Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Bigh4u2
No, no no. I already told you that we had to kick Al Quida in Afghanistan's butt's. The rumor of Sadaam with any type of weapon's was too great to overlook. I'm not going to rehash old news.

I said, listen, is Franklin right, or is Bush right?

That's a serious quexion. I doubt that any one of us has a good answer to that one.

The thing that disturbs me the most is tha the provisions of the Patriot Act have no sunset provions. I guess that we just trust in Congress to be eternally vigilant, in that they could recind portions, part and parcel or the entire Act in one fell swoop if somebody gets out of line, eh?

I believe that Jim Rob's lack of response would make the issue pretty much clear as to where things lie. If Jim Rob recieved NSL letters, he can not say.

The NSA can request from Jim Rob information pertaining to posts. However, depending on what Jim Rob tracks, he is compelled to sumbit the raw data for not just the single person the NSA is interested in, but the raw data for the thousands that this person may be part of class.

My question is and remains: do we need "conservatives" looking out for our best interests (security), or "liberals" looking out for our best interests (civil rights)?

949 posted on 04/21/2007 10:37:29 PM PDT by raygun (Freepmail me if you're a venture capitalist interested to finance my gay robot invention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies ]


To: raygun

“The rumor of Sadaam with any type of weapon’s was too great to overlook. “

The ‘rumor’? It was well documented that Saddam did, indeed have weapons. What were those Russian trucks doing crossing the border into Syria just before we attacked?

What was the purpose of all those U.N. resolutions if Saddam’s weapons were only a ‘rumor’?

Why were the weapons inspectors thrown out of Iraq in 1998?

And the U.N.’s buddy ‘Hans’ as an inspector was a joke.

“My question is and remains: do we need “conservatives” looking out for our best interests (security), or “liberals” looking out for our best interests (civil rights)?”

Why do you separate ‘security’ from ‘civil’ when it comes to conservatives?

It’s not an ‘either’,’or’ situtation. It’s both, including ‘fiscal’. You cannot say that true ‘conservatism’ is one or the other.

It’s ‘all of the above’.

I think my tag line says it all about people who want to believe the ‘rumor mills’ instead of using intelligence,research and common sense.


998 posted on 04/21/2007 10:47:22 PM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 949 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson