H'WOOD MORONS

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

that's fine that you value your privacy. i value my privacy too. however, i don't worry about the government listening to my phone calls to my dad or anything else because they won't find anything nor do i say anything incriminating or interesting. i'm more concerned about privacy when it comes to identity theft than the government listening to my dad tell me about his health on the phone.

and it just seems to me that you have a great distrust for the government that colors your thinking.

not news about the national guard. most state governors don't want to let their troops be used for things like illegal immigration control and the iraqi war. but the federal government also pays for those troops too.

so you don't agree that drastic times calls for drastic measures? that we should take our time with legislation while being attacked? that's called dragging our feet. and puts us as a nation even more behind the power curve. as for many of the 911 commission recommendations, were they too watered down compared to what we have in place already? or too drastic? and in case you've forgotten, the usa was attacked. just like we was at pearl harbor. we are at war. hellloooo!

pointing out which views of yours in this thread that are ambiguous or unclear would be a full time job

[pedroh 21]

mhh pearl harbor wasnt a real attack.. it was a setup made by the own americans.. u believe in pearl harbor? cmon

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

mhh pearl harbor wasnt a real attack.. it was a setup made by the own americans.. u believe in pearl harbor? cmon

oh christ another conspiracy theory

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Seems our old friend "intellectual dishonesty" is at work again.

You guys crack me up. You want freedom of speech, which is the first amendment, yet cant stand the fact that someone believes in God and would like their state / government etc to represent their views. yet demad the government listen when a liberal is campaining for some stupid new cause like "civil rights for gay whales".

So, what you are basically saying is that it is ok for a liberal atheist to have their way, (i.e e.g removing any signs of religion from public view) yet not ok for someone, including a government department, to display anything religious, period! That looks like reverse discrimnation..

Maybe some of you should check the meaning of equal..

Definition of Equal

For example, to be 'equal' would be a government building, school or whatever represting all views, be it religious or not. That is equal.

That's not the point at all. I'm simply questioning the unspoken and unqualified assumptions that you and Incanada (amongst others) seem to be basing your arguments on. You attack ideas and dismiss (out of hand contrary) ideas as being liberal without questioning the assumptions they are founded on.

What I am saying is that your entire conception of what constitutes "liberal ideas" is skewed and intellectually corrupt. While I may disagree with you on a number of issues, that's not what this is about. Its about your process of argument, and the apparent refusal to approach (any) issue in a manner that applies basic reasoning and critical thinking.

Its like performing a school science experiment - but rather than do the thing in logical steps - planning through implementation, you skip right to the end, copy someone else's results and write a conclusion that relies on plagiarising the textbook.

On this specific issue, as I said, we are still no closer to understanding how someone becomes qualified to hold and express a political opinion.

Neither have you responded to Fischkoepfin's question about how the ACLU and alleged liberals are supposedly "ruining" America.

[*Robert* 2]

mhh pearl harbor wasnt a real attack.. it was a setup made by the own americans.. u believe in pearl harbor? cmon

It was real alright, as far as the Japanese were concerned, they were ready for an all out retaliation... and got NONE!

That's because the radar detections were ignored, the mini-sub destroyed in Pear Harbor was ignored, and all the other intelligence they had, including cracking the "purple code".

The attack was allowed to happen, in order to get the U.S. to declare war, and to get rid of aging battleships, and immediately go to war in Europe.

Saying the attack on Pearl Harbor was a "surprise" attack, is like saying there really was an attack on a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

that's fine that you value your privacy. i value my privacy too. however, i don't worry about the government listening to my phone calls to my dad or anything else because they won't find anything nor do i say anything incriminating or interesting. i'm more concerned about privacy when it comes to identity theft than the government listening to my dad tell me about his health on the phone.

Who then decides what is considered 'incriminating' or 'interesting?' - isn't that the point? The new laws, at best, broadly call into question what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion'.

And am I anymore suspicious of government than the guy who doesn't want government to have any involvement in running public services? Once again - it's a bizarre argument to make that if you don't trust the government with your money, why would you trust them with your privacy and civil liberties? If we're talking about ambiguity and a lack of clarity - that's a stinker right there.

Would you consider 24 hour camera surveillance inside every private home to be "in your protection"?

and it just seems to me that you have a great distrust for the government that colors your thinking.

How so? Because I see government side-stepping democratic process and working to undermine the checks and balances?

not news about the national guard. most state governors don't want to let their troops be used for things like illegal immigration control and the iraqi war. but the federal government also pays for those troops too.

What distinguishes the Guard from other Reserve components of the military is its chain of command and state control. Losing this independence is the antithesis of its supposed mission, as I see it...

It one more example of power grabbing from our increasingly imperial executive branch. Aren't Republicans supposed to be the party of states' rights?

so you don't agree that drastic times calls for drastic measures? that we should take our time with legislation while being attacked? that's called dragging our feet. and puts us as a nation even more behind the power curve. as for many of the 911 commission recommendations, were they too watered down compared to what we have in place already? or too drastic? and in case you've forgotten, the usa was attacked. just like we was at pearl harbor. we are at war. hellloooo!

Straussian philosophy again - that the Constitution is a "nice to have" that can be conveniently done away with, when the national need dictates. In this context - its called giving the terrorists what they want. An increasingly polarised America, with a people living in fear of another attack and trusting in an increasingly authoritarian government to protect them. I don't know about you - but we've been there before, and it didn't end well...

pointing out which views of yours in this thread that are ambiguous or unclear would be a full time job

Then you should have no problem dispensing with the insults and qualifying should you - or is the accusation (once again) merely due to personal dislike as opposed to anything I have actually said.

Edited August 17, 2006 by erekose

[Alex+R 0]

Erekose : what is your ultimate goal in this thread? What would you like to achieve?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Erekose : what is your ultimate goal in this thread? What would you like to achieve?

Honestly? At this point I'm not sure, seeing as asking a few simple questions about why certain members of society are actually Liberal, and what qualifies someone to have and express political views appears to have opened a massive chasm in the reasoning of self-styled neo-conservatives.

One, I might add - that will probably never be crossed.

[Alex+R 0]

Erekose : what is your ultimate goal in this thread? What would you like to achieve?

Honestly? At this point I'm not sure, seeing as asking a few simple questions about why certain members of society are actually Liberal, and what qualifies someone to have and express political views appears to have opened a massive chasm in the reasoning of self-styled neo-conservatives.

One, I might add - that will probably never be crossed.

And that is all I can say.

[*Robert* 2]

Alrighty then!!!

Party over... turn off the lights, and lock the door!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Alrighty then!!!

Party over... turn off the lights, and lock the door!!!

Forgot my keys...

Sorry, couldn't resist that

[*Robert* 2]

Alrighty then!!!

Party over... turn off the lights, and lock the door!!!

Forgot my keys...

Sorry, couldn't resist that

ROFLMAO!!!!

Good one!!!

[ceriserose 1]

http://www.nationstates.net/

[*Robert* 2]

http://www.nationstates.net/

Illegal post... this thread is closed!

[Fischkoepfin 1]

http://www.nationstates.net/

Illegal post... this thread is closed!

What are you, the thread police?

I'm not quite done here because I'd like some answers.

btw, ceriserose, thanks for the link..