If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   "We cannot simply suspend or restrict civil liberties until the War of Terror is over, because the War on Terror is unlikely ever to be truly over. September 11... cannot be the day liberty perished in this country"   (cnn.com) divider line 742
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

38926 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Oct 2004 at 9:58 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



742 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-10-17 12:20:53 AM
Action Replay Nick

Yes, it's sad. I agree with you on most of your points. People can't argue the truth. It's impossible. People need to understand the bigger picture.
 
2004-10-17 12:21:37 AM
skikvt many, many, sources say the cia helped the muhadeen and bin laden, so who is Milton Beardon?

"U.S. intelligence officials believe bin Laden began to turn against the United States in the mid-1980s a time when he still took aid and training from the CIA, which was then helping bin Laden and other Islamic groups fight the Soviet Army in Afghanistan. The CIA funneled its aid through the Pakistani secret service, the ISI, to various cells in Afghanistan, one of them known as the MAK. In 1984, bin Laden broke with the MAK and formed a separate, more radical splinter group that espoused a harsh, fundamentalist version of Islam that was dedicated to the liberation of Islamic nations from any foreign influences, from Israel to the United States to the Soviet Union." http://www.msnbc.com/news/627355.asp?cp1=1
 
2004-10-17 12:22:28 AM
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

That is all.


ALL HAIL THE HOMELAND! OBEY AND BE SPARED!
 
2004-10-17 12:23:04 AM
I'm glad to see a court take a stance, which defends the U.S. Constitution. It's nice to see people who value the truth and beauty of our liberty. I'm sick of the treasonous talk of discarding liberty for "security".

If you don't like the U.S. Constitution, go swear your allegiance to another flag. The USSR has a big old red one you might be able to buy up for cheap.
 
2004-10-17 12:23:36 AM
2004-10-17 12:18:07 AM BearToy
That is such a stupid and tired phrase. When ever I hear it I want to grab the speaker and kick them in the box and shove them.

/I'm way gay and okay.


And still a bit "sensitive" about it eh? ;)

My whole point in using the phrase was because it was a stupid and tired phrase.
 
2004-10-17 12:23:52 AM
2004-10-17 12:16:16 AM zeparabola
We can actually agree on something for once

What's the fun in that?? I came here for an argument..
 
2004-10-17 12:24:26 AM
This thread has finally been ∞'d

/and there was much rejoicing
 
2004-10-17 12:24:59 AM
samcol

Thanks! I was looking to defend my points, but I am very happy to see someone agree. It gives me some type of hope that we aren't totally screwed.
 
2004-10-17 12:27:16 AM
Skikvit
What's the fun in that?? I came here for an argument...

I imagine there's probably more stuff that we agree on than what we don't agree about. Even in politics. This forum is designed to make us fight about the insignificant differences we have. We're hurting farkistan!
 
2004-10-17 12:31:13 AM
ok nevermind. the man ran the secret ops in afganistan for regan. considering all that came out of that mess i'm not sure who you can trust.

"While Afghanistan did become a magnet for Arab bad boys, Islamic extremists were already active before they arrived, Beardon said. Also, Reagans administration did not give weapons to Arab volunteers but focused on Afghan factions, experts said. Nevertheless, Clarke said, when Washington engaged Saudi Arabia and other Arab states in the anti-Soviet fight, America sought (or acquiesced in) the importation into Afghanistan and Pakistan of an army of Arabs without considering who they were or what would happen to them after the Soviets left.
http://www.afgha.com/?af=article&sid=44083

it would seem at the very least we were training and helping him vicariously through Pakistan, which had it's own agenda with regards to the extremists.
 
2004-10-17 12:31:50 AM
Hrmmm, keep our rights and deal with the bombs or surrender our rights and get rid of the bombs.


Not a very hard decision... Keep our rights and bring it on.
 
2004-10-17 12:31:53 AM
"What does foreign nationals hijacking planes have to do with searching people at a protest?"

Not all foreign...if I remember correctly, a few of the 9/11 terrorists were US citizens, or at least here legally.

/So, I guess based on this new court decision the metal detectors at airports are unconstitutional as well?
 
2004-10-17 12:34:02 AM
hax0r68 none were citizens, but they were all here legally i think.
 
2004-10-17 12:34:05 AM
L. Darte

A true conservative would never defend an administration that's as fiscally irresposible as this one. Nor would they support the massive expansion of big brother and big government. All three of these points are completely contrary to conservatism.


I completely agree.

I want to address this post to undecided and/or concerned Republicans. Even to conservative independents. Ask yourself if you can morally allow Bush a second term based on Conservative values alone.

Sticking to conservative values, rather than focusing on Politics, might make deciding easier, maybe even change a few minds. Clinton was at least better with the budget. It wasn't just because our nation was not at war, but the fact Clinton did make a very real commitment to fixing the deficit.

We have seen the Republican response to 9-11. What would be the Democratic response from Kerry? We can only watch and see and then compare the terms between both parties.

As for the Abortion debate, I think it's really wrong for any person to vote for a President solely on that issue, or give it a lot of credence over all the other issues, and I think that is truly negligent of the voter.

Personally, I'm glad the partial birth abortion ban occurred; privately I want less abortions, but policy wise I have to go with pro-choice vallues.

That said, I wouldn't really consider any politician's stance on the Abortion issue, either way, as being really relevant to my voting decisions.

The President has so much more to do than parrot our personal opinions on the Abortion debate. If Kerry's opinion doesn't jive with your Conservative stance on abortion, I think that's one issue you should ignore for the broader need to take care of what we all want to resolve.

The real secret about abortion? It will never be resolved, and will always stay a stalemate and be just a hot-button distraction, siphoning off the energy from the arena of Politics and the need for real debate on other, less-polarizing issues, ones just as important to American society.
 
2004-10-17 12:34:41 AM
L. Darte

A true conservative would never defend an administration that's as fiscally irresposible as this one. Nor would they support the massive expansion of big brother and big government. All three of these points are completely contrary to conservatism.


I completely agree.

I want to address this post to undecided and/or concerned Republicans. Even to conservative independents. Ask yourself if you can morally allow Bush a second term based on Conservative values alone.

Sticking to conservative values, rather than focusing on Politics, might make deciding easier, maybe even change a few minds. Clinton was at least better with the budget. It wasn't just because our nation was not at war, but the fact Clinton did make a very real commitment to fixing the deficit.

We have seen the Republican response to 9-11. What would be the Democratic response from Kerry? We can only watch and see and then compare the terms between both parties.

As for the Abortion debate, I think it's really wrong for any person to vote for a President solely on that issue, or give it a lot of credence over all the other issues, and I think that is truly negligent of the voter.

Personally, I'm glad the partial birth abortion ban occurred; privately I want less abortions, but policy wise I have to go with pro-choice vallues.

That said, I wouldn't really consider any politician's stance on the Abortion issue, either way, as being really relevant to my voting decisions.

The President has so much more to do than parrot our personal opinions on the Abortion debate. If Kerry's opinion doesn't jive with your Conservative stance on abortion, I think that's one issue you should ignore for the broader need to take care of what we all want to resolve.

The real secret about abortion? It will never be resolved, and will always stay a stalemate and be just a hot-button distraction, siphoning off the energy from the arena of Politics and the need for real debate on other, less-polarizing issues, ones just as important to American society.
 
2004-10-17 12:35:34 AM
hax0r68 none were citizens, but they were all here legally i think.
 
2004-10-17 12:35:39 AM
12:21:37 AM Sandelaphon
Sorry, I should have pointed that out that Milton Beardon ran the CIAs covert aid programme in Afghanistan.

"many, many, sources say the cia helped the muhadeen and bin laden."

Many, many, many, many sources are really vague on this actually. I think I think I'll trust what we get from the horses mouth instead.
 
2004-10-17 12:36:40 AM
If protestors are willing to be in a large, unsafe mass of people because they care that much (some things are worth it), no one should get in their way.
 
2004-10-17 12:37:34 AM
L. Darte

A true conservative would never defend an administration that's as fiscally irresposible as this one. Nor would they support the massive expansion of big brother and big government. All three of these points are completely contrary to conservatism.


I completely agree.

I want to address this post to undecided and/or concerned Republicans. Even to conservative independents. Ask yourself if you can morally allow Bush a second term based on Conservative values alone.

Sticking to conservative values, rather than focusing on Politics, might make deciding easier, maybe even change a few minds. Clinton was at least better with the budget. It wasn't just because our nation was not at war, but the fact Clinton did make a very real commitment to fixing the deficit.

We have seen the Republican response to 9-11. What would be the Democratic response from Kerry? We can only watch and see and then compare the terms between both parties.

As for the Abortion debate, I think it's really wrong for any person to vote for a President solely on that issue, or give it a lot of credence over all the other issues, and I think that is truly negligent of the voter.

Personally, I'm glad the partial birth abortion ban occurred; privately I want less abortions, but policy wise I have to go with pro-choice vallues.

That said, I wouldn't really consider any politician's stance on the Abortion issue, either way, as being really relevant to my voting decisions.

The President has so much more to do than parrot our personal opinions on the Abortion debate. If Kerry's opinion doesn't jive with your Conservative stance on abortion, I think that's one issue you should ignore for the broader need to take care of what we all want to resolve.

The real secret about abortion? It will never be resolved, and will always stay a stalemate and be just a hot-button distraction, siphoning off the energy from the arena of Politics and the need for real debate on other, less-polarizing issues, ones just as important to American society.
 
2004-10-17 12:38:22 AM
12:21:37 AM Sandelaphon
Sorry, I should have pointed that out that Milton Beardon ran the CIAs covert aid programme in Afghanistan.

"many, many, sources say the cia helped the muhadeen and bin laden."

Many, many, many, many sources are really vague on this actually. I think I think I'll trust what we get from the horses mouth instead.
 
2004-10-17 12:38:47 AM
hax0r68 none were citizens, but they were all here legally i think.
 
2004-10-17 12:38:55 AM
If you don't have anything to hide then you shouldn't have a problem with this.

Read the constitution. Over and over. Take a civics class. Learn what the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" means.
 
2004-10-17 12:39:12 AM
hax0r68 none were citizens, but they were all here legally i think.
 
2004-10-17 12:39:17 AM
Why do you people hate America so much?
 
2004-10-17 12:39:45 AM
L. Darte

A true conservative would never defend an administration that's as fiscally irresposible as this one. Nor would they support the massive expansion of big brother and big government. All three of these points are completely contrary to conservatism.


I completely agree.

I want to address this post to undecided and/or concerned Republicans. Even to conservative independents. Ask yourself if you can morally allow Bush a second term based on Conservative values alone.

Sticking to conservative values, rather than focusing on Politics, might make deciding easier, maybe even change a few minds. Clinton was at least better with the budget. It wasn't just because our nation was not at war, but the fact Clinton did make a very real commitment to fixing the deficit.

We have seen the Republican response to 9-11. What would be the Democratic response from Kerry? We can only watch and see and then compare the terms between both parties.

As for the Abortion debate, I think it's really wrong for any person to vote for a President solely on that issue, or give it a lot of credence over all the other issues, and I think that is truly negligent of the voter.

Personally, I'm glad the partial birth abortion ban occurred; privately I want less abortions, but policy wise I have to go with pro-choice vallues.

That said, I wouldn't really consider any politician's stance on the Abortion issue, either way, as being really relevant to my voting decisions.

The President has so much more to do than parrot our personal opinions on the Abortion debate. If Kerry's opinion doesn't jive with your Conservative stance on abortion, I think that's one issue you should ignore for the broader need to take care of what we all want to resolve.

The real secret about abortion? It will never be resolved, and will always stay a stalemate and be just a hot-button distraction, siphoning off the energy from the arena of Politics and the need for real debate on other, less-polarizing issues, ones just as important to American society.
 
2004-10-17 12:39:56 AM
"it's entirely possible to fight the war on terrorism without violating american civil liberties. the fact that the government can't seem to do so is simply a failure of their strategy, not of the constitution."

Hardly. We know for a fact that Muslim extremists are the ones trying to kill us, yet we cannot single them out in an investigation without lawsuits.
Thats not a failure of strategy, its a failure of society and its PC bullshiat.
 
2004-10-17 12:41:44 AM
Wait wait wait. A few of the 9/11 terrorists were US citizens? Now, they may have been here legally (they were), but they were not US citizens.
 
2004-10-17 12:41:54 AM
12:21:37 AM Sandelaphon
Sorry, I should have pointed that out that Milton Beardon ran the CIAs covert aid programme in Afghanistan.

"many, many, sources say the cia helped the muhadeen and bin laden."

Many, many, many, many sources are really vague on this actually. I think I think I'll trust what we get from the horses mouth instead.
 
2004-10-17 12:42:00 AM
12:21:37 AM Sandelaphon
Sorry, I should have pointed that out that Milton Beardon ran the CIAs covert aid programme in Afghanistan.

"many, many, sources say the cia helped the muhadeen and bin laden."

Many, many, many, many sources are really vague on this actually. I think I think I'll trust what we get from the horses mouth instead.
 
2004-10-17 12:42:17 AM
About time happen, I'm so sick and tried of hearing about a SAFER AMERICAN.

How FREEDOM makes the world SAFER.

It doesn't.

It never has.

Freedom is not SAFE.

Thats why its a target! Its dangerous giving everyone a vote, its dangerous trying to hold a government together when any redneck or idiot with enough money can become president. But its worth it; the price we pay for freedom isn't LIVES. Its safety. We cant keep looking over our shoulders; we need to accept that fact that to be free is to be in danger. To be free is to trust in the goodness of humanity, and hope that when we give that freedom to someone they'll respect it. To be free is to accept the risks that come with that freedom. You cannot protect freedom by limiting it; you can't spread it through the world by taking away at home. It wont work, in three years, maybe five we'll see the backlash. Our children will look at this as we look at the Red Scare, or the Cold War, or Jim Crow.

Freedom is in our blood, and will not, dare I say cannot be held at bay by fear forever.

Yeah, freedom isn't free.

Well since when is it safe? You want safety? Get out. Freedom is down right dangerous, and God bless that.
 
2004-10-17 12:42:33 AM
"it's entirely possible to fight the war on terrorism without violating american civil liberties. the fact that the government can't seem to do so is simply a failure of their strategy, not of the constitution."

Hardly. We know for a fact that Muslim extremists are the ones trying to kill us, yet we cannot single them out in an investigation without lawsuits.
Thats not a failure of strategy, its a failure of society and its PC bullshiat.
 
2004-10-17 12:42:48 AM
About time happen, I'm so sick and tried of hearing about a SAFER AMERICAN.

How FREEDOM makes the world SAFER.

It doesn't.

It never has.

Freedom is not SAFE.

Thats why its a target! Its dangerous giving everyone a vote, its dangerous trying to hold a government together when any redneck or idiot with enough money can become president. But its worth it; the price we pay for freedom isn't LIVES. Its safety. We cant keep looking over our shoulders; we need to accept that fact that to be free is to be in danger. To be free is to trust in the goodness of humanity, and hope that when we give that freedom to someone they'll respect it. To be free is to accept the risks that come with that freedom. You cannot protect freedom by limiting it; you can't spread it through the world by taking away at home. It wont work, in three years, maybe five we'll see the backlash. Our children will look at this as we look at the Red Scare, or the Cold War, or Jim Crow.

Freedom is in our blood, and will not, dare I say cannot be held at bay by fear forever.

Yeah, freedom isn't free.

Well since when is it safe? You want safety? Get out. Freedom is down right dangerous, and God bless that.
 
2004-10-17 12:42:49 AM
Wait wait wait. A few of the 9/11 terrorists were US citizens? Now, they may have been here legally (they were), but they were not US citizens.
 
2004-10-17 12:43:10 AM
About time happen, I'm so sick and tried of hearing about a SAFER AMERICAN.

How FREEDOM makes the world SAFER.

It doesn't.

It never has.

Freedom is not SAFE.

Thats why its a target! Its dangerous giving everyone a vote, its dangerous trying to hold a government together when any redneck or idiot with enough money can become president. But its worth it; the price we pay for freedom isn't LIVES. Its safety. We cant keep looking over our shoulders; we need to accept that fact that to be free is to be in danger. To be free is to trust in the goodness of humanity, and hope that when we give that freedom to someone they'll respect it. To be free is to accept the risks that come with that freedom. You cannot protect freedom by limiting it; you can't spread it through the world by taking away at home. It wont work, in three years, maybe five we'll see the backlash. Our children will look at this as we look at the Red Scare, or the Cold War, or Jim Crow.

Freedom is in our blood, and will not, dare I say cannot be held at bay by fear forever.

Yeah, freedom isn't free.

Well since when is it safe? You want safety? Get out. Freedom is down right dangerous, and God bless that.
 
2004-10-17 12:49:56 AM
Oops. Sorry about the double post!! Fark siezed up on me...
 
2004-10-17 12:50:12 AM
I like almonds and hazel nuts.
 
2004-10-17 12:51:06 AM


You can never be too safe.
 
2004-10-17 12:51:21 AM
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/september2004/030904alexoncspan.htm

Another threadjack video. What's sad is that everything he said is true.
 
2004-10-17 12:53:55 AM
All I can say is thank God there are people in power who actually call this war on terror for what it really is - A COMPLETE SHAM!
 
2004-10-17 12:57:04 AM
#1) As someone else pointed out, concentration camps are not death camps by definition.

Ovens and bodies= death camps,
concentration of detained individuals= concentration camp.

#2) Weaver95, you talk about the loss of our liberties over the past 20 years and then ask why we shouldn't use metal detectors, etc. Am I to assume that that means just because it's been done for some time now that it's perfectly acceptable in present times?

And the reason the Patriot Act was passed was to improve the flow of information between local and federal law enforcement to help expedite any effort we made to combat terrorism. The reason people attack John Ashcroft is because of his interpretation of it and subsequent abuse of the power that that gave. It needs to be redesigned, but there are elements of the Patriot Act that are absolutely essential to effective law enforcement when dealing with local and federal jurisdiction issues.

Nothing passed to enforce the war on drugs gave government the right to hold a citizen of the United States indefinitely without due process, and the Patriot Act was not meant to do that either; but someone like Ashcroft made use of it to do just that, and now it needs to be fixed to prevent it.

#3) And this:


Historicly protests do not tend to be targetted by terrorists or assassains


Historically, neither were high rises in downtown NYC. That sure changed tho, didn't it?

Actually, they attacked those towers before in 1993. 9/11 wasn't their first try at it, so historically high rises in New York were a target.

You talk about the changes in politics since 9/11. You talk about how we need to be afraid, and change things and limit freedoms because these people HATE us. Well, you know what? They have for a lot longer than three years. And we got along just fine without looking over our shoulder up until that sucker punch moment.

We can make this country safer without sacrificing the things that make this country what it is. And as terrible as 9/11 was, it is by no means a justification for a change in the freedoms of our people.

And stop with the "Fark liters suck/are morans" crap that you like to post all the time, this isn't the first thread you've said something like that. $5 doesn't make your opinions worth $5 more, especially when some of us remember when you were a Fark liter. I'm tempted to sign up just to argue with you.
 
2004-10-17 12:57:32 AM
http://grassrootsnation.com/sinclair/

Put your name on a message that will be sent to 50 advertisers for Sinclair Broadcasting telling them that if the anti-Kerry movie is aired with their commercials still running on their channels, that you won't buy their products. Stick it to Sinclair's stock value.
 
2004-10-17 12:57:36 AM
GOOD LORD, something was disrupting my posting connection.

MODS please delete three of my four repeated posts above. The last post will do. Thanks
 
2004-10-17 01:00:30 AM
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
President Thomas Jefferson

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin


America is a land which fought for freedom and then began passing laws to get rid of it.
MAD Magazine
 
2004-10-17 01:03:03 AM
 
2004-10-17 01:03:13 AM
Why the hell are conservatives talking about "bending" the Constitution? Aren't y'all strict constitutionalists and conservative spenders? Then quit pissing on the document and wasting money on futile wars.

You know who else wastes money on futile wars? Terrorists. Y'all are one and the same.

/rant
 
2004-10-17 01:04:15 AM
mike_the_engineer -

That should actually be Bush instead of Kerry...
 
2004-10-17 01:09:12 AM
shiat sorry for all the posts i thought my browzer was freesing up mods please
 
2004-10-17 01:09:29 AM
hrm .. after reading the constitution, again, for the umpteenth time, i still can not find where it states that protesters can not pass through metal detectors .. the right to peacefully assemble reads to actually support metal detectors :)
 
2004-10-17 01:11:39 AM
Right... because I'm sure the terrorists are scared to death of ketchup boy.
 
2004-10-17 01:11:42 AM
Personally, I wouldn't mind if someone snuck in a bomb and killed those no-good hippies.

The difference between an asshole and a chode is less than an inch. Chodes get shiat on them a lot more than the rest of us.

/America.... fark yeah!
 
Displayed 50 of 742 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report