Anyone Who Approves of Bush's Wiretapping

is a coward and a traitor, willing to throw their civil rights away because the GOP keeps fucking up! And don't give me your shit that you feel unprotected. Blame the GOP for installing dictators and funding terrorists in the first place. They are the root of the problem and it's time it comes back around to bite these bastards in the ass. Enough said.

Pity some don't.

Don

People need to be reminded that if they are so scared that they are willing to give up their rights as American citizens then the terrorists, whose goal is to strike fear in the hearts of the enemy have already won.

I have my suspicions about trolls spreading misinfo or trying to high-jack debates, but sometimes there are those who don't have all the facts. No one really does, but damn... where is the common sense?

You put words into the poster's mouth. The poster never expressed agreement with Bush or his wiretapping. The poster may be a troll, but not because he disagrees with you.

There may be a legitimate need to monitor some individual's calls or e-mails because they have some history of violence or there is evidence they are a threat. There are scores ofdedicated folks in government who use the wiretaps in a proper way that doesn't infringe on rights. Bush's way is illegal. Other methods may be helpful and necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. Attacks happen. Bush has pissed a lot of folks off. They mean us harm. We have to try to stop them before they act.

Also, you give a bunch of shit because someone might be scared. What crap. You can be as firm in your conviction as you want but you can't speak for everyone. If someone fears a terrorist attack because they can't get the image of two falling towers out of their head then who are you to scorn them? As you control your own fear, be mindful that there are some folks who do fear. They will act and think out of fear. It's not their fault. They have been overwhelmed by the fearmongering of this administration. For Americans who don't read and listen to as much as we do here, the fear is very real, and not entirely groundless. Bush's bungling and sneaking has actually undermined existing cases because of tainted evidence and weakened the morale of those we task to look after our safety. There is the failure to actually catch the masterminds of the WTC tragedy. They still want to kick our asses. And. Bush is pissing more and more off with our continued occupation of Iraq and his saber rattling toward Iran and Syria.

And, you don't fear? Pfft! Good for you. Some folks legitimately do.

You want to throw your rights away... go ahead, but don't give me your panicked bullshit so that I too have to give away my rights of privacy too.

And don't put words in my mouth about not being scared. I'm more afraid of people like you who actually are willing to jeopardize our rights out of irrational fear. I hope you don't consider yourself to be a "liberaL". Because you sure as hell don't sound like one.

So FUCK THAT!

you would see that. But you are satisfied to use me as a whipping boy for you opposition to Bush. Try searchung my posts before you accuse me of supporting ANYTHING Bush or ANY republican has done.

I stated repeatedly that what Bush did is a crime. I don't, however see the link between someone who expresses fear and support for Bush. One can act quite responsibly out of fear. But I don't doubt that you have no such penchant for nuance. Either with us or against us. Myopic crap.

with those who in my mind a overreacting to terrorism and playing right into their fucking hands! We are on the verge of becoming a police state, if we haven't already become one, and you are all up in arms about people getting pissed at those who ARE justifying Bush's action.

Well aren't you a do-gooder. Good for you! I'm not feeling that way right now as my neighborhood crumbles everyday, with more and more homeless walking streets and those who were need psych meds are dangerously off of it to finance the wealthy and this illegal war. Now we have a president that believes his actions are justifies while trashing every citizen's right for what? And Why? Out of irrational fear.

And one last thing: I do see a link between those who fear a BOOGEYMAN and Support for Bush. That's why the sicko fascist is in office, because of their fear. So go play nicey nice with those who fear freedom! I won't....

but it reveals more of your character than it does mine. You know nothing of me and it is dishonest to claim that I support any of Bush from anything I have written.

You skipped the context on purpose. Too bad... and I thought you were just showing sympathy for those scared. Now you blame me of accusing you of being a Bush supporter.

Well maybe you are the one that is really scared, but wouldn't say so in the first place.

if I were afraid, it would be my own affair. I don't like being called a coward and I don't like being accused of supporting ANYTHING Bush has done. I suppose it would be too much to expect you to separate your opposition to Bush from those who may fear terrorism here in the U.S.. So much for compassion. You assume that everyone who fears will act against your interests. What a stretch. Convienient for your argument I suppose, but it's dishonest on its face. Folks don't necessarily have to act irrationally out of fear. Fear can strengthen resolve, motivate to positive action. We don't all have to be mindless clods like the Bush cabal. We can act responsibly, even if we do feel fear. Those who feel fear don't deserve to be called cowards by folks who know nothing about them, their lives, or their struggles. That's just common sense and decency. They certainly don't deserve to be shoved into Bush's camp. Keep that up and you will find yourself in a pretty small group. We need all Americans on our side, not just those who are as resolved as you seem to be. What happened to understanding? Did Bush steal that from you also?

Go take a nap. And don't tell me what to do. Got it! I'll say what I want on this board within the rules of course, but don't accuse me of saying something I didn't. Ok? Talk about bullshiting ones self.

Did Bush steal your spine as well as your understanding.... duh! Nice jab right?

And if I accuse you of something, I'll come out and say it to you. I accuse you of twisting my words so that you sound like the poor wittle victim here! You weren't and never were. In fact, you responded first by claiming I'm attacking those who are afraid. I am, but only because they support Bush's actions out of fear... hysterical fear.

Cowards... everyone of them that SUPPORT BUSH. Sound straight enough for ya, or will ya find another bullshit claim so you feel likle you won an argument? By the way... you do sound scared! But I didn't call you a coward did I? I called those in support of Bush's actions a COWARD, not you.

I do claim you are full of shit though, for twisting my words.

but you used him for your soapbox. The question was about fear of terror. You turned the query into a rant against Bush. Then came the piling on. Then you moved over here and claimed that there was some issue that stemed from that exchange. You misrepresented the poster for your own benefit. You tried to trash me for the same. Your words speak for themselves.

Then we have nothing to say... so twist away already!

You sure know how to "pile it Up" youself there..... get lost with the goodey goodey excuse for trying to lace into me. And you know what else... I do think that guy was a troll.:eyes:

Thanks for bumping my thread too!

who COULD have been a freep, But he was attacked because he expressed fear of terror, and labeled a freep. It is about me. I don't like that type of attack. I don't think folks should be cowed into suppressing their fears. I don't think they should be labeled because of their fear of terror. Different folks act differently out of their fear, some good, some bad.

Fear doesn't make one a coward.

You make good points. But my opinion still remains intact. I'll try to be a little more assertive towards newbies.

Hopefully, though, we can agree that allowing one's fear to blind one from giving one's rightsa away is cowardice. Deal?

I've been down with every instigation of liberalism in my lifetime. That's where I fall. Can't help it. I agree that we shouldn't be in the business of trading rights for security. But, there may be a point where we have to yield somewhere. I wish not, but man, these folks hate us bad.

I do think we see things through our empowered lens. I think knowledge is power, but many folks have nothing real to hold on to when events overtake us. I don't know how we can be so absolute about people who aren't empowered by their legislature or their Executive.


I will come a bit closer to say that these folks need to be convinced of what you say, but they won't listen if we don't at least acknowledge their concerns. Those who give (rights) away, those who have that power, are contemptuous. The rest of us fall somewhere outside of that, depending on what we defend, or who we give leave to trample. Cowardice is a tougher one. It's too personal. Too subjective to apply to those affected by Bush's meddling. It's been a tough couple of years.

Thanks for allowing me to chill. I'm a terrible hothead. Keep on advocating. More power to ya.

Protection? WTF? By a wire tap? not!

Some get it but some don't.... it's frustrating, because all of our rights may get washed away because of this hysteria. Am I afraid? Yes... more afraid of the demon in office. These numbnuts want us all to trust this criminal.

His family helped build the Nazi war machine for God's sake! Wake up people!!!!!

and illegal, but I don't know enough about national security to say for certain that wiretaps are wrong in every instance. I could be convinced that there is some benefit in some circumstances, but I'm inclined against them. But, I'm not so arrogant to claim that there can be no benefit from them in a strict, controlled targeting of someone evidenced with a propensity to violence. But, I don't know enough to know. I do know that I don't trust Bush with any of that authority.

Is everyone tasked with protecting our security corrupt? Is that possible? Or, is there someone that can be trusted with our nation's security? I think, hope, there is.

that honestly cares about us the people. The FISA court was set up so that the executive branch would wiretap without a warrant and then get one 3 days later. Bush decided that it would be a risk to go to the FISA court and went ahead and did illegal wiretaps. That is one instance which actually puts national security at greater risk. I'm sure not everyone tasked with our security is corrupt, but the people 'in charge' are. What good is the body to a snake if it's head has been chopped off? Our intelligence gathering will mean nothing until we get a group of people who actually care about America.

:hi: tsuki!

:hi:

I ask them for their PIN number, SS# and the name of their bank. They obviously don't care about MY privacy, they should be the first to give up their own.

or Republicans are too stupid and blind to see that they are creating a dictatorship.

Or the illegal wiretaps Bush installed, by ignoring the set procedures?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Yes... and he should be impeached for it, dammit!

Here is my argument to the radical Republicans that have no problem with secret, classified orders decreed by the "president".

http://www.earthside.com/earthside/2005/12/second_amendmen.html

This whole idea that the "commander-in-chief" must be permitted broad powers during a "time of war" is extremely dangerous to a democratic, constitutional republic.

In the first place, the president is not my 'commander-in-chief' ... that title only applies for people in the military. But the radical Republicans and neocons use the term like Bush is the warlord over us all.

This scandal of the warrantless wiretaps is the one where we see who puts party over country. So far it is pretty clear: staying in power is more important to the radical Republicans than defending the Constitution.

to them. But then again they don't seem to care much.

not criminal investigation, is therefore quite legal under those conditions. He also stated , and had been going on at least since Regan, including Clinton administration. Asked him for backup on this and having seen nothing yet. Are these the new RNC talking points or is there some validity to them?

Sorry if this aspect has been discussed before, distracted with being with the family for the holidays.

And if you wait for his back-up, you'll be waiting forever. I expect tons of spin like this. They care nothing about this country even if they do what is "Unconstitutional".

is do you think the quakers are a threat to national security? do you think the UN should be spied upon and is the UN a threat to national security? Do you think that an anti-poverty Catholic group who dispenses food to the poor a security risk? I mean you could go on and on asking the questions.

His source was a guest of the guest host filling in for Rush Limbaugh...apparently worked in the Regan and Bush I's Justice Dept and has a book out. Real credible source (not). However, if it was on Rush, I expect we will be hearing more in the vein as they get their astroturf machine spun up.

"like Bush is the warlord over us all."

Are we A-L-L living under the UCMJ? (I haven't heard about the entire country being under military law, even though the neocons have tried that. There should be no doubt left in anyone's mind, who is sane or smart enough to REALLY Think, that we can't trust bushco and the neocons with,
More Power And Flexibility!"

Hitler DEMANDED..."More Power And Flexibility," and he invaded other countries that posed no threat to Germany. Sound like anyone else you can think of?

Chicken-hearted citizens hiding from the boogey-man. How did we get so cowardly in this country?
The Professor

calling decent folks chicken because they're afraid of terror.

How did you get to be so arrogant?

95% of the people in this country have nothing to fear from terrorists. Do a little research.

This country was promoting itself as the "land of the free and home of the brave". Now, we're neither and you think that's ok? Utterly ridiculous.

I have the utmost sympathy for you and your cowardice.
The Professor

your insults are contemptible, but juvenile, and revealing. Why anyone would revel in the belittlement of folks who express fear is beyond me.

You are beyond reason! People are allowing a gov't to run rampant over the citizenry because people are afraid of a threat that will affect almost none.

Of course, my insults are contemptible! They're meant to be. I have contempt for people who value freedom so minimally. I'm not going to enable this dangerous and counterproductive behavior. It's contemptible behavior, and i'll treat it as such, with appropriate verbiage.

You're defending these actions of the gov't. You say you're not afraid. Hmmmm! How's the light under your bed?
The Professor

You hear what you want, but you can't put those words in my mouth.

Defense of any aspect of what is going on is enabling. I will not enable any aspect. You are willing to do so. You may want to remember you started it with your first reply to me.

I'm out!


The Professor

Is lying a virtue with you? What Bush did is illegal an wrong. Wiretapping known suspects to try to prevent attacks may be legitimate with the proper checks and authorizations. Not the scattershot of tapping that Bush did. I won't judge a case until I know the details, but there is no doubt that Bush abused his office in bypassing FISA.

But, you seem to be satisfied to hurl generalities about my supporting Bush with a flimsy "Defense of any aspect of what is going on is enabling". Good luck with that. Not many who have bothered to read my posts would call me a Bush supporter, a Pentagon supporter, a republican supporter, a conservative supporter . . . any of that. But, you feel so satisfied in that. Amazing.

So perhaps you should read my posts more carefully, since you are suggesting i said things i did not say.

I said anyone who defends the enabling of such actions through irrational fear and a willingness to abdicate their own responsibilities as citizens is contemptible. You said you're not afraid. Yet, you don't think poorly of people who allow this government, with whom you vehemently disagree, to subrogate civil rights.

Instead you defend their irrational fear and castigate me for thinking poorly of them. It seems like your priorities are misplaced.
The Professor

"you don't think poorly of people who allow this government, with whom you vehemently disagree, to subrogate civil rights."

Where the fuck did I say that? I don't think anyone should unfairly subrogate anyone's rights. Try arguing something I actually said.

Putting Words into People's Mouths

in my mouth.

But when the whole world tells one something, maybe it's that one who should question his stance, hmmm.

So far, that poster is the only one who seems to have a habit of it.

and then trys to defend the indefinsible.

He protests too much. Facts and reality dictate that maybe HE should look in the MIRROR.

You said it more intelligently than I am able to.

and in a crisis situation most professionals are aware of the fact that those who are fearful can, if allowed, cause serious harm to those who are attempting to handle an already dangerous situation. Ask any first responder.

So, what do you do in such a situation? Do you have time to cater to those fears even if you do understand them? No, you save everyone you can first, even if it means throwing the fearful into the water to save them. Later there will be time to sympathize.

We are in a crisis situation right now and it is the fearful who are allowing all of us to lose our freedom. At the moment, while I understand their fears and feel sorry for them, they are not my main concern ~ it's a time when we need the strong, not the fearful, to take the lead.

This Machiavellian administration counts on those who are easily scared. To be honest, while I am normally very sympathetic to people who are naturally nervous, I find myself having less and less patience with them at the moment. I am NOT willing to give up my right to be a free person because of those who will not set aside their fears and recognize what they are doing.

Maybe you should reserve some sympathy for those of us who are frightened every day since this administration began its attacks on the US Consitution. For those who have been 'disappeared' or who live in fear of being disappeared because of the 'nervous' among us.

There is a selfishness about those who say 'well, if it makes me and mine safer, I'm willing to give up, not just my rights, but yours as well!' I guess the rest of us will have to adapt that selfish attitude and simply go ahead and overlook them. They are, not only in the way, but an actual threat to all of our safety from government intrusion (and look at history to see where that leads, if you want to instill fear in people. That's what I fear, and my fears are way more validated and historically documented, than theirs).

under the sun. I have more than enough sympathy for those at the receiving end of Bushshit. I don't think I need to defend that to anyone. If you really care how I feel about that you can do a search. I have spent a great deal of the time that I should have been sleeping fighting the actions of this administration in any and every way that I can.

I just don't think it is productive, fair, right, proper, decent, to attack those who express fear of terror as cowards, as I have experienced today here. I do think how we act out of that fear can be criticized. But the belittlement of folks who would express fear of terror is stunning to me. We're trying to appeal to a public who has be exposed to a steady dose of fearmongering. Who can blame a hardworking American who doesn't follow events like we do? There are ignorant folks out there, But I don't think fear is necessarily ignorance. We're not all super human. We are fragile and vulnerable. Anyone who doesn't think so should give themselves a pinch. Flesh and bone. We feel, we experience, we try to cope. I don't think we should just brush these folks off. Not everyone can hold the insight that we develop here and through our activism. There has to be, in my view, more understanding of how we, each other, feel about the threats we face. That understanding doesn't have to involve a surrender of our principles, just an understanding that folks have different lives, different experiences and we won't ever come together if we allow what Bush is doing to keep us from reaching out, with compassion, to those who may not feel as secure in their own skin as some of us do.

Your point is a good one, but we no longer have the luxury of being patient with those who are in the way of saving this country from becoming a totalitarian state. I agree with your compassionate understanding of those who are frightened. My neighbor was killed on 9/11. My friends were close enough to the WTC for me to have to worry about them that day. But instinct, not political acumen, (I was totally not politically involved at that time) was warning me that we might have more to worry about than that one attack, tragic though it was. Sneaking into to my mind was a fear that this tragic event would be used by this administration. But I tried not to think that way.

After several months, all my worst fears were realized as talk of war escalated. So, I went online because I could not get information from regular news outlets. All I heard was one POV. 'If you're a patriot, you will not disagree with anything this government now does'.

I felt as you do for a long time. I talked to Bush supporters and thought they were just ignorant, that I could change their minds and I argued, as you are doing now, with others who told me I was wasting my time. Was it fear that drove them? That's what they said, and accused me often of not caring about 'America'.

I now believe it was wrong to waste so much time. Trying to understand those who live in fear of a terrorist attack and as a result, look to Bush to 'save them' (and most who have that fear, DO support Bush) got us nowhere. The country is more important than the fears of some, and I no longer worry about their fears. I worry about the reality of the Iraqi people whose worst fears have been realized, and of the troops who are dying over there each day, because the fears of some here gave Bush the excuse he needed to invade that country.

Iow, we are all different now than we were four years ago ~ worrying about fears is no longer a luxury we can afford, imo. It's a nice thing to do, but Bush took us way beyond nice. So blame him for any lack of compassion there may be now for those who allow their own personal lives take precedence over the good of the country. We are all afraid of a terrorist attack, but many now are way more afraid of losing their country.

I think you are still willing to consider the feelings of those who are fearful. Imo, we would serve them better by helping to keep their country free since they themselves are too frightened to think rationally about what they are willing to give up.

facts before their eyes.

And because of their stupidity and intentional blindness, we're stuck with the repukes in power.

Yet I should go easy on these scum.

"The Engineering of Consent"


The Doors Of Perception: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything

by Dr. Tim O'Shea

We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known. Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being shaped and molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like it is being subtly and inexorably erased.

The doors of our perception are carefully and precisely regulated. Who cares, right?

It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining to people how most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically implanted in the public consciousness by a thousand media clips per day. In an effort to save time, I would like to provide just a little background on the handling of information in this country.

Once the basic principles are illustrated about how our current system of media control arose historically, the reader might be more apt to question any given story in today's news.

http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/15/perception.htm

Visiting Edward Bernays

http://www.bway.net/~drstu/chapter.html


SPIN DOCTOR TO THE RESCUE

The Mine Workers' strike against Colorado Fuel and Iron was crushed. But Rockefeller's son--John D. Rockefeller Jr.--knew that slicker and more effective methods--were needed to maintain the rule of the capitalist class.

Ivy Lee, one of the founders of public relations, became a member of the Rockefeller stable.

Lee put out bulletins claiming that the two women and 11 children died because of an overturned stove, not because of the Colorado militia's gunfire.

Upton Sinclair, author of "The Jungle," called this well-paid hack "Poison Ivy." Poet Carl Sandburg said Lee was "below the level of the hired gunman."

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45b/030.html

I used the word effeminate in a banned post and that was deemed derogatory. I think effeminate wasnt the word I was searching for and I understand why some would consider that derogatory. So Ill go with milquetoast. Or buttkisser, the type that sells out your coworkers to make points with the boss. (Conservative)

(Find yourself a police state w/o a Constitution where you'll feel SAFE.)

I have waited fouty years to throw that back in Conservative faces. It is my new mantra.

getting irrate at those willing to give their rights as well as OUR RIGHTS away to a dictator. Sorry but apples and oranges.

Although I'm not sure I would call them "traitors"

But I am truly amazed that people who seem otherwise rational seem to have no problem with * wiretapping and say things like "I have nothing to hide"

I don't understand what happened to respect for privacy rights, and 4th amendment rights.

Did the terrorists scare some people that badly?