<b>rhadamanthus WTF? I compromised them?? </b> It's the universal you. If you live in our society, you have accepted compromises on many freedoms. Tacking on a few more restrictions under the duress of terrorism threats is not the end of America. <b>Is this your motivation for disliking liberals? Anger about gun laws and fishing taxes? Good grief that's shallow... I don't fit in your little "liberal box". It's not even worth the time to defend myself on this tripe - it has nothing to do with the discussion, or me.</b> Where do you get the idea that I dislike liberals? I have quite a few good, longtime friends that would probably categorize themselves as liberal. If I dislike someone (which is hard to get me to do) it is for other important reasons. <b>It's hard to say. Check back at some of my first posts - TPA has done very little except infringe on normal citizens. For what it's worth, Britain has some similar laws and they obviously have not helped as of late.</b> TPA has not touched me to my knowledge. I take that back: I have had to cut back on my $10,000 cash deposits at the bank. <b>Personally, I don't believe that any of the provisions will stop terrorists.</b> Then why not lift more restrictions if security measures aren't worth anything? This is the glynch school of thought. I'm sorry but it just doesn't make sense that trying harder to prevent a tragedy is ineffective. If we had done none of the Homeland Security provisions post 9/11 do you think we would have been successfully attacked again or not? If security comes at the expense of liberty, you are protecting lives-- in much the same way that many of our already extant restrictive laws do.
That depends on the restrictions. As others have mentioned, it also sets a really bad precedent. Good. You had me worried. Oh come on. As I've said repeatedly, just becuase it does not affect you personally does not make it acceptable. That's the TJ school of thought - its ok becuase it only burdens a few muslims. Root cause, root cause. Bills like TPA et. al. are just reactions to the problem, or convoluted methodologies to hopefully avert them. I would assume glynch thinks the same way. It's not that we don't appreciate the intent, but it doesn't take a genius to see that this will have little benefit yet cost us rights that define our culture. I would rather America thought a little more about foreign policy. That might actually solve the problem, as opposed to silly measures like pretty color levels to warn me of nebulous danger and wiretaps on regular citizens which are simply reactive in nature. I understand your sentiment. I just don't agree. My life is defined by my rights. If I don't stand up for my convictions - my life is wasted.
Rove's lawyer already admitted Rove discussing the matter with Cooper prior to the Novak story. Whether he committed a crime and is or isn't convicted is one story. But having Rove expose a covert operative even if it wasn't a crime is still worth yanking away his security clearence and firing him. Initially the whitehouse felt that was the only standard as well.
This conversation typifies the American liberal's soft position on terror: they're unwilling to make even a tiny sacrifice for the war on terror. We're at war, folks - time to roll up our sleeves and pitch in with these temporary measures. All of us. It was good to see the bipartisan support for the PATRIOT bill. Kudos to those 43 democrats who voted to fight terror with all of our means.
yeah let's sacrifice a cia officer, that ought to help the war on terror. shoot, ya know what? i bet if bigtexxx enlisted and joined our brave troops in iraq we would really teach those bastards a lesson.
My talents are best utilized providing strategic advice to American businesses to ensure that the US remains the economic superpower that it now is. But yes, I would love to kick some terrorist azz.
you are my hero. kisses, kisses My country, ’tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, Of thee I sing; Land where my fathers died, Land of the pilgrims’ pride, From every mountainside, Let freedom ring! My native country, thee, Land of the noble free, Thy name I love; I love thy rocks and rills, Thy woods and templed hills; My heart with rapture thrills, Like that above. Let music swell the breeze, And ring from all the trees, Sweet freedom’s song; Let mortal tongues awake; Let all that breathe partake; Let rocks their silence break, The sound prolong. Our fathers’ God, to Thee, Author of liberty, To Thee we sing; Long may our land be bright With freedom’s holy light; Protect us by Thy might, Great God, our King.
does that include manipulating the facts to justifying an unprovoked war on a sovereign nation and then outing whoever tells the truth?
I hear a lot about making sacrifices, but the rich haven't been asked to sacrifice anything. The middle class didn't get tax relief, the rich have gotten huge tax relief. Why don't the rich give up some of their big tax cuts and pitch in. The rest of us have done our part.
80% of all US income taxes are paid by the top 20% of wage earners. It's funny you bring up taxes in this thread.
It's misleading to focus solely on income taxes as if they were the only taxes. It might lead one to believe precisely the opposite of the truth. Your statistic doesn't take into account taxation as a percentage of income, or tax "bubbles", or the amount and type of assets that qualify as income, or the fact that most U.S. households pay more Social Security tax than income tax, or increases in state taxes as a result of Federal cuts, or the "implicit" tax of losing tax benefits due to a marginal increase in income. I'll give you credit though: You're aping the best liars in the world. One of the slickest lies is one that tells the truth, but only part of the truth.
That doesn't have a thing to do with making sacrifices. The more you have the less of a sacrifice it is to give.
Has everyone forgotten that this "sovereign" nation was under a dictatorial thumb of Saddam and his sons for three decades and that those who would save them from us kill them as indiscriminately as is necessary to kill one American GI... Sometimes this seem like "Through the Looking Glass."
Its good to know that you are a cultural relatavist. Again I'm surprised to hear a self-identified conservative dismiss a few laws here and there compromising liberty as being no big deal. I'll keep that in mind next time you criticize environmental or other regs. I have two problems with the statement. The first being that in context of the threat faced by the colonists was as dangerous if not more as the threat we face by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda doesn't have the capability to conquer us a country while the British army definately did. As for impacting our economy the Brits could and did far worse to the nascent US economy. Al Qaeda dealt a severe blow to New York and Washington DC, the Brits occupied NYC twice and burned DC. While the threat of Al Qaeda is terrible but its not one that will result in the end of the US as a country. The second problem I have with your sentiment is that it is Orwellian in its reasoning. Since technology has greatly increased, including the technology to cause death, since colonial times therefore the threat is greater and the measures we need for our safety must be greater. The problem is that technology is likely to continue to increase so there will always be an increasing threat to us from terrorists and others using technology to harm us so does that mean that we have to ratchet up the level we curtail our freedom to deal with the increasing threat? I think it is a really dangerous attitude to simply accept that because the the threat is greater we have to legally surrender more rights. For one like it or not the there will always be a threat given the technology out there even one single wacko will be able to kill hundreds if not thousands of people. There is a point that we have to decide how important liberty vs. safety is. I'm not saying that we are at the point where our liberty is crucially compromised but the cavalier attitude with which you and other's are lauding the Patriot Act and dismissing the sentiment in the Franklin quote shows that there are many people who would be willing to do so.
America is too defensive and offensive. Life isn't a game...attack, defend, retreat, score, bask in the glory, be dethroned, repeat. Spending so much time and effort on defeating the enemy (war in Iraq, etc.) and defending ourselves (Patriot Act, etc.) can be useful, but not when absolutely no thought is being put into the more important question: Why do we have to attack and why and what are we defending ourselves from? Who hates us? Who are "they"? And why do they hate us? If protecting our safety is that important, why don't we figure out why they hate us and stop doing whatever it is. Short of just existing, apparently we should be "willing to sacrifice" anything, right?
Skip the other hogwash, this is what it all pretty much boils down to for the likes of you, TJ, and texxx. Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany. The fact of the matter is, while it may not affect your life, the Patriot Act along with the periphery aversion and suspicion similar sentiment has created affects the lives of thousands of Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs in this country. Like it or not, it's their right as equal citizens of this country to have equal protection of civil liberties and right to due process. Like it or not, it's the President of America's job to uphold the Constitution.
