Terrorist attacks
Such has been done throughout our history. Recent intelligence reports have indicated that the next terrorist attack here in the United States may be the take over of a middle school after which the terrorist will kill all boys, then rape and kill all of the girls. I am sure that if the above writers had children in that school they would be screaming “why didn’t the government stop that attack by any means including monitoring their phone calls?” The hypocrisy of people who sit in their nice little house and criticize other people for trying to protect them is beyond outrageous. One can only hope that such people are never in a position of authority where they can implement their warped ideas of what it takes to protect us from the viciousness of the radical Islamist.
This letter has not been edited.
I copied this from another's post (Trinity) a few weeks back. I believe it addresses some of the questions raised in the letter.
Remember that many of the so called anti-terrorist laws can be invoked by any law enforcement agency just by claiming that a suspected terrorist act may be perpetrated. If later it is shown that there is no connection to terrorism, the invocation of the law is still considered proper and valid. The suspect just cannot be held under the condition of a terrorist, but as a regular criminal. Any evidence gathered while under the "suspicion of terrorist activity" is legal and may be used in a subsequent criminal proceeding.
Supporters and apologists for President G.W. Bush will often assail my assertion that the Bush administration has done more to dismantle constitutional protections of our liberties than any president in modern memory. It seems that these people believe that until federal Storm Troopers knock down the doors of their homes and drag them off to the gulags, they have lost no freedoms. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If history is any teacher, it instructs us in the incremental process that elitists use to implement their totalitarian agenda. The first step is to use an incessant, highly orchestrated propaganda. For all practical purposes, the major media in the United States is providing that propaganda. At the national level, there is hardly any investigative journalism going on. Instead, the national press corps has become little more than lazy lackeys for the White House.
The second step is to lay the foundation for totalitarianism by passing legislation that may later be used against the citizenry. And that is exactly what the Bush administration has very successfully accomplished. It very adroitly succeeded where the Clinton administration failed.
For example, most conservatives would be surprised to learn that the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security was the brainchild of one William Jefferson Clinton. However, a recalcitrant Republican Congress denied Clinton the opportunity to implement these plans. Of course, with the Republican, G.W. Bush, serving as President, that same Republican Congress was all too eager to pass these bills into law.
The third step is to demonize and marginalize anyone and everyone who opposes the government's plans and ambitions. Such opponents are characterized as "unpatriotic," "obstructionist," "uncompassionate," or even "ungodly." Once again, the Bush minions have very skillfully done just that. Anyone who dares to oppose or even question Bush must be regarded as enemies of America or even as enemies of God.
Of course, the last step is to begin using the power and force of government to physically silence or remove those who are determined to require such treatment. And, as Germany's National Socialists proved, by the time this happens, there is no one around who is capable of coming to the assistance of such people.
For those who are willing to objectively analyze Bush's actions and policies, the truth is clearly seen: this President has systematically put in place laws, policies, and bureaucracies that can, are, and will continue to strip the American citizenry of the constitutional protections of their liberties.
Following are examples of freedoms which President Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have already expunged (as reported by the Associated Press):
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
These rights have already been lost! Whether individual Americans have been personally subjected to the resultant tyranny or not doesn't change the fact that they have already lost these freedoms! This fact, alone, should be enough for any studious lover-of-liberty to be outraged.
That good citizens are compliant and unconcerned regarding G.W. Bush's propensity to trample constitutional freedoms bespeaks a great ignorance or a great apathy, or both.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" is a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759)
Posted by on August 27, 2007 02:17 PMThe possible loss of freedoms and rights are a concern because the people don't know whether these taps are being made on overseas or domestic communications because they are conducted in secret. Are they monitoring the opposition party? We don't know because it's secret. Only the White House knows and some people don't trust them and don't believe their motives. Why is all of this monitoring being done without a warrant? You don't know who they are spying on. You're using blind faith.
There is a judicial panel that is supposed to deal with security issues and they can be trumped in an emergency. Why doesn't the White House follow the law? Because it's secret. Don't be afraid of losing your rights, be VERY afraid.
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.
We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. - James Madison
Great rebuttal by darfor! The original writer doesn't seem to understand that the government does not pick out a suspected terrorist and then surveil them, they blanket surveil everyone and then pick out a target!
Now, I don't know what part of "UNconstitutional" you and the bush cult don't understand, but I can safely wager that after the deceiders' executive priviledge has expired, he'll spend the rest of his life facing endless litigation for his breaches of "upholding and defending the constitution of the United States of America."
I made it this far:
"Recent intelligence reports have indicated that the next terrorist attack here in the United States may be the take over of a middle school after which the terrorist will kill all boys, then rape and kill all of the girls."
and then realized this letter must be a joke. The RMN is at it again.
Posted by flimflam on August 27, 2007 02:47 PMThe letterwriter is definitely a "Colon Case"
Posted by just sayin' on August 27, 2007 02:54 PMEither a hoax, or a truly paranoid man afraid of the boogeyman and willing to do anything to escape his insane grasp...mission accomplished.
Posted by on August 27, 2007 02:58 PMAn excellent point! Defending our national security is not an option, especially in time of war.
Posted by Brian Stuckey on August 27, 2007 02:58 PMDarfor and the rest of the self-appointed keepers and protectors of our "Rights" are not only long winded in their proclamations about Rights and Freedoms but have almost mastered the art of watching the sky come tumbling down on only them. Mr. Case I think you hit the nail on it's big fat head concerning this issue. I've yet to meet anyone in 7 years who has complained about their rights being violated. Only the Terrorist and their accoplishes(The Democrats & Liberals) are afraid so in that respect who cares what they think or write and write and write. Instead of seeing that there have been no terrorist attacks and being thankful because of these measures. Deep down in their black hearts they wish there would be another terrorists attack so they could hold it over the Bush Presidency and gain political points. Who are the real threat to are National security if not these left wing cry babies.
Posted by A House is not a Home on August 27, 2007 02:58 PMHouse and Brian-
Careful, you still have some Bush jizzum on your collective chins.
Posted by Grim Reefer on August 27, 2007 03:30 PMGrim Reefer is a prime example of the failure of the Godless Public School System. It's what we call "The Gross National Product."
I'm glad we hit a "Collective nerve in that crude and vulgar liberal brain of yours. Your only being true to your left wing ilk so I'll make
considerations in your case. You are what you are. Pathetic fool.
A House is not a Home, Mr. Cole & Mr. Stuckey
You guys are Mr. Bush's wet dreams! You are perfect examples of the loyal subjects,..err, loyal Americans that Herr Bush and his minions are cultivating.
Keep up the good work...Bush is counting on your following the rest of the sheep,..err, loyal Americans marching to his drum.
Posted by on August 27, 2007 03:50 PMNot to sound redundant, but in reading this:
"Recent intelligence reports have indicated that the next terrorist attack here in the United States may be the take over of a middle school after which the terrorist will kill all boys, then rape and kill all of the girls."
Seriously, where did you hear about this? Please provide documentation for your pee-pants scenarios.
Posted by Jeff on August 27, 2007 03:50 PMA House is not a Home,
I am a Libertarian. Maybe instead of resorting to name calling, you should actually attempt to read and understand the topic in which you write.
Without our Constitutional guarantee's what do we have? I am not afraid of having someone listen to my phone calls at all. But what I expect, no, demand from my leadership, is accountability, responsibility, and adherence to our foundation as a nation, our Constitution. If our leaders choose not to adhere to our Constitution, it is our RESPONSIBILITY to call them on it, as we are THEIR BOSS. Or do you forget that we are a nation "Of the People, By the People, and For the People?"
What are our soldiers fighting for, if not for the protections our CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES us?
Posted by Dan2 on August 27, 2007 03:55 PMI think I'll invent a reason for going to war, then use that as an excuse for taking away people's rights and then call them unpatriotic if they question me. That works for me and all of those who are gullible enough to fall for it. They get what they deserve. I can defecate all over them and they can't smell it because their heads are buried in the sands of Iraq, though they're thousands of miles away from it.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 27, 2007 04:02 PMYa know, it's amazing how people can be absolutely soiling themselves over all the "rights" they no longer enjoy here in the Bu$hCo Neocon Fascist Police State, but remain in utter denial about the nature of the the threat we're actually facing.
Maybe the middle school threat is credible, maybe it isn't. But those of you who think that such a nightmare scenario could only spring from the Right-Wing Paranoia Inducing Apparatus...Does the name "Beslan" mean anything to you? Take a break from dailykos.com and Google it.
Posted by GoesTo11 on August 27, 2007 04:04 PMDan2
I agree with you in closely guarding our constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms. While I don't believe entirely with the post of Trinity that I pasted, he did cover a lot of the concerns we should have in ensuring that an erosion of rights isn't allowed to go unchecked.
Unfortunately, there are many people that speak up in support of anything shoved our way in the name of security. They seem convinced that their government would never do anything not in "the people's" best interest. I find the fine line between "in our interest" and "in their (politicians) interest" to be smudged quite often as of late.
Posted by darfor on August 27, 2007 04:12 PMPost 3:05
At least Grim Reefer had the nerve to use his handle. You also are a filty coward of a curr
and we are so glad lowlifes like you are on the other side and prove everything we say about the left. Only the truth could bring out such vile postings and it only hurts your lying liberal agenda in the eyes of "Real" Americans. I must leave you to slop around in your left wing cesspool now. Catch you and your fellow swine the rebound.
GoesTo1:--
While Beslan is hard history, I would be more concerned of terrorists detonating a small dirty nuclear bomb in some of our cities. It would do a lot more than just enrage and scare us. Where kids would enrage scare and piss us off, dirty nukes would cripple us and throw us into chaos.
People who are convinced that Bush can't do any wrong based on not being attacked for a while, remember that attacks have taken place in other parts of the world and our turn is coming around again with or without Bush.
CA
Posted by on August 27, 2007 04:19 PMWell you can see what certain people consider "freedom of speech", a Nobel awards nominee calls for the assasination of the president and is appluaded and cheered. Ted Nuggent used his freedom of speech against Clinton and Pbama, now liberals are attacking him en masse and wanting his head on a platter. The Liberal idea of freedom of speech can be accurately found in George Owells "1984", you have the right to say what you want, as long as it's what they tell you it is. Another example of how liberalism and the PC crowd "protect" freedom of speech is the pulling of the comic strip OPUS because it may be offensive. What about freedom of speech there?
Posted by Nick on August 27, 2007 04:23 PMIf I felt I could trust my government, under any administration, then I might put up with it. But truly trustworthy governments are the stuff of fiction. The best we can hope for is a competent government with it's powers constricted enough to allow us enough freedom to live with fear of them busting down the doors for any infraction. The only reason that you support these measures is because your party is in power. Imagine if the Dems were in charge. You'd be howling that you can't trust them with the power. Well, just as much as you don't trust the pot-headed hippy socialists, I don't trust the Christian fascists. And to me, this means none of us can trust our government with these powers except in extreme conditions and for only short times. The War on Terror (tm) is not a short time project.
You realize that this is exactly what the terrorists want? To have us lock down our freedoms so that we live in the same, if not worse, conditions than they do?
Oh, and spare us the "save the children" scenarios. It is the battle cry of someone who can't think of any good, logical reason for their position.
Posted by Roger on August 27, 2007 04:24 PMA House is not a Home
You shouldn't throw stones while in your glass house. Does it become the right's agenda to call names and be vile to all who oppose you? Is that all you have to defend your Nazi inspired positions? If you are a "Real American", this country's in worse shape than I thought.
Kc
Posted by on August 27, 2007 04:26 PMBecause or clinton we lost alot of freedoms,look at airport travel.If you want to lose all vote for hillary.
Posted by Keith on August 27, 2007 04:27 PMThanks Darfur.
A House...
Here is my question to you. What is so hard about following the Constitution? What if part of the war on Terror, was to ban all fire-arms in the US? What if it meant that since, terrorists tend to follow a certain religion, we banned all religion from the US, or everything but Islam, so we could more easily identify those that are Muslim? What if it meant that the US was going to put troops in every single persons house, so that at a moments notice, they could be mobilized to any part of the US in seconds, to help fight terrorism?
Is it just the 4th Amendment you have a problem with, or would you junk the entire bill of rights, all in the name of "preventing terrorism"? Do you see the problem now?
Posted by Dan2 on August 27, 2007 04:28 PMI just did a search for middle school terror attack potential and came back with NOTHING.
People like Mr. Case and Mr. Stuckey seem to have a hard time understanding when other rights are violated, but until and unless it specifically effects them, so what, right? Well Mr. Stuckey, what would happen if part of the war on terror was that you could no longer write your letters to the editor, or have any kind of a blog, because it may provide information to the terrorists of the "pulse of the country?"
If it made the country safer, would you scrap the entire Constitution? We could live in a police state, with armed military personnel on every corner, with curfew's and restricted travel. We could build a nice big wall around the entire US, and then once we contained everyone within the US, around every state, so that only authorized travel was ok. Think East Germany from 1950 - 1992. What a great country we would live in then!
Posted by Dan2 on August 27, 2007 04:41 PMHey Keith,
What is alot? Is that some kind of animal? And what freedoms have we lost with airport travel? An example would be wonderful. Maybe you are implying some conveniences that we gave up. Is that what you meant?
I think that we have forsaken more liberties under the Bush administration, than we did under the Clinton Administration (but not nearly as much as under the administration of FDR).
You rarely make sense to me, so I am hoping that you expound a little more on what it is exactly you are writing about. And maybe if you put some effort into your typing, used proper grammar and maybe even ran your post through spell check before posting, people just may take you a little more seriously. Until then, I'll try A LOT harder to divine the intent of your letters.
Posted by Dan2 on August 27, 2007 04:51 PMWow, what a bunch of rambling nonsense talking people.
After reading all of the posts here...I will trust the government any day over all of the idiots here!!
Mr. Home. When Detroit quit making cars, they re-tooled the machines to turn our people like you.
Did you not notice the posted price per adjective? It is $1.00. Your 4:16 post will be $5.00 + tax for the library fund. Thank you.
If you are giving up your rights, please leave mine alone as my telephone conversations will need to be coded from now on.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 27, 2007 05:06 PMYou gotta love people like Gary. The best way to have this not effect him is to close his eyes, cover his ears, and yell, lalalalala, really loud. That way, he just ignores the entire problem!
You keep trusting away Gary! Maybe you could get a job with Arthur Anderson!
Posted by Pull the sheets over my head on August 27, 2007 05:08 PMSharon,
I have no idea what you are writing about. I'm used to it, and it always brings a smile to my face. You, drew, Charles B, KW, and John II are people I would really like to sit down, and have a beer with. I think we would have a lot of fun!
Posted by Dan2 on August 27, 2007 05:12 PMColin,
Just so you are aware, our intelligence reports prior to 9/11, prior to the Patriot Act, and prior to illegal wiretapping without oversight, did in fact identify the 9/11 threat. However, inept communication between government agencies, and even the apathy of George W. Bush himself who was informed of the threat on August 6, 2001, did nothing to stop the tragedy. Dubya in fact recommended the information be disregarded.
The events and missteps that lead to 9/11 had nothing to do with our surveillance abilities. It had everything to do with mistakes, bad leadership, terrible communication, and an ill-informed mandate from our own "Decider"-In-Chief.
As far as this comment: "Recent intelligence reports have indicated that the next terrorist attack here in the United States may be the take over of a middle school after which the terrorist will kill all boys, then rape and kill all of the girls."
Where on earth did you derive this information? If this was anything but first-hand knowledge, did you do anything to corroborate this account? Or did you take it for face value? Being a patriot doesn't mean being a paranoid patsy.
Posted by Dan on August 27, 2007 05:21 PMDan2,
How about a Texas Hold-em tournament? I think I could rake it in from the "faith based" players..
As a somewhat related aside, I ran across this testimony about the overuse of SWAT teams in recent years, mostly for drug offenses, on reason online:
"800 times per week in this country, a SWAT team breaks open an American’s door, and invades his home. Few turn up any weapons at all, much less high-power weapons. Less than half end with felony charges for the suspects. And only a small percentage end up doing significant time in prison."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/121169.html
Posted by Charles B on August 27, 2007 05:28 PMCharles B
I read that testimony before congress earlier. It's odd that people who advocate restricting the second amendment scope of gun ownership keep harping on the heavy firepower of the druggies. As this call to slow the frequency of SWAT raids demonstrate, the druggies don't have near the firepower attributed to them by TV and Hollywood.
I wonder how many of our other rights are under pressure due to erroneous assumptions based on restricting our rights for "security"? People who see terrorists under ever rug and advocate restricting our rights in the name of security are only greasing the slippery slope toward more restrictions being "identified" as absolutely essential.
While I don't ascribe to totalitarian creep just yet, I do believe we have to be ever vigilant and not be afraid to question the actions of our government -- especially since it is OUR government of THE PEOPLE, not the rulers.
Posted by mongoose on August 27, 2007 05:56 PMDan2. I mistyped. "Turn out people like you".
Mr. home uses the same insults that Keith, An American and Uno use.
These people came off an assembly line.
I would be really worried about you if you could understand me.
Insult adjectives are $1.00 per. Can`t people write without them.
Cowards, swine, etc. Mr. Home should pay to bore us like this.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 27, 2007 06:22 PMI’ll expect all of you guys who think our freedom is taken away, to go out to DIA tomorrow and protest all airport security, since all US airports and air travel within the borders of the USA is a blatant violation of the constitution. If you don’t, you’re just full of crap blowing hot air. I want to see you all tomorrow in the news, holding signs.
Posted by Uno on August 27, 2007 06:46 PMThanks Sharon, makes total sense, now! haha
Charles, LOVE the idea. You set it up, I'll bring the scotch!
Uno,
I challenge you to find in the Constitution where it specifically mentions the "right to unrestricted travel from state to state." I guarantee you that you will be unable to find it. It was language used by the Supreme Court, first in 1908 (Twining v. New Jersey 211 U.S. 78) just as "separation of Church and State" never appears in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment is usually cited in these instances, under equal protection.
But, air travel is a CONVENIENCE, you are free to walk from state to state with no i.d. and no restriction. What we have seen with air travel is a restriction on the convenience of this TYPE OF TRAVEL. Big difference, don't you think?
So, I really don't feel the need to waste my time and protest. I would rather vote for someone who upholds the Constitution. Or maybe, someday, run for office myself.
Posted by Dan2 on August 27, 2007 08:14 PMDan2, let’s see what you had to say:
“I just did a search for middle school terror attack potential and came back with NOTHING.” – search where? In the phone book? If you don’t think it’s possible, why don’t you do a search on a Russian school overtaken by terrorists and blowing them selves up killing 334, out of that 186 children. Try "Beslan".
And what is this “We could build a nice big wall around the entire US, and then once we contained everyone within the US, around every state, so that only authorized travel was ok. Think East Germany from 1950 – 1992.” – just what is a communist country trying to prevent it’s own people from escaping has to do with keeping terrorists and illegal aliens out of the US, if they do build that wall down South? Your assumption of building fence around every state is, well, sounds about as cheesy as your claim of actually doing any search on school terror attacks.
You also claimed “I challenge you to find in the Constitution where it specifically mentions the "right to unrestricted travel from state to state." I guarantee you that you will be unable to find it.” – I’ve checked on in-state flights out of DIA and one still have to go through security with the same restrictions as state to state. You lied.
Than you said “What we have seen with air travel is a restriction on the convenience of this TYPE OF TRAVEL.” – so, according to you, it is OK to give up freedom as long as you're approve of it.
Did you vote for Clinton? And will you for the other one?
I, too, read the article and conclude that one poster, I think FLIMFLAM, is correct. This letter HAS to be hoax. Likely written by someone who enjoys watching the posters here fight and call each other names.
You can check out the Exec orders, etc. very easily.
President Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, and suspend habeas corpus. This gives him dictatorial power over the people, without any checks and balances.
The government can jail you for life without charges, without a trial, and without a lawyer.
Executive Order #10999
Allows the government to take over all modes of transportation.
Executive order #11000
Allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
Executive Order # 11921
Provides that the President can declare a state of emergency that is not defined, and Congress cannot review the action for six months.
Senate bill #1873
Allows the government to vaccinate you with untested vaccines against your will.
Congressman Sensenbrenner’s bill (HR 1528) requires you to spy on your neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal would be punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.
The government claims the power to seize all financial instruments: currency, gold, silver, and everything else if they deem an emergency exists. – Treasury Department letter, August 12, 2005
The PATRIOT Act permits:
-Secret FBI and police searches of your home and office
-Secret government wiretaps on your phone, computer, and/or internet activity
-Secret investigations of your bank records, credit cards, and other financial records
-Secret investigations of your library and book activities
-Secret examination of your medical, travel, and business records
-The freezing of funds and assets without prior notice or appeal
-The creation of secret “watch lists” that ban those named from air and other travel
What slippery slope are you fools arguing about -- the one in the above bills and orders; or, another theoretical one as you believe this stuff is ok since it's for our protection.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
10.15 and all nut jobs out there , unless you have anything to hide i think you might be a little paranoid, unless you are funding terrorist, aiding criminals, searching child porn, or starting a backwoods militia you should not have anything to worry about, all you people who support terrorist by saying you cant spy on us need to grow up, unless we do spy on strange and irregular suspicious activities, these people will never get caught.
i do feel they should put more money towards the border to track illegal immigrants and quit being so politically correct and stop searching old white people at the airports and start searching Muslim and Arabian people since these are the ones who took down the planes on 911....
America is so politically correct now it is scary , no one wants to get their feelings hurt , welcome to America , freedoms of speech means you have a right to be offended and i have a right to offend you and vise versa, this isn't kindergarten any more this is the real world
i am an Atheist , a conservative and a bush hater , i support our troops and not the war i vote for what is good for our nation, not left or right , so if you want to make a difference , VOTE , you can be heard, bitching in the forums about your rights will not change the fact, it is just a place to vent , i take full advantage of that ,
i will say i agree with people on both sides in the forums on several issues , but this time i have to say that unless your doing illegal activities as stated above you really have nothing to worry about
place the foil back into the drawer open the blinds and see the light people
wake up you idiot,I can't stand ignorance.And what you left out is if these people have ties to known terrorist.on visa's.This had to happen because some idiot put every American in harms way by gutting our intelligence agencys.We lost 8 years because a incompetent president.So this country has to suck it up and learn from the mistakes.If you vote in a dem. we all get F...!
Posted by Keith on August 27, 2007 10:54 PMHey, Dick, that hoimaha is falling for it...just a few million more and the minions are all wrapped up....
Posted by on August 27, 2007 11:07 PMmiss teen South Carolina,A perfect example of somebody who would vote for a democrat.That's the trouble in this country,we have liberal teachers sending there product out in this society.They are allowed to vote but can't name one fact about what is going on in this world.
Posted by Keith on August 27, 2007 11:26 PMKeith, is it Texas?
we also lost many translators who speak, read, and write all those weird Middle Eastern languages because they are gay. Isn`t that great? (sarcasm, joke, hyperbole)
Posted by Sharon B. on August 28, 2007 12:35 AMBecause or clinton we lost alot of freedoms,look at airport travel.If you want to lose all vote for hillary.
Posted by Keith
Just after making this post, Keith fell down into his own drunken vomit while urinating in his pants.
Posted by Observation on August 28, 2007 07:30 AMDont worry about keith tripping and falling in his vomit, or urinating in his pants..its a daily occurance for him. I beleive there is a contest between him and An American on which one can make the more ridiculous claims.
...although I still think An American is a secret deomocrat/liberal making up stuff just so people will not want to be assiociated with him, driving more folks from the Republican Party than Bush
WELL, KEITH, Ii AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOUR POINT IS. What on earth does a 17 year-old girl have to do with the subject at hand?
While waiting for your response to that question, let us talk about the statement you made regarding said 17 year-old and her state of origin.
South Carolina is a Republican State.
Governor: Mark Sanford (R)
Senator: Lindsey Graham (R)
Senator: Jim DeMint (R)
U.S. House delegation: 2 Democrats,
4 Republicans
State Senate: 26 Republicans,
20 Democrats
State House: 73 Republicans,
51 Democrats
Not that this has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER DO TO WITH THE TOPIC, MIND YOU. But, I have found that most of the people in these forums can't stay on topic anyway. I think it is the fault of the Demo-lican-dents.
Posted by Sheila on August 28, 2007 08:05 AMDan2 - While I agree with you 99% of the time (ok maybe a stretch), I'm not as worried about these infractions upon our constitutional rights as you. I guess I've become somewhat complacent over the last 20+ years.
We've already had our rights encroached upon year after year in many forms.
a) Unwarranted seizure of assets if the authorities 'think" they may have been illegally aquired. No charges need ever be filed and you can be completely innocent yet you are the one that has to fight to regain your assets and foot the lengthy legal bill on top of it all.
b) Unwarranted searches as Charles B mentioned above by swat teams. No one is held accountable for the misinformation as they authorities feel they need this wiggle room in order to maintain control of a crime situation.
Gun rights (oh where to begin). For the last 20+ years more laws and restrictions have been placed on ownership, who can carry, where you can carry, what you can buy, frequency of purchases, etc, etc, etc...
I don't advocate that we continue to allow our rights to be eroded. But in light of my list above, and the many other examples we can post here, the small amount of liberty being ceded here isn't alarming to me. And considering nobody screamed before, I question somes peoples motives for claiming the sky is falling now.
BTW - Are you buying the beer?
Posted by KW on August 28, 2007 09:02 AMsheila,Because like that 17 tear old girl,people on these post sound like total idiots.They try to present a argument that has been proven false already.They repeat liberal lies instead of finding out the facts.Every time I talk to a liberal is like talking to a total retard.You show them facts but they can't compehend.They rather spead lies than to accept facts.That 17 year old is the perfect liberal poster child.
Posted by Keith on August 28, 2007 09:11 AMUno,
First, middle school terror attacks IN THE UNITED STATES. There has been nothing reported about that. Mr. Case made that up. It may have happened in Russia, but unless you want to have the same restrictions on freedoms in Russia, apples to oranges pal.
"You also claimed “I challenge you to find in the Constitution where it specifically mentions the "right to unrestricted travel from state to state." I guarantee you that you will be unable to find it.” – I’ve checked on in-state flights out of DIA and one still have to go through security with the same restrictions as state to state. You lied."
-what the HELL are you talking about? How did I lie? You had written,
"since all US airports and air travel within the borders of the USA is a blatant violation of the constitution." No it's not. You are pointless to even discuss this with, because 1. you are obviously ignorant of the Constitution, and 2. you can't even read what I wrote correctly.
I voted for Clinton in 1996, voted for Harry Browne in 2000 and Michael Badnarik in 2004. You probably don't even know who those candidates are. I have not decided yet who I am going to vote for in 2008, it's still a year and 2.5 months away. What is your point? Are you just a nut job partisan who can't think for himself?
Posted by Dan2 on August 28, 2007 09:22 AMThanks KW,
I already let Charles B know that I'll bring a nice bottle of Johnny Walker Gold. We should set this up somehow. I think it would be fun to discuss this all, without the quick use of google... haha
Hoimaha,
You wrote:
"10.15 and all nut jobs out there , unless you have anything to hide i think you might be a little paranoid, unless you are funding terrorist, aiding criminals, searching child porn, or starting a backwoods militia you should not have anything to worry about, all you people who support terrorist by saying you cant spy on us need to grow up, unless we do spy on strange and irregular suspicious activities, these people will never get caught."
-Why, is it so hard, to get a warrant, with up to 48 hours AFTER THE FACT? Why do we need to ditch the 4th Amendment? You understand what erosion of rights means, yes? If not, it means that a gradual decline of something. In this case, an erosion of our rights means that we will gradually lose those rights and liberties, UNLESS WE PUT AN END TO IT!
It is not the specific end that we challenge, but the means to reach that end. The process is in place, yet our President and Congress throw the 4th Amendment out the window and just go on the fly. Being a citizen of this nation GUARANTEES us the rights and liberties in our Constitution. We live in society where we are innocent until proven guilty, and the proof must be demonstrated within scope of the Constitution. Wouldn't you hate to have a conviction of someone aiding the terrorist over-turned because the entire process was unconstitutional? Or don't you really care, because it doesn't effect you... Yet...
Posted by Dan2 on August 28, 2007 09:36 AMRe Miss Teen South Carolina
Some of you folks are using the "performance" of this young lady in a partisan manner. While that may be great sport, I think it's ignoring the glaring problem highlighted about the educational system that produced such an answer. Perhaps a little more discipline in effective thinking and evaluation, in lieu of social skills, would have helped this gal. Education in our is a bipartisan responsibility that is usually swayed, like the comments in this forum, by the ideology who has the current power.
And please, skip the "typical blonde" jokes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
Posted by mongoose on August 28, 2007 09:37 AMMongoose, maybe the girl in question has seen what Republican policies can do to individuals. Maybe her dads job was outsourced to India. Maybe her sister is uninsured or was pregnant and developed cancer that couldn`t be treated till the baby was born.
Maybe she had white friends in Katrina's aftermath who were denied their insurance claim ( Republicans love insurance companies) Or black friends who got stuck in the convention center or spent a few days living on an overpass of a highway, Maybe.......
Get the picture?
Real life makes us liberal Democrats.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 28, 2007 11:57 AMSharon B: -- maybe she had a liberal education. You know, the "real life" kind that didn't require thought process, only emotional reaction. Maybe she had a conservative education which again doesn't require thought process, only acceptance of preset absolutes. Either way she wasn't able to respond to the question nor formulate even a coherent incorrect answer.
Since the population is being effectively split by talking points coming out of both parties (one monolithic group of controlled ruling elites masquerading as two distinct parties) into a "liberal" faction vs. a "conservative" faction, the special interests in control are going about their merry way in instituting their agenda.
The people who control the direction and policies of this country, the people and money behind the politicians, have proven the old adage, "united we stand, divided we fall." The push for globalization with standardization of laws and policies is being supported by both parties and has a united front in pursuing such policies. Meanwhile, they are effectively keeping the general population divided and bickering amongst ourselves and keeping the focus off holding all politicians responsible for results instead of promises made regardless of party "affiliation."
Whether you be a "flaming liberal" or a "die hard conservative", or fall in between, we have to drop our penchant for voting based on the verbally painted pictures of politicians and start voting on actual accomplishments. This includes how well members of each party "play" with those of the other party in actually identifying and correcting problems facing this country. If politicians knew they weren't safe in their positions because of an initial behind their name, but could be replaced based on results, we might actually start solving problems in this country.
Believing that either party is actually going to make a difference or a major change in direction of this country is about as realistic as believing in the tooth fairy.
Posted by mongoose on August 28, 2007 12:53 PMConcerning Breslan school
many of the special ops folks who were going in to the school in Breslan to free the children were shot in the back by snipers from long distance.
That really pissed-off Putin, who vowed to payback whoever did it. The gist was that it was US special ops who did it. Why?
while we're all talking about the Constitutionality of things, check this out:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/rp-everything.html
01:04 PM:--
Clarification please. Was it US ops going into the school, or US ops shooting those going into the school? What are you basing this on? Do you have a link to any credible documentation of US ops being involved in one way or the other?
Posted by on August 28, 2007 01:10 PM01:04PM
The US had nothing to do with Breslan. The rebels were Chechnyan and the military rescuers were Russian Special Forces.
Similar reports from many sources. This one from Scotsman.com
Islamic militants seized Beslan's School No 1 taking more than 1100 children, parents and staff hostage and herding them into the gymnasium, which they rigged with explosives. The dead hostages included 186 children.
Families have strongly criticised the rescue operation, saying hostages died needlessly because special forces soldiers used flame-throwers, grenade launchers and tanks against the militants.
I think the conspiracy crowd is growing restless trying to include the US in this tragedy.
Posted by on August 28, 2007 01:35 PMI think 01:04PM has been watching too many episodes of "The Unit" on TV. There's no imaginable reason for the US to be involved in an operation like he insinuates.
And, the Breslan affair was different than the letter writer is talking about anyway. In Breslan the rebels were trying to use the hostages as leverage to force independence for Chechnya to become an free country, not a part of Russia. Those rebels expected to win their "negotiation" and walk out as free citizens of a new country. If they were suicidal they could have blown up everybody in the school since they were already wired.
Mr. Case is talking about a suicidal terrorist attack using children to dramatize the vulnerability of American citizens. By assaulting then killing the kids the belief would be to strike more terror in the hearts and minds of Americans
How taking our freedoms away is going to stop such a attack is a good question. We already have open borders for the terrorists to skip across anyway. If they want to attack in this way all they have to do is walk into a school. I doubt they'll call anybody to ask permission or warn them they are about to act.
CA
putin said he felt us spec ops shot hsi soviet spec ops in the back when they were going in to end the situation
Posted by on August 28, 2007 02:36 PMHey House, is your real name Dick Cheney?
Everything that Darfor mentioned is fact. Just as if they change the speed limit on a road from 70 to 55. If you don't drive that road, it doesn't effect you, but the speed limit has still been changed.
Flimflam, where did you get your post from 8/27 at 247pm?
All the bloggers here should understand by now that the plan that is in place and progressing along nicely is part of the agenda of both sides of the aisle.
Most restrictions that have been placed on our freedoms were done for finacial reasons, not security.
If you are sick of this garbage, don't vote for the establishment candidates in 2008.
Vote for someone who is despised by both parties, and supports the Constitutional rule of law. Vote for Ron Paul in 2008.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/rp-everything.html
Posted by on August 28, 2007 03:05 PM02:36PM I again ask as did 01:04PM , provide documentation to such a quote from Putin. Is there an actual speech or interview that this suspicion was released in? Or, is this just some crack pot's assumption that was born or nurtured on the web?
References, my friend, not statements to justify earlier statements, please.
Posted by mongoose on August 28, 2007 03:18 PMMongoose, did you notice anything I posted? How about replying to my letters and not my education.
I am a liberal because I have lived a long time and seen what Conservative policies do to people.
One of the first thing Bush did in office was cut 34 million to women's health clinics in Africa, because, they might, just might, mention abortion. But he put out millions to fight AIDS. Go figure.
Real people, a piddly amount of money, real suffering. But Bush couldn`t let go of partisan principles for one moment.
Some lady started a web site and raised the money.
Conservatives are penny pinching trouble causing, warmongering fossils.
And every day there are fewer and fewer of them.
Don`t be partisan? The Republicans do not value my families, or my family values.
Ease up on the kid, her hearts in the right place.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 28, 2007 03:50 PMSharon B
I do apologize. It was not meant to slam you personally, rather the idiocy of our supposed two party system. It seems that as a divided society we often fall into parroting what each party claims as their true belief and virtues and the faults of the other side.
All politicians will throw the citizenry under the bus to appease the powers behind them. If the politicians were to be actually held responsible for what did or didn't get accomplished regardless of party affiliation we might get something constructive done.
Bush, for example, wouldn't be so quick to appease the wannabe theocracy advocates for their support, and pharmaceutical companies looking for a big profit in aids drugs in exchange for denying the funding to the clinics you mention. The current system of barter that is in politics is counterproductive to any truly good program or legislation whether it be sponsored by sane liberals or non-zealous conservatives. And I do understand that their are real people in both of those camps.
So again, I do apologize for coming off as if in attack mode against you personally. That definitely was not my intent.
Posted by mongoose on August 28, 2007 04:26 PMmongoose ---
I have a feeling that the alleged US ops interfering at Breslan came from one of those hairbrained conspiracy websites since no independent reference has been provided.
Posted by on August 28, 2007 05:28 PMHere's how to get your mind off the boogey man in local schools ---
"The president offered a long list of offenses committed by Iran against its neighbors in the region, but suggested the United States is considering military options to confront Iran.
Among the many offenses cited were Iran's backing Hezbollah, its sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, its funding Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups, arresting American scholars like Esfendiari and pursuing nuclear technology.
"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere," the president said. "And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late.
"I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities," Bush said, adding that if Iran or Al Qaeda were allowed to gain control of Iraq, the Middle East would face serious instability."
Posted by on August 28, 2007 06:30 PMFACT: Muslim terrorists dont drink alcohol or look at porn. Their women are all covered in sheets and dont show them any skin.
MY HYPOTHESIS: Maybe their lack of access to alcohol and skin is the reason for all their hate and hostility. They are jealous that American men can drink and look at porn.
MY SOLUTION: Have the troops drop bottles of Patron tequilla and Victoria Secret Catelogs from the air into the terrorists training camps.
MY PREDICTED OUTCOME: They will be unable to use their weapons on anyone becuase one hand will have a shot glass in it and the other hand will alternate between holding the Victoria Secret catalog and holding their...well..you know what. It will be like a kid in a candy store for the first time. The terrorists will forget about hate and terror and focus on the new things in life (alcohol and sex/porn)
ALTERNATE OUTCOME: The terrorists wives will order the sexy underwear from the catalogs and import bottles of patron, realizing that their husbands are way more fun after a couple shots and the thought of them in a g-string and push up bra then they are after a day of terrorist training.
Result - no more terrorists
Posted by on August 28, 2007 07:33 PMDan2, you are the one making irrational statements like what if the government is going to put troops in everybody’s house or build a fence around every state. Ban all religions except for Islam? Who is paranoid here Dan2?
You are the self-proclaimed defender and expert of the US Constitution. I’ve suggested that you start with the airports, because most things you described and applied to the whole US is going on at the airports right now (warrantless searches, fences, “secure area”, secret filtering of people by the government, no weapons allowed, freedom of speech further suppressed, everyone is under constant surveillance, should I continue?). And if you’re willing to put up with that, than just what the hell are you talking about defending the Constitution?
You came back with “But, air travel is a CONVENIENCE, you are free to walk from state to state with no i.d. and no restriction.” – I didn’t know the constitution is applied selectively to items by “travel convenience”. But we are still free to walk from state to state? Great! That really clears it up.
Also, you implied that just because your search didn’t turn up anything on middle school terrorist attack potentials, that it’s must be off the table that as an option. I merely pointed out the fact that it already happened in Russia, not that long ago.
You also made a rather puzzling statement “It may have happened in Russia, but unless you want to have the same restrictions on freedoms in Russia, apples to oranges pal.” – newsflash Dan2, Russia had in the last few years whole bunch of terrorist attacks, regardless of what restrictions they have in place. The difference between Putin and Bush is, Bush had the guts to do something about it, after only one, he didn’t just sit around on his hands like Putin, just waiting for the next one, hoping that it just goes away.
Uno, Hoimaha:
Dont be so scared little guys, do you two wanna sleep in mommy and daddy's bet tonight so the bad man can't get you?
Talk about gullible...
Posted by Charles B on August 29, 2007 07:55 AMMONGOOSE: If I understand correctly, you find the 2*party system ridiculous. What do you propose, instead?
Posted by Sheila on August 29, 2007 08:32 AMMongoose, my mistake, you said maybe "she" had a liberal education, not me.
Education doesn`t make as many liberals as real life does.
I have seen the enemy, and it is conservatism dressed in evangelical clothing.
If terrorists hit shopping malls, and all we have there are older, overweight folks on security, there goes our economy.
I don`t know what they plan but we should drop those Victoria Secret catalogs and show then an alternative.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 29, 2007 11:39 AMCharles, I’m not into four-somes. My parents are dead.
Posted by Uno on August 29, 2007 07:10 PMUno:
protesting too much again...makes you look guilty..
Posted by Charles B on August 30, 2007 08:48 AM