OT: Judge stops warrantless wiretaps

Religions > Atheism > OT: Judge stops warrantless wiretaps

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 13

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	17 Aug 2006 01:07:28 PM
Object:	OT: Judge stops warrantless wiretaps

This just in:
*****
DETROIT (Aug. 17) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the
government's warrantless wiretapping
program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
*****
From:
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/judge-nixes-warrantless-surveillance/n20060817121209990001?cid=2194
Or:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L6862339D
Chris
.

User: "G-Ride"
Title: Re: Judge stops warrantless wiretaps	17 Aug 2006 03:31:59 PM

<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155838048.789463.69350@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

This just in:

*****
DETROIT (Aug. 17) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the
government's warrantless wiretapping
program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
*****
From:

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/judge-nixes-warrantless-surveillance/n20060817121209990001?cid=2194

Or:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L6862339D

It's a step in the right direction.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.

User: "Hotel Charlie One"
Title: Re: OT: Judge stops warrantless wiretaps	17 Aug 2006 01:40:06 PM

"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1155838048.789463.69350@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

This just in:

*****
DETROIT (Aug. 17) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the
government's warrantless wiretapping
program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
*****
From:

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/judge-nixes-warrantless-surve
illance/n20060817121209990001?cid=2194

Or:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L6862339D

Chris

But with no power to stop government stonewalling (remember Whitewater
or the 911 commission?), this ruling is effective meaningless.
Soothing mouth noises for the huddled masses, but meaningless
nonetheless.
--
The actions of the disgraceful Clinton and Bush administrations
make it possible for me to say without shame that I deeply regret
the day I put the uniform of my country. The freedoms that I was
willing to protect with my life are being lost. The America of
our founders is dead. All we are waiting for now is rigor mortis.
HotelCharlieOne
.

User: "Robert Carnegie"
Title: Re: OT: Judge stops warrantless wiretaps	20 Aug 2006 04:59:34 AM

Hotel Charlie One wrote:

"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1155838048.789463.69350@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

This just in:

*****
DETROIT (Aug. 17) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the
government's warrantless wiretapping
program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
*****
From:

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/judge-nixes-warrantless-surve
illance/n20060817121209990001?cid=2194

Or:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L6862339D

Chris

But with no power to stop government stonewalling (remember Whitewater
or the 911 commission?), this ruling is effective meaningless.

Okay then, I also order that the U.S. government's warrantless
wiretapping program must stop. You guys got that? I know you're
reading along.
.

User: "Andrew McClure"
Title: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	19 Aug 2006 05:09:25 AM

wrote:

This just in:

*****
DETROIT (Aug. 17) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the
government's warrantless wiretapping
program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
*****
From:

[snip]

Or:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L6862339D

Chris

And it looks like already the swift boats have been deployed...
Though this is probably the least scientific way possible to gauge
media reaction, looking through the many pages of articles on this
subject that news.google.com returns, one finds scads of editorials and
op-ed pieces attacking the ruling (named things like "Ruling for the
Terrorists" or "Another Blow to Security") and, in many or most cases,
attacking the judge on a very personal level. One finds little or
nothing in the way of editorials or op-ed pieces supporting the ruling,
unless I'm just somehow missing them in my news.google searches.
Probably the most... interesting thing I think I've found so far in the
op-ed attacking the ruling comes from a piece printed in several places
named "Liberal-Left Confuses Americans About the NSA Surveillance
Program" (I guess the author felt the need to clarify they weren't
talking about the Liberal-Right?), which at one point says (emphasis
mine):
"The moment I read in her decision the term "warrentless wiretaps" I
knew Judge Taylor's decision was more political than constitutional. **
These were not wiretaps. They were intercepts of communications between
suspected terrorists overseas and people residing in the United States.
**"
Oh.
Practically the only things I'm finding in my informal news searches
which support the ruling are those actual articles reporting that the
ruling occurred, which are dry and factual but incidentally tend to
contain quotes from either the ruling itself or the associated ACLU
reps. But these articles, of course, are "balanced" by entire articles
reporting on the attacks on the ruling by George W. Bush, Tony Snow,
etc. (One Bush quote that stood out: "Bush said that 'those who herald
this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which
we live.'.") There seem to be quite a lot of people working very hard
to get the idea out in the press that this ruling is wrong and bad for
America and guaranteed to be overturned on appeal. (It all sounds quite
serious. One begins to wonder at some point how America possibly
survived during those first 225 years back when law enforcement had to
get warrants to investigate things.)
However, similar to the situation with op-ed, it appears that though
it's very easy to find public figures attacking the ruling, practically
nobody appears to be willing to step forward publicly to defend or
praise it; or if they are, they're not getting newspaper articles
written about them. Similarly, it appears to be much easier to find
articles about Republicans attacking Democrats for supporting the
ruling than it is to find any visible sign of the Democrats themselves
actually standing up to support the ruling.
There really *is* no political opposition in this country, is there?
.

User: "VoiceOfReason"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	19 Aug 2006 07:56:03 AM

Andrew McClure wrote:

chris.linthompson@gmail.com wrote:

This just in:

*****
DETROIT (Aug. 17) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the
government's warrantless wiretapping
program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
*****
From:

[snip]

Or:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L6862339D

Chris

And it looks like already the swift boats have been deployed...

Though this is probably the least scientific way possible to gauge
media reaction, looking through the many pages of articles on this
subject that news.google.com returns, one finds scads of editorials and
op-ed pieces attacking the ruling (named things like "Ruling for the
Terrorists" or "Another Blow to Security") and, in many or most cases,
attacking the judge on a very personal level. One finds little or
nothing in the way of editorials or op-ed pieces supporting the ruling,
unless I'm just somehow missing them in my news.google searches.

Probably the most... interesting thing I think I've found so far in the
op-ed attacking the ruling comes from a piece printed in several places
named "Liberal-Left Confuses Americans About the NSA Surveillance
Program" (I guess the author felt the need to clarify they weren't
talking about the Liberal-Right?), which at one point says (emphasis
mine):

"The moment I read in her decision the term "warrentless wiretaps" I
knew Judge Taylor's decision was more political than constitutional. **
These were not wiretaps. They were intercepts of communications between
suspected terrorists overseas and people residing in the United States.
**"

Oh.

Practically the only things I'm finding in my informal news searches
which support the ruling are those actual articles reporting that the
ruling occurred, which are dry and factual but incidentally tend to
contain quotes from either the ruling itself or the associated ACLU
reps. But these articles, of course, are "balanced" by entire articles
reporting on the attacks on the ruling by George W. Bush, Tony Snow,
etc. (One Bush quote that stood out: "Bush said that 'those who herald
this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which
we live.'.") There seem to be quite a lot of people working very hard
to get the idea out in the press that this ruling is wrong and bad for
America and guaranteed to be overturned on appeal. (It all sounds quite
serious. One begins to wonder at some point how America possibly
survived during those first 225 years back when law enforcement had to
get warrants to investigate things.)

However, similar to the situation with op-ed, it appears that though
it's very easy to find public figures attacking the ruling, practically
nobody appears to be willing to step forward publicly to defend or
praise it; or if they are, they're not getting newspaper articles
written about them. Similarly, it appears to be much easier to find
articles about Republicans attacking Democrats for supporting the
ruling than it is to find any visible sign of the Democrats themselves
actually standing up to support the ruling.

There really *is* no political opposition in this country, is there?

I *really* despise politics but... I can understand politicians who
support this action remaining mute, especially prior to an election, as
this will be used by the opposition to "prove" that they're "soft on
terrorism." Politically, there's little to be gained by speaking out
in support of this.
.

User: "Stanley Friesen"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	21 Aug 2006 01:00:08 AM

"VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:

Are people who actually think really that rare? *I*, at least, would be
far more likely to support somebody who had the guts to stand up and
protect our civil rights than somebody who stays silent.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.

User: "UC"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	19 Aug 2006 11:45:52 AM

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Andrew McClure wrote:

chris.linthompson@gmail.com wrote:

This just in:

*****
DETROIT (Aug. 17) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the
government's warrantless wiretapping
program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
*****
From:

[snip]

Or:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L6862339D

Chris

And it looks like already the swift boats have been deployed...

Though this is probably the least scientific way possible to gauge
media reaction, looking through the many pages of articles on this
subject that news.google.com returns, one finds scads of editorials and
op-ed pieces attacking the ruling (named things like "Ruling for the
Terrorists" or "Another Blow to Security") and, in many or most cases,
attacking the judge on a very personal level. One finds little or
nothing in the way of editorials or op-ed pieces supporting the ruling,
unless I'm just somehow missing them in my news.google searches.

Probably the most... interesting thing I think I've found so far in the
op-ed attacking the ruling comes from a piece printed in several places
named "Liberal-Left Confuses Americans About the NSA Surveillance
Program" (I guess the author felt the need to clarify they weren't
talking about the Liberal-Right?), which at one point says (emphasis
mine):

"The moment I read in her decision the term "warrentless wiretaps" I
knew Judge Taylor's decision was more political than constitutional. **
These were not wiretaps. They were intercepts of communications between
suspected terrorists overseas and people residing in the United States.
**"

Oh.

Practically the only things I'm finding in my informal news searches
which support the ruling are those actual articles reporting that the
ruling occurred, which are dry and factual but incidentally tend to
contain quotes from either the ruling itself or the associated ACLU
reps. But these articles, of course, are "balanced" by entire articles
reporting on the attacks on the ruling by George W. Bush, Tony Snow,
etc. (One Bush quote that stood out: "Bush said that 'those who herald
this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which
we live.'.") There seem to be quite a lot of people working very hard
to get the idea out in the press that this ruling is wrong and bad for
America and guaranteed to be overturned on appeal. (It all sounds quite
serious. One begins to wonder at some point how America possibly
survived during those first 225 years back when law enforcement had to
get warrants to investigate things.)

However, similar to the situation with op-ed, it appears that though
it's very easy to find public figures attacking the ruling, practically
nobody appears to be willing to step forward publicly to defend or
praise it; or if they are, they're not getting newspaper articles
written about them. Similarly, it appears to be much easier to find
articles about Republicans attacking Democrats for supporting the
ruling than it is to find any visible sign of the Democrats themselves
actually standing up to support the ruling.

There really *is* no political opposition in this country, is there?

Logically, there is not any reason to support it either.
.

User: "John Bode"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	20 Aug 2006 10:45:44 AM

UC wrote:

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Andrew McClure wrote:

chris.linthompson@gmail.com wrote:

This just in:

*****
DETROIT (Aug. 17) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the
government's warrantless wiretapping
program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
*****
From:

[snip]

Or:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L6862339D

Chris

And it looks like already the swift boats have been deployed...

Though this is probably the least scientific way possible to gauge
media reaction, looking through the many pages of articles on this
subject that news.google.com returns, one finds scads of editorials and
op-ed pieces attacking the ruling (named things like "Ruling for the
Terrorists" or "Another Blow to Security") and, in many or most cases,
attacking the judge on a very personal level. One finds little or
nothing in the way of editorials or op-ed pieces supporting the ruling,
unless I'm just somehow missing them in my news.google searches.

Probably the most... interesting thing I think I've found so far in the
op-ed attacking the ruling comes from a piece printed in several places
named "Liberal-Left Confuses Americans About the NSA Surveillance
Program" (I guess the author felt the need to clarify they weren't
talking about the Liberal-Right?), which at one point says (emphasis
mine):

"The moment I read in her decision the term "warrentless wiretaps" I
knew Judge Taylor's decision was more political than constitutional. **
These were not wiretaps. They were intercepts of communications between
suspected terrorists overseas and people residing in the United States.
**"

Oh.

Practically the only things I'm finding in my informal news searches
which support the ruling are those actual articles reporting that the
ruling occurred, which are dry and factual but incidentally tend to
contain quotes from either the ruling itself or the associated ACLU
reps. But these articles, of course, are "balanced" by entire articles
reporting on the attacks on the ruling by George W. Bush, Tony Snow,
etc. (One Bush quote that stood out: "Bush said that 'those who herald
this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which
we live.'.") There seem to be quite a lot of people working very hard
to get the idea out in the press that this ruling is wrong and bad for
America and guaranteed to be overturned on appeal. (It all sounds quite
serious. One begins to wonder at some point how America possibly
survived during those first 225 years back when law enforcement had to
get warrants to investigate things.)

However, similar to the situation with op-ed, it appears that though
it's very easy to find public figures attacking the ruling, practically
nobody appears to be willing to step forward publicly to defend or
praise it; or if they are, they're not getting newspaper articles
written about them. Similarly, it appears to be much easier to find
articles about Republicans attacking Democrats for supporting the
ruling than it is to find any visible sign of the Democrats themselves
actually standing up to support the ruling.

There really *is* no political opposition in this country, is there?

Logically, there is not any reason to support it either.

Because, after all, we certainly cannot expect the President or any
other department under the Executive to actually *obey* the laws that
they're supposed to enforce. That would be silly. The Executive
branch *should* have unlimited, unchecked power to do whatever the hell
it feels like with absolutely no oversight. Isn't that what the
framers of the Constitution intended? Like Nixon said, it isn't
against the law if the President does it, right? Because the President
*is* the law, right? All those congressmen and judges are just
decoration, a formality, a holdover from a more quaint period of
history.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	20 Aug 2006 10:12:17 AM

"John Bode" <john_bode@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:1156088744.203335.192350@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:

UC wrote:

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Andrew McClure wrote:

chris.linthompson@gmail.com wrote:

This just in:

*****
DETROIT (Aug. 17) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the
government's warrantless wiretapping
program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to
it. *****
From:

[snip]

Or:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L6862339D

Chris

And it looks like already the swift boats have been deployed...

Though this is probably the least scientific way possible to
gauge media reaction, looking through the many pages of articles
on this subject that news.google.com returns, one finds scads of
editorials and op-ed pieces attacking the ruling (named things
like "Ruling for the Terrorists" or "Another Blow to Security")
and, in many or most cases, attacking the judge on a very
personal level. One finds little or nothing in the way of
editorials or op-ed pieces supporting the ruling, unless I'm just
somehow missing them in my news.google searches.

Probably the most... interesting thing I think I've found so far
in the op-ed attacking the ruling comes from a piece printed in
several places named "Liberal-Left Confuses Americans About the
NSA Surveillance Program" (I guess the author felt the need to
clarify they weren't talking about the Liberal-Right?), which at
one point says (emphasis mine):

"The moment I read in her decision the term "warrentless
wiretaps" I knew Judge Taylor's decision was more political than
constitutional. ** These were not wiretaps. They were intercepts
of communications between suspected terrorists overseas and
people residing in the United States. **"

Oh.

Practically the only things I'm finding in my informal news
searches which support the ruling are those actual articles
reporting that the ruling occurred, which are dry and factual but
incidentally tend to contain quotes from either the ruling itself
or the associated ACLU reps. But these articles, of course, are
"balanced" by entire articles reporting on the attacks on the
ruling by George W. Bush, Tony Snow, etc. (One Bush quote that
stood out: "Bush said that 'those who herald this decision simply
do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.'.")
There seem to be quite a lot of people working very hard to get
the idea out in the press that this ruling is wrong and bad for
America and guaranteed to be overturned on appeal. (It all sounds
quite serious. One begins to wonder at some point how America
possibly survived during those first 225 years back when law
enforcement had to get warrants to investigate things.)

However, similar to the situation with op-ed, it appears that
though it's very easy to find public figures attacking the
ruling, practically nobody appears to be willing to step forward
publicly to defend or praise it; or if they are, they're not
getting newspaper articles written about them. Similarly, it
appears to be much easier to find articles about Republicans
attacking Democrats for supporting the ruling than it is to find
any visible sign of the Democrats themselves actually standing up
to support the ruling.

There really *is* no political opposition in this country, is
there?

I *really* despise politics but... I can understand politicians who
support this action remaining mute, especially prior to an
election, as this will be used by the opposition to "prove" that
they're "soft on terrorism." Politically, there's little to be
gained by speaking out in support of this.

Logically, there is not any reason to support it either.

Because, after all, we certainly cannot expect the President or any
other department under the Executive to actually *obey* the laws that
they're supposed to enforce. That would be silly. The Executive
branch *should* have unlimited, unchecked power to do whatever the
hell it feels like with absolutely no oversight. Isn't that what the
framers of the Constitution intended? Like Nixon said, it isn't
against the law if the President does it, right? Because the
President *is* the law, right? All those congressmen and judges are
just decoration, a formality, a holdover from a more quaint period of
history.

Of course, we can just throw out Article II of the Constitution which
gives the President certain powers that Congress *CANNOT* interfere
with. Who needs a President anyway? He just gets in the way of all those
high-minded Senators and Representatives who can run everything
themselves. And hey, we've got the New York Times to provide oversight!
Anything they think is against the law, they'll just publish on the
front page and it'll stop right then!
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Dick C"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	20 Aug 2006 06:59:51 PM

Fred Stone wrote in talk.origins

"John Bode" <john_bode@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:1156088744.203335.192350@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:

Because, after all, we certainly cannot expect the President or any
other department under the Executive to actually *obey* the laws that
they're supposed to enforce. That would be silly. The Executive
branch *should* have unlimited, unchecked power to do whatever the
hell it feels like with absolutely no oversight. Isn't that what the
framers of the Constitution intended? Like Nixon said, it isn't
against the law if the President does it, right? Because the
President *is* the law, right? All those congressmen and judges are
just decoration, a formality, a holdover from a more quaint period of
history.

Of course, we can just throw out Article II of the Constitution which
gives the President certain powers that Congress *CANNOT* interfere
with.

Hmm, you mean that the president pretty much gets his way in this part?
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take
the following Oath or Affirmation:--``I do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United
States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States.''
And having just read Article 2 I am curious, just what are these powers
that the president has that congress cannot interfere with?
Frankly, everything I saw required the agreement of congress and the
senate. Except for their adjournment. If they could not agree on that the
the president has the power to call an adjournment.
--
***** #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	20 Aug 2006 09:07:12 PM

***** C <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:Xns9825ACD8C6808dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136:

Fred Stone wrote in talk.origins

"John Bode" <john_bode@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:1156088744.203335.192350@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:

Because, after all, we certainly cannot expect the President or any
other department under the Executive to actually *obey* the laws
that they're supposed to enforce. That would be silly. The
Executive branch *should* have unlimited, unchecked power to do
whatever the hell it feels like with absolutely no oversight. Isn't
that what the framers of the Constitution intended? Like Nixon
said, it isn't against the law if the President does it, right?
Because the President *is* the law, right? All those congressmen
and judges are just decoration, a formality, a holdover from a more
quaint period of history.

Of course, we can just throw out Article II of the Constitution which
gives the President certain powers that Congress *CANNOT* interfere
with.

Yes, preserve, protect and defend. Those words have meanings, you know.
So do the words "Faithfully execute the office of President". They don't
mean "guarantee your civil rights even if it means letting terrorists
hit New York again".

And having just read Article 2 I am curious, just what are these
powers that the president has that congress cannot interfere with?
Frankly, everything I saw required the agreement of congress and the
senate. Except for their adjournment. If they could not agree on that
the the president has the power to call an adjournment.

His power as Commander in Chief are not under the control of the
Congress. They can only control the budget of the armed forces. Congress
also cannot directly interfere in the day-to-day operation of the
Executive branch. They can only exercise their power to "advise and
consent" to his appointment of officers and cabinet members. They cannot
directly discharge a cabinet member without the President's approval.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Dick C"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	21 Aug 2006 09:43:29 AM

Fred Stone wrote in talk.origins

***** C <foo.

> wrote in
news:Xns9825ACD8C6808dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136:

Fred Stone wrote in talk.origins

Of course, we can just throw out Article II of the Constitution which
gives the President certain powers that Congress *CANNOT* interfere
with.

Interesting how you can read something and then exhibit such total lack
of understanding of what you read. When you preserve, protect and defend
the constitution you would be preserving, protecting and defending the
rights it guarantees. And that includes civil rights. What is so hard
to understand about that?

His power as Commander in Chief are not under the control of the
Congress.

Try again, virtually everything he does has some oversight and control
by congress.
They can only control the budget of the armed forces. Congress

also cannot directly interfere in the day-to-day operation of the
Executive branch. They can only exercise their power to "advise and
consent" to his appointment of officers and cabinet members. They cannot
directly discharge a cabinet member without the President's approval.

Ever hear of impeachment? Section 4 of Article II

--
***** #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:

User: "Tom McDonald"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	20 Aug 2006 10:57:42 PM

Fred Stone wrote:
<snip>

They don't
mean "guarantee your civil rights even if it means letting terrorists
hit New York again".

Once again, you use the administration's false dichotomy.
However, even if it that were the choice, guaranteeing our civil rights
trumps stopping a terrorist attack. There will always be dangers to our
nation, from within and from without. If we cave in to fear by giving
up our civil rights, we become a nation that much less worth defending.
And the next president will have the precident s/he needs to nibble
away at more of our liberties; just feed our FUD, and Bob's your uncle,
we are the proud inheritors of the first Nine Amend...er, Eight, the
first Eight conditional allowable activities. For now. Unless we need
to abrogate them, for your own good.
But the true fack, Jack, is that protecting civil liberties in times of
war and terror does not require cession of those liberties. The
motherfuckers who have sold us the lie that it does need to be thrown
out, and the nation put back on track.
<snip>
.

User: "John Bode"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	21 Aug 2006 09:09:19 AM

Tom McDonald wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

<snip>

They don't
mean "guarantee your civil rights even if it means letting terrorists
hit New York again".

Once again, you use the administration's false dichotomy.

However, even if it that were the choice, guaranteeing our civil rights
trumps stopping a terrorist attack. There will always be dangers to our
nation, from within and from without. If we cave in to fear by giving
up our civil rights, we become a nation that much less worth defending.
And the next president will have the precident s/he needs to nibble
away at more of our liberties; just feed our FUD, and Bob's your uncle,
we are the proud inheritors of the first Nine Amend...er, Eight, the
first Eight conditional allowable activities. For now. Unless we need
to abrogate them, for your own good.

But the true fack, Jack, is that protecting civil liberties in times of
war and terror does not require cession of those liberties. The
motherfuckers who have sold us the lie that it does need to be thrown
out, and the nation put back on track.

<snip>

What I don't get is this *irrational* fear of terrorism and terrorists.
And yes, it is *irrational*. The odds of getting flattened by a semi
while driving in to work are astronomically higher than catching some
shrapnel at a shopping mall or being on an airplane that gets slammed
into a building, yet nobody I know is scared to drive to work.
Will foreign terrorists attack on US soil again? Yes, definitely.
It's an inevitable result of our unconditional support of Israel, of
invading Iraq and Afghanistan (and we were *more* than justified in
invading Afghanistan), and of our hamfisted attempts to remake the
world in our image (something the Soviet Union tried to do as well, and
look what happened to *them*). And let's not forget homegrown
terrorists like Tim McVeigh; not all terrorists are clutching a Koran
to their breast. And they'll find a way to circumvent the latest
security measures, because we simply cannot defend against every
possible threat.
Will *you* be a target of a terrorist attack? The odds are vanishingly
small for the majority of Americans. If I lived in New York or DC or
Chicago or LA I'd be wary, but for most of us it simply isn't going to
be much of an issue. I'm frankly more worried about getting robbed by
some neighborhood punk, or getting hit by some idiot on the highway, or
losing my job because the lead contractor is *insane*.
But we don't know how to be wary. All we know how to do is be bugfuck.
And because all we know how to do is be bugfuck, we stupidly hand our
balls to a bunch of people who are incompetent, dishonest, and deluded.
Anyone who *seriously* argues that the President should not be
constrained by the law, that unfettered domestic surveillance with no
oversight is a *good* thing, that just because we're at war means we
should shut the ***** up and let these idiots do anything they goddamned
feel like is betraying the very ideals upon which this nation was
founded. There's no point in spreading democracy around the world if
it means losing it at home.
The conditions are so ripe for a truly fascist government to gain power
in the US it's frightening. We aren't there yet, but we've taken the
first baby steps, and unless we stop now and turn around, we'll be
there in a few short years, and when everyone asks "how did this
happen," I'll tell them to look in the goddamned mirror.
.

User: "Stanley Friesen"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	22 Aug 2006 12:30:08 AM

"John Bode" <john_bode@my-deja.com> wrote:

Will foreign terrorists attack on US soil again? Yes, definitely.
It's an inevitable result of our unconditional support of Israel, of
invading Iraq and Afghanistan (and we were *more* than justified in
invading Afghanistan), and of our hamfisted attempts to remake the
world in our image (something the Soviet Union tried to do as well, and
look what happened to *them*). And let's not forget homegrown
terrorists like Tim McVeigh; not all terrorists are clutching a Koran
to their breast. And they'll find a way to circumvent the latest
security measures, because we simply cannot defend against every
possible threat.

What is a trifle scary is what might happen if they get over this silly
"suicide" kick and start using terrorist methods that can be repeated by
the same individuals. Suicide attackers are actually relatively *easy*
to stop compared to some of the other means of attack that exist.
If the our nation is in the grip of irrational fear *now*, how will we
react when they start using truly unstoppable means of attack?

Will *you* be a target of a terrorist attack? The odds are vanishingly
small for the majority of Americans. If I lived in New York or DC or
Chicago or LA I'd be wary, but for most of us it simply isn't going to
be much of an issue.

Actually, even here, the odds of being a victim of such a thing are
tiny. LA is *huge* and, short of them using a stolen Russian nuke, any
mode of attack they use will only touch a small portion of the greater
metropolitan area.

I'm frankly more worried about getting robbed by
some neighborhood punk, or getting hit by some idiot on the highway, or
losing my job because the lead contractor is *insane*.

Ditto, well except for the last.

The conditions are so ripe for a truly fascist government to gain power
in the US it's frightening. We aren't there yet, but we've taken the
first baby steps, and unless we stop now and turn around, we'll be
there in a few short years, and when everyone asks "how did this
happen," I'll tell them to look in the goddamned mirror.

Six more years of so-called Neo-con control should about do it.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.

User: "UC"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	21 Aug 2006 09:27:25 AM

John Bode wrote:

Tom McDonald wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

<snip>

They don't
mean "guarantee your civil rights even if it means letting terrorists
hit New York again".

Once again, you use the administration's false dichotomy.

However, even if it that were the choice, guaranteeing our civil rights
trumps stopping a terrorist attack. There will always be dangers to our
nation, from within and from without. If we cave in to fear by giving
up our civil rights, we become a nation that much less worth defending.
And the next president will have the precident s/he needs to nibble
away at more of our liberties; just feed our FUD, and Bob's your uncle,
we are the proud inheritors of the first Nine Amend...er, Eight, the
first Eight conditional allowable activities. For now. Unless we need
to abrogate them, for your own good.

But the true fack, Jack, is that protecting civil liberties in times of
war and terror does not require cession of those liberties. The
motherfuckers who have sold us the lie that it does need to be thrown
out, and the nation put back on track.

<snip>

This is true. The damage is primarily psychological. But allowing
terrorists to attack is ceding to them the psychological war, because
that's what the "war on terror" is.

Correct. That's why intelligence-gathering is important.

Will *you* be a target of a terrorist attack? The odds are vanishingly
small for the majority of Americans.

True. But EVERYONE is the target of the psychological attack.

If I lived in New York or DC or
Chicago or LA I'd be wary, but for most of us it simply isn't going to
be much of an issue. I'm frankly more worried about getting robbed by
some neighborhood punk, or getting hit by some idiot on the highway, or
losing my job because the lead contractor is *insane*.

But we don't know how to be wary. All we know how to do is be bugfuck.
And because all we know how to do is be bugfuck, we stupidly hand our
balls to a bunch of people who are incompetent, dishonest, and deluded.
Anyone who *seriously* argues that the President should not be
constrained by the law, that unfettered domestic surveillance with no
oversight is a *good* thing, that just because we're at war means we
should shut the ***** up and let these idiots do anything they goddamned
feel like is betraying the very ideals upon which this nation was
founded. There's no point in spreading democracy around the world if
it means losing it at home.

The conditions are so ripe for a truly fascist government to gain power
in the US it's frightening. We aren't there yet, but we've taken the
first baby steps, and unless we stop now and turn around, we'll be
there in a few short years, and when everyone asks "how did this
happen," I'll tell them to look in the goddamned mirror.

User: "Tom McDonald"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	21 Aug 2006 09:49:17 AM

UC wrote:

John Bode wrote:

<snip>

This is true. The damage is primarily psychological.

About the only thing I think Dubya got right in the early response to
9/11 (apart from noises about being a united and angry nation) was his
telling us to go about living our lives, and not let the terrorists win
the psychological battle of the moment.
Would that he had continued in that vein, rather than using 9/11 to
push a very narrow, partisan agenda and to divide the nation for
political purposes. He squandered the opportunity, the best one since
12/7/41, to throw the power and purpose and wisdom and talent of a
united people into the work of dealing with the terrorism we clearly
saw, and with the roots of terrorism we only dimly saw. For that, he
stands condemned in the eyes of history.

But allowing
terrorists to attack is ceding to them the psychological war, because
that's what the "war on terror" is.

It is not only psychological. It is also political, economic, moral and
practical. But you are correct in thinking that the exaggerated
perception of vulnerability is part of what the terrorists are trying
to accomplish. I wish George Bush the Lessor and his crew would not
play on that same perception in their quest to have it their way.
BTW, who is talking about 'allowing' terrorists to attack us? No one I
know, or know of, thinks that is a good idea--although, as noted, I
think the 'Publicans have found it a useful lie to tell about their
political opponents. You don't buy that lie, surely?

Correct. That's why intelligence-gathering is important.

Yes. In fact, gathering intelligence is so important that it is
probably second only to our civil rights in this time of war.

Will *you* be a target of a terrorist attack? The odds are vanishingly
small for the majority of Americans.

True. But EVERYONE is the target of the psychological attack.

Which has turned out to be quite useful for the current administration.

I agree with everything you've written, John.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	21 Aug 2006 10:05:38 AM

On 21 Aug 2006 07:49:17 -0700, "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@gmail.com>
wrote:

UC wrote:

John Bode wrote:

<snip>

This is true. The damage is primarily psychological.

About the only thing I think Dubya got right in the early response to
9/11 (apart from noises about being a united and angry nation) was his
telling us to go about living our lives, and not let the terrorists win
the psychological battle of the moment.

Would that he had continued in that vein, rather than using 9/11 to
push a very narrow, partisan agenda and to divide the nation for
political purposes. He squandered the opportunity, the best one since
12/7/41, to throw the power and purpose and wisdom and talent of a
united people into the work of dealing with the terrorism we clearly
saw, and with the roots of terrorism we only dimly saw. For that, he
stands condemned in the eyes of history.

There was an enormous outpouring of good will internationally, even
from countries the US goes out of its way to upset. Even though they
saw it as the international bully getting its nose bloodied, the way
it was done was so appalling. Their subsequent actions totally
squandered this good will.
.

User: "UC"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	21 Aug 2006 10:23:23 AM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 21 Aug 2006 07:49:17 -0700, "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@gmail.com>
wrote:

UC wrote:

John Bode wrote:

<snip>

This is true. The damage is primarily psychological.

About the only thing I think Dubya got right in the early response to
9/11 (apart from noises about being a united and angry nation) was his
telling us to go about living our lives, and not let the terrorists win
the psychological battle of the moment.

Would that he had continued in that vein, rather than using 9/11 to
push a very narrow, partisan agenda and to divide the nation for
political purposes. He squandered the opportunity, the best one since
12/7/41, to throw the power and purpose and wisdom and talent of a
united people into the work of dealing with the terrorism we clearly
saw, and with the roots of terrorism we only dimly saw. For that, he
stands condemned in the eyes of history.

The divisiveness has been entirely from the left. What I found
appalling was that the left/liberals buy into the psychology of the
terrorist: "If you attack me, I must be guilty of something". That's
the pshychological effect they want. They want us to bicker among
ourselves. Do you remember the Twilight Zone episode where some aliens
land and start turning the power off and on in a neighborhood? The
p[eople turn on each other, looking for someone to blame, suspecting
each other?
The left fell victim to the psychological ploy that the terrorists
wanted.
.

User: "Kate "
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	21 Aug 2006 09:18:02 PM

On 21 Aug 2006 08:23:23 -0700, "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 21 Aug 2006 07:49:17 -0700, "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@gmail.com>
wrote:

UC wrote:

John Bode wrote:

<snip>

This is true. The damage is primarily psychological.

About the only thing I think Dubya got right in the early response to
9/11 (apart from noises about being a united and angry nation) was his
telling us to go about living our lives, and not let the terrorists win
the psychological battle of the moment.

Would that he had continued in that vein, rather than using 9/11 to
push a very narrow, partisan agenda and to divide the nation for
political purposes. He squandered the opportunity, the best one since
12/7/41, to throw the power and purpose and wisdom and talent of a
united people into the work of dealing with the terrorism we clearly
saw, and with the roots of terrorism we only dimly saw. For that, he
stands condemned in the eyes of history.

That's propaganda from your stupid leaders. If you had bothered to
actually pay attention more than a second you would have discovered
the left asking why they attacked so they could respond intellegently,
not because we thought we should be guilty.
Intellegent people find out as much as they can from the situation so
they can hit back in the right way. Stupid people rush to judgement
and make bad moves. You just did this. And so did Bush.

The left fell victim to the psychological ploy that the terrorists
wanted.

The psychological ploy was to get people like you to over react, do
stupid things to get others on their side totally *****. Like a
patsy, you did exactly what Al Queda wanted - and you let them off the
hook for it too. Bush let them go and stopped hunting them, because
it was hard, much harder than picking on Iraq. And now you've got us
embroiled in a useless war that is wasting huge amounts of money, men
and good will that we can't get out of without looking even more weak.
Congratulations. You were really stupid and now the liberals will
have to take over and fix things once again. It's gonna make your
taxes so bad, you will wish Bush was never born.
.

User: "June"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	22 Aug 2006 02:57:46 PM

Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote:

On 21 Aug 2006 08:23:23 -0700, "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 21 Aug 2006 07:49:17 -0700, "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@gmail.com>
wrote:

UC wrote:

John Bode wrote:

<snip>

This is true. The damage is primarily psychological.

About the only thing I think Dubya got right in the early response to
9/11 (apart from noises about being a united and angry nation) was his
telling us to go about living our lives, and not let the terrorists
win the psychological battle of the moment.

Would that he had continued in that vein, rather than using 9/11 to
push a very narrow, partisan agenda and to divide the nation for
political purposes. He squandered the opportunity, the best one since
12/7/41, to throw the power and purpose and wisdom and talent of a
united people into the work of dealing with the terrorism we clearly
saw, and with the roots of terrorism we only dimly saw. For that, he
stands condemned in the eyes of history.

There was an enormous outpouring of good will internationally, even
from countries the US goes out of its way to upset. Even though they
saw it as the international bully getting its nose bloodied, the way it
was done was so appalling. Their subsequent actions totally squandered
this good will.

That's propaganda from your stupid leaders. If you had bothered to
actually pay attention more than a second you would have discovered
the left asking why they attacked so they could respond intellegently,
not because we thought we should be guilty.

Intellegent people find out as much as they can from the situation so
they can hit back in the right way. Stupid people rush to judgement
and make bad moves. You just did this. And so did Bush.

The left fell victim to the psychological ploy that the terrorists
wanted.

The psychological ploy was to get people like you to over react, do
stupid things to get others on their side totally *****. Like a
patsy, you did exactly what Al Queda wanted - and you let them off the
hook for it too. Bush let them go and stopped hunting them, because
it was hard, much harder than picking on Iraq. And now you've got us
embroiled in a useless war that is wasting huge amounts of money, men
and good will that we can't get out of without looking even more weak.

Congratulations. You were really stupid and now the liberals will
have to take over and fix things once again. It's gonna make your
taxes so bad, you will wish Bush was never born.

My evangelical Christian, right-wing, nut-job brother told me a year ago
that 'maybe it's time for the Democrats to get back in power for a
while'. Even some of the 'faithful' are beginning to see the writing on
the wall! (NOT that I think the Dem Party is 'liberal' all, they just
represent the more moderate corporate interests.)
--
My 2� �-}
June
.

User: "Frank Mayhar"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	21 Aug 2006 09:51:59 PM

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:18:02 -0500, Kate wrote:

Congratulations. You were really stupid and now the liberals will
have to take over and fix things once again. It's gonna make your
taxes so bad, you will wish Bush was never born.

Oh, no, they'll continue to blame it all on the "tax and spend liberals"
while utterly ignoring the fact that it was the Republican Party that got
us into this mess and that the _only_ way to get out of it is to increase
taxes on the rich (while lowering them on the poor) to pay the debt they
racked up while they were off playing soldier.
No offense to the folks who are really fighting and dying in Iraq and
Afghanistan; they're not _playing_ soldier, they're the real thing.
Unlike Phred, Fester, "UC" and the rest. The chickenshit brigade. (Now
watch them start to demand that _I_ join up and go to Iraq or some such.
As if that will distract us from the fact that they're cowards to a man.)
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
.

User: "Free Lunch"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	21 Aug 2006 10:03:12 PM

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:51:59 -0700, in talk.origins
Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote in
<pan.2006.08.22.02.51.57.155104@exit.com>:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:18:02 -0500, Kate wrote:

Congratulations. You were really stupid and now the liberals will
have to take over and fix things once again. It's gonna make your
taxes so bad, you will wish Bush was never born.

Oh, no, they'll continue to blame it all on the "tax and spend liberals"
while utterly ignoring the fact that it was the Republican Party that got
us into this mess and that the _only_ way to get out of it is to increase
taxes on the rich (while lowering them on the poor) to pay the debt they
racked up while they were off playing soldier.

No offense to the folks who are really fighting and dying in Iraq and
Afghanistan; they're not _playing_ soldier, they're the real thing.
Unlike Phred, Fester, "UC" and the rest. The chickenshit brigade. (Now
watch them start to demand that _I_ join up and go to Iraq or some such.
As if that will distract us from the fact that they're cowards to a man.)

As long as the GOP can persuade voters that they are not the fiscally
irresponsible world troublemakers, they'll keep up their lies. It takes
wide awake voters to get them out of office.
.

User: "Scooter the Mighty"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	23 Aug 2006 08:45:03 PM

UC wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 21 Aug 2006 07:49:17 -0700, "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@gmail.com>
wrote:

UC wrote:

John Bode wrote:

<snip>

This is true. The damage is primarily psychological.

About the only thing I think Dubya got right in the early response to
9/11 (apart from noises about being a united and angry nation) was his
telling us to go about living our lives, and not let the terrorists win
the psychological battle of the moment.

Would that he had continued in that vein, rather than using 9/11 to
push a very narrow, partisan agenda and to divide the nation for
political purposes. He squandered the opportunity, the best one since
12/7/41, to throw the power and purpose and wisdom and talent of a
united people into the work of dealing with the terrorism we clearly
saw, and with the roots of terrorism we only dimly saw. For that, he
stands condemned in the eyes of history.

The divisiveness has been entirely from the left.

That is such *****. Carl Rove stands up in front of a microphone
and calls half of the country traitors, and it's all the left's fault.
Bunch of crap only believed by idiots.

What I found
appalling was that the left/liberals buy into the psychology of the
terrorist: "If you attack me, I must be guilty of something". That's
the pshychological effect they want.

This is what you get for getting your opinions from Rush Limbaugh, a
chance to look like an idiot.

They want us to bicker among
ourselves. Do you remember the Twilight Zone episode where some aliens
land and start turning the power off and on in a neighborhood? The
p[eople turn on each other, looking for someone to blame, suspecting
each other?

The left fell victim to the psychological ploy that the terrorists
wanted.

Really? So where is your evidence of this? The "left" is a
considerable number of people in this country, so don't give me some
***** quotemined Cindy Scheehan garbage, lets see some evidence that
a noticable percentage of the population feels guilty about being
attached on 9/11.
.

User: "UC"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	24 Aug 2006 01:23:18 PM

Scooter the Mighty wrote:

UC wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 21 Aug 2006 07:49:17 -0700, "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@gmail.com>
wrote:

UC wrote:

John Bode wrote:

<snip>

This is true. The damage is primarily psychological.

About the only thing I think Dubya got right in the early response to
9/11 (apart from noises about being a united and angry nation) was his
telling us to go about living our lives, and not let the terrorists win
the psychological battle of the moment.

Would that he had continued in that vein, rather than using 9/11 to
push a very narrow, partisan agenda and to divide the nation for
political purposes. He squandered the opportunity, the best one since
12/7/41, to throw the power and purpose and wisdom and talent of a
united people into the work of dealing with the terrorism we clearly
saw, and with the roots of terrorism we only dimly saw. For that, he
stands condemned in the eyes of history.

The divisiveness has been entirely from the left.

That is such *****. Carl Rove stands up in front of a microphone
and calls half of the country traitors, and it's all the left's fault.
Bunch of crap only believed by idiots.

Yes, it is. It was not like this after Pearl Harbor. People knew there
was a job to be done, and put aside their petty bickering.

What I found
appalling was that the left/liberals buy into the psychology of the
terrorist: "If you attack me, I must be guilty of something". That's
the pshychological effect they want.

This is what you get for getting your opinions from Rush Limbaugh, a
chance to look like an idiot.

No, that is MY statement.

The statement was that terrorists want us to feel guilty and worthy of
being attacked. Hell, Falwell said so!
"During a discussion about whether this crisis might bring revival to
America, Jerry Falwell said God may have allowed what the nation
deserved because of moral decay and said Americans should have an
attitude of repentance before God and asking for God's protection. He
specifically listed the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and the
People For the American way as sharing in the blame. Pat Robertson
responded with agreement."
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/87/story_8770_1.html
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm
It is a common tactic of wife-beaters and other abusers. to say "You
made me do this!" Psychologically, those who attack you make you feel
guilty.
.

User: "Tom McDonald"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	24 Aug 2006 04:48:15 PM

UC wrote:

Scooter the Mighty wrote:

UC wrote:

<snip>

The divisiveness has been entirely from the left.

That is such *****. Carl Rove stands up in front of a microphone
and calls half of the country traitors, and it's all the left's fault.
Bunch of crap only believed by idiots.

Yes, it is. It was not like this after Pearl Harbor. People knew there
was a job to be done, and put aside their petty bickering.

FDR did not go in front of Congress to ask them to declare war on
Uraguay.
George Bush the Lessor got pretty much unanimous support to go into
Afghanistan. Also for sensible security measures, including onerous
airline restrictions and a new Department of Homeland Security. Petty
bickering was put aside, and we all pulled together.
Be careful with your history, sir. We all remember what it was like
right after 9/11. We were all Americans, and who the enemy was, was
clear.
*Then* GB t L started using the absolutely necessary and well-supported
war on terror for partisan political purposes. He had some set of
reasons (obviously not the ones he trotted out to sell the Iraq
adventure to us) to mess with Iraq; and since those *real* reasons
would not have let him play with his toys in the Middle East, he lied
to us.
You have bought into the neocon lies. Perhaps you truly support their
aims. But when you smear the innocent (and, in this context, the
correct) folks with your own little, pitiful swiftboating, you are the
terrorists' best product.
<snip>
.

User: "Jeffrey Turner"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	25 Aug 2006 10:29:47 PM

Tom McDonald wrote:

George Bush the Lessor got pretty much unanimous support to go into
Afghanistan. Also for sensible security measures, including onerous
airline restrictions and a new Department of Homeland Security. Petty
bickering was put aside, and we all pulled together.

Well, actually, he was opposed to the DHS. [Lesser, ain't it, unless
he's just renting the White House?]
--Jeff
--
Often war is waged only in order to
show valor; thus an inner dignity is
ascribed to war itself, and even some
philosophers have praised it as an
ennoblement of humanity, forgetting the
pronouncement of the Greek who said,
"War is an evil in as much as it produces
more wicked men than it takes away."
--Immanuel Kant
.

User: "Scooter the Mighty"
Title: Re: OT: Attacks on the warrantless wiretap ruling	24 Aug 2006 02:14:47 PM

UC wrote:

Scooter the Mighty wrote:

UC wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 21 Aug 2006 07:49:17 -0700, "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@gmail.com>
wrote:

UC wrote:

John Bode wrote:

<snip>

This is true. The damage is primarily psychological.

About the only thing I think Dubya got right in the early response to
9/11 (apart from noises about being a united and angry nation) was his
telling us to go about living our lives, and not let the terrorists win
the psychological battle of the moment.

Would that he had continued in that vein, rather than using 9/11 to
push a very narrow, partisan agenda and to divide the nation for
political purposes. He squandered the opportunity, the best one since
12/7/41, to throw the power and purpose and wisdom and talent of a
united people into the work of dealing with the terrorism we clearly
saw, and with the roots of terrorism we only dimly saw. For that, he
stands condemned in the eyes of history.

The divisiveness has been entirely from the left.

That is such *****. Carl Rove stands up in front of a microphone
and calls half of the country traitors, and it's all the left's fault.
Bunch of crap only believed by idiots.

Yes, it is. It was not like this after Pearl Harbor. People knew there
was a job to be done, and put aside their petty bickering.

And it was like that after 9/11. The country was as united over going
after Bin Ladin and Afganistan.

What I found
appalling was that the left