justsgtpat

I have tried to read most of this and I hate to say it but most everything that I would site could be called fake. Then again based on almost everything that I have read in here, nothing that is written can be believed unless you can also see it for yourself.

He is my side of this little tea party. I have faith in my country, my countrymen, our system, and the people who run it. That being I am not stupid enough to think that every member of this government is out for what is best for me. I think that before we attack the people who pull the crap that is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars we need to first fix the system that allows them to do it. Otherwise you just put someone else who will do the same in their spot. I believe that at times we ( our military) has to do things that is unpopular to keep us safe. Everyone on earth has a right to life, but if you threaten others lives you have to expect to find someone who will defend themselves. We enjoy to freedom to sit here and have this "conversation", the freedom to say whatever we believe, and the freedom from the fear that having this "conversation" could bring harm from our government. The freedoms are being fought for everyday in Iraq, but also in South Korea, Germany, and anywhere else a US soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine is stationed. Just because they aren't in "combat" doesn't mean they aren't fighting for these freedoms. They are dying and that is a sad truth we have to face. It is with their deaths that we enjoy these freedoms. So it is all the more important to have these "conversations" as doing so justifies the price they paid.

ddoubleez

Justsgtpat said[/QUOTE]I have tried to read most of this and I hate to say it but most everything that I would site could be called fake Over 30 countries have addopted this policy, and they don't have the NSA.

And we are not fighting for any freedoms in Iraq, first we are a Republic, and why would a republic fight to spread democracy? Next the quality of life was better under their US appointed and armed dictator, Sadam. Their nextdoor neighbors, the Saudi's, have far worse human rights violations, they will kill a woman for showing her face or kill a man for speaking out against them. This is also the country that supported most of the hijackers that attacked us, and the same PR firm that convinced the US people that Iraq was an enemy, was the same PR group that silenced the fact that Saudi Arabian's were the ones that attacked us, the rendon group. Our leader holds hands with their King, who was definately NOT voted in, its a monarchy not a democracy LIKE IRAN. Saudi Arabia has us by the nuts, they have a trillion in our stockmarket for no other reason but to pull it out if we piss them off, and we allowed them to do this. And as far as the economy is concerned, Iraq was 6 months away from the deadline they set for changing their petro dollar from US currency to the Euro, which would have devistated our economy, one of many major reasons we went in, but your media (who supposedly has free speach) did not report on. The same people building the bombs are the same people who own the media, a bit of a conflect of intrest, look up GE they scored 800 million in contracts from the gov. Do you remember one report critizing the war, or was it all freedom fries?

kawligia

The proposals that want to install (or strengthen) the "Orwellian Big Brother" are extremely disturbing.

Ben Franklin once said: "Those willing to trade freedom for security, deserve neither".

The government will never stop trying to gain more and more power and its an inevitable process...which is why the framers of the Constitution tried as hard as they could to limit the powers of the federal government and almost even declined to form one in the first place.

Since they will never stop trying to get more power and limit our freedoms (Even if their intentions are good), the 2nd Amendment is the most important one of all...it is what will protect us if proposals like these succeed and the protections of the Constitution fail. Its the reason it was created in the first place...the last line of defense and the framers also knew that. If they were unarmed, we would all have British accents atm. I shudder to think what will happen if people like Rosie O'Donnell manage to succeed and open this Pandora's Box.

But to be fair, these proposals, if successful, will most likely never be upheld by the Supreme Court since they are so obviously unconstitutional...but who knows?

And as far as fighting for freedoms in Iraq...we are fighting there for much the same reasons we fought in WWII:

We fought to remove an evil dictator, with goals of conquering his neighbors and possibly beyond, who was guilty of gross and astonishing crimes against his own people and neighbors, who never actually attacked us, who was allied with people who attacked us, who had that alliance despite a strong conflict in political/religious views, and the whole time it was going on people at home complained that we shouldn't be there and to bring the soldiers home.

So are they both right or both wrong? That's your decision..my point is that one can't be right AND the other wrong at the same time.

ddoubleez

Iraq did not have the goal of conquering his neighbors. The kuwait war was started because the Kuwait governmnet was sideways drilling into iraq and stealing oil. Iraq appealed to the US for help, and we did not, instead we used it as an excuse to attack them. Not even a year before the 9-11 attacks Powell said saddam had no conventional capability to even strike his neighbors. Condi said we were able to keep arms from him and the sanctions were working. Rumsfeld wanted this war and he proposed going into Iraq even before afganistan and he was one of many reasons that we were too slow to strike at afganistan and that is possibly why binlaudin is still out there. And please don't forget that it was reagan that sold and signed off on the componits that made up the chem and bio weapons that Saddam had upto 1990.

In WWII we were stopping an attempt for global domination, in Iraq we are fighting so we can place millitary bases around the caspian sea and to set up a police station so companies, often based in the us, have access to the middle east resources, fossil fuels. We financially supported the tilaban in afganistan, because we wanted to run piplines through the country.

The CIA told Bush to remove the claim of yellow cake uranium from Niger, because it was not true, in a speech made in cincinatti, but when Condi was asked why it was back in the state of the union speach of 2002, she answered, 'we forgot.'. You can find the state of the union speech from 2002 online and across the board, on the war AND the economy along with not needing to conserve Bush was wrong on EVERYTHING.

PS almost all of the above has already passed and the Neo conservitives have already fixed the Supreme Court, remember the guys that appointed Bush to begin with, and sence we are on the supreme court thing: I, said O’Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O’Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strongarm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings

gocatgo

"That government is best which governs least."
-- Thomas Paine

Always liked that quote.

kawligia

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

ROFL Yes Iraq did have goals of conquering their neighbors, they just weren't as successful as Hitler was. His rule was based almost entirely on the Nazi regime. There will always be some sort of excuse dreamed up like sideways drilling...even Rome conjured up BS before it started a campaign.

And Iraq DID use chemical weapons on his own people for ethnic cleansing. And he had not been cooperating with the weapons inspectors for a long time. I don't recall Powell and Condi saying what you said they did but I do recall CLINTON and multiple people from his administration say that he was NOT cooperating and WAS posing a significant threat.

We don't need to establish more bases in the area. More are helpful, but not necessary. We have plenty of them in the Middle East including Turkey and Saudi Arabia. We also have some in Europe that are easily within range of todays aircrafts.

And the Supreme Court is not stacked. The Justices sitting now are pretty evenly distributed with reference to the political party of the appointing President. And they made the correct constitutional decision in Bush v. Gore. Its not an "appointment" just because your candidate lost.

ddoubleez

I did not argue this, however, chemical and bio weapons have a shelf life, some as short as 90 days some ten years, but know even if Saddam had not burried them in 1990, they would still been usless 12 years later. You also need to understand that Clinton was convinced he would not have had a second term with saddam in power and tried to seal his second election with a failed assanation atempt. Clinton also ran MANY campains in no fly zones in his term. Clinton also attacked Afganistan. Clinton is the reason that UN inspectors did not have more cooperation with Saddam because clintons assanation attempt was durring a UN's inspection, and that is why he was not more coperative, imagine that.

Larry Johnson was a chief UN weapons inspector, and he went on national news to beg the US for more time and the woman interviewing him, asked if he had been 'drinking the koolaid'.








Kawligia, I will look forward to you contributing to my peak oil thread. And in 2000 I voted for Bush, it was an obvious mistake and a former Republican Supreme Court member, that stayed on the bench in spite of her health, has mentioned that the supreme court is stacked and people have been to court and testified against the circus that was florida '99:

John Ellis "Jeb" Bush
Governor of Florida

Jeb was in charge in 2000 when some 179,855 ballots were not counted in the official tally, 53% of them from black voters. Four years later, he ignored advice to scrap a faulty felons list that contained almost no hispanic names. (Cubans in Florida tend to vote Republican.)"

Deanie Lowe
Supervisor of Elections, Volusia County, FL

Deanie tried to wield her power to single-handedly reduce the number of minority voters by refusing to open early voting offices throughout the county. The NAACP responded with legal action and won.


Wally O'Dell
CEO of Diebold, Inc.

While pitching voting machines to Ohio, Wally told a GOP crowd that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year." Diebold has been charged with hiding severe security flaws in their e-voting machines.

Larry Russell
Director of Republican Victory Program, SD

Larry and six others were forced to resign over questionable absentee ballot applications, and the state Attorney General is investigating. According to an internal GOP party memo, Larry will now "lead the ground operations" for Bush in Ohio.

Theresa LePore
Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections, FL

In 2000 her county was in ground zero for ballot chaos, and Theresa designed the ballot. She later oversaw an election for her own job during which police surrounded the election center because of a "terrorist threat." She lost.

Xavier Suarez
Former Miami Mayor

Xavier was Miami's mayor until a court ruled that there was absentee ballot fraud. Thirteen staff members plus his city commissioner went to jail, but not Xavier. He later admitting "handling" absentee ballot forms in the 2000 presidential election.

Michael Arno
President, Arno Political Consultants, CA

Michael's company has been accused of fraudulently changing the party affiliations of voter registration cards in Florida, and a prosecutor is investigating. Two workers were charged with forgery relating to a petition drive.

Miriam Oliphant
Former Supervisor of Elections, Broward County, FL

Miriam was swept into office after the 2000 voting disaster, but under her watch, nearly 300 absentee ballots were later found in a filing cabinet unopened. Jeb Bush eventually suspended her for "grave" neglect.


Now would you like to bring up Ohio?:
[/QUOTE]
One day after Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry announced that he conceded the election to George W. Bush, there were at least 300,000 missing votes in Ohio, many of them in the heavily Democratic counties of Cuyahoga and Franklin, which had not been counted. George W. Bush was reportedly leading by only 136,483 votes at the time, and one day later, that lead was cut by about 3,800 votes—falsely recorded on a single machine in Franklin County, Ohio.[QUOTE]

ddoubleez

To frame Iran and take control of the caspian sea, one of the most oil rich areas, the US had to place military bases in iraq and afganistan. Afganistan is also the gateway to uzberkistan, where we established military bases at the end of the cold war. Uzerkistan has alot of crude and natural gas, but to get it out we would have had to run a pipeline, or several, through afganistan and pakistan. Pakistan allowed it, had it ever happened, and the taliban kept leading us on and we spent over 10 years aiding and arming them to get control of afganistan so we could run pipe. So we did need to establish bases there.

kawligia

The fact of the matter in Bush v. Gore is that the 14th Amendment guarantees all people equal protection.

Therefore all people's votes must be treated equally according to objective standards. The voting machines were such a standard and they were functioning properly. The proposed recount would NOT have had such an effect. There would be NO standards to determine what was a "valid" vote except "voter intent". That is a subjective standard that changes from county to county and even person to person. That's NOT an objective non-random standard to treat all votes equally and no other recount procedure was even proposed by the deadline date.

That is basically a summary of the majority and concurring opinions of the Supreme Court. The dissenting opinions basically IGNORED that issue and said they were only saying what they said because they wanted Bush to be president which is what everyone else who, for some reason, wanted Gore in office also did.

And I am soooo tired of the "HEY GUSY WER KOMMIN 2 TAKES UR OILZ LOLZ!!!!!!11" claims. How exactly are we "taking" their oil? Are we commandeering them and putting them under US government control? No. Are we commandeering them and placing private companies in charge of them? No. Did we commandeer them and hand them over to other foreign people to give us good deals....or maybe just work out sweetheart deals with people who already had them? I doubt it, but for the sake of arguement, maybe...but if we did that and we now have great, easy, and cheap access to oil now, why is it more expensive now than it ever was in the past even the 80s?

P.S. Even though you can't tell from text, my tone was/is not intended to be a nasty one.