Congress goes off the deep end

I haven’t supported Bush and the Republican party but I’ll don the conservative label and answer your questions anyways. It isn’t consistent with traditional republican (i.e. conservative) principles. You see, Bush and the Republican party do have some liberal principles. Well, it has something to do with terrorism. The terrorists are getting good. Because terrorist tactics are very difficult to defend against, especially when the defender has to avoid racism by not profiling people. They need to maintain an image of being the good side, but they are also going to have to do some really bad things to protect us, so they’re trying to hide them, from congress I guess. I think they have a point here and I can see how this is giving the president too much power. At least he has to notify people and can only use it if attacks are imminent. I don’t think he’s going to abuse this power by getting free phone sex or listening to what his wife says about him on the phone.That’s probably how I’d abuse this power, what kind of stuff did you have in mind?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : threw a missing 'and' in there

Very tongue in cheek, yes. Never heard of him until now. What happens when my number comes up? You sound pretty cool, man, I bet we could have had a lot of fun together if we had met in person.

It was obvious to Holmes that this wasn't being conservative. Isn't liberal antonymous to conservative? Who? I don't speak type for Republicans, but everyone defends their party by smearing their opponents. I was just playing along.

Well, its no fun if you're gonna be like thatI started responding to respond to Message 19 but I'm too tired halfway through it. He's what I got so far. Do you honestly think they want to listen to you when you talk to your relatives in Sweden? Hmmm, I don't distrust the goevernment. I don't think its about slowing the process down. I think its about maintaining an good image while doing some bad things in the fight against terrorism.

They're not working, the terrorists are succeeding. You mention at the end of your message how the executive branch failed on 9/11, maybe if they had this power they could've stopped it. Sure, you can say that. We all have opinions. But if I have to come up with a better explanation then so do you. Have we seen lots of success before this was passed? You seem to think we haven't so whats with all the neccessary explanation for something you agree with? Now you're typing about Americans in the first person but sometimes you make a point that you don't live here. Do you switch it up on a thread by thread basis?Are you saying that indeterminate and insulated members of the legislature are not people? If we have no way of knowing then we have nothing to discuss here. I think they did just shift the power. I guess so. They need more power becuase the terrorists are getting good, that's where the failures are comming from.

Liberal is definately an antonym to conservative.

quote:

---

Main Entry: conservative
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: moderate
...
Antonyms: incautious, left-wing, liberal, progressive, radical, revolutionary

---

sourceI picture it as a continuum from liberal on the left to conservative on the right. A policy that is less conservative, is more liberal. But I do agree that being non-conservative does not neccessarily mean being liberal. The tone was set for this thread before I posted. You're doing exactly what your bitching about.

I don't know what I am. What are you asking?

Ok. Allow me to repeat what you ignored. I was saying that something that is less cold is something that is more hot. WRT calling this legislation liberal, I was having some fun.If I look at some random legislation, I don't really know how to determine whether it is liberal or conservative. I don't know. I misread the word 'used'. I didn't realize you were asking how he had done something, how he used to do it. I thought you made a grammatical error. It was my mistake. But damn, take it easy man, jeez. I'm sorry I made a mistake. I haven't looked it up.ABE: I didn't vote for them. What does that have to do with the tone of this thread being set?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

You see it as our government failing. Whatever. Congress passed it. I'm sure they had reasons that they found to be enough. I'm not going to try to come up with the reasons here nor convince you that whatever reasons I can think of are good enough. I don't know but I don't think it would have hurt. Again, I don't know. Congress passed it. I don't know what reasons they had for passing it but I trust their judgement. Isn't that why they are in congress, to make these decisions? So he does have to notify people then. Do you think that Congress just totally overlooked this and passed something they didn't think they should have passed? It does seem to give him too much power. Its not up to me. I don't know. My explanation involved maintaining a positive image while also doing things that would be deemed 'bad'. Like, they don't want to have to tell everyone when they're putting some dishonest wiretaps on terrorists. I don't care if they do but I can understand them wanting to hide it. We have to keep the good guys image.

no problem. I think its fun. They get wroked up pretty easily. The people I've met in person that are liberals are very annoying. They seem to be idealists. Also, a lot of them are whiny pussies. Its not that I'm drawn to the conservative side, its that I'm drawn away from the liberal side. I have not been involved in or payed attention to politics very much at all. You have to study a lot and learn about so much to commit to a position. I just don't care enough to put in the effort. I don't really know which position I hold, but more people call me conservative than liberal. And with my opinion on the liberals I've met, I might as well commit to the conservative side. You know, just so you don't think I'm ridiculous. I just don't pay attention to them enough. If I did, I don't think I have a problem knowing what to think. I gave it a quick look and didn't find anything. Got a link?This is all off topic so we can stop but I would like to see a link from you, if you would.

Maybe not, but I wouldn't post on a forum calling to Democrats to explain why Congress passed it. If your looking past the politics then why did you call out to the Republicans?

Well then lets get to the effects. What effects are you thinking of?Abuse of power? I covered that, unreplied, in Message 24.How it is gonna affect you, or me?I don't think its going to affect me very much at all.A lot of people bitch about the Patriot act, and rightly so, but it hasn't had any impact on my day-to-day life. Same goes for this one I presume.What effects?

I've noticed that replies that begin with 'in other words...' or 'so you're telling me...' are misrepresenting you.I don't think a discussion about what consitiutes maintining the moral high ground is on topic. Absolutely. We are fighting terrorists. People who will blow themselves up to take out a bunch of innocent civilians. Fuck them. If we have to torture a terrorist to learn the location of a hidden bomb, then torture away. But, we should not go public about the torturing we do. We should keep it hidden to mainain the 'good guys' image.The public doesn't need to know about everything that the government does, especially the bad (morally wrong) things that must be done to protect ourselves. If we need a secret wire tap to find key information and this legislation will enable it, then I feel it makes the legislation less bad. Now, I'm not totally for it, it does seem a little extreme, but I can imagine how it could be useful in a positive way. Well, if they actually are serving our interest, the rationale is less important. Like I typed above, I don't think we need to know about every little thing they are doing. Its about the big picture.

I only saw one smear campaign commercial during the highlights of the (awesome) Cardinals game last night. Guess what, it was paid for by the Republicans.I just though I'd say "You told me so".

I guess I was talking about actual effects we will see on the people. This just outlines what the legislation does. That's what I was talking about. I really don't think that is going to affect me. Actually, I don't give a shit if they listen to my phone calls. They'd probably be bored to tears.That its a violation of my rights and that they don't really have a right to do it is basically the argument, yeah? What consequesnces do you expect? Won't they have that even if they aren't corrupt? It can happen again.