Posted on 03/05/2006 7:43:52 AM PST by Pikachu_Dad
The reason Americans don't complain about an erosion of Rights could be they don't care enough to know what they are to begin with. The public largely does not care about the Patriot Act nor what the fuss is over at the NSA. Pro or Con on these issues, you cannot discuss them intelligently without knowledge.
See: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-03-02T000634Z_01_N01474965_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-FREEDOMS.xml
The public would likely be happy if we threw out the Bill Of Rights and simply replaced it with two rights they all seem to care about:
1. The "right" to own pets; 2. The "right" to drive a car
Huh
D'oh--almost forgot the "right" to watch The Simpsons. Grin ============================================ ... ======================================================
It astounds me how many people think the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is a patriotic thing, just because of its clever acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001.
The lack of intelligence / desire to know within our borders astounds me. Keep everyone focused on materialism, the almighty dollar: they won't care if their phone conversations, library records, private affiliations, are all being monitored, so long as they have a toy to play with: a new phone, computer, car, etc. Our constant need for New things, rather than desiring to fix old things, takes more time away from what might be spent in productive thought, as we are having to learn our way around new technology, etc, constantly.
George Orwell, anyone? =================================================== ... ======================================================
Oh my gawd, he used the "L" word, that means anything that is said by Sara Jayne or myself is automatically nullified and cast aside as "partisan Bush bashing." Guess what? I'm not a Liberal, but I do believe we are not being served well by this presidency.
BTW, taking quotes out of their context is intellectually dishonest. From past encounters with you, I have noted this tactic often. In addition to being spurrious, it is annoying and rude. It is the intellectual equivalent to "knuckle-dragging" and serves no valid purpose outside of revealing your own pathological need for one upmanship.
Of course there are people who care about the erosion of their rights. Hyperbole was used to illustrate that this is unfortunately a minority of Americans. The majority pay lip service to Rights, but usually in a narrow way impacting on an area where they perceive their own little window on the world to be impacted. They are reactive and not proactive. As far as your own little sandbox, it goes without saying that your axe to grind relates to what happens after a divorce to the man. Interesting, but the Constitution says nothing about a Man's right to his children. But then again the Constitution says very little about allot of things. That's why it has been referred to as a "Living Document." Oh my gawd! Here comes that "L" word again!
You only need to open your eyes to be somewhat dubious about the administration of "Not so curious" George. The information is out there for those who care to take the time. The 9/11 commision reveals a leader who froze during a crisis. Very little about what he said or did during critical moments could be remembered or recalled by those from his administration who were interviewed by the commission. His performance can only be described as a Blank slate. The only decisive action was taken belatedly by the VP, who gave the order to shoot down any planes that were non-reponsive to communication.
Oh and btw--here come the Katrina tapes! Asleep at the wheel again George! Did not know what could happen, huh? "Brownie you're doing a heckuva job." Looks like that was the closest he ever came to telling the truth during the whole debacle.
Get your quote button heated up, Nick. BTW, never voted Democrat nationally in my life. But we better do better in '08, or I'll vote for Curious George--at least he may look interested when a war is waged on our country, or someone is warning him that a U.S. city is about to be drowned. ====================================================== ... ======================================================
Actually I tend to vote Republican--although its really none of your business. Started with Reagan in 80 when I had just turned 18.
Living in Metairie, I can tell you that the breech and overrun of Levees has been anticipated for decades. Such worst case scenarios could be caught on various channels including National Geographic, The Learning Channel and PBS (go ahead throw the L-Bomb at them) Smiley
Every time a major storm approached NOLA, local news channels would do specials involving worst case scenarios just like Katrina. Anyone who ever watched anything beyond ESPN should have known. The info was out there and accessible. These specials were often replayed at the beginning of hurricane season.
Regarding the survey, I have seen the original link, and if you are glad your fellow Americans are wallowing in ignorance, well maybe that's how those in way far out right prefer to keep them.
As far as breech vs overrun, both occurred. Bush's own words are hanging him, not some conspiracy by the media to get him. The pounding he is taking is no worse than what we saw in the Clinton era. The President contradicts himself, someone is going to notice.
Now as far as culpability, the worst in this whole fiasco was Blanco. How she is surviving this term without a recall, I do not know. However, declaring a state of emergency with poor follow-up, and creating a government bureaucracy that interferes with emergency management is absolutely on Bush. Homeland Security is a farce. Existing agencies needed to be shored up and communications streamlined between said agencies. The Patriot Act was an unnecessary power grab. You like slapstick? Read the 9/11 commission on how the hijackers got in the country and how they got through security. They were known entities and could have been stopped with the information at hand. Perhaps, Bush read the famous August 6th report and maybe he did not--either way 9/11 was the result of a failure of leadership and intelligence coordination.
Your uncritical and unflinching defense of Bush is astounding. If you cannot express disappointment in his performance and must strike back so defensively, then you are a lost cause. Bush's professed ignorance is sad--but if he was that ignorant, then that's far worse. He should have known--they told him. A disengaged president lacking intellectual curiousity will be a major part of his legacy. If you cannot appreciate that, then I'm guessing you two were separated at birth. Enjoy your next few hours responding. Roll Eyes ==================================================== ... ======================================================
As in Progressive Republican? Perhaps.
McCain, Giuliani, Powell and others--does variety and progressive ideas threaten your concept of the far right, neoconservative, bible-thumping wing of the party?
You are revealing the ugly side of your ideology: the inability to keep an open mind. Progressive is no more a dirty word than Liberalism. Your need to place a label on me reveals your desire to demean any argument I make rather than try to come up with adequate counterarguments.
The reality of George W. Bush has been captured on numerous occasions throughout his presidency and his life. From spoiled brat to empty suit, he has achieved the highest office in the land followed by the reek of failure in most of his endeavors. It seems his most successful stint was as governor of Texas—although his major accomplishment seems to have been in not royally screwing up—for once.
His career and life: A mediocre academic career at elite institutions marked by winks, nudges and gentlemen’s C’s. A questionable ending to his military career with the National Guard (a sweetheart deal compared to his generation), marked by allegations of desertion—or at least the failure to account for certain components of missing time. Drug and alcohol abuse—but of course he had friends in high places, so he has never had to account for this portion of his life. Repeated failures in business always bailed out by the money of others. A presidency marked by prolonged vacations, intelligence failures prior to 9/11, a vacuous public response to 9/11 (5-7 minutes of sitting in front of children trying to appear “Calm” according to the 9/11 commission report). Don’t forget the intelligence failures of Iraq, declaring victory when less than half the battle had been fought. American soldiers and other operatives torturing Iraqi captives, with the end result of a few grunts and a female Army Reserve Brigadier General taking the rap. The big boys though, somehow escaped censure—extraordinary buck passing. Worse, Bush tries to stand on both sides of the torture issue: repudiating torture, while reserving the right to use “extraordinary measures”. Even better, extraordinary rendition is used to allow torture in other lands that have no restrictions or strictures against torture. Katrina happens—we have covered that ground already. Then of course his questionable interpretation of FISA, still not sure what he thought he was accomplishing there—and don’t try to use W’s excuse for everything: the FISA law is not an onerous one, and following it would not have compromised the war on terror. Then, of course, the latest findings concerning the debacle of Katrina--what reality have you been thinking of?
If you cannot find a single wrong thing about this presidency, this record, if you cannot concede a single point, then you really are not living in this reality.
If so, it’s pointless to waste further bandwidth arguing with such a closed mind. Have at it, chum. You are boring me—I’m sure the feeling is likewise.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” –Benjamin Franklin =============================================== . . . So you will use any cheap maneuver to try to project me as a poseur, however you still fail to address any of my arguments head on? Don’t try to tell me or anyone what I am—the only thing that reveals is that you are becoming bereft of ideas and arguments. By the way, The AP bit should be classified as a correction, not a retraction—there is a difference.
Let’s get it straight: I am a GOOD Republican. I am a CRITICAL follower and will call them as I see it. George W. Bush is doing serious damage to this party’s future. You can disagree with me on this, but can you at least admit to any disappointment in how he has performed so far? You are 100% happy with everything about him? There are no mistakes you can admit he has committed?
Pick up any newspaper carrying Conservative columnists or any Conservative commentator on the tube and they will often pick apart Bush’s performance. Does this make them poseurs? Do you disagree vehemently with what they are saying?
There is also a moderate wing to this party, and they better get in touch with it—they are losing their grip and marginalizing themselves by tracking so far right on the issues.
How far off topic are we now? Yeah this began with First Amendment rights and then Sara Jayne went off (rightly—Nick would say leftly) on the Patriot Act and the small-mindedness of the populace. True Reagan Republicans would be horrified by the big government aspects of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security. Are any of them still around? The Reagan Revolution, unfortunately has lost its way.
This argument seems pretty tapped out except for Nick’s insistence on having to disagree with everything I say. Nick, you can’t shoot yourself in the foot when you have it perpetually stuck in your mouth.
Forever: thanks for the kind words.
I’ll give Nick the last word, promise, this is as I said run it’s course and I am getting . . .zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz… =================================================== There are no slanderous comments here regarding the current president. All remarks made thus far fall went into the "fair comment" arena of protected 1st amendment speech. There will be no removal or censoring of such remarks; however, all posters are reminded to maintain a civil discourse and tempered respect of others' opinions and to refrain from making purely personal attacks or derrogatory remarks. All such offensive statements are a violation of acceptable site use policy and may result in any number of appropriate sanctions or censure of the offending member(s).
You have all been warned; play nice or pay the price. ====================================================== ... ====================================================== if you think you must, then by all means fire away at will. That's why we have a 1st amendment and this part of the forum. Just keep a civil tone to your discourse. ======================================================
Yeah, I forgot about the lifelong Republican BS. Usually I just dismiss those out of hand and don't bother to even read their comments.
I love how leftists try to qualify their comments by spouting that "lifelong Republican" BS.
We are well on our way to turning into a socialist/communist nation, without a doubt.
No.. its the "right" to be offend.
Maybe they mean "lifeless"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.