Her husband was not caring for her, her parents were. He had moved on and started another family. Perhaps he need the insurance money. Kill the babies, pull the tubes, but at all cost, keep the murders, rapers, child molesters and terrorists alive. That makes sense
gtech, since they are "terrorists" why not just get the warrant? What is a little paper work and judes signature?
Did you read something in the sales book article I didn't? Or are you saying you want terrorists to have rights? Who did the article say it was monitoring and where did the intel come from? I don't know about that. You seem to lob out "right wing" quite often. Is it different when you do it? Does this apply to you when you make frequent reference to "right wing" groups? I don't see you mention "left wing" groups very often at all, so I can't call you on that one. Deja Vu?
For Our Liberal Friends: "Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2006, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher." Time for the Lawyers to interpret to those who question everything; D
Again, I can only ask if you actually read the article. In some cases, a warrant is not needed (international). In the cases (domestic to domestic) they did get warrants. And in some cases, obstructionist judges get in the way. http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004090.htm Faris would have gone on to continue with his plot because obstructionist judges don't have a clue. Fortunately they stopped him and saved untold lives. It's hard for me to imagine how someone could be disappointed in stopping a terrorist plot, but there are lots of flavors in a box of Fruit Loops. This is a good example of how waiting around for a warrant on valuable intel that can save American lives can sometimes turn for the worse. Who would have thought the NSA does it's job, and *some* are disappointed the terrorists couldn't finish their job? Go figure
Umm that was not meant for you #1, #2 if you reread it what you're saying now is yes you have no problem with taking US citizens rights away as long as it takes terrorists rights away as well? I have no problems for foreign terrorists as I don't believe non citizens deserve any rights under the constitution.... There is a huge difference, I don't make posts with no meaning but an attack to the right wing do I? The far right wing of which I reference is also not the entire section of the republican party. Give me a good term for the libs, far leftists and I will gladly do so when I think they are wacked. Such as guns, Libs are far off center 'insert term here' Religion being forced fully out of schools Libs are far off center 'insert term here' I still do not do mindless droneless posts that are nothing more than 'yeah i'm so great, and the other party sucks balls' now do I? Someone has to seperate actual reality from fantasy land, somehow I can't help myself from doing so. ---edit that was quick, figured I'd draw you in quick ....
Nope. If you read the article it says exactly who it was targeting, of which I've highlighted numerous times. Terrorists. Not John Q Public, not Richard the Butt Queen, not Tex the school teacher. But, that is what some want to portray, isn't it? So, what you are saying is, if we have terrorists on US soil who happen to be citizens and are actively working with known terrorists overseas, which they were, then you are against the NSA taking action, even though it is legal? How much sense does that make? Why not just setup a season for em, like deer season? You can only go after terrorists when xyz condition exists, only between the months of October and November and can only tag so many. That's exactly how you come across with all your conditions. Bottom line is, they were going after terrorists, they thwarted plots, Congress was aware, saved American lives, and this disappoints you because __________ ? Who did the article say were the targets? Here, I'll help you...TERRORISTS! Without disappointment, there cannot be victory. Always amazes me who is disappointed. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html Damned if you do, damned if you don't I'm just pointing out how you always reference the "right wing" with every other post, but then get defensive when someone mentions "liberal." It's common observation. Perhaps you are sensitive about it? Sure. How about: traitors I don't recall you commenting on liberals, other than recently attempting to jump on Doug about using the term, while you often express your dismay with the "right wing." Just an observation. I'm sure you were already aware of it. So? Who says you do? I can always anticipate your posts and what position(s) you will take. It's not rocket science .
Gtech please reread as you've obviously missed something, my post was NOT in reference to the NSA at all. I've used right wing a few times, no where near every post, and in the context of an actual post, not a simple rant. Yes BD has annoyed the piss out of me with every post being this is why liberals sucks, this is why my party is great. There is a huge difference and it doesn't take anything past a first grade education to see that. Yet you can always tell, that's right you knew I was pro gun before I said it, pro allowing children to pray in school, yep I'm sure you did.. Anything that goes against the constitution I will be against, to that extent it's not rocket science...Perhaps you realise when something is against the constitution in the first place even if you don't admit it? Further edit... I have already stated I am not taking a position on the NSA situation at this point! If it's within the current law, and was not used against US citizens I would more than likely support it!!!!! ---edit in otherwords look at bd's post, where he says he doesn't see anything wrong with the government reading all of his email and listening to all of his phone calls.... This is what I was responding to and what you defended.
The other day I've come accross the war prayer by Mark Twain and it did make me think about the glory of the war and what I really feel about everything. One thing I've noticed is that emotions can get really wound up when you mention the suffering of others and the feeling of guilt is thrown into your face. War is not something that should be taken lightly, ever. But after I've read Mark Twain's writing which ends with after he was asked to include in his prayer everything that war brings along with it and did so in detail. Here is my afterthought reading it again the next day: No matter what you feel, the enemy is still out there. People do suffer, innocent people. They are dying because of actions that we take. But ignoring the bigger picture is just like lying. We don't make things better by wishing them away. In all of these arguments whether Bush and his administration lied, we need to not forget that there is a war that we need to keep on fighting *edit: and winning*. Not a specific post I'm commenting on, just that I've though about this thread when I've read this.
Duly noted. If you find something you feel goes against the Constitution, please enlighten me. I see general statements about it quite a bit in the past few pages, but nothing that says it is. Perhaps you are not quite ready to commit to a position, or your commitment is conditional. Are you saying you are against the NSA going after terrorists with fresh intel, in a manner that was legal, that Congress was aware of, that has safeguards and oversight?
I put it up before, and was referring to bd's post of which he talks about having no problem with he government reading his emails, listening to all of his phone calls and he doesn't see that as against any right....w/o a warrant of course, I don't know any sane person who's read the constitution who would come to that conclusion, I sure don't know of any judge who would. I am not against the NSA being used in the US if it is under current law, and not used against a citizen of the United States in any way that breaks the constitution...Such as no warrant against a US citizen. I don't believe there is enough information out there yet to fully make an informed decision on the subject as to if the law was broke, or if the rights of any US citizen were trampled. If they were not, then I don't personally see a problem with it as I would consider it standard intel and not some huge conspiracy.
Actually, I don't like either party. That's why I stay out of politics. I just like to point out the hypocrisy of the left party more. I am just as annoyed with the right side lately as well. D
That one I can agree with, and give you props for saying so I think goods from both parties need to merge into one, IMO
One-party systems have never performed well in the long run. It's good that there are two parties, to compete for our loyalties. Hell, I would vote for the Democrats is they would forward a better candidate. Ariel Sharon recently quit the party that he founded. That's a good precedent for us all.
I'm not against them either, but I also know they have limited resources and are interested in those that pose a threat to our country, such as the terrorists mention in the NYT article. They were going after those directly connected to terrorist intel and they should be. As pointed out, damned if they do, damned if they don't. But you are not prepared to say that, if they are citizen but also a member of or supporting terrorist groups, such as those the NYT book sales article referenced? Who did the sales book article say was being targeted? I think it's about time to start exercising the Constitution. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/ I don't think the article covers it at all, though it sure spends a lot of time trying to convince people of such, until you get the real meat of it all, where they finally admit that the targets were terrorists from fresh terrorist intel, in the form of captured computers and cell phones, who had direct phone numbers to those in the US. On one hand, the 9/11 commission critizes our country for NOT doing it, and then others are disappointed they DID go after terrorists. Who would have thought that going after terrorists was a bad thing, in this country?
Not one party, a third party that actually has a chance against the 2 current big dogs is what I'd like to see. One party system would be extremely dangerous IMO.
Gtech I'm glad you brought up the US citizen case above! I've actually stated the same exact thing before...A non US citizen, or a US citizen who is actively supporting a foreign terrorist organization would or should beable to be charged with treason Then it's a different ball game, and the constitution should afford no protections. The problem however still comes, did the government have enough to charge treason when they used what they did....
hrb, I was thinking more in a broader spectrum. It's clear by the article (and most likely, subsequently, the book they are trying to pump out) that the NSA was going after terrorists. There's no doubt in my mind that it hurt them to admit it in the article, by how far into the article you get...before they tell you the truth. I can't fathom, other than someone who may have a history of hating and attacking America, why someone would take issue that the NSA was doing it's job and apparently successful at it, especially when the 9/11 commission criticized our leaders for having the capability, but not using it prior to 9/11. This IS what we want our government doing, protecting it's citizens. The NSA was after terrorists, and they should be. I bring up treason, because while democrats are calling for special investigations and trying to "pretend" to be shocked over this, though we know Congress and FISA was well aware and briefed on the project. The real investigations should be on who leaked this info. In my opinion, this was treason. It's time we start putting those blatantly guilty of treason, "giving aid and comfort to our enemies," behind bars. I can surely think of a few right off the top of my head.
Oh you mean like in combat situations in a war where the prisoners are called P.O.W's have they been declared POWs if so then yup keep em.....