What's more dangerous? Not wearing Seatbelts or Seatbelt Traffic Stops

On 26 Jan 2006 05:18:01 -0800, "N8N" > wrote:

>The thing that amazes me is the *lack* of outrage. There's actually
>debate as to whether Bush's actions were legal or not! Amazing.

Hmmm, difficult thing here. Let me apologize right now in case this
comes out wrong!!!

First off, CONGRESS gave him permission. See, he went to the
intelligence committees and got permission. That could certainly mean
that what he did was perfectly legal. He did it to protect us from
the muslim terrorists. I am sure you have no issue with protecting
us, you just disagree with the method. Personally, I have zero issue,
as long as it was only used on those who we had good reason to believe
were terrorists. From all accounts, that is exactly what happened.

I do agree that I am amazed we are debating it, as I feel the
democrats who "broke the story" should be shot at sunrise.

Knowing that you and I are on different sides of the political fence,
I hope that my opinions do not annoy you too much.

*************************
Dave

On 26 Jan 2006 05:32:57 -0800, "John S." > wrote:

>> Start with the new london case in the supreme court where now government
>> can take our property and give it to well connected developers and work
>> your way down.
>
>That's a Supreme Court ruling based on laws that our legislature(s)
>established. But the decision itself is hardly corrupt. If we have a
>problem with the interpretation then we need to change our laws.

Bzzt. The liberals on the court WROTE new law with this decision.



*************************
Dave

DTJ wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2006 05:18:01 -0800, "N8N" > wrote:
>
> >The thing that amazes me is the *lack* of outrage. There's actually
> >debate as to whether Bush's actions were legal or not! Amazing.
>
> Hmmm, difficult thing here. Let me apologize right now in case this
> comes out wrong!!!
>
> First off, CONGRESS gave him permission. See, he went to the
> intelligence committees and got permission.

Not exactly. He informed them of his decision, and told them that they
weren't allowed to talk about it.

> That could certainly mean
> that what he did was perfectly legal. He did it to protect us from
> the muslim terrorists. I am sure you have no issue with protecting
> us, you just disagree with the method. Personally, I have zero issue,
> as long as it was only used on those who we had good reason to believe
> were terrorists. From all accounts, that is exactly what happened.

I am not so sure. Since the FISA court already exists, with rules very
friendly toward the government (retroactive warrants, etc.) I seriously
question the motives of anyone that wants to circumvent it. I never
did trust Bush as far as I could throw him, and so far, he has given me
no reason to change that opinion.

>
> I do agree that I am amazed we are debating it, as I feel the
> democrats who "broke the story" should be shot at sunrise.
>

Why? They're the true patriots in this scenario.

> Knowing that you and I are on different sides of the political fence,
> I hope that my opinions do not annoy you too much.

Hey, at least you *have* an opinion, even if it's wrong <g> as opposed
to the multitude that just accept what they're given without thought.

nate

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:56:00 -0600, DTJ > wrote:

>I do agree that I am amazed we are debating it, as I feel the
>democrats who "broke the story" should be shot at sunrise.

Should the people who broke:

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_art...?storyid=75151

also be "shot at sunrise"?

To many people who consider themselves Republican-leaning independents
it's just a case of going too far after going too far after going too
far after going too far. It's no one event that is Bush's problem
anymore, but the complete and total failure of every agency under or
around him to do things the right way instead of just lying about it
and flushing the Constitution once again.

I know I'll probably be called a liberal or conservative, depending on
one's views, but every day it seems there's something else chipping
away at our freedoms. If it isn't Ruby Ridge it's spying on our own
citizens, and at many levels both parties have become corrupted by
their sense of power.

The fact that Bush's subordinates can't be bothered to get a court
order to tap phone calls wouldn't be that big of an issue if it wasn't
for the constant disregard (by both parties) on all fronts for
individual rights in favor of the largest campaign donors or their
latest "War On ..."

Dave Hogan

On 26 Jan 2006 17:33:05 -0800, "N8N" > wrote:

>I am not so sure. Since the FISA court already exists, with rules very
>friendly toward the government (retroactive warrants, etc.) I seriously
>question the motives of anyone that wants to circumvent it. I never

I have to agree with that point.

>> I do agree that I am amazed we are debating it, as I feel the
>> democrats who "broke the story" should be shot at sunrise.
>
>Why? They're the true patriots in this scenario.

If they truly felt they were doing it for the better of the country,
no issue, but we all know that the democrats on the intelligence
committee(s) agreed to go along with it, leaked it to billary, who
then arranged to let it go on long enough to make an issue of it when
she/it thought it would be best.

*************************
Dave

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:09:19 GMT, SD Dave >
wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:56:00 -0600, DTJ > wrote:
>
>>I do agree that I am amazed we are debating it, as I feel the
>>democrats who "broke the story" should be shot at sunrise.
>
>Should the people who broke:
>
>http://www.11alive.com/news/news_art...?storyid=75151
>
>also be "shot at sunrise"?

The ACLU, hell yes.



*************************
Dave

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article om>, N8N wrote:
>
>> Ummm... when the President of the US authorizes an illegal domestic
>> surveillance program, and it takes SEVERAL YEARS for it to come to
>> light, that is a sign of fairly widespread corruption. Or have you not
>> been watching the news lately?
>
>The executive branch IMO has had illegal surveillance programs
>practically since there were phones to tap! While I am glad that people
>are finally noticing, I am also affraid that once GWB is gone, they'll
>just go back to sleep.
>
>Of course this message will be monitored along with all our email by the
>system that was put into place during the clinton administration. But
>according to the mass media and most people outraged at GWB, that was and
>is perfectly acceptable.

Well, to be fair, "this message" is posted on a public Usenet group;
nothing illegitimate about monitoring that.

In article .com>,
John S. > wrote:
>
>Brent P wrote:
>> In article .com>, John S. wrote:
>>
>> > As I thought, you make a statement about "growing corruption" and can't
>> > support it. Over what period has it grown, what kinds of corruption
>> > have come into place and what was your benchmark.
>>
>> Start with the new london case in the supreme court where now government
>> can take our property and give it to well connected developers and work
>> your way down.
>
>That's a Supreme Court ruling based on laws that our legislature(s)
>established. But the decision itself is hardly corrupt. If we have a
>problem with the interpretation then we need to change our laws.

The law in question (not established by a legislature) states that
"private property may not be taken without public use without just
compensation". How you can get from there to "private property may be
taken for _private_ use" is a mystery.

>I'm still waiting for your long list that includes a benchmark and
>shows a trend of "growing corruption" over time. I'm confident now
>that your are having difficulty coming up with that list.

Ahh, standard usenet debating tecnique #93: When proved wrong, raise
the standard of proof required.