Split thread: Politics

[texasPI]

Gents,

Let's remember something here. We are all brought together by the common bond of shaving. We all have opinions, and we can all back up those opinions with facts. Regardless of where you live, the government you are governed by, we all see things in our own light. Please, let's not let our own interpretations of "facts" or information destroy what we have all worked towards...a forum of gentlemen. I learned long ago that there are two things best not discussed in public, religion and politics. Agree to disagree. Or voice your thoughts and opinions and know that others will disagree. If we all had "all" of the facts, all of our opinions might change. But for now, let's remember that we are here to discuss shaving. Off topic or not, this is first, and foremost, a shaving forum.

Randy

Well said Randy

[stuff495]

Nobody claims that Iraq had attacked the US. That never was the issue. What was the issue was that Iraq had training camps expressly used to train terrorists. These were found and destroyed after major combat operations were finished.

. I guess it would be "liberal bias" to point out that Sadam was a ruthless secular dictator, who worked to suppress religious fundamental terrorist groups that would be a threat to his dictatorship. Did we ever hear about terrorists bombing his palace with the regularity that they now attack US forces?

Also, Iraq was responsible for payments made to the families of suicide bombers to reward them for a job well done! Iraq was aiding and abetting known terrorists.

Suicide bombers in Israel. You can say "terrorists are terrorists", and to some extent this is true. But the IRA were not behind 9/11. And attacks in Gaza are not the same as attacks in NY.

In fact, Al Zawharhiri was documented to have been in and out of Iraq over a dozen times before the Iraqi war started.

So?

WMD's are another issue. Saddam DID use them to viciously put down the Kurds after the 1st Iraqi war. EVERYONE thought he still had them.

Except the weapons inspectors on the ground.

This includes the British, French, German, and Russian intelligence agencies, not just the CIA. Hell, even the untouchable UN and the IAEA expressed their troubles re: Iraq's WMD program.

understand that "troubles" are not the same as possession. It's like the difference between someone yelling at you and & your mother a bad name, and the same person charging at you with a knife. One is a good reason to be troubled -- the other is a good reason to shoot.

I find it very troublesome that NO reporting was done on an attack by terrorists on Polish soldiers several months ago using MUSTARD GAS!!!! . Now, I don't expect this to be brought up by the good folks at the CBC when over 83% of all political donations done by the higher-ups were to the libs. The CPC got ~2% while the rest went to the separtist Bloc

There have been sporadic attacks using chemicals, etc. In one case (I don't remember the specifics, sorry), a very advance "binary chemical" was used. Turned out it was left over from an unexploded shell from who knows when. I'm sorry, but there have to be more WMDs then a few roadside bombs of mustered gas to justify an invasion. Remember the Tokoyo subway attacks w/ nerve gas? Did that prove that all bad guys in Japan had WMDs? No, and similarly I don't feel that this attack is strong evidence that Iraq had WMDs. However, I would be very interested in reading about it, if you have any sources handy. I do try to keep up with these things, and I don't get my news from CBS any more then from FOX.

In any case, I don't believe the topic of tolerance should be brought up when you criticize whom the majority of Americans voted for, when you don't happen to agree with their choice. Yet, you claim intolerance when a US citizen disagrees with you. To me, that seems to be a bit IN-tolerant.

Yes, it would be nice if both sides would stop acting like assholes when they think they get the upper hand.

[stuff495]

Vincent,

You wrote:

"The problem is that they were doing searches without obtaining warrants -- that brings up 4th amendment issues ("..and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation...").

To me this is not a political argument, it's an argument about security, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...""

Unfortunately, Vincent, while people like to quote the Fourth Amendment, they usually misquote it, or only partially quote it, giving the impression that all searches must be accompanied by a warrant, which is quite obviously false, both in life, and when you actually READ the Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What it OBVIOUSLY lays out is that there are two points to consider: That searches and siezures should be "reasonable," and that no warrant shall issue without probable cause, etc. The two points are NOT directly related or interdependant. You can have searches without warrants (they happen all the time at airports, for example). You can also have searches without probable cause (also think about airport searches). What you CAN'T have is a warrant that has been issued WITHOUT probably cause. WHEN there is a warrant, you need probable cause. When there is NOT a warrent, you just need to be "reasonable." As to what constitutes reasonableness, that has basically been settled by the courts, but I'm not going into all of it here. Suffice it to say, there are times when a police officer can LEGALLY search, but have no warrant to do so.

This Ammendment came from cases involving searches that were made using "writs of assistance" which allowed searches anyplace where smuggled goods might be found, without any probable cause to suspect that something might be there. In other words, an intentional search any old place you like, fishing for evidence. John Adams, saw the dispute over this as "the spark of the American Revolution." Warrants were originally used as a government defence against lawsuits that arose against the taking of property - which is an entirely different context from what you likely believe.

Keep in mind that there is a whole history on this that you probably do not know or appreciate. There were very specific things that the framers were trying to avoid and put in place, that are largely forgotten by the modern Fourth Amendment bloviating. I would suggest that you maybe look up some of the history of law on this case and see what you find. You might be surprised. (I'm simply not going to type like hell for a month to explain it all.) At the vary least, READ the Fourth Amendment. See what it says in fairly clear language. There are details that are arguable, but it is much clearer and settled than the man-on-the-street seems to think.

Andre

More research has been added to my to-do list. Please forgive me if I don't get it done b4 this thread burns and dies -- I'm really busy right now, and about to move. I've done some, a while back when I was working on a VOIP project -- and I'm aware of some of the complexities (like the pin-registry). My point was that the current debate over the power of the government to search with very little oversight brings up 4th amendment issues. Regardless of if I'm right or not in what I said, and wether this or that law has been violated -- I think that the courts will eventually rule on wether such and such practice was constitutional vis a vis the 4th amendment. So even if the 4th was not violated in any way, 4th ammendment issues have still been rased. I don't know if htat makes any sense, I'm in a real hurry here, so I may not be at my clearest.

For me, the issue is what powers government should have, and what checks and accountability it should be subject to today. How do we balance legitimate police needs with sufficient protections for citizens against a potential police-state? These are broader issues then just the 4th amendment.

--Vincent

[stuff495]

As to the "wiretapping" issue: For the data mining thing (the most recent), courts have long held that legal, and the people all up an arms about it might better consider all of the OTHER personal info they freely distribute every time they shop. If you think all THAT data isn't actually being crunched by businesses... Talk about misdirected!

Andre, it's not quite the same. There are a few laws in some states (which have a way of getting applied to other states, since businesses like to do business all over the country) about the privacy of personal data. Also, one kind of data-mining could get you accused of being a you know...

More importantly, you're totally right that our current privacy laws are inadequate and a mess. I think that lots of work does need to be done in fixing those problems. But I think the government's current actions need to be scrutinized as well. It shouldn't be an ether-or situation. Actually, I do believe the latest NSA revelation (the who's called who list) is legal, from what I understand of the law. But that still doesn't mean it's a good idea! Or a good use of our budget. It's not unheard of to make a bad legal thing illegal. Now that may be a bit extreme in this case, but I do not believe that the work that is being done now is a good idea. It feels too much like CYA politics. Where politicians are casting the net too wide, so when the next bad thing happens they can say "see, we were trying to stop it". Rather they should be focusing on substantive work.

I think this article by a former NSA agent (who was for the clipper chip ) on why what the NSA is doing now hurts security is worth a read (not just for you, but for everyone ).

--Vincent

[stuff495]

In my opinion, it was perfectly legal (and Congress was briefed), and it is only an issue now because it can be used as one for the 99% of people who haven't got a clue what the Constitution even says, much less how it is and has been applied. It's a soundbite.

Andre

Some Congress was briefed, and both Intelligence Committees were briefed, supposedly in full, only two weeks ago. A FISA judge resigned over this.

This seems a complex issue, and I'm sure people will be discussing it a long time. There are clearly oversight issues, with the refusal to brief the full committees until recently. The Justice Department lawyers (the ones who dreamed the whole thing up???) were denied security clearances (by the NSA) needed to investigate, so the investigation died. It makes one wonder just what level of oversight is in place. Let's not forget the NSA's mandate to restrict themselves to foreign intelligence, and why this data mining does not violate that.

Yeah, the lack of oversight and accountability is very disturbing to me. You may not be able to stop bad things from happening with a warrant -- but at least you have a record that something happened.

I don't see how a lack of a record helps us catch terrorists. But I do see how it hurts good honest citizens.

--Vincent

[stuff495]

Merlyn, thanks to you too! You won't upset me by bad-mouthing the nasty and corrupt Jean Chretien. I have never voted Liberal, but have always been a Conservative. Imagine that - a conservative who believes in tolerance! We exist up here.

Chris

Good to know.

(one of the things that has been gnawing away at me is that it's the supposedly conservative party that's for expanded police powers. WTF? The scary thing is I'm wondering who's balancing them out.)

--Vincent

[stuff495]

WMD's are another issue. Saddam DID use them to viciously put down the Kurds after the 1st Iraqi war. EVERYONE thought he still had them.

Don't rewrite history! Saddam used chemical weapons to gas the Kurds BEFORE the 1st war. That is fact. It is widely held opinion that those chemical weapons were provided to Iraq by the US for the war with Iran. Some think that this is the reason why Saddam is not being tried for that heinous crime--it would prove too embarrassing to the US.

Iraq had many problems before the second war, but terrorism was not among them--aside from the payments to the suicide bombers, but that is hardly a reason to take down a government when you look at active terrorist states like Syria at the time. Moslem fundamentalism also was not a prewar problem. FWIW, Saddam was an evil dictator, but not an evil Fundamentalist dictator. As dictators go, he was quite secular.

The CIA did not uniformly have confidence in Iraqi WMD.

Thank you ScottS. Are there still people who really think everyone was 100% sure they had them? Because frankly I don't remember everyone being 100% sure when we went in, and I was definitely old enough to remember that .

I've found it very interesting to go online and browse archived news articles from 2002, and other years as well.

"By complying with the UN resolution, Saddam could certainly make life difficult for Washington hawks set on an invasion to achieve regime change in Iraq"
--Time Magazine Online, Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2002
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 96,00.html
(That's not the most interesting one, but it's the 1st one I found in about 30 seconds of searching.)

--Vincent

[stuff495]

Vincent;
I do appreciate your comments on this. One should have some level of concern on this matter. However, considering Carter & Bubba both used the same powers that the far-left is accusing the current President of initiating is laughably ridiculous. Ultimately, these powers are to be used to safeguard the country, NOT any one political party.

Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately that is not the case.

Futhermore, there haven't been any other successful terrorist attacks on the US. I do believe we can all be thankful for that.

And what does that prove? There were no terrorist attacks in the US by foreigners in the 5 years prior to 9/11 ether. Did you know that since it's introduction in October of 2001, the iPod has prevented any terrorist attacks on US soil? The absence of terrorist attacks doesn't do a darn thing to prove that we're doing domestic security right. It does even less to show that we aren't in danger of becoming the next 1984.

I suppose, when looking at the billions of calls made in the US each day, one could argue it is effectively impossible for any one individual to listen in on your telephone call to granny.

That's not what I'm worried about. I'm disturbed by the ability of them to listen to a call to my mother without any oversight or accountability that I can see. One thing I'll tell you, having worked on some VOIP code before, voice compresses really well. Last time I did the back-of-the-evalope calculation, it would cost $750 million per year to store a recording every second of every telephone conversation made in the US each year. I'm wondering what the legality of that would be if nobody would listen to the call, until they got a warrant...

Most people, if they are not connected to any terrorist cells, will not oppose some semblance of oversight to make sure Akmed isn't calling up Muhammed to see when those explosives are set to arrive in town.

Oh hell no. I though the state motto of New Hampshire was "Live Free Or Die". Seems like they would object to what you're talking about, since it sounds like a police state to me. We're all guilty until proven innocent, and you have no reason to protest unless you're guilty eh?
Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Read this essay on The value of Privacy

And yes, I do have something to hide. I like having intimate conversations with my girlfriends on the phone.

After all, could you imagine the fallout if some type of attack took place, and upon investigation it was found out that the President did not do everything in his power to prevent this attack from happening????

The only way to do everything possible to catch terrorists is to have a police state. And that's not worth it.

Would you really be for the president having all this power if it was Hillary Clinton in power, not George Bush? What if Michael Moor or Howard Dean was elected president, do you still think it would be a good idea?

Why the Dems would be the FIRST in line to accuse the President of NOT protecting the country, that he was "asleep at the wheel" etc., etc., etc.

And that would be a terrible thing to do. Security should not be hijacked by politics. Frankly though, I've seen the Republicans use terrorism more for political gain then I've seen the Democrats. Has the terror alert level been announced or raised after the 2004 election? Which party held their convention in liberal New York, where "Ground Zero" is? The list goes on and on. That's not to say the Democrats aren't guilty of the same crime. Because they are. But not to the
flagrant degree the GOP is.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library ... _remix.mov
(yeah, that's "biased editing", but it gets the point across).

--Vincent

[stuff495]

Most people, if they are not connected to any terrorist cells, will not oppose some semblance of oversight to make sure Akmed isn't calling up Muhammed to see when those explosives are set to arrive in town. After all, could you imagine the fallout if some type of attack took place, and upon investigation it was found out that the President did not do everything in his power to prevent this attack from happening????

Merlyn, do you seriously consider yourself a conservative?

I always thought the way things worked was that we were innocent until proven guilty. What you're saying is that we're all presumed to be guilty of being "Akmed" enough to warrant someone listening into our conversations. And furthermore that we should have no objection to it, unless we're guilty. Do you see what that does -- it shifts the burden of proof to the Citizens. It means we're assumed to be guilty, and we have to prove our innocence to the Government by letting them listen into our calls. There are so many reasons why that's wrong -- but I think the biggest one is that it's un-American.

The NSA, FBI, etc. al. needs the ability to listen into select calls. Thats part of what warrants are about -- making the government bear the burden of proof. They have to give a good enough justification why we may be guilty to tap our phones. The current law allows for warrants to be obtained 72hours after the fact. That won't hinder a "tactical" situation, where the NSA needs to listen in on the phones now.

I hate to say things that may be construed as ad homonym attacks in a debate -- but people like you are possibly the biggest reason I'm worried. If you're really the conservatives, then who's watching the watchers and fighting for a smaller government, and the rights of citizens to protect themselves and not have to fear our own government? Seriously, I want to know. I was against the clipper chip, and I would be against these same laws if it was a Clinton who was saying the NSA didn't need warrants.

We all know there are different levels of crime. But police have the same powers when tracking a serial killer as they do when hunting a vandal. The police can't search my house w/o a warrant (or probable cause justificaiton), just because I'm accused of being a serial killer. We long ago made the decision that it was best for our society that police not get powers on a sliding scale. So why is it suddenly OK for the FBI to have expanded powers when tracking terrorists? What's so conservative about that? It sounds like what Republicans used to call "liberal" to me. Where's the black and white Good/Bad? Suddenly certain things are OK, but only in special circumstances.

"Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide."
--An essay by security expert Bruce Schneier

--Vincent

[stuff495]

Folks, I'm very busy right now, and in the middle of moving. So I may not be able to get back to replies as quickly as I would like. The fact is, presenting an argument that isn't crap may take more time then I have. It's 4:43 in the morning right now, and I don't think I'll be able to stay up this late responding to a bunch of posts again.

--Vincent

[Hugo]

Re: Tolerance.

For a while I studied up on Buddhism, and was interested to learn that Buddhists (at least the Theravadins that I studied) don't really operate on a framework of "right/wrong," "good/evil." They refer to "skillful vs. unskillful" actions.

The idea is that skillful actions reduce suffering in the world, while unskillful actions increase suffering. (The three roots of suffering are the desire to preserve something, the desire to negate something, and the desire to remain ignorant of something.)

Westerners often misunderstand the "law of karma" as some morally charged cosmic force of justice, while actually it is simple cause and effect. If we act unskillfully, we diminish our world, and vice versa.

Many will question whether such an amoral system can really provide a workable basis for life. I can't presume to answer that question, except to say that for me it seems to be an idea with some merit, and that billions of people have found it useful as the basis for individual life.

Whether it's possible to derive a politics from Buddhism is from what I understand extremely doubtful, since Buddhism incorporates a healthy skepticism of all human institutions save the "sangha" -- or community of believers/practitioners.

For me, the idea of "tolerance" would entail the effort to live skillfully by avoiding the need to negate. At the very least, one risks consigning himself to a world of suffering (i.e., something always needs to be repudiated/struggled against/stamped out), and at worst, he imposes suffering on others. Some see "tolerance" as a moral shortcoming, while others see it as a sort of spiritual ideal. I think Buddhism even takes a third approach, seeing tolerance simply as a sort of common sense.

To politicize this a bit, which I shouldn't do but will, I can't think of a way in which, say, gay marriage would increase suffering in the world.

Also, I am sure there must be plenty of writings out there about "Buddhist repsonses to 9/11," but I'm not familiar with any, so I won't be able to speak to that issue.

Anyway, it's all offered as food for thought. I can't say I've mastered any of it myself, and I'm certainly "intolerant" at times.

Doug,

[Andre]

Thanks for the reply Vincent.

I think the final thing I would say is that I would absolutely recommend that ALL Americans learn what their Constitution says. It is a fairly short document, but I think most people are more sure of what they THINK it says, than are sure that they have actually read it. There is obviously a lot of research one could do, but I think the new Heritage Guide that I mentioned is a great overview and start. Yes, it will tend to have a slightly conservative bias on some things (to me, a good thing), but I think it's mostly fair and it will give you a good basis for understanding it, whether or not you hold a different opinion or not.

It WILL give you a lot to think about on the separation of powers thing.

Andre

[Hugo]

Tolerance is a key word used by libs to in essence say to conservatives...."Shut up, we will sin if we want to". Such as Gay marriage. They say we should be tolerant...NEVER!!
Tolerance is a word created by the Devil himself.

Stupid is as stupid does.
If this offends you...Good!!

To quote Chris Moss "We seem to have stirred up the good ol' boys."

[drmoss_ca]

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
(Rev. Martin Niemoller)

Chris

[e5f]

I'm having difficulty sending messages. Vincent, I don't know how troubling it must be to be so wrong as you are. If you care, pm me and we can continue this.

Thanks,
Merlyn

[e5f]

Check that, my responses were too detailed before so I will condense them down to have them posted.

Did we ever hear about terrorists bombing his palace with the regularity that they now attack US forces?

Why on earth would they??? The terrorists were being trained, fed and sheltered in Iraq thanks to that madman???????


e5f wrote:
In fact, Al Zawharhiri was documented to have been in and out of Iraq over a dozen times before the Iraqi war started.
So?


So? Al-Qaeda#2 guy was untimately responsible for the set-up of these terrorist training camps, ensuring that training was done, and recruits were brought up in order to plan attacks on Western targets. All this was done in Iraq. Saddam was guilty of aiding and abetting terrorists.


e5f wrote:
WMD's are another issue. Saddam DID use them to viciously put down the Kurds after the 1st Iraqi war. EVERYONE thought he still had them.
Except the weapons inspectors on the ground.


Bullshit. The weapons inspectors were there in Iraq in the first place BECAUSE they believed he had these weapons.


I'm sorry, but there have to be more WMDs then a few roadside bombs of mustered gas to justify an invasion

There were. Beside mustard gas, he also hoarded vx nerve gas, sarin, as well as anthrax. Keep in mind, these were produced in concentrate to allow for easier travel. They were to be dilluted prior to an attack when it would be needed. One suitcase of anthrax would be enough to kill 50,000. Considering that this dictator was willing to bury his own air force so that they wouldn't be destroyed by the US, it's certainly possible for him to bury a few cases of gas with much less problem.

[sgtrecon212]

I consider myself a conservative, and I think Dub is doing a pretty good job. The immigration thing kinda troubles me, and on some points I have some issues with this administration.
That said, I do believe the liberals truly, personally hate GDub. I believe even if he came up with a cure for cancer tomorrow, they would wonder why he didn't do it sooner. I also believe they will do anything to make HIM personally look bad. Liberals hate him just for being him. My opinion.

I believe we gave Saddam way too much time to move the WMDs. If I'm incorrect, then so be it.

Chris, that last posting is so true. It happened to the Jews, I believe in WWII. It continued to happen before the civil rights movement here in the States, until we decided enough was enough.

I also believe the UN is pretty much worthless, and we should do more to shore up NATO, piss on the UN.
I also believe we should do a better job of supporting those countries who support us. I would love to buy more products from Poland, Bulgaria, Israel and the like, and disregard those products made in China and Mexico and Venezuela. Some countries are not our friends. If jobs are going to be exported, lets have them go to the countries that deserve it. I make fun of Canadians, but I believe if push came to shove, just like in WWII, they would support us. It also appears there are plenty of conservatives to the north.

Wow, I'm on a rant as well.

We live in a great country where we are free to discuss this stuff. I'm proud to have served in the Armed Forces along with others to make this freedom so. My dad fought Hitler, and did his part.

Holy cow, I got long winded.

One more thing... about the Clinton bj. If you can't get a little action on the side as the President of the most powerful country in the world..... But did we need hours and hours of testimony about it, jeez come on.
I disliked Bill Clinton a lot more when he was President than I do now. I literally cannot stand his wife. In my opinion, she's the country's most dangerous person.

All I want to know is.......... When are the Cubbies gonna start winning again??

[e5f]

The absence of terrorist attacks doesn't do a darn thing to prove that we're doing domestic security right.

The above statement is too ludicrous to respond to. Well........maybe not. Following your own train of logic; the prevalence of terrorist attacks won't do a darned thing to prove that we're doing domestic security wrong. Did you ever wonder why, despite repeated threats by Al-Qaeda, as well as other terrorist cells, the US has not experienced another terrorist attack. Is it out of the realm of POSSIBILITY that the US is doing a bang-up job of preventing attacks from taking place? Or are you that type of person who automatically assumes the absolute WORST about his nation?????


I'm disturbed by the ability of them to listen to a call to my mother without any oversight or accountability that I can see

If you and your mother aren't terrorists, you don't have anything to worry about. Come on, you know it's theoretically impossible for another individual to listen in on all phone calls taking place. Instead, computer programs run to pull out certain flagged numbers, words, etc. in order to START to do any filtering of phine messages. BTW, you didn't mention that you were overly concerned when Bubba was doing all this and more thanks to echelon back in the "good ol' days "


("Who watches the watchers?")

Are you always this pessimistic, or are you a conspirasy theory populast?


e5f wrote:
After all, could you imagine the fallout if some type of attack took place, and upon investigation it was found out that the President did not do everything in his power to prevent this attack from happening????
The only way to do everything possible to catch terrorists is to have a police state. And that's not worth it.

I wonder if you would say the same thing if you found out that your GF could/would be killed by a future terrorist attack, but all means weren't used to prevent it?

Security should not be hijacked by politics.

Exactly, so why are the Dems so bent on doing, saying, or trying ANYTHING in order to just get back into power?

[e5f]

Merlyn, do you seriously consider yourself a conservative?

Actually, I consider myself a realist. I understand that there are many, many others out there that hate us and want to destroy us completely. These Islamic terrorists aren't interested in any tete-a-tete. They would like nothing more than to see the West fall. I also know that there are another group of individuals that are trying their absolute best to ensure that this does not happen. Where do YOU fit in this equation?


It means we're assumed to be guilty, and we have to prove our innocence to the Government by letting them listen into our calls. There are so many reasons why that's wrong -- but I think the biggest one is that it's un-American

There are a lot of names that I associate America with........GUILTY isn't one of them.


The NSA, FBI, etc. al. needs the ability to listen into select calls.

That is EXACTLY what they are doing. As mentioned earlier, there isn't a group of guys sitting around listening in to all phone calls taking place in the US. There are computer systems run that are used to "flag" only those calls that trigger any inspection via number used, words, phrases, etc. These are what are actually being looked at in the first place.


I hate to say things that may be construed as ad homonym attacks in a debate -- but people like you are possibly the biggest reason I'm worried.

How typically liberal of you. There are barbarians out there who saw the heads off of civilians, who booby-trap dead bodies in order to inflict casualties on US troops, who murder children at school, who are doing everything possible to revert this country back into the stone-age. Yet, you give them a pass. I, on the other hand, do worry you immensely even though I haven't harmed anyone...............................YET


If you're really the conservatives, then who's watching the watchers and fighting for a smaller government, and the rights of citizens to protect themselves and not have to fear our own government? Seriously, I want to know.

Alright, I'll go REAL slow for your benefit. You simply won't care who is "watching the watchers", fighting for smaller gov't, etc., etc., etc., IF YOU ARE DEAD. If you assume room temperature, you also won't give a $hit about your precious "civil liberties" either!!!!! There are individuals risking their own lives to help ensure you are still able to breathe tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that............Get that into your head. The last attack occurred in NYC. The next one COULD be in your own town. Aren't you interested in doing everything possible in order to prevent it


Thanks,
Merlyn

[AACJ]

Gentlemen, I would suggest that we all take a breather before we hit the enter button and submit any posting. Although this is a lively discussion, and it should I don't want it getting out of hand. I enjoy reading most of the posts as everyone has their own opinions on politics and I like hearing everyone side, but in everyone's mind, they are correct.

So lets all try to respect everyone elses viewpoint and keep the postings coming, let's just be gentlemen about it and not throw any barbs at each other.

Regards