Incredible. I thought ignorance like this had long departed the planet.

Guess I was wrong.....

Hey, ah, Bronco.... these Islamist idiots are criminals, bud.

They oughta be policed by their own people, in their own countries.

And, they're starting to do just that.

But you know, from a "belief" perspective, these Islamist nut cases, are the exact same thing as Young-Earth creationists.

The only difference in that case, is the type of "behavior", that their beliefs cause them to emit.

You know, and you want to sit here and tell me that the United States Government isn't one of the worst offenders, in the space of "belief"?

I mean, ha ha ha he he he ho ho ho snicker snort.... :gigg;e:



Bronco, I got a novel concept for you - it's called "evidence".

Test your beliefs with evidence.

So ah.... let's go on to the next one then, shall we?

You guys don't listen very good.

That's like, "your" characteristic behavior.

Your head is stuck so deep into the partisan political sand, that you can't hear a god(*)(*)(*)(*) thing anyone else is saying, 'cause your ears are under-freakin'-ground!!!

"Never offered a single solution"..... you know, that's just a crock of brown excrement. I've heard THOUSANDS of viable solutions from the left side of the aisle. What about the Biden-Levin-Reed plan? That would have worked.

But Bushie's plan, didn't work. It's not working now. It never did work. It wpn't work in the future either. Bushie is just a god(*)(*)(*)(*) idiot, 'cause he thinks he can clobber people over the head with American values.

Bronco, I'm telling you, the same thing I told SS, and Glitch, and if that miscreant George W Bush ever shows his face in my neighborhood, I'm gonna tie that m/f down and make sure he listens for half an hour, till I'm entirely convinced he understands this concept.

I don't care about your stinkin' values. They mean nothing to me. Keep your values to yourself. Don't you dare impose 'em in my space. If you try that kinda crap, I'm gonna push back against you with everything I've got.

Why?

'Cause I can't DO anything about your (*)(*)(*)(*) values. I can't change 'em, fix 'em, adjust 'em, convince 'em, or anything else. They're yours, they're not mine. The stuff that's "mine" is "my" time, "my" feelings, "my" perceptions - but not YOUR values. Get it?

Remember Reinhold Niehbuhr? "God, grant me the serenity, to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference".

That latter part there, is the part I'm trying to convey to you.

BEHAVIOR, is coercible. Politically. "Behavior", you can regulate, through any one of a thousand mechanisms. "Law enforcement" comes to mind.....

But "belief", you can not regulate, you can't coerce it, and you can't clobber people over the head with it. It doesn't work that way. All that does, is cause resentment.

What you gotta do, is show people operational models. And then, let those models, take on a life of their own. That's how it works. And if you're too god(*)(*)(*)(*) impatient to wait for the natural results in those cases, then you're a menace to society - that makes you dangerous for We the People.

So, I mean, everything you're seeing right now in Iraq - the "Anbar surprise" for instance, is exactly that.

But that, that "success" or whatever you want to call it, is due to one man who actually understands this concept I'm raising with you now -

And his name, is General Petraeus.

It's specifically not George W Bush.

Bushie is just a freakin' idiot in this space, he's a mental midget when it comes to the science of diplomacy. He thinks politics is all about assuaging the sheeple, and I mean, if you're that stupid you shouldn't be the President of the United States.

General Petraeus oughta run for President, in my opinion.

You know, I mean, look around Bronco. The mil does its job, correctly and efficiently, every single freakin' time.

But the politicians, fail miserably at everything they touch, every single freakin' time.

What do you think? Is there an element of truth in what I'm saying?

You know, no one I know, no one, has said we oughta "let these terrorists go", or "do nothing about them", or anything like that. That would be fear-mongering, to make the accusation that anyone has said such a thing.

The only thing "the left" is saying, that you aren't liking, is that Bushie's method, his "model" for how he's going to accomplish this task, is seriously flawed. And I mean, you see those results, right? They're right in front of you, and there's no denyin' 'em. Four trillion dollars and four years later, Bushie was so deep in sh** that he had to find the one and only man in America that could get him out of it, and that man, was General Petraeus.

That's reality. Are you gonna tell me something different?

Um...actually that is not true.


We have that. Congress could override Bush if they wanted to. Warrants dont work becuase of the time involved, and the scale of the surveillance.



In this case it is necessary.


You do not get the final say on that. Sorry.


Your opinion alone that there is "one heck of a good chance" is insufficient.


To avoid the risk that people like you will find a loophole. Such a precedent would make it far more difficult to obtain information in the future that the government would need to defend this nation.


You have failed to convince me that your understanding of that concept is superior to mine.


How does that change what I just said?

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Hey, if the shoe fits, right?

Um... SS, I got news for you buddy -

The "nation", is ===> NOT <==== the United States government.

You're trying to tell me that the government has Rights, and I'm gonna come back and tell you right off the bat and in no uncertain terms, that you're full of sh**.

The United States government, has NO Rights. None. Zero. Zip. Squat. Nada.

You show me where in the Constitution, it says that the United States government has any Rights.

Can't do it, can you? I didn't think so......

Your model is flawed, SS. Once again, you're spouting nonsense into the airwaves.

And it's right here in black and white, buddy. You're "on the record".

If I were you, I'd do a public "mea culpa", and like, QUICK, 'cause otherwise people are gonna be able to point to your words twenty years from now, and they're gonna be able to legitimately wonder whether you still believe them.

The US government has Rights.... now there's an idiotic assertiobn, if I ever heard one.

You better get it together SS, your politics stinks. No one's buying your idiotic (and invalid) political assumptions.

See, that's exactly why people hate Bushie. 'Cause he thinks that way too. He's a Neo-Nut, just like you are.

Well, my take is, you people are not only stupid, you're dangerous too.

I mean, listen to yourself. "The government has Rights". What kind of stupidity is that?

The government has NO Rights, buddy. And they're gonna get Rights, over my dead body.

How do you like them apples?

"If" being the key word in that sentence.


Please quote me where I made the claim that the US government in general has rights.


Repeating it wont make it true. Even if you use underlines and italics.



Why? What will happen if I dont?


Oh no. Not that.


Then what are you worried about? Why do you keep responding if they are so obviously idiotic? Wont everyone else see them as idiotic too?


Not very much...they had almost no substance to them at all. They tasted a lot like hot air.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

SS, your "logic" is very transparent.

You're basically trying to tell me that the government can do "whatever it wants" in the name of national security, and all that is "acceptable".

Well, I mean, that "viewpoint", would be contrary to both the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution.

The principle embodied in the Constitution, is that the government has no Rights. They only have Powers. Not Rights.

The government has no "right" to wiretap your phone. The question is, do they have the Power to do it. The question is the Power, not the Right.

So, let's examine your "logic" here.....

Your logic here, is entirely bass-ackwards.

Here's how the "real" logic goes:

The President of the United States, has a sworn duty to uphold the law. That is part of his Constitutional oath of office, and he can be impeached for violating it. That would be "perjury" (lying under oath), and that is an impeachable offense - it's a "High Crime and Misdemeanor".

The law says, that any kind of surveillance, requires a warrant.

"Law enforcement officials", throughout history, have made every excuse under the sun for why they "shouldn't be required to obtain a warrant" - usually it's either "time", or it's some kinda fear-mongering like, "you can't just let vicious criminals continue to run around loose".

But We the People, have consistently told them, that they gotta have a warrant. That concept has been up to the Supreme Court, literally hundreds of times.

So if the President of the United States, is just gonna ignore the law, and do whatever he wants to do in spite of what the law says, then my feeling is, he oughta be impeached. Immediately.

And I don't care what kinda excuse he uses. If he wants to go arbitrarily changing the contract, for any reason, he can go kiss my butt and I'm not gonna do a god(*)(*)(*)(*) thing he says after that, and if he comes after me I'm gonna go public with the stuff, and fight him in the one and only arena that he knows he can't win in, which is the arena of legitimate public political activity. Why do you think the Neo-Nuts value "secrecy" so much? It's cause if any of their shennanigans ever saw the light of day, the public would have a sh**-fit.

So, you know, I'm just not interested in your "excuses", and your "reasons", and your "philosophy", and especially not your values.

All I'm interested in, is the contract.

And it says in the contract, that you gotta have a warrant.

So as far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the story.

Hey SS, you know, this idea goes all the way back to the Magna Carta, in the year 1200-something, wherein it says, "no man is above the law, not even the King".

And for some reason, there have been thousands of "kings" after that, who simply didn't wanna listen to the voice of the People in that regard.

And all of 'em, are in the toilet bowl of political history. I can't think of an exception. Can you?

So, there you go.

Don't sit there and tell me GW gets to do "whatever he wants" in the name of national security, 'cause I'm gonna come back and tell you you're full of sh**. (I keep saying that, don't I? Well, I'm gonna stop saying it, 'cause I mean, nothing changes if nothing changes, right? ).

The Prez doesn't get to say "I can do whatever I want in the name of national security". That's not his call. His job, is only to protect the nation.

SS, the President of the United States is still required to obey the law. That's what it says in the contract.

Are you gonna tell me something different?



Once again, bass-ackwards political thinking. Rights are inviolable, SS. The government doesn't have the Power to strip you of your Rights. The only thing they can do, is "interpret" them in such a way that they involve compromises, and the only time they can do that, is when they conflict with other Rights.

You seem to have, like, zero understanding of the law.

Well, whatever. Bushie's history. He's out of office in 300 days, and there's not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone like him is gonna be elected anytime soon, so you know, chew on that for a while. You guys have failed. You've failed miserably, and it's 'cause your model sucks. It's non-operational, it "doesn't work".

NO man is above the law, SS. Not even the king. Not even when he thinks he's speaking for the People.

I do not recall making that claim. Can you please quote me?


Probably. But it is irrelvant, since I never made that claim.



Semantics. The government has the "right" to detain you if you are suspected of a crime, for example. Yes, the government has "rights" in that context.


That is not up to you. You do not get the final say.

The judicial branch has decided in the past that the Constitution says the President has similar powers, so there is precedent. Until Bush is convicted of a crime, your opinion is just that...your opinion.


Did any of them cite national defense as a reason?


Then "we the people" will convict Bush of a crime. Right?


Then what are you worried about? A conviction is sure to happen, right?


He's not ignoring the law. He simply has a different interpretation than you do. And the courts have agreed with his interpretation in the past.

nonsqtr doesnt get the final say on what is or is not legal.



Must suck for you that the majority dont agree.


I guess its a good thing for Bush that he doesnt require your personal approval eh?

Actually, thats wrong. What I meant to say was that its a good thing for ALL OF US that he doesnt require your personal approval.


Another straw man. I dont recall ever making the claim that anyone was above the law.


When did I say that he could?

All I said was that he can do THIS in the name of national security.


You do not have an absolute right to privacy.


I agree. They are not stripping you of any rights in this context.


...and will be replaced with another neocon. This should be fun.


You seem awfully worried for someone who claims to be convinced that our model has failed.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Well, I think that's pretty much a QED.

I feel like I can rest my case now.

I mean, there's "enough" verbiage here, so the boundaries oughta be pretty clear.

SS is being a good little Neo-Con, did you check that out? First he's waving his hands around what he said, and then he's still trying to convince me that the government has rights!

(The "right" to detain you? Gimme a gigantic freakin' BREAK!!!! They have the Power to detain you, not the Right. You don't even know what the words mean, SS, so how can you be sittin' there tellin' me what the contract means? ) -

So I mean, you know, this whole thread, is a perfect example of "Neo-Cons in action". I mean, they're gonna tell you kinda "part" of the truth, and then a bunch of "half-truths", and then sprinkled in there somewhere is the one big lie that weaves the whole thing into a coherent fabric.

And the lie is: the government has Rights.

That would be bull-pucky.

Because, it's not in the contract.

If it is, show me.

You can't do it, can you? Didn't think so.... (still)......

You see, this is the lie of the collectivist-Statist mentality, and it's exactly why Ron Paul is so popular right now. Kooky as he is, he stands for something important, and he's getting traction and resonance on that basis.

And George W Bush, is not. He's going deeper into the toilet bowl with every passing day. And now he's trying to convince us that he's "gracefully climbing out of it" when in reality we can all see him slipping right back into the septic waste.

The government has no Rights, SS. It doesn't even have the right to survive. Think about it.

One has to admire a guy like Ron paul, who doesnt want his dollar in his pocket to be worth less than monopoly money.

to show how impotent Bush is, he culdn't even pass his own agenda through congress when the GOP held both the house & senate

Ooh..... low blow.....

Well, you know.... I guess you guys (you "Euro-Weenies", right? That was Blade's kinda quaint "term of endearment" for our allies, as I recall.... ) have that one comin'.....

'Cause you know, we've probably teasing you about that, for a while now....

So, okay. You score. Chalk one up for the Euro-Weenies....



I'm not entirely sure what "his own agenda" really is - I mean, I get the distinct impression that someone's "pulling his strings", but I wouldn't know who - I'm just an ignorant voter, they don't tell me these things....

if the ECb keep expanding the money supply and fail to ncrease interest rates, I'll move to Doha. Sarkozy & Merkel are none to happy for the inflation here.

Sure France & Germany aren't growing at 5% per annum, but they aint borrowing a few trillion to get few billion worth of economic growth.

As a evangelical preacher said on a trip to Paris, "where are the poor people?, we hear so much about the recession in Europe"