See, that is what bothers me. Sure, it may not have been their fault, but an apology wouldn't have hurt them in the least. It may not have fixed the problem by any means, but come on, the level of niceness has gone down. And you are right, they could have gone easy with the cuffs. Suspended license doesn't usually mean a huge danger to society. anyway....power hungry people suck.
It's no biggy Anthony (and thanks for the comment you just sent, appreciated). I have more than enough positive. I just think people can discuss their issues and rationalize their stances on them without that kinda crap. I don't back away from an argument. And I don't make excuses for terrorists.
Not only that, but I had no other offenses on my record. And I was one block from my home. I asked if we could go to my house so I could show him the court document. "Nope, you have to have it in your possesion!"
They think we are the terrorists GTech We are the one's in their lands, not they in ours PS: One thing about GTech, I may not agree with him, but it is always a sure thing that any thread that he is in will create great interest and he is a good fighter and does have a lot of intelligence, I just wish he was a bit more objective.
If we were fighting Iraqis, you might have a point Anthony. But we're not. We're rebuilding Iraq and taking out a few cowards from other countries who want Iraq to fail.
It wasn't anthony. Otherwise he couldn't have given me blue rep. And I didn't think it was him, or even you Rob. I just think it's a cowards way out, instead of debating.
That happens to everyone here, just part of Digital Point is all I have had folks use my name to give RED to Minstrel and my votes don't even count and did not then either, so you really don't know for sure even if one leaves a name
Yep, not my first, nor my last. And don't misinterpret it as being a victim! I was calling him out to continue the debate. Apparently I was too formidable for him
MSM - not an acronym I'm used to, Gtech thanks for clearing up what you meant. Personally, I'm not convinced that the whole war was just about oil - now if Saddam said he was going to turn off the supply.... I'm not saying it wasn't - I don't have evidence either way. I don't watch too much MSM, and yes the bbc is certainly MSM in the UK. More than that I'd treat with scepticism anything on the BBC - unless I knew it was fact. They are controlled by the Government, they set the BBC's budget, approve senior approintments etc etc, and keep an illegal tax in place to fund it. Gtech, you obviously love your country as I do mine. I don't know how old you are, nor your background, but get some military (or government) experience you'll soon find out - once the law's are passed, the powers that be will do what the hell they please with them. If that means they want to detain 'activists' (note not terrorists) then they will use whatever laws they want to in order to do so. You can define an activist anyway you please. It's the same with military law as it is with civil law, if you can do it within the law you (or someone) will. Many laws are put in place simply to keep the people in power from abusing that power (at least openly abusing it). Laws that circumvent these restrictions shouldn't be allowed - times of war are an exception, but there are still laws governing those times also (at least if you're on the loosing side there are). We are not in a time of war - other than wars we choose to start. Against what AC thinks, world war III hasn't yet started - at least I hope not, 'cos atm there is only one way that war would end - we may be in a precursor, but I don't believe it's actually begun yet. As to defending terrorists, that is something I hope I'd never do. If there is evidence, put them on trial and put them away for life (life meaning exactly that with no parole) or put them on trial and have them extridited to somewhere where they could face the death penalty. If you have evidence, you bring them to trial. If you don't have evidence, then you let them go. That's the way our society's work are imho it is a good way. If you have evidence, you don't ever need to detain people without trial. Only if your NOT certain about your evidence would you ever need to do that. I'd be interested in hearing any argument why you'd want to detain people without trial if you had evidence of wrong doing against them.
I know Wendy I know who it was. The disappointing part was, he was doing really well debating the issues.
Well, I'm going to go poof now, have to go to a doc visit, and when I come back there will probably be 90 more pages of this take care all!
You will never know GTech, like I said many folks just read here and others will use someone's name in the thread just to take potshots at folks and get them at each others throats. Don't feel that even if you think you know that you can really tell because there are too many folks here now.
Gtech, we'll it wan't me. I only came across this rating stuff yesterday, and gave someone a green (I think). Perhaps someone could point me to a tread/faq that explains how to use it.
Jlawrence, thanks for picking back up the debate. Yes, I do have military service. Seven years. You give up your freedoms to protect the freedoms of your country. I find it difficult to debate on "it could happen." To suggest we lower the level at which we go after terrorists on the notion that someone "could be" detained for absolutely nothing, is beyond my reasoning. There are too many real threats out there, many being found right here in the US almost weekly now. I have faith that sitting in my living room, a squad of police are not going to bust in on me and detain me for "nothing." Now if I were hanging around on terrorists chat boards, screaming "Death to America" and buying books on how to build a bomb (or other such activities), as I said previously, I'd be concerned. I have no information, nor have I seen any, that our government is abusing these powers. In fact, so many real threats are there, I would think they have no interest in doing so. As for a good reason to detain, vs a trial, the only real good reason that comes to the top of my head is security. We have a very liberal court system and it would be highly likely that judge would assign a fairly light sentence. As far as I know, it is only those declared as enemy combatants. No matter, I simply cannot bring myself to rationalize why we would want to protect the rights of those trying to destroy our country. I understand the typical system...but these are different times. But then the whole issue is a hypothetical. A what if. If we are going to go on "what ifs" then I say "what if" we let one go (as I noted above with gitmo prisoners) and they carry on their operation? Then do we blame our government for doing too little, or too much? I caution on the side of the best interests for our country.
Just click on "RATE" in the upper right hand corner, make a comment, do not change the button selection unless you want to change to negative rating and you are there.
just read through the last 3 pages again - are you saying that if I rate a post, and give a message, then it doesn't say who the message is from ? I would have assumed that the message would always say who it's from - hmm, I learn something everyday.