- This topic has 195 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
Allan from Fallbrook.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 22, 2009 at 4:40 PM #461085September 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM #460287
partypup
Participant[quote=afx114]And I’m sure you have a problem with Rich “collecting and storing” your posts on here as well. Clearly Rich is invading your privacy by doing so. Rich is a tyrant and a commie!
[/quote]
Wow…it’s insane how hard you’ll force your head into the sand.
Once again: when I log onto Piggington, I have CONSENTED to share my opnions and to have those opinions viewed by anyone and everyone. I do NOT give such consent when I log onto Facebook. Quite to the contrary, I have intentionally filtered who will have access to my personal information and my political or economic commentary.
And here’s something else for you to chew on, comrade: Rich doesn’t have ANY of my personal information. Nor do you. You don’t have any idea what my full name is, what city I live in, what I look like, what my partner and son looks like or who my friends are. Under those circumstances, I feel perfectly comfortable sharing my opinions on this site.
Take away those protections, and my speech is chilled. If you don’t get that, afx114 – if this is a concept that that truly eludes you, and if even 10% of the population is as cavalier as you are about this issue, then we as a nation are truly friggin’ doomed. Good God, is it really that hard for you to understand when your civil liberties are being yanked away?
September 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM #460480Participant[quote=afx114]And I’m sure you have a problem with Rich “collecting and storing” your posts on here as well. Clearly Rich is invading your privacy by doing so. Rich is a tyrant and a commie!
[/quote]
Wow…it’s insane how hard you’ll force your head into the sand.
Once again: when I log onto Piggington, I have CONSENTED to share my opnions and to have those opinions viewed by anyone and everyone. I do NOT give such consent when I log onto Facebook. Quite to the contrary, I have intentionally filtered who will have access to my personal information and my political or economic commentary.
And here’s something else for you to chew on, comrade: Rich doesn’t have ANY of my personal information. Nor do you. You don’t have any idea what my full name is, what city I live in, what I look like, what my partner and son looks like or who my friends are. Under those circumstances, I feel perfectly comfortable sharing my opinions on this site.
Take away those protections, and my speech is chilled. If you don’t get that, afx114 – if this is a concept that that truly eludes you, and if even 10% of the population is as cavalier as you are about this issue, then we as a nation are truly friggin’ doomed. Good God, is it really that hard for you to understand when your civil liberties are being yanked away?
September 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM #460820Participant[quote=afx114]And I’m sure you have a problem with Rich “collecting and storing” your posts on here as well. Clearly Rich is invading your privacy by doing so. Rich is a tyrant and a commie!
[/quote]
Wow…it’s insane how hard you’ll force your head into the sand.
Once again: when I log onto Piggington, I have CONSENTED to share my opnions and to have those opinions viewed by anyone and everyone. I do NOT give such consent when I log onto Facebook. Quite to the contrary, I have intentionally filtered who will have access to my personal information and my political or economic commentary.
And here’s something else for you to chew on, comrade: Rich doesn’t have ANY of my personal information. Nor do you. You don’t have any idea what my full name is, what city I live in, what I look like, what my partner and son looks like or who my friends are. Under those circumstances, I feel perfectly comfortable sharing my opinions on this site.
Take away those protections, and my speech is chilled. If you don’t get that, afx114 – if this is a concept that that truly eludes you, and if even 10% of the population is as cavalier as you are about this issue, then we as a nation are truly friggin’ doomed. Good God, is it really that hard for you to understand when your civil liberties are being yanked away?
September 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM #460893Participant[quote=afx114]And I’m sure you have a problem with Rich “collecting and storing” your posts on here as well. Clearly Rich is invading your privacy by doing so. Rich is a tyrant and a commie!
[/quote]
Wow…it’s insane how hard you’ll force your head into the sand.
Once again: when I log onto Piggington, I have CONSENTED to share my opnions and to have those opinions viewed by anyone and everyone. I do NOT give such consent when I log onto Facebook. Quite to the contrary, I have intentionally filtered who will have access to my personal information and my political or economic commentary.
And here’s something else for you to chew on, comrade: Rich doesn’t have ANY of my personal information. Nor do you. You don’t have any idea what my full name is, what city I live in, what I look like, what my partner and son looks like or who my friends are. Under those circumstances, I feel perfectly comfortable sharing my opinions on this site.
Take away those protections, and my speech is chilled. If you don’t get that, afx114 – if this is a concept that that truly eludes you, and if even 10% of the population is as cavalier as you are about this issue, then we as a nation are truly friggin’ doomed. Good God, is it really that hard for you to understand when your civil liberties are being yanked away?
September 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM #461095Participant[quote=afx114]And I’m sure you have a problem with Rich “collecting and storing” your posts on here as well. Clearly Rich is invading your privacy by doing so. Rich is a tyrant and a commie!
[/quote]
Wow…it’s insane how hard you’ll force your head into the sand.
Once again: when I log onto Piggington, I have CONSENTED to share my opnions and to have those opinions viewed by anyone and everyone. I do NOT give such consent when I log onto Facebook. Quite to the contrary, I have intentionally filtered who will have access to my personal information and my political or economic commentary.
And here’s something else for you to chew on, comrade: Rich doesn’t have ANY of my personal information. Nor do you. You don’t have any idea what my full name is, what city I live in, what I look like, what my partner and son looks like or who my friends are. Under those circumstances, I feel perfectly comfortable sharing my opinions on this site.
Take away those protections, and my speech is chilled. If you don’t get that, afx114 – if this is a concept that that truly eludes you, and if even 10% of the population is as cavalier as you are about this issue, then we as a nation are truly friggin’ doomed. Good God, is it really that hard for you to understand when your civil liberties are being yanked away?
September 22, 2009 at 5:00 PM #460302Aecetia
ParticipantAlong the lines of Allan’s post. We did not go to Iraq without Democratic support. Quit being partisan and start complaining about the erosion of your Constitutional freedoms.
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds voteWASHINGTON (CNN) — In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
The president praised the congressional action, declaring “America speaks with one voice.”
“The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council,” Bush said in a statement. “Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must.”
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.
September 22, 2009 at 5:00 PM #460494ParticipantAlong the lines of Allan’s post. We did not go to Iraq without Democratic support. Quit being partisan and start complaining about the erosion of your Constitutional freedoms.
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds voteWASHINGTON (CNN) — In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
The president praised the congressional action, declaring “America speaks with one voice.”
“The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council,” Bush said in a statement. “Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must.”
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.
September 22, 2009 at 5:00 PM #460835ParticipantAlong the lines of Allan’s post. We did not go to Iraq without Democratic support. Quit being partisan and start complaining about the erosion of your Constitutional freedoms.
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds voteWASHINGTON (CNN) — In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
The president praised the congressional action, declaring “America speaks with one voice.”
“The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council,” Bush said in a statement. “Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must.”
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.
September 22, 2009 at 5:00 PM #460908ParticipantAlong the lines of Allan’s post. We did not go to Iraq without Democratic support. Quit being partisan and start complaining about the erosion of your Constitutional freedoms.
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds voteWASHINGTON (CNN) — In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
The president praised the congressional action, declaring “America speaks with one voice.”
“The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council,” Bush said in a statement. “Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must.”
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.
September 22, 2009 at 5:00 PM #461110ParticipantAlong the lines of Allan’s post. We did not go to Iraq without Democratic support. Quit being partisan and start complaining about the erosion of your Constitutional freedoms.
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds voteWASHINGTON (CNN) — In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
The president praised the congressional action, declaring “America speaks with one voice.”
“The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council,” Bush said in a statement. “Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must.”
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.
September 22, 2009 at 5:13 PM #460313Veritas
Participantsob,
I am against this:
A. Silencing Political Dissent
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act creates a federal crime of “domestic terrorism” that broadly extends to “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws” if they “appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” and if they “occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” [10] Because this crime is couched in such vague and expansive terms, it may well be read by federal law enforcement agencies as licensing the investigation and surveillance of political activists and organizations based on their opposition to government policies. It also may be read by prosecutors as licensing the criminalization of legitimate political dissent. Vigorous protest activities, by their very nature, could be construed as acts that “appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Further, clashes between demonstrators and police officers and acts of civil disobedience — even those that do not result in injuries and are entirely non-violent — could be construed as “dangerous to human life” and in “violation of the criminal laws.” Environmental activists, anti-globalization activists, and anti-abortion activists who use direct action to further their political agendas are particularly vulnerable to prosecution as “domestic terrorists.”
However, to prevent 9-11 type incidents, I fully support waterboarding or dipping bullets in pig fat or other ways of eliciting cooperation. I am pragmatic that way. I do not want this country destroyed because we are weak or perceived as weak by our enemies. They shot the Nazis they captured in WWII in a very perfunctory fashion and I do not believe terrorists or other enemy combatants deserve Miranda, a free attorney, bail and any other legal consideration applied to criminals. War is war and criminal laws are designed to ensure those arrested are innocent until proven quilty. These terrorists caught in the act or in the battlefield do not deserve Constitutional protections. I think a lot of them deserve a firing squad. So I must not be a true libertarian….
Jefferson believed in freedom, but not for the Barbary pirates.
September 22, 2009 at 5:13 PM #460504Participantsob,
I am against this:
A. Silencing Political Dissent
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act creates a federal crime of “domestic terrorism” that broadly extends to “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws” if they “appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” and if they “occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” [10] Because this crime is couched in such vague and expansive terms, it may well be read by federal law enforcement agencies as licensing the investigation and surveillance of political activists and organizations based on their opposition to government policies. It also may be read by prosecutors as licensing the criminalization of legitimate political dissent. Vigorous protest activities, by their very nature, could be construed as acts that “appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Further, clashes between demonstrators and police officers and acts of civil disobedience — even those that do not result in injuries and are entirely non-violent — could be construed as “dangerous to human life” and in “violation of the criminal laws.” Environmental activists, anti-globalization activists, and anti-abortion activists who use direct action to further their political agendas are particularly vulnerable to prosecution as “domestic terrorists.”
However, to prevent 9-11 type incidents, I fully support waterboarding or dipping bullets in pig fat or other ways of eliciting cooperation. I am pragmatic that way. I do not want this country destroyed because we are weak or perceived as weak by our enemies. They shot the Nazis they captured in WWII in a very perfunctory fashion and I do not believe terrorists or other enemy combatants deserve Miranda, a free attorney, bail and any other legal consideration applied to criminals. War is war and criminal laws are designed to ensure those arrested are innocent until proven quilty. These terrorists caught in the act or in the battlefield do not deserve Constitutional protections. I think a lot of them deserve a firing squad. So I must not be a true libertarian….
Jefferson believed in freedom, but not for the Barbary pirates.
September 22, 2009 at 5:13 PM #460845Participantsob,
I am against this:
A. Silencing Political Dissent
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act creates a federal crime of “domestic terrorism” that broadly extends to “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws” if they “appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” and if they “occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” [10] Because this crime is couched in such vague and expansive terms, it may well be read by federal law enforcement agencies as licensing the investigation and surveillance of political activists and organizations based on their opposition to government policies. It also may be read by prosecutors as licensing the criminalization of legitimate political dissent. Vigorous protest activities, by their very nature, could be construed as acts that “appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Further, clashes between demonstrators and police officers and acts of civil disobedience — even those that do not result in injuries and are entirely non-violent — could be construed as “dangerous to human life” and in “violation of the criminal laws.” Environmental activists, anti-globalization activists, and anti-abortion activists who use direct action to further their political agendas are particularly vulnerable to prosecution as “domestic terrorists.”
However, to prevent 9-11 type incidents, I fully support waterboarding or dipping bullets in pig fat or other ways of eliciting cooperation. I am pragmatic that way. I do not want this country destroyed because we are weak or perceived as weak by our enemies. They shot the Nazis they captured in WWII in a very perfunctory fashion and I do not believe terrorists or other enemy combatants deserve Miranda, a free attorney, bail and any other legal consideration applied to criminals. War is war and criminal laws are designed to ensure those arrested are innocent until proven quilty. These terrorists caught in the act or in the battlefield do not deserve Constitutional protections. I think a lot of them deserve a firing squad. So I must not be a true libertarian….
Jefferson believed in freedom, but not for the Barbary pirates.
September 22, 2009 at 5:13 PM #460918Participantsob,
I am against this:
A. Silencing Political Dissent
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act creates a federal crime of “domestic terrorism” that broadly extends to “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws” if they “appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” and if they “occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” [10] Because this crime is couched in such vague and expansive terms, it may well be read by federal law enforcement agencies as licensing the investigation and surveillance of political activists and organizations based on their opposition to government policies. It also may be read by prosecutors as licensing the criminalization of legitimate political dissent. Vigorous protest activities, by their very nature, could be construed as acts that “appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Further, clashes between demonstrators and police officers and acts of civil disobedience — even those that do not result in injuries and are entirely non-violent — could be construed as “dangerous to human life” and in “violation of the criminal laws.” Environmental activists, anti-globalization activists, and anti-abortion activists who use direct action to further their political agendas are particularly vulnerable to prosecution as “domestic terrorists.”
However, to prevent 9-11 type incidents, I fully support waterboarding or dipping bullets in pig fat or other ways of eliciting cooperation. I am pragmatic that way. I do not want this country destroyed because we are weak or perceived as weak by our enemies. They shot the Nazis they captured in WWII in a very perfunctory fashion and I do not believe terrorists or other enemy combatants deserve Miranda, a free attorney, bail and any other legal consideration applied to criminals. War is war and criminal laws are designed to ensure those arrested are innocent until proven quilty. These terrorists caught in the act or in the battlefield do not deserve Constitutional protections. I think a lot of them deserve a firing squad. So I must not be a true libertarian….
Jefferson believed in freedom, but not for the Barbary pirates.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.