ability of oversight null, despite said finger given numerous times to Legislative branch's inquiries to such illegal acts.
The mere fact that Dubya's inexorably trying to cover the asses of AT&T and other telcos/companies involved in this, as well as himself and his own cohorts, is nothing less than an admission of guilt for breaking the law by illegally spying on Americans; no short of treason. This goes with the large laundry list of other acts which are impeachable offenses that he's committed. With respect to the topic at hand, I'll stick to this one, which is, by itself, an example of an Executive Branch that's gone way too power hungry. | |
| | | deepblackmag
join:2004-12-27
00000
| Re: so.... Search and seasure was never meant to include observe-for-terrorist-intentions just like hab corp didnt include a no-secretly-kidnap-for-foreign-torture clause. If the founding fathers and lawmakers of yesteryear really intended you to be free from corporate-wiretapping-requested-by-nazi-feds why didn they add that to the law! HAH! take that mr pinko-liberal-commy.
lol | |
| | ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN | I see something wrong, I wish congress would just go ahead and impeach bush and cheney and get them out of office before they can cause more damage. These 2 clowns remind me of Quickdraw McGraw and Baba Looey. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: so.... I would love nothing more than to see Bozo the clown and Sideshow Bob get impeached, BUT, look at who's next in line to take the place of them... Nutt-job Nancy.
At this point, with Dems in control of the congress, and a pub in the white house, things are pretty much where they should be.. slowed. It's going to be hard for either side to cause the people any further damage.
I wonder.. is there a fog of war clouding DC? Do these idiots not realize they work for us, and not themselves? Amazing how they go through elections promising the world and when they get to office they completely forget who employs them.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy..." | |
| | | | Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI | Re: so.... God forbid that idiot gets another supreme court pick. Seeing how he picks his Fed prosecutors from a fourth tier law school.
The court is ruined for the next 20-40 years. | |
| | 
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| said by BonezX :does anyone else see something wrong with this picture ? (side note what's next, instead of collecting taxes, using CC numbers and withdrawing money from peoples accounts when it's needed ?) And what would be so different from this than them withdrawing your biological assets via a draft?
--
Fed Up With Stupidity?
Patentlystupid.com | |
| | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: so.... said by rahlquist :And what would be so different from this than them withdrawing your biological assets via a draft? <sarcasm>
Boy, it is a good thing the Republicans control Congress, so that crazy Democrat who keeps introducing a bill to reinstate the draft keeps getting shot down!
</sarcasm>
Oh, never mind...
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| 
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| You see... ...the good thing about having multiple branches of government is that El Presidente can't just wave a wand and get whatever the F it is that he desires.
They are OUR employees, these politicians, and it's about time they get back to work, OUR WORK, before we fire some more of them. | |
| | CMoore2004
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Jonesville, MI
| Re: You see... That's how it's supposed to be. That's not how it is. The president can and does do what he desires. For being our employees, they sure won't give any John Doe the time of day.
--
Sprint Mobile Broadband PX-500 | Windows XP MCE SP2 | Mobile AMD Athlon 64 4000+ | 1.5GB RAM | ATI Mobile Radeon X600 128MB | 120GB HDD | |
| | |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Re: You see... It will, and has been - although at a very slow pace and in a rather strange way, get better.
The democratic control of Congress helps. Not because Democrat politicians are any less slimy than Republican ones, but because it's just another set of eyeballs with conflicting priorities.
The electorate has had enough....and the stupid people took a back seat in the last mid-terms and the thinking crowd made its opinion known. I think this effect will be even more pronounced in the next general election. | |
| | | sd70mac666
join:2003-06-05
Saint Albans, VT | Since Bush forgot the fact that Congress is controlled by Democrats, it's highly unlikely he'll get what he wants. | |
| | | | 
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: You see... said by sd70mac666 :Since Bush forgot the fact that Congress is controlled by Democrats, it's highly unlikely he'll get what he wants. I would hope so. He vetoed the war funding bill that had
timetables, and now he wants them to pass this?
Not a chance in Hell this is going to be passed.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0: The number the MPAA doesn't want you to know about. | |
| | | | | bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
| Re: You see... I am not a Bush lover but any time Congress attempts to become Commander in Chief of the armed services is disgraceful.
Congress need only remember that the only constitutional way is to impeach the President and Vice President at the same time. Convict them both of a High Crime and/or misdemeanors and then Nancy Pelosi can be the President.
Until they do that, Congress is but attempting to hijack the Presidency of the United States.
And Nancy Pelosi should stay out of Syria and stop undermining Presidential authority. | |
| | | | | | Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI | Re: You see... So congress should just give him whatever he wants? Even though his reason for this war were not true?
I say they send him the same damn bill very 2 weeks and let him decide not to fund he troops. All his oil buddy friends are rich enough. | |
| | | | | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| The President is the commander and chief of the military forces, yes. However the PUSA needs congressional approval to go to war. Bush might have gotten that approval, but now that Congress isn't happy with his little invasion they are well within their rights to pull funding for it. There is a difference here.
BTW I would rather Congress focus on other issues than pulling funding from the military in Iraq. | |
| | | | | | | bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
| Re: You see... If Congress pulls the funding it would be best thing that would happen to this country.
1. The next president would be a Democrat
2. Congress would be full of Republicans
on the bad side, over 54,000 lives would be lost because of it.
The president of the United States during time of War has the right to spend money that isn't appropriated for the purposes of maintaining the war.
If anyone thinks that Congress can stop this freight train by tieing purse strings, you are completely delusional.
What would have stopped this war early would have been a strategic tactical nuke in the heart of Iraq and make it hot for the next fifty years.
It would go like this....
Hi Iraq? Heard of Hiroshima?....Any questions? | |
| | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: You see... The thing is we are not at war. There was no declaration of war. There is no war. All this war talk is rhetoric. Pure and simple. There is no war on terror (you can't declare war on an ideology). There is no war in Iraq (we invaded and ousted the government, but never declared war). BTW you seemed to have missed my last statement.
You think nuking Iraq would fix everything? You are oversimplifying the situation. You nuke a country and you kill tens of thousands of civilians in the process. Do you REALLY think that will make the Middle East start doing things our way? Far from it. You think we had problems with terrorists before after a massacre like that you will not only have the extremists attacking us you would have moderates and several other factions who were neutral or even friendly to us now wanting our heads on a pike. Nuke 'em all... that's the most shortsighted answer to the problem I hear. | |
| | | | | | | | | bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA | Re: You see... No...Let's withdraw....and see which target terrorist will focus on next. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: You see... You talk as if terrorists are just one organization or militia. There are terrorists everywhere. We have had some home grown terrorists too (McVeigh, etc). During all this talk about war on terror there have been terrorist attacks in England, Ireland, Russia, Somalia, and many other countries. Interestingly enough we seem to ignore all this in spite of that battle cry against terrorism.
You can't stop terrorism. Staying in Iraq or pulling out of Iraq will make no difference. If some group is crazy enough and angry enough to make attacks on the U.S. they will do it. The Goverment's job should be to make sure the terror plots on our country are found out and dealt with. Not invading other countries with the excuse that this will stop terrorism. Because it won't, and you would be fooling yourself if you think it will. | |
| | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by sd70mac666 :Since Bush forgot the fact that Congress is controlled by Democrats, it's highly unlikely he'll get what he wants. The Democratic Control of Congress (or at least the Senate) may not last for much longer since there is a Democratic Senator who is currently recovering from a stroke and may resign. If he does, his state's Governor (who is a Republican) will override the will of his state's voters by appointing a Republican crony (as opposed to a Democrat) which will return control to the Republicans. | |
| | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: You see... said by RARPSL :The Democratic Control of Congress (or at least the Senate) may not last for much longer since there is a Democratic Senator who is currently recovering from a stroke and may resign. If he does, his state's Governor (who is a Republican) will override the will of his state's voters by appointing a Republican crony (as opposed to a Democrat) which will return control to the Republicans. The funny part of that is how the whole episode with Tim Johnson taught a lot of Democrats the virtues of prayer. 
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| It's beautiful having Dems in Congress now in control... because the people, last year, took away his (Bush's) rubber stamp. So Bush will have to figure out another way to get his way. Maybe when he's done being King of America, maybe, since he's doing so good at it, he can go be king or Iraqistan.
On a side note, I still think it's funny to watch the Bush republicans, hard to believe they still exist, get up in arms over the fact that Bush didn't make the list of most influential people. Fox news, among other conservative hot air radio people, have been devoting much of their time over this.
Guess it goes to show that you can't be king for long by abusing your authority and telling the people to screw off.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy..." | |
| | | sd70mac666
join:2003-06-05
Saint Albans, VT | Re: You see... Only because FOX news is a Republican Channel. Lazlow pointed that out 2 years ago. But didn't drectly say it. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
2 edits | Re: You see... I know they are.. now if they would only admit to it as well... and if Lazlow only got it two years ago, he's about 8 years too late. | |
| | | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: You see... I watch all news channels and you're right FOX News does seem to favor the Republican point of view, but no more than MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN favor the Democrat point of view. | |
| | | | | | Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI
| Re: You see... said by lesopp :I watch all news channels and you're right FOX News does seem to favor the Republican point of view, but no more than MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN favor the Democrat point of view. Yes but they are not screaming that they are "Fair and balanced."
And they do not get talking points handed to them by a political party, that the whole channel is forced to repeat.
I watch fox news becuase spin facinates me. When Bush has a new f**k up, I want to see exactly what the spin will be. So far fox news has not let me down.
Last thing is that fox will have a strong republican against some weak liberal and call the show balanced. Combs is a pu***. But then again if he was to really stand up against Hanity they would lose their ratings. | |
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Difficult position for the companies I think it's hard for companies to resist pressure from the government to do these things. Especially when there are implied favors like looking the other way about anti-trust issues (AT&T). The politicians and/or bureaucrats that enticed them should share in the punishment here. The companies should not get a free pass for their actions, ignorance or pressure is no excuse to break laws or contracts. | |
| | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | OH Boy... Here it comes.
I give it exactly 45 min before someone compares Bush to Hitler.... 
--
FCC, PLEASE KILL THE MERGER BEFORE THE MERGER KILLS SATRAD! | |
| |
See 19 replies to this post | |
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Not Surprising The current administration wants immunity for itself and its evil minions from all of its clusterfucks...Iraq, Halliburton, New Orleans, FEMA, Darth Cheney drunken shooting sprees, NSA spying, etc. so this latest doesn't really come as any surprise. It's just adding insult to injury. When will this country ever wake up and have the obviously insane Emperor with no clothes removed from office permanently.
--
The Toll
| |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
texans20
Weapons of Masturbation
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Texas!
clubs:
| They Need to be Sued A company should never blindly give private info to the US Government. The concept is simple, all that is needed is a warrant signed by a judge. After the judge signs the warrant, then the phone company must give up all requested records, but not a moment sooner.
The "war on terror" can be fought full force without sacrificing privacy. Honestly, are people really thinking terrorists are using their home phones to call Osama to plan something out? Data mining and wiretapping mass communications does nothing. | |
| |
pinot noir6
Premium
join:2007-04-23
Columbus, OH
| Re: They Need to be Sued said by texans20 :A company should never blindly give private info to the US Government. Agreed...what has made this country great is it's values of liberty, privacy, freedom, etc. If these slowly deteriorate, we are certainly on a down hill path  | |
| | MZR
join:2006-08-12
TX
1 edit | It's all about "I will kiss your a$$ as long as you kiss mine too". That is how our gov works, sad. | |
| | amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| how long until... We just have a full fledged telescreen in every house?
I'm all about the spooks having their fun with tapping what they rightfully need to tap for busting real criminals for really bad crimes, but I fail to see the logic behind blanket sweeps of everyone's conversations/activities.
It is only logical to conclude that with more useless information, the task of finding anything worth a damn is more difficult.
This is only going to get worse. Who honestly thinks they will give such powers up, or even reduce their usage of it? Who really thinks they'll just flip a switch and stop with the 98% of totally irrelevant collection???
Hope the suit(s) go ahead and actually accomplish something, but I don't see it as likely... isn't it supposed to be held in a "secret" court anyway? So what good would it do? How would we know? They could just seal up everything and never say a word about it...
This is wrong. This is not just. This is a waste of time.
How well did the "war on poverty" do? ...More poverty.
How well did the "war on drugs" do? ...More and worse drugs.
How well is the "war on terror" going? ...More terror, and more people getting mad at each other for every little thing.
Sounds like a great plan to me. Enable a whole notion to take hold and skew reality so that a dangerous and unsettling agenda can be pursued by mind controlled masses of people who can't imagine anything being different because their TV tells them what to think anyway.
Newspeak and doublethink of the new world order.
Doubleplusungood. | |
| |
pinot noir6
Premium
join:2007-04-23
Columbus, OH
| Re: how long until... said by amungus :We just have a full fledged telescreen in every house? lol...Yeah, kind of like George Orwell's novel, called, "1984". | |
| | | 
GilbertMark
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Gilbert, AZ | Re: how long until... I don't know who I hate more right now: Shrub, or his damn AG. | |
| bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA | Imagine what we don't know If they business is freaked out enough to have the President attempt something like this, imagine what they gave the government that they are not telling Americans....
--
Just my 2 cents...Flame Lightly... | |
| 
WileEC
mindtaker, macky cat, etc.
join:2002-02-07
Yonkers, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| Gee, another tinfoil hat thread on BBR. Who whould have thought?
Shocking! A whole bunch of uninformed people making ludicrous statements (including some admittedly lovely founding father misquotes) about things they know very little about... hey look, there goes the anti-Bush crowd again ranting and protesting President Bush! They all forget about the fact that the USA has not been attacked in a manner such as the 9/11 attacks and subsequent attacks in the UK or Spain recently. I wonder why that is? But hey, they keep ranting and complaining anyway, regardless of their level of understanding because that is so much easier and more convenient for them than facing the real issues in the world. Hmm... I wonder if they ever consider those inconvenient little details such as the fact that the 9/11 attackers were in this country for years prior to 9/11 under the Clinton administration? Funny that they never mention that. I wonder if they ever thought to complain about the many chances the Clinton administration had NOT taken to remove the bin laden stain from the earth prior to 9/11? I guess not. Bashing President Bush is soooooooo much easier for them. Gives them a sense of community. A nutty community that owns many tinfoil hats, yes, but a community none the less.
Hmmm... I wonder if 9/11 would have even happened if the NSA was ALLOWED TO DO THEIR FREAKING JOB? But again, I must digress and allow the unchecked Bush bashing to continue. Do you guys do children's parties? | |
| |
anicetoemma
Naruto
Premium
join:2005-09-30
Chicago, IL
clubs:
| Re: Gee, another tinfoil hat thread on BBR. You are one twisted individual. I bet you would provide Bush with a little lip service a la Monica Lewinski, if your Leader ask you too.
If we would have maintained and improved our foreign policy with middle eastern governments AND, finally, given up our bias alliance with Israel, we would not be in this position in the first place, and 9/11 would never have happened. Not everyone will agree with me, but Israel IS the reason the Middle East resents us. | |
| | |
WileEC
mindtaker, macky cat, etc.
join:2002-02-07
Yonkers, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Gee, another tinfoil hat thread on BBR. Our foreign policy has ZERO to do with why we were attacked.
But don't worry, that's a common misconception promoted by the left, socialist and islamic groups.
Reality = You are ignorant.
Read a book. I highly recommend "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11"
»www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Al-···7541486X
But since I know you won't do that, here is a little summary for you. You may need to look up some words like "Islamist" since most people don't know what an Islamist is.
WE didn't start this global war. WE aren't even the real reason why the islamists are so pissed. If you do a little reading, you find that the origin of islamic fundamentalism goes all the way back to the 1940's, and was essentially founded by an Egyptian named "Sayeed Qutb," who, in a nutshell, decided that the world was not Islamic enough for his liking. Then there was the very decisive victory for Israel in the six day war which led the Islamists to believe that "god" was no longer on their side and that "god" must be angry with them for not being pure and religious enough. Sayeed's vision and writings, along with the truly embarrassing loss to Israel, have been used as the fuel for all of these radical Islamic groups ever since. Those are the teachings which influenced Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri, to name a few, and led the world into the state that it is in today. But what the average person does not realize is that the Islamists' war against the west is not as pure and religiously motivated as they make it out to be. The mullas, the sheiks, the clerics who preach the hatred to their thousands upon thousands of brainwashed sheep followers are in it for the money and power. They are opportunists. As long as they can say to their followers that their wretched state is due to the USA oppressing them, their followers give them money, power, and allow them to lead relatively lavish lifestyles. What do they care if they send someone else's children to die? But you'll never see them in the fight, because that's not what they are all about. As long as the lack of proper education and outside, accurate information and influence is kept from the majority of these people, they will continue to be used as tools and wrongfully fight against the west when their real enemy is their own religious institutions, their governments and themselves. Many ex-muslims have come out against their former religion, and the institutions which fuel the jihad. It is a problem for the world, not just the USA and it has been a problem since at least the time of the Iranian revolution in 1979 and it will continue long after President Bush is gone - it will continue as long as the world stands by and allows the lies and propaganda to exist over truth, education and common sense.
If more people would just use common sense and EDUCATE themselves instead of relying on the mass media for their information, there would be a lot less war, killing and death in the world. But hey, you can just sit there and watch MSNBC. I won't care. | |
| | | | amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| Re: Gee, another tinfoil hat thread on BBR. "things they know very little about"
I'm sure you know all about the Bush/Bin-Laden connections then, and how they were allowed to leave the country on 9/11...
"I wonder if they ever consider those inconvenient little details such as the fact that the 9/11 attackers were in this country for years prior to 9/11 under the Clinton administration?"
...And that some of them are still alive? Yeah, people complained. It either fell on deaf ears, was ignored completely, or (the information) was discarded for one reason or another.
"if the NSA was ALLOWED TO DO THEIR FREAKING JOB?"
Point taken. Good one. ...But some people still wonder why the Air Force wasn't able to do their part on that tragic day too... For the hours that everything was going on, something could have been done, but nothing was.
Seriously, there is no need for tinfoil references here. Those who bash one man for the whole thing might indeed be doing so with some level of shortsightedness, but it does not necessarily make a persons stance, or beliefs wrong.
It's called freedom of speech, and you're obviously party to that as well. Would you rather we all plug directly into the matrix and live in a total fantasy world? I thought not. The other option that we DO have here in this world is to intelligently debate, to compare and contrast ideas and beliefs, and to hopefully be civil to each other while doing so.
I think one thing we CAN all agree on is that yes, we should try to actively prevent such tragic things from happening to ourselves and others; and to do so by reasonable means...
Not by having the END justify them.
"Our foreign policy has ZERO to do with why we were attacked."
Respectfully disagree. Not that I agree 1000% with the previous post, just that I disagree with such a broad claim.
"If more people would just use common sense and EDUCATE themselves instead of relying on the mass media for their information, there would be a lot less war, killing and death in the world."
That is reasonable. I agree. | |
| | | | | | | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Gee, another tinfoil hat thread on BBR. said by WileEC :Our foreign policy has ZERO to do with why we were attacked. ROFL. That's pretty funny.
So, really, it had nothing to do with our forces in the Middle East? Because if keeping Troops in a foreign country to watch over and "protect" it from another foreign country ISN'T foreign policy, well, then I guess I don't know what foreign policy is.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| 
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| We Already Gave Bush... AND EVERY FUTURE PRESIDENT the right to do this under the Patriot Act.
And after all, the "Commander Guy," you know "The Decider," has to make the decisions necessary to command this country out of the hands of the terrorists. We need to know who each and every American citizen called, what they talked about, and when they did it. After all, as our fearless leader said, "If you're not with us, you're against us."
Not to mention that the phone companies who do not comply with this, should have their executives locked up until they do so, without us telling them, or bringing them up on charges, or talking to a lawyer. At least our Attorney General says so. He said that Habeas Corpus was "quaint," didn't he? He said that we do not necessarily have the right to this privilege when he said, "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away." And if we don't have it to begin with, than they can, and should lock each and every one of us who fails to cooperate with the government away, without charge, without fail. Because, as the Commander-In-Chief said, "We've to get them over there, so they don't get us here."
Hey, if the Leadership tell us it's legal, than it MUST be legal. If they tell us that they want these things to keep us safe, then they MUST mean it.
After all, Bush wouldn't make a political incident out of something like national security, now would he? And we should remember that because Bush has been so tough on terrorists, there has been no attacks on US soil since 9/11. | |
| 
anomynous
@rr.com | ... When I hear/see the vitriol expressed toward Bush nowadays, I can't help but think back to »www.sorryeverybody.com/ and feel somewhat vindicated. | |
| 
atuarre
Here come the drums
Premium
join:2004-02-14
Lake Charles, LA
clubs: | Hmmm... I believe that nothing will change until the people, as a whole, take matters into their own hands and enact change. | |
| | | |
|
|
Bush Wants Telco Privacy Suit Immunity
·
Does not grant immunity going forward; only past actions