Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 11:20 AM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,910 Year: 8,946/19,786 Month: 1,368/2,119 Week: 128/576 Day: 29/99 Hour: 5/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
15Next
Author Topic:   George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3062 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 121 of 220 (272154)
12-23-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Silent H
12-23-2005 11:03 AM


Re: War or No, Bush has too much power
I think it's counter-productive to attack Bush for this and claim this is something new when it is not. The unstated message is this is something only Bush has done instead of enlightening people to the fact this is standard operating procedure all the time with the intelligence community.

So I am responding to what I feel is a lie.

If you want people that follow such practices to take you seriously and not to think you are just following partisan politics, you will admit this is not something new, and equally deplore the NSA, CIA, Clinton, Carter, etc,...doing the same thing, and without even the pretext of war.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2005 11:03 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2005 5:11 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3062 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 122 of 220 (272156)
12-23-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Theodoric
12-23-2005 11:13 AM


Re: War or No, Bush has too much power
If something had come out like is coming out now, I would have been strongly against.

Somehow I doubt that since it did come out. Besides independent news media like WorldNetDaily running with the Echelon story for years, eventually even Blather and company ran with it.

I didn't see too many liberal democrats caring about back then though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Theodoric, posted 12-23-2005 11:13 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Theodoric, posted 12-24-2005 1:54 PM randman has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3983 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 123 of 220 (272178)
12-23-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by randman
12-23-2005 4:34 PM


Re: War or No, Bush has too much power
I think it's counter-productive to attack Bush for this and claim this is something new when it is not.

Where are you Randman? Even the Bush administration is admitting that what he did is different, even if necessary.

Yes, parallel things have occured, but not exactly the same thing.

And regardless, I am not worried about whether this is new or not. I did not say hey lets get him because this is NEW. I said what is happening is WRONG. That's why I wanted it stopped.

So I am responding to what I feel is a lie.

I'm sorry, a lie? You are accusing me of lying?

and not to think you are just following partisan politics, you will admit this is not something new, and equally deplore the NSA, CIA, Clinton, Carter, etc,...doing the same thing, and without even the pretext of war.

You and Tal are must be some of the thickest people I have ever met...

1) I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT! I SUPPORT SOME REPUBLICANS! THIS CANNOT BE PARTISAN POLITICS!
2) I ALREADY SAID I DEPLORED SIMILAR STUFF NO MATTER WHO IT WOULD BE FROM!
3) I ALREADY SAID I DISLIKED CLINTON AND THOUGHT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT FOR CERTAIN RIGHTS ISSUES!

I'm hoping the caps will help you read what I have already told you many times before.

What you could do to remove the illusion of your partisanship, would be to quit refering to precedent, or to misrepresentations of what authors are politically and what they think, and deal with the present issue.

It appears you are arguing that you don't have to deal with the issue, discussing it factually, because you can pick on strawman forever and ever regarding accusors.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 4:34 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by randman, posted 12-24-2005 3:18 AM Silent H has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3062 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 124 of 220 (272346)
12-24-2005 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Silent H
12-23-2005 5:11 PM


Re: War or No, Bush has too much power
Holmes I am accusing the story of containing a *** , not you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2005 5:11 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Silent H, posted 12-24-2005 10:50 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3983 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 125 of 220 (272413)
12-24-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by randman
12-24-2005 3:18 AM


Re: War or No, Bush has too much power
Holmes I am accusing the story of containing a *** , not you.

Bush's official defenders have stated that his powers were newly acquired, or settled. That inherently means that he is doing something that is not exactly like what has gone on before... even if it is defensible.

James Woolsey (former head of the CIA), while suggesting the debate of whether he should be able to have the powers he took upon himself, states that the defense for far given is weak and not clear at all. I fully admit he disagrees with my position that it is clearly wrong, but he equally holds in contempt that it is clearly valid. In any case that suggests that even a CIA head believes the actions are not business as usual.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by randman, posted 12-24-2005 3:18 AM randman has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6264
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 126 of 220 (272481)
12-24-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by randman
12-23-2005 4:36 PM


Re: War or No, Bush has too much power
I have previously explained your fallacy about echelon. Your argument is bogus and wrong. You are taking your arguments from conservative talking points and are ignoring the facts I clearly pointed out earlier. How typical! Dogma is the only thing that seems important to you. As you continually ignore facts even when they are shown to you.

This message has been edited by Theodoric, 12-24-2005 12:55 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 4:36 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by randman, posted 12-27-2005 1:53 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Theus
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 220 (273080)
12-27-2005 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Silent H
12-18-2005 5:07 AM


Re: time of war
Licoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus from 1861-1862, of which then Maryland Justice Tanney ruled against as unconstitutional. However, Licoln waved such criticism aside as the words of a Southern gentleman and continued. Roughly 13,000+ people were arrested in something resembling martial law in the US.

I'll leave debate as to the justice or merit of Licoln's actions to historians, but I will delicately point out that THE WAR ON TERRORISM IS IN NO WAY SIMILAR TO THE @#%#@ CIVIL WAR! The idea that the "war" on terror is in anyway related to an actual war with a defined opposition is ridiculous. We in America truly have suffered little to make so careless a comparisson. We do not have an economy ravaged, the future of the nation in doubt, or even any true threat to the stability of this government itself (outside our own decisions, of course).

If you honestly think that the "war" on terror or any other emotion is comprable to the revolutionary or civil wars, then you are truly fortunate to be so distanced from the real tragedy of warfare.

Vale,
Theus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 12-18-2005 5:07 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by randman, posted 12-27-2005 1:56 AM Theus has not yet responded
 Message 134 by Silent H, posted 12-27-2005 5:51 AM Theus has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3062 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 128 of 220 (273109)
12-27-2005 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Theodoric
12-24-2005 1:54 PM


Re: War or No, Bush has too much power
theodric, your "explanation" is thoroughly unsubstantiated and frankly plain wrong. Echelon is and was used to eavesdrop all the time, and yes, on communications all over the world.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Theodoric, posted 12-24-2005 1:54 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Theodoric, posted 12-27-2005 10:54 AM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3062 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 129 of 220 (273111)
12-27-2005 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Theus
12-27-2005 12:22 AM


Re: time of war
the problem is we don't really know if the war on terrorism is that serious or not.....there are reports in US News and World Report of feds searching for nukes in Mosques in DC, and in such a manner to suggest thye believe there is a nuclear or radiological weapon in DC of some sort.

Now, maybe this is a hoax, but if an nuclear blast goes off in an American city, what will you say then? Probably that BUsh let down on the job.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Theus, posted 12-27-2005 12:22 AM Theus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by arachnophilia, posted 12-27-2005 1:58 AM randman has responded
 Message 135 by jar, posted 12-27-2005 10:20 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 137 by Theodoric, posted 12-27-2005 10:57 AM randman has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 130 of 220 (273112)
12-27-2005 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by randman
12-27-2005 1:56 AM


Re: time of war
well, in the old days we declared war on countries, not ideas.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by randman, posted 12-27-2005 1:56 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by randman, posted 12-27-2005 2:08 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3062 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 131 of 220 (273113)
12-27-2005 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by arachnophilia
12-27-2005 1:58 AM


Re: time of war
this administration has never been that good with words and rhetoric
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by arachnophilia, posted 12-27-2005 1:58 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by arachnophilia, posted 12-27-2005 2:15 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 133 by Silent H, posted 12-27-2005 5:41 AM randman has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 132 of 220 (273117)
12-27-2005 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by randman
12-27-2005 2:08 AM


Re: time of war
no no, just the president. the administration is quite good at it. i mean, changing "estate tax" to "death tax" is nothing short of brilliant. and making the word "liberal" a bad thing? wow.

they're QUITE good at manipulating words. look at "war." we have wars on drugs, and terror, and christmas. in the old days, we had wars with countries, or perhaps even militant groups. the only word i can think of for what "war" means today is arabic: jihad.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by randman, posted 12-27-2005 2:08 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3983 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 133 of 220 (273153)
12-27-2005 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by randman
12-27-2005 2:08 AM


Re: time of war
this administration has never been that good with words and rhetoric

Which is amazing because that's pretty much all they use to solve problems. Perhaps it is better stated as:

Their words and rhetoric have never been good enough to compensate for their failures.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by randman, posted 12-27-2005 2:08 AM randman has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3983 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 134 of 220 (273155)
12-27-2005 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Theus
12-27-2005 12:22 AM


Re: time of war
Thanks for the info on Lincoln. I'll have to look into that more. At first glance I'd have to agree with Tanney.

I also agree with you that the situations are completely different between then and now. Perhaps his actions might at least have seemed credible (even if wrong) based on the threat the nation was faced with. There simply is no excuse in this instance for what Bush did. For all the talk of what he had a right to do, he has never explained why he would have needed to exert that "emergency" right. He could have gone to the court to get the warrants.

And of course there is one other factor which mitigates what Lincoln did. He was successful. Not only was there an emergency, but he successfully dealt with it. Bush has been one disaster after another. There really was more freedom after Lincoln. There really is less freedom after Bush.

Indeed was lincoln calling for a permanent suspension of habeus corpus, as Bush is asking for suspension of rights for the eternal War on Terror?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Theus, posted 12-27-2005 12:22 AM Theus has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 135 of 220 (273191)
12-27-2005 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by randman
12-27-2005 1:56 AM


Re: time of war
Now, maybe this is a hoax, but if an nuclear blast goes off in an American city, what will you say then? Probably that BUsh let down on the job.

Absolutely. He has let down on the job.

The totally pointless invasion of Iraq redirected limited resources away from dealing with the threat of terrorism. No one has ever said that we should not try to minimize the impact of terrorism. What has been said is that this Administration has totally misunderstood the threat and has done a lousy job of addressing it.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by randman, posted 12-27-2005 1:56 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019