well, big fucking DUH. what else do you suppose they think about??VeeP said:Do we honestly think these people lay awake at night contemplating ways to strip people of their civil liberties under the 'guise' of stopping terrorism?
well, big fucking DUH. what else do you suppose they think about??VeeP said:Do we honestly think these people lay awake at night contemplating ways to strip people of their civil liberties under the 'guise' of stopping terrorism?
Dr Rock said:well, big fucking DUH. what else do you suppose they think about??
Well it's still a mind-numbing piece of shit. Replace with "The Bachelor", "Dancing With the Stars", or "How to Get the Guy" and lead on...findfirefox said:Useless info, Americas Got Talent is on NBC.
That's where the "doctrine of preemption" comes in, and there will always be those who subscribe to that way of thinking and those who don't. Last I checked Al-Queda doesn't have a country they call "home", a standing army, or anything else you might find in a "conventional" warfare. However their overall objective is not unlike that of Hitler in the 1930's. Yes, and I know you're going to say "Al-Queda wasn't in Iraq", so don't waste your breath. Saddam's aspirations we no different; the guy idolized Hitler and Moussolini.findfirefox said:I believe the difference between this "war" and other wars, such as WW2, is that with WW2 we were attacked, with this war we were not attacked by Iraq. If we had been attacked by Iraq then there would be much more support and this conversation probably would not be taking place.
No question it's a slippery slope. Who can say how much is "enough". Obviously some things have worked for nearly five years now and personally I don't feel any less "free".findfirefox said:I think the main point that is trying to be made here is that, is it alright to take away from our civil rights for any reason. Some people would say yes if it protects us some people might say no. I also think that people are wondering to what extremes will the government go to "protect us"
nobody's disputing any of that. one would have thought, however - that being the case - just maybe it's time our governments funneled some of that colossal expenditure into actually combating terrorists, instead of terrorizing their own citizens and stealing other countries' oil.RideRocket said:Why is it so difficult for everyone to understand and realize that these Islamic terrorists wish to destroy our civilization and way of life? And lest we play semantics, it's not their goal - it's their raison d'être.
Dr Rock said:....real freedom terrifies you because it means real responsibility..
madame_zora said:Well, my solution works pretty good. Keep about $10 in the bank and only deposit money in your account when you absolutely have to. Deal with a local CU, not a national chain bank and find somewhere else to put the rest of your money.
Dr Rock said:All of which is really beside the much more important point that this issue illustrates, and that nearly all of you seem to be hell-bent on ignoring. the point is this: those of who are wilfully stupid enough to trust a proven gang of liars, thieves and power-mad crooks with authority do not have the right to drag the rest of us down with you. if you wanna convince yourselves that men like george bush and tony blair are looking out for your best interests, i can't understand why you'd object to living under sharia law either - the only practical difference between those guys and the ayatollah is that he wears a dish rag on his head.
Let's see, they couldn't even manage to connect the dots on the 20 hijackers, many of whom were already under suspicion. Now consider, if you will, the amount the resources required to sniff the shit of 290+ million people. If they really think mine is worth a whiff, then by all means... knock yourselves out!SpeedoGuy said:I have high confidence we can trust the Bush administration to use the bank transactions and phone records only for national security purposes.
VeeP said:...But, once again, we had been looking the other way for decades prior to 9/11, then suddenly found ourselves on the defense and having to play catch-up. Typically one isn't inclined to spend a lot of time nitpicking minutia whilst others busily plot to wipe his ass off the map. Which results in a rushed Patriot Act, and so on.
madame_zora said:....Assume someone is listening in on your conversations at all times, keeping track of the books you buy or even check out from the library (I actually had to sign a form saying I understood the government was keeping track of what I read. My computer was broke down for a couple weeks and I got a library card to come here, so now they know I like weenies). Fortunately, it's not illegal (yet) to like weenies and I don't give a rat fuck what anyone thinks about anything I do, but it IS unnerving to know THEY might care. Am I on some government watch list now? Probably.
madame_zora said:As a follow up on DC's story, there was a laptop stolen, presumably by a "terrorist" that contained information on the employees at Equifax, one of the three credit and data centers for North America. Naturally, someone travelling through London with this type of sensitive info wouldn't bother to have it encrypted. People are such fucktards.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13437723/
VeeP said:ABC, huh. And you're basing this on what, exactly? Let's face it, every media outlet has some sort of slant and there is no 'pure' journalism anymore. It's all devolved into sensationalistic crap because our attention spans have dwindled to that of gnats and we'd much rather decide who in America Has Talent (the latest mind-numbing, piece-of-shit offering from none other than ABC, ironically).
ETA123 said:Little hint for you - We are discussing the NEWS, not the entertainment departments. For instance, Fox has great entertainment, The Family Guy comes to mind. However, their news network is so extremely biased as to be laughable. ABC is, indeed, just as I said, LESS biased. It's amazing how you twist words and attempt to make what I said into something entirely different. Go back and read what I posted.
Those would trade essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety and will lose both.
VeeP said:Just what did we think "life as we know it will change" would end up meaning post-9/11? Do we honestly think these people lay awake at night contemplating ways to strip people of their civil liberties under the 'guise' of stopping terrorism? If we even knew the half of what they're intercepting we probably all be hiding under our beds. How about focusing a little frustration on those in this world who have such disregard for human life that they will actually mutilate others beyond recognition for the sake of their 'religious' cause. Just how much "reliable" coverage has that gotten? Already faded from memory, hasn't it... poof.
We'd never make it if we had to fight WW II over again.
Dr Rock said:that hasn't been true for well over 25 years now.
Dr Rock said:that hasn't been true for well over 25 years now.
That was an attempt to inject a little levity in the discussion whilst explaining one reason I think journalism has gone down the tubes. Lighten up, dude .ETA123 said:Little hint for you - We are discussing the NEWS, not the entertainment departments.
This the second time you've made the statement, therefore I will ask you again to back it up. "LESS biased"... BASED ON WHAT? No "twisting" there.ETA123 said:ABC is, indeed, just as I said, LESS biased. It's amazing how you twist words and attempt to make what I said into something entirely different. Go back and read what I posted.
War is ugly, no doubt about it and incidents such as these only serve to weaken our cause. Are incidents such as these reason to abandon our cause? Personally, I don't think so.ETA123 said:You mean, perhaps, like what some US soldiers have done to people in their custody? Or maybe you're referring to the Haditha massacre? Or maybe you'd like to discuss the "trophy video" made by contractors in Iraq shooting random civilians?
Nice of you to disparage all of our troops in one shot based on the inexcusable actions of a few. Well done!ETA123 said:Don't be so quick to point fingers when our own people there under the guise of "liberation" have committed atrocities of their own.
"A nation"? Do tell me which history book you are working from. Apparently the pages about Hitler marching across Europe have gone missing from yours.ETA123 said:Actually, we WOULD make it if we had to fight WWII again. Why? Because we actually were fighting against a nation that had attacked us and their allies. Iraq never attacked us, never posed a threat to us, and had no means to attack us.
Lest you forget terrorists such as Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were both known to have been based in Iraq at one time or another (remember Leon Klinghoffer and the Achille-Laurel?). Again, better check that history book.ETA123 said:There was NO terrorism in Iraq prior to our arrival, no car bombings, no suicide bombings, etc.
Umm... "their" ideology has advanced a little further than mere "desires", my friend. And yes, I'm well aware there are extremists on all sides of this debate, and I'll be the first to admit their bullshit is of no benefit to the cause, either.ETA123 said:So tell me, how is their ideology any different from those who expressed the honest desire to nuke the middle east following 9/11?