AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > May > 17 > Entry
What’s the real reason our phone calls are being tracked by the NSA?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
We were looking for a Daddy. What we got was Big Brother.
President Bush’s appeal relies on his image as this macho, swaggering, no-nonsense-John-Wayne-cowboy who protects us with his down-home-Texan-style while we cower like victims in the corner. We were comforted by his protectiveness even before 9/11. After the terrorist attack, well, we fell madly in love. But like all communist dictatorships, dealings with the mafia or abusive relationships there’s a price to be paid for this protection.
Too bad the American public can’t understand what this price is. They just don’t seem to care. Phone tracking and databases are too abstract a concept and not nearly as emotionally-riveting as a news story about the unexpected death of a young woman mauled by a 6-foot alligator. We prefer to connect to the unexpected. Give us an abused puppy and we’ll gather hoards of angry villagers and chase down the monster responsible. No, we can’t relate to aggregated data. And the government raid on our private information is no big surprise. We see this tragedy coming. We just don’t care. Bit by bit we gladly give up our privacy in a Faustian bargain for the semblance of security.
But consider this story if you’re looking for a heart-wrenching example of the damage data can reap: Amy Boyer, a young woman whose private information was sold to Liam Youens, a stalker she barely knew. Youens obsessed over Amy, a young woman he barely knew to the point of homicidal obsession. Amy’s life ended after Youens shot fifteen rounds into her as she exited her workplace, an address Youens purchased from an online information broker. Amy was 20-years-old.
This is what can happen to someone whose information is carelessly collected and handled with the care of Dick Cheney on a hunting expedition. Protecting our privacy is about protecting our lives, from the Youens of the world and from government misuse. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good people do nothing. And next to nothing is what we’ve done. When you live in fear of your enemy, sometimes you become your own. With your eyes wide open.
By not following established law, President Bush is telling us he doesn’t respect the very laws that made a free America what it is, a balanced democracy of checks and balances. He is saying we can’t afford democracy in such a wild, wild West kind of world. He’s beyond the law. He is the law.
Rebuttal
Somewhere in the world right now – even here on U.S. soil – some evil men are delighted at how quickly Americans forget hard-learned security lessons. I’m astounded that Diane thinks we are complacent about losing our privacy: I think we’re far too complacent about losing our lives.
I have two words for Diane or anyone else who prefers to snipe at the NSA data-mining program for being intrusive and “unlawful” (which it isn’t), instead of being thankful that our government does try so hard to protect privacy. Two words: Zacharias Moussaoui.
A few years ago, I read the fascinating 9/11 Commission Report cover to cover, and its Moussaoui discussion puts the current NSA debate squarely in perspective. In August 2001, we had captured a suspected Qaeda operative who, alarmingly, had been learning to fly (into the Capital or the White House, as we now know). We also had his captured laptop, and several weeks in which we could have tied him to the man who was planning the impending attacks, and from him to several other hijackers – exactly the sort of connect-the-dots effort intended by the NSA program. But despite urgent requests, FBI headquarters wouldn’t grant a search warrant for Moussaoui’s laptop, saying enough probable cause hadn’t been shown. In other words, saying this man’s privacy trumped national security.
A theoretical desire to protect privacy at all costs is laudable, but despite what the ACLU and Diane implies, most Americans are and should be completely unwilling to pay that “all costs” price. The NSA isn’t after the Youens of the world, who want to harm one person at a time: they are trying to stop the Moussaoui’s, who want to kill millions.
The average American doesn’t want the government to miss another chance to keep us safe. Immediately after 9/11 when we understood just what we were facing, most Americans supported large increases in surveillance authority. And even in March 2006, before the media made a mountain out of this NSA molehill, an ABC poll found that 54% of Americans thought the expanded authority should continue, even if with no warrant.
Diane, you say we just don’t care enough. No, I think we just disagree with you.
Comments
By Randy
May 22, 2006 07:09 AM | Link to this
I just want to start the week with the statement of how honored I am to be a Christian. That I follow a creator that is so real and true that non-followers have to write books and make movies like the DaVinci Code, just so they can resist his appeal. The non-followers are the ones who really confirm my FAITH, the need to know Jesus is so great they must fight it daily(see what I mean with 72John’s post’s, he fights it daily). That I follow the true creator(GOD), I mean he is the one that everybody either accepts or resists(I don’t see any movies about Buddah not being real). In the long run Jesus is tenderly calling you home, he’s calling today. He is so real and true.
By Sunny
May 22, 2006 07:21 AM | Link to this
Very well put Randy. As fas as today’s subject: Don’t you think we’re all a little conceited in thinking our casual phone calls about recipes, soap operas or fishing are something the government would want to listen to?
By Lyrazel
May 22, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this
Yawn. Ever notice when the brouhaha brings up an issue the people get charged up with the indecency of it, or the rights of freedom is being challenged? Yes, well this is one of those issues. Everyone from the NSA to the NFL can get a look at your credit report and you cant do anything. It happens daily because banks are in compliance with federal agencies and if you read that packet of papers they send as your Agreement—it says they will if asked by Federal agencies and also give your name/home/statistics to agencies they work with. Reviewing spending on credit cards might show significant terrorist activities by transactions made, places flown to, or possible organization donations. These phone records show calls by numbers (no conversations were actually saved which is Bush & crews belief is wiretapping) and only after billions of dollars of software purchased exclusively for this ludicrous NSA project will these records ever be mined for more than a base of who called where—most terrorists by the way use cell phones and are NOT connected to land lines—so who did they get? Ma and her kids and evidence one did not call home mothers day. Wow. They got TOO MUCH DATA to do anything with! Numbers calling numbers! Yes but only in a brief period of time—say 3 months—and those billions of calls have to be dissected to see patterns. How many billions of dollars will be spent discovering those million calls to India were people calling airline help centers, computer help centers and plumbers? Waste my time and money—like everything this Homeland Security does—waste and cryptic law interpretations does not mean we are safer. What a pack of bumbling morons! Now you know why I would never believe in any government conspiracy to hide Martians….or Elvis… they cant keep a secret if their jobs depended on it!
Diane, you argue for lack of government control of the internet yet site a case where government controls would have been beneficial. Now, you want WI-FI cops to prevent people from posting your records—when your records are easily obtained because of credit card companies, airlines and shops all involved in the lucrative business of selling your data. Its a business. Its why you get catalogs in your home yearly that you never ordered and every new catalog sent to your house proves you are on mailing list central which is bought and sold daily. There is no ivory tower to hide in because colleges frequently send lists of graduates to large businesses interested in hiring—and now with NCLB teenagers accounts their SSI numbers and other data is collected…which has no protection guidelines….installed yet…by the same government…still looking for Jimmy Hoffa since 1975! Cripe—how many billions have we spent finding HIM/and like Osama BinLaden…aint finding nothin but dirt, more dirt and nothing…wait maybe he phoned home…
By Gary Harrison
May 22, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this
Diane, Shaunti,et al: Terrorism is just a convenient excuse for taking away what little “freedom” which remains to American citizens. First, a dozen or so strategically-placed nukes would eliminate the terrorism threat. Forget the lie that Russia or China would respond; they know better. We need to get serious about protecting our borders, we need to enforce laws on the books, no matter the cost. What happens to an illegal immigrant or entrant from America into some other country (Mexico, Canada, India, Pakistan, etc.)? We need to reciprocate. Illegal immirgrants are just THAT: illegal. How about accepting pedophiles, or murders, or any sort of social outcast; that is just another degree of illegality. This country is run very similar to the Roman Empire, so we should complete the picture and respond just like them. In Rome if another nation injured a Roman citizen, all the power of Rome came down on them. Not America, though: we wuss out in the name of “compassion” and to maintain our “peaceful” presence in the world community. Bunk. Keep watching this channel - within 10 years this country will be a Muslim nation with NO civil rights. Keep watching: you heard it here first.
By prechrchet
May 22, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this
Am I the only one that sees Diane dodging the question concerning what the real reason is for the NSA tracking phone calls? She gives some reasons why she thinks that they shouldn’t track them, but no explanation for what she thinks their real motives are.
By Lyrazel
May 22, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this
Gary you are a conspiracy believer! Yes, everyone has covert plans to attack your way of life and instill illegals and muslims into your home. You really believe there are govt. agencies that MANAGED? Come on, look at the tax accessor office in Fulton County and you will see your government in action….or inaction…fear of being usurped and replaced sounds like Sci-Fi channel logic… Stop blaming illegals for working! Blame EMPLOYERS for hiring illegals—-go to the source! We can significantly fine businesses that hire illegals far easier and more easily than incarcerating 11 million but since these businesses make substantial political donations we wont. Money talks. see you in 10. Lyra
By Renee
May 22, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this
The time (and money for that matter) being sent on tracking all American’s calls could be better spent if utilized properly. The government knows who is a risk and who should be watched more closely. September 11th could have been prevented. But no, it’s easier to put this pretense of protection up, which is doing nothing, than to deal with the real issues. The terror risks we have in this country right now, their connections etc.
But no, tracking my calls, my mothers and grandmothers calls will get the government closer to the root issue of the problem. I feel safer.
By GOB
May 22, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
Randy - Thanks. Always good to start the week off with a laugh.
By GOB
May 22, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this
It does seem like collecting information from every call in the country is a waste, and potentially harmful. Actually locating the suspicious patterns of calling will be that much more difficult if they are buried in billions of normal calls. It is like we are building the biggest haystack we can around the needle that needs to be found…And that doesnt even take into account the privacy issues involved.
By Archie
May 22, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this
We already know that this administration will ruthlessly go after people that it considers political enemies. See the Plame-Wilson situation. How do we know someone won’t use the information from the phone calls to blackmail a political enemy? I mean if a certain senator has been calling a certain woman but that certain senator is married well,maybe his votes might change when confronted with evidence of his “pattern” of phone calls. Politicians lie as just this morning I read of a democrat taking 100,000 dollars in bribes. If it’s only foreign calls being monitored that’s great but with this administration or probably any administration you know this monitoring tool will be used for political gain.
By concerned citizen
May 22, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
This issue continues to baffle me. The World Trade Center towers did not fall because some terrorist made a phone call to Osama bin Laden from U.S. soil. The Pentagon did not go up in flames because Mohammad Atta called one of his terrorist buddies in the U.S. And United 93 didn’t crash into a field in Pennsylvania because the NSA didn’t have the authority to listen to phone calls. All these things happened because terrorists entered the country on false information or visas. All these things happened because middle eastern men of questionable motives were allowed to take flight lessons in the U.S. All these things happened because the intelligence agencies are on completely different computer networks and have no common database of information to pull from and share these red flags. Separately, these agencies were tracking this activity, but were not able to communicate with each other, and some agents were ignored by their superiors when informed about it. So to say that the security of our country resides in whose phone calls they can listen in to is absurd. Quite a bit of this lack of security lies in our foreign policies. We invite, incite, provoke other groups to hate us because we simply must have our way in the world.
Americans throw up their hands and say, “oh they’re just looking for terrorists, I’m not being targeted.” Perhaps not. But what if one of your phone calls, despite being legitimate, was to a place that the government thought might be questionable? Remember, this is the government who goes to war on faulty intelligence. What are the odds that they raid your house because the guy you called has the same name as a terrorist? Would you be okay with that? That’s why the law is in place, to prevent illegal search and seizure, or survelliance, without the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If I don’t have my rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, then I no longer need this government’s protection.
Streamline the databases and communication of the intelligence agencies, protect airport terminals and border crossings, don’t give flight training to questionable persons, and revise the foreign policies to reduce the hatred for America. Once all these things have been implemented and done COMPETENTLY, then come talk to me about phone survelliance without a court ordered warrant. Until then, follow the laws of the Constitution.
By concerned citizen
May 22, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
This issue continues to baffle me. The World Trade Center towers did not fall because some terrorist made a phone call to Osama bin Laden from U.S. soil. The Pentagon did not go up in flames because Mohammad Atta called one of his terrorist buddies in the U.S. And United 93 didn’t crash into a field in Pennsylvania because the NSA didn’t have the authority to listen to phone calls. All these things happened because terrorists entered the country on false information or visas. All these things happened because middle eastern men of questionable motives were allowed to take flight lessons in the U.S. All these things happened because the intelligence agencies are on completely different computer networks and have no common database of information to pull from and share these red flags. Separately, these agencies were tracking this activity, but were not able to communicate with each other, and some agents were ignored by their superiors when informed about it. So to say that the security of our country resides in whose phone calls they can listen in to is absurd. Quite a bit of this lack of security lies in our foreign policies. We invite, incite, provoke other groups to hate us because we simply must have our way in the world.
Americans throw up their hands and say, “oh they’re just looking for terrorists, I’m not being targeted.” Perhaps not. But what if one of your phone calls, despite being legitimate, was to a place that the government thought might be questionable? Remember, this is the government who goes to war on faulty intelligence. What are the odds that they raid your house because the guy you called has the same name as a terrorist? Would you be okay with that? That’s why the law is in place, to prevent illegal search and seizure, or survelliance, without the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If I don’t have my rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, then I no longer need this government’s protection.
Streamline the databases and communication of the intelligence agencies, protect airport terminals and border crossings, don’t give flight training to questionable persons, and revise the foreign policies to reduce the hatred for America. Once all these things have been implemented and done COMPETENTLY, then come talk to me about phone survelliance without a court ordered warrant. Until then, follow the laws of the Constitution.
By concerned citizen
May 22, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
This issue continues to baffle me. The World Trade Center towers did not fall because some terrorist made a phone call to Osama bin Laden from U.S. soil. The Pentagon did not go up in flames because Mohammad Atta called one of his terrorist buddies in the U.S. And United 93 didn’t crash into a field in Pennsylvania because the NSA didn’t have the authority to listen to phone calls. All these things happened because terrorists entered the country on false information or visas. All these things happened because middle eastern men of questionable motives were allowed to take flight lessons in the U.S. All these things happened because the intelligence agencies are on completely different computer networks and have no common database of information to pull from and share these red flags. Separately, these agencies were tracking this activity, but were not able to communicate with each other, and some agents were ignored by their superiors when informed about it. So to say that the security of our country resides in whose phone calls they can listen in to is absurd. Quite a bit of this lack of security lies in our foreign policies. We invite, incite, provoke other groups to hate us because we simply must have our way in the world.
Americans throw up their hands and say, “oh they’re just looking for terrorists, I’m not being targeted.” Perhaps not. But what if one of your phone calls, despite being legitimate, was to a place that the government thought might be questionable? Remember, this is the government who goes to war on faulty intelligence. What are the odds that they raid your house because the guy you called has the same name as a terrorist? Would you be okay with that? That’s why the law is in place, to prevent illegal search and seizure, or survelliance, without the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If I don’t have my rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, then I no longer need this government’s protection.
Streamline the databases and communication of the intelligence agencies, protect airport terminals and border crossings, don’t give flight training to questionable persons, and revise the foreign policies to reduce the hatred for America. Once all these things have been implemented and done COMPETENTLY, then come talk to me about phone survelliance without a court ordered warrant. Until then, follow the laws of the Constitution.
By Lars
May 22, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this
“Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither” —-Benjiman Frankin
By rj
May 22, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
Why don’t we just let the military and the police do a systematic house to house search of every one in America in the name of protecting us from terrorism. That would surely keep us safe and find the ones who wish to do us harm.
By kimberly
May 22, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
We’re f—-ed.
By The72John
May 22, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this
Why don’t we just let the military and the police do a systematic house to house search of every one in America in the name of protecting us from terrorism. That would surely keep us safe and find the ones who wish to do us harm.
Better yet, let’s just barcode each and every person and track their every movement. After all, if they aren’t guilty of anything, then they shouldn’t be worried.
Obviously, anyone concerned about the government intruding into his or her affairs has something to hide. There is no legitimate reason to be worried about the behavior of one’s elected officials if one isn’t guilty of anything.
Of course, the definition of what comprises “guilty” could always change, and who knows…once our government agencies rationalize this abuse, it’s that much easier to justify the next, and the next, and the next…
But you’re right - we should go to any lengths to stop terrorists. Even if it means destroying those things that make this country what it is.
By Jack
May 22, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
This is a non-issue. When the gov’t goes after an innocent citizen and uses these phone logs as reason for arrest, then we can care about it. Do you really think the gov’t has never done this type of spying before? If you talk with granny do think the gov’t cares? J.Edgar Hoover who headed up the FBI was trying to get files built for every citizen. If you’re not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about.
By Mara
May 22, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Randy, if, as you say “In the long run Jesus is tenderly calling you home, he’s calling today.” Then I say “Go, Randy. He’s calling you. Go today!”
As for the topic, anyone remember John Poindexter (of Iran-Contra fame) and his “Total Information Awareness” data mining group that was de-funded by congress because of civil and privacy rights concerns? Guess what? This is Poindexters baby with a new name and covert funding. Why would the administration want this project badly enough to keep it funded despite the clear disapproval of congress? Anybody remember J. Edgar Hoovers secret files? COINTELPRO? Knowlege (of your enemies) is power, and if there’s one thing that this administration should be known for, it would be it’s appetite for power. And just who are the “enemies”? According to the GOP, it’s anyone who doesn’t support the policies of this administration. It’s those who speak out against the war. Or the torture of “detainees”. Or secret renditions, kidnappings, the dismissal of habeus corpus procedures. It’s not just the “terrorist” that they monitor. There’s been evidence that such subversive elements as the Quakers, Greenpeace, Grannies for Peace and the like have been monitored. Though I can guess the reasons for domestic wiretapping, this administration is so paranoid and secretive, who really knows what’s going on? We certainly don’t have enough info to know for sure what they’re actually doing, so all we can do is act on what we fear they’re doing. Basically, I’m against the whole thing because I don’t trust Bush and his butt-lickers to actually “defend the Constitution of the United States…”
By Billy
May 22, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
…an ABC poll found that 54% of Americans thought the expanded authority should continue, even if with no warrant.
I hate it when people trot out these appeal-to-the-majority BS stats. 54% of the American public believes something? That means nothing! Something like 3/4 of the country believe angels are among us, flying around with their halos and whatnot. That doesn’t mean it’s the truth, just like a bunch of Americans believing wiretapping is good does not make it right.
Besides, does that not mean that 46% of Americans are uneasy about or against the wiretapping? It’s not that big a difference. And I’d say that when slightly less than half the country is put off by warrantless invasion of everyone’s privacy, it trumps the slightly more than half of the country that sleeps a little easier knowing that grandma’s secret recipe for peach cobbler might not be secret for much longer.
By Renee
May 22, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
Obviously, anyone concerned about the government intruding into his or her affairs has something to hide.
I have to disagree with this statement. I have absolutely nothing to hide, but have a significant problem with the government intruding into my affairs. There is nothing in my boring life, that can be viewed as illegal. The problem comes into the fact that while they are intruding in my life and other law-abiding citizens lives, they are serving no purpose.
I for one, do agree that everything should be done to stop terrorists. I’ll even be willing to consider support of this intrusion if it could be shown that it is deterring crime on a domestic level.
By The72John
May 22, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
This is a non-issue. When the gov’t goes after an innocent citizen and uses these phone logs as reason for arrest, then we can care about it. Do you really think the gov’t has never done this type of spying before? If you talk with granny do think the gov’t cares? J.Edgar Hoover who headed up the FBI was trying to get files built for every citizen. If you’re not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about
Classic head-in-the-sand excuse #1. If you aren’t breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about.
Enjoy your Gestapo-run country, Jack. The citizens of every dictatorship and autocracy in the world probably said the same thing early on. Those secret police are only looking for criminals. They won’t come after us…
For someone who jumps all over people and tells them to get out of “his” country, you don’t seem to have an f’n clue about what this country actually stands for. Beyond some high schoolish “We’re number one!” idea of kicking butt and taking names, the concepts of freedom and liberty seem to escape you.
I tell you what Jack. Why don’t you voluntarily sign up for 24 hour surveilance by the govermnent. You send them your daily shopping lists, your reading materials, your internet records, and anything else remotely personal. Put your money where your mouth is.
By kimberly
May 22, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
Good points, Mara! These a—wipes took an oath to defend the Constitution, and they seem to think it doesn’t matter. “They hate us for our freedoms?” Then surely we become safer as each of these freedoms disappears.
We’re f—-ed.
By Billy
May 22, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
I hate the “It’s been done in the past” argument when it comes to criminal acts. If that counted at all nothing would ever change. “Sorry. Slavery is a big part of history. It’s been done a whole lot. It’s accepted in the Bible. Guess that means you’re screwed. Now go pick some more cotton.”
By GOB
May 22, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
This is a non-issue. When the gov’t goes after an innocent citizen and uses these phone logs as reason for arrest, then we can care about it…If you’re not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about.
Given the way the administration has acted so far, how would we even know if “an innocent citizen” is arrested? They would just be locked in a military prison somewhere. They have shown such a disdain for the current laws that there is no way to really know how low they would stoop. Jose Padilla wasnt even allowed to see a lawyer after he was arrested. He is a US citizen, arrested on US soil.
As to the point about having nothing to worry about, the people that are collecting the data are the ones who decide what is illegal and what isnt. Do you really trust them that much? Last week the investigation into the wiretapping was ended. Why? Because the NSA wouldnt give the investigators security clearance. The NSA can essentially do whatever it pleases, and simply deny security clearance for anyone who wants to investigate. That is scary.
By nonbeliever
May 22, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
I just want to start the week with the statement of how honored I am to be an atheist. I follow reason that is so real and true that superstition followers have to write books and make movies like the Passion of the Christ, just so they can shore up their superstitions. The followers of religion are the ones who really confirm my belief in REASON, the need to know the empirical truth is so great they must fight it daily(see what I mean with Zack’s post’s, he fights reason and good sense daily). Zack follows an imaginary creator(GOD) and rules and regulations written by men slightly more than barbarians 2000 years ago. He truly believes that posting his superstitious beliefs will lure people on this blog to Jeeeeeeesus! HA!
By The72John
May 22, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
As to the point about having nothing to worry about, the people that are collecting the data are the ones who decide what is illegal and what isnt. Do you really trust them that much? Last week the investigation into the wiretapping was ended. Why? Because the NSA wouldnt give the investigators security clearance. The NSA can essentially do whatever it pleases, and simply deny security clearance for anyone who wants to investigate. That is scary.
Yup - this government has completely dismanteled any semblance or pretense of checks and balances. IT decides who is subject to the Constitution and who isn’t. IT decides who is a citizen and who is an “enemy combatant”. IT decides what information is available and what is shrouded in secrecy.
IT’s…the decider.
How about the German citizen who was abducted by the CIA a year or so ago? Hear about that one? He was incarcerated and tortured by the CIA for months until they admitted that he was innocent and they had no business ever picking him up. Then, they released him on a hilltop in the middle of nowhere.
He sued the US Government - rightfully - for damages, but the Federal Prosecutor refused to allow the case to go through, citing “National Security” reasons.
We’re on such the wrong road, and the blind Nationalists who think the sole defining factor for right or wrong is “Did the US do it?” are falling into lockstep.
By Harold
May 22, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
If you want to see a movie about Buddha not being real, go to China where it might actually make money. The Jesus freaks here already think Buddha wasn’t real, so there is no incentive to release such a movie in the United States.
By Harold
May 22, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Is that Georgia Tech kid still rotting in secret prison even though the Canadian he called was let go for lack of evidence?
This stuff is already going on, ppl.
By Mara
May 22, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
kimberly - surely we become safer as each of these freedoms disappears.
LOL! Wouldn’t doubt that this rationale was put forward by someone in this administration at some point in the discussion…
By harold
May 22, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
I cannot udnerstand how surveillance without judicial approval keeps us “safer” than surveillance with judicial approval, but that is this administartion’s song.
these guys should all be in prison for what they are doing
By Jack
May 22, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
I knew that one would get the ball rolling! This administration isn’t doing anything other administrations haven’t done before, they just let the cat out of the hat. USA today lied about the phone companies. Will they retract? Doubtful. They said they sent an e-mail to Bellsouth concerning this and when they got no response, they took it as a yes. Typical.
We have been f—ked since Uncle Jimmy was in office.
By Godless Heathen
May 22, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
Randy - Take your zombie tales somewhere else.
By kimberly
May 22, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
Yeah, JACK. What if one day Presidential Falwell (appointed by the Supreme Court in 2012 after people argued too long over the validity of the voting machines) decides to put a few billion more in the Department of Marriage Police? All your harmless flirting (which is already documented, BTW) can be trotted out because YOU aren’t being “Christio-American” enough. They might publicly humiliate you and Mrs. Jack to make an example of you. But you weren’t doing anything wrong! That’s right, you weren’t… in the America I know and love. But all that is changing.
By Harold
May 22, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
Shaunti provides this silly andecdote about Zach Moussouai but then in no way relates the current NSA phone circus back to that.
How would my phone call data have helped with that, Shanuti? Your train derailed before it even left the station!
Why mention Zach Moussouai, then? Two words: Scare tactics.
Oooh. SCAAAARRRRY.
By GOB
May 22, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
USA today lied about the phone companies. Will they retract? Doubtful. They said they sent an e-mail to Bellsouth concerning this and when they got no response, they took it as a yes. Typical.
Are you absolutly positive about that? Think of the PR nightmare that would hit these phone companies if they did anything other than deny. Maybe they didnt do anything wrong, but I wouldnt be so quick to believe everything you hear. According to Ken Lay, Enron was doing great just a few years ago…
By kraig
May 22, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
*I’m sick of always being listened in on while I’m trying to beat off to phone sex lines. Can they not let a man nut in peace? *
By Gary Harrison
May 22, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
Diane, Shaunti,et al: Terrorism is just a convenient excuse for taking away what little “freedom” which remains to American citizens. First, a dozen or so strategically-placed nukes would eliminate the terrorism threat. Forget the lie that Russia or China would respond; they know better. We need to get serious about protecting our borders, we need to enforce laws on the books, no matter the cost. What happens to an illegal immigrant or entrant from America into some other country (Mexico, Canada, India, Pakistan, etc.)? We need to reciprocate. Illegal immirgrants are just THAT: illegal. How about accepting pedophiles, or murders, or any sort of social outcast; that is just another degree of illegality. This country is run very similar to the Roman Empire, so we should complete the picture and respond just like them. In Rome if another nation injured a Roman citizen, all the power of Rome came down on them. Not America, though: we wuss out in the name of “compassion” and to maintain our “peaceful” presence in the world community. Bunk. Keep watching this channel - within 10 years this country will be a Muslim nation with NO civil rights. Keep watching: you heard it here first.
By The72John
May 22, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
USA today lied about the phone companies. Will they retract? Doubtful. They said they sent an e-mail to Bellsouth concerning this and when they got no response, they took it as a yes. Typical
Typical…what? Reputable papers print retractions on a daily basis, if they made a mistake. It’s a myth that journalism is irresponsible, perpetuated by right-wing talk show hosts who thrive on the “Liberal media” hyperbole.
And interesting choice of words, Jack…they “Lied”. Maybe they were operating on the best available information, hmm? Maybe those papers just BELIEVED to the best of their knowledge that there were weapons of mass…er…phone records being shared.
Sound familiar?
By Mara
May 22, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
kraig - don’t you know that you are exactly the kind of person that’s ruining this country? The kind the republican “base” likes to piously condemn? That’s probably why your phone is being tapped. Why don’t you find some nice girl, marry her, and make some babies instead of abandoning all those potential babies in a gym sock? Why do you hate babies so much? I bet your girlfriend uses (gasp!) birth control!
By The72John
May 22, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Gary, the plane to Montana leaves in about half an hour…I’m sure you could find a militia that would be happy to accept you into their paranoid ranks.
By Renee
May 22, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
Maybe those papers just BELIEVED to the best of their knowledge that there were weapons of mass…er…phone records being shared.
Good one lol
By GOB
May 22, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
First, a dozen or so strategically-placed nukes would eliminate the terrorism threat.
A dozen or so nukes??? Nice…That probably wouldnt have any negative after-effects at all. Good call.
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
to the smug religious idiot who cant stop preaching at the top - are you the poorly educated religious zealout who sent me an abusive dogmatic e-mail last week? If so - many thanks - it was hilarious knowing that none of you can answer serious scholarly points with anything other than mindless utterly unsupported dogmatic religious assertions.
As for the ajc’s latest attempt to stir up another pointless, trying stop their massive circulation decline? anti-Bush debate … as has been endlessly pointed out there is almost nothing that is truly “private” these days. Corporate and fed/state/city hall America has the goods on everyone. Unless you have no credit card/cell phone or home phone/social security #/mortgage/bank account/driving licence/internet provider/e-mail address etc your info is out there in countless databanks - public and private being sold and traded. Whilst the public (i.e. govt) data is supposedly protected the general lax incompetence of govt is hardly a major personal firewall.
This whole issue is just more desperate Bush hate perpetrated by the leftist lemmings in the media and pinkos in general. Its intellectually dishonest to suggest that one’s data is actually truly secret/private. And that’s been the case under sick willie klinton as well as both Bush’s. The spotty venal yoof culture hackers/phishers can get almost anything about us they want if they pay for it online, private dicks are no longer the only ones with that kind of access. Phone numbers called on your cell phone are now freely for sale online for christs sake!!
I’m perfectly happy for the NSA to monitor my calling patterns, which they should constantly do in these islamic fascist terrorist times - monitoring my actual conversations is utterly unacceptable - without a legal court order. USA Today is a pinko paper, like most of them. They essentially rehashed the story from the worst pinko paper - the NYT. It smacks of a pinko conspiracy to sneer at/embarass the Bush admin (huge ironic smirk). Incidentally Bush finally has lost my support since his shameless, weasel like words/attitude on the illegal immigration invasion!!
I am a very sound, clear thinking centre-right conservative, but I truly DETEST the backward simpleton dogma of christianity and mohammedanism and all organised religion!! Bush is way too pious/smug with his bible bashing for my taste!! I am not an atheist - more a very militant agnostic!!
By Jack
May 22, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
SMOOCH! XOXO. Pant, pant!
Devil’s Advocate today. Gotta go now. Big meeting that will last the rest of the day.
By GOB
May 22, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
Wow, someone likes the word Pinko…
By The72John
May 22, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
I am a very sound, clear thinking centre-right conservative, but I truly DETEST the backward simpleton dogma of christianity and mohammedanism and all organised religion!! Bush is way too pious/smug with his bible bashing for my taste!! I am not an atheist - more a very militant agnostic
Hmm..yes…it’s almost as simplistic and dogmatic as labeling anything with which you don’t agree “pinko”.
I certainly see your point.
By maria
May 22, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
I just wanted to aggree with Diane. It is our constitutional right to be able to go about our lives without some power hungry neanderthal evading our privacy. Besides, the company that they are asking for information to be turned over..will be breaching the contracts that they have established with customers. If that happens plenty of people are going to be angry. Instead of worrying about being nosey with everyone elses business, he needs to worry about his alcoholic daughters.
By Amelia
May 22, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
We are being conditioned gradually to accept anything by our government. Today’s mantra is “security.” Americans have become nothing more than “sheeple”, easily controlled and manipulated by our government. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin that stated, “he who gives up his liberty for security, deserves neither. He is oh so right.
By Mara
May 22, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Hey John, why you pickin’ on the Montana militias? Most of the folks up there are of the libertarian “leave me alone” conservative bent, not the “RAH RAH Bush is sent by God” type. LOL! Don’t think Gary would find a happy home with the seperatists :^)
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
The word ‘pinko’ is perfectly apposite when astutely describing liberals who mostly are not quite treasonous reds/commies. Its NOT in the least simplistic or dogmatic -simply a “factual description”, though obviously from an honourable incisive conservative perspective. Whilst ‘pinko’ is ‘collective’ in nature that is the trademark pinko/liberal/commie way - these fools have always had a collective “socialistic” blinkered world view.
I proudly despise pinkos and commie creeps - but that’s my right!!
Doubtless some pinkos will now perpetrate the usual stream of Bush hate speech (huge smirk).
By GOB
May 22, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
The word ‘pinko’ is perfectly apposite when astutely describing liberals who mostly are not quite treasonous reds/commies. Its NOT in the least simplistic or dogmatic -simply a “factual description”, though obviously from an honourable incisive conservative perspective.
Obviously…
By lozen
May 22, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
Randy, bless your heart! Do you enjoy having people laugh at you? Do you really think you’re going to save anyone with your simplistic postings on this board? If you want to believe in your superstitions, please feel free. We don’t care if you’re wallowing in your immature religion. Most people need to believe in a god or gods because humans are weak and vulnerable and we’re conscious that we will die. So you need to believe there’s a god who loves you and takes care of you as long as you obey him and follow all the rules and regulations set down by men over 2,000 years ago. It’s good that you believe; you’d probably be pulling wings off butterflies and putting worms down the little girl’s backs if you weren’t afraid of going to hell! Bless your heart…
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Nice to see that you’ve finally conceded the blindingly obvious!!
Although I note you rather (obtusely) used one of the ancillary points I made.
By E. Lewis
May 22, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
They are being tracked because our government has to look like it doing something. The NSA is grasping at straws. Hoping that if they look under enough haystacks instead of trying to figure out which ones are bad, they will find at least one needle and can claim victory against the war on terror.
Isn’t it a shame that countries in Europe can find, try and convict terrorists, but the best we’ve been able to do in the mean time is jail one self-confessing, wanna be bad guy?
With any luck our former Allies, who are handling this better than we are, will forget any animosity they have towards us and shows us how to conduct a GWOT.
By Brian Curtis
May 22, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
Randy posts here mainly to boost his own self-esteem. You can tell from the smug arrogance in his words.
He’s not really interested in spreading the gospel or helping people find Jesus—he just wants everyone to know how wonderful HE is because he’s a Christian and you’re not.
I just shrug and ignore his stuff, as a rule. At least he’s not a foaming, raving zealot like Chuck or Zack.
By GOB
May 22, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
Yes, your arguments are very “honourable” (nice use of the King’s English too) and “incisive.” Well done sir.
By kimberly
May 22, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
E.Lewis, now that’s not entirely true. Remember the first WTC bombing back in 1993? (I forget: did we blame that on the previous, just-left-office president, or the brand new president?) In any case, the perpetrators were caught, tried, convicted, and rot in prison today. Of course, times were different back then.
By Brian Curtis
May 22, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
Hmmm… You know, there’s a desperately sad little neocon over on the Mike Luckovich forum who uses the word “pinko” all the time. I wonder if this is the same guy.
Maybe they finally banned him there, and he’s trolling for new territory. We’ll know for sure if he starts posting long-winded excerpts from neocon opinion rags and claiming them as proof-positive that Liberals Are Evil.
By Monica
May 22, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
I just hope that my 2-year-old doesn’t pick up the cordless phone, push the button to turn it on, and randomly push numbers that are the phone number of a terrorist. ~But, really, it was a wrong number, my child dialed it my mistake, an accident. Please don’t take me away!~
I’m willing to give up a little bit of liberty for increased security, but this is ridiculous, not to mention outrageously expensive. And who’s going to be paying for Big Brother to screen all of our phone calls? We will, through our tax dollars. Well, at least we can take comfort in the fact that the job will probably be outsourced to a foreign workforce to save money. How safe.
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
Randy,
Jesus is dead mate.
He was killed by the Italians.
It gave them something to do over easter.
Easter was essentially a pagan festival (see the rites of Attis and Cybele - Attis was magically resurrected three days after being killed - it became a major spring time feast/cult in the middle east).
The rest of your religion as I posted last week is stolen or cynically adapted from numerous long standing pagan traditions like Osiris - the world’s first risen saviour god whose “body and blood” were eaten/drunk in Ancient Egyptian temples. Isis and Horus who were Osiris’ wife and child and “became” Madonna and child in icons that the early christians “stole”. There is nothing original about christianity!!
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
There’s a desperately sad litte little pinko/commie creep here who wont accept the blindingly obvious!! ‘pinko’ is a perfectly apposite designation (from a conservative perspective) for liberals or leftist/lite-commie types.
thanks for the attempt at patronising abuse mate - it was enormously entertaining.
BTW you’re actually substantively (albeit inadvertently) correct - liberals are generally speaking quite evil (huge smirk).
By The72John
May 22, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
BTW you’re actually substantively (albeit inadvertently) correct - liberals are generally speaking quite evil (huge smirk
I love when trolls use words like substance when they have utterly failed to have any of their own.
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
Its actually the “Queen’s” English when the sitting monarch is female. No puerile homophobic (such a moronic. mindlessly politically correct Micky Mouse word -eh?) abuse or sneers please.
As I am actually English its hardly surprising that I use the “proper” Oxford Dictionary spelling of honourable.
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
I love it when simpering brainless trolls hypocritically whine about lack of susbtance whilst proffering NONE of their own. The points I made initially were wonderfully substantive and perfectly fair comment. Shame that the trademark intellectual dishonesty and poor comprehension skills of your average dumb pinko liberals is in the highly tainted Schumer/Kennedy/Klinton range.
By Mara
May 22, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
Monica, just out of curiosity and not meant as sarcasm, but…which bit of your liberties are you willing to give up for the sake of “increased security”? And how would you know that you’re any more secure? Because the government says you are?
By The72John
May 22, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
Ah, troll, if you are so disgusted by the intellectual inferiority of the rank-and-file of this ‘blog, then please do us all the great favor (favour?) of absenting yourself as soon as possible, so that we might return to actually discussing the topic at hand.
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
Ah, troll, if you are so disgusted by the intellectual inferiority of the rank-and-file of this ‘blog,
actually its really more just you and one other … get lost yourself mate!!
I have, unlike the resident vapid liberals, sensibly discussed this topic - its essentially a moronic liberal drive by media distortion of the truth about essential NSA type security by pinkos!!
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Pinko pinko pinko pinko wonderfully incisive conservative perspective pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko liberal pinko pinko Klinton pinko (huge smirk) pinko pinko mate pinko pinko pinko pinko paper - NYT pinko pinko.
By RF
May 22, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Pinko pinko pinko pinko wonderfully incisive conservative perspective pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko liberal pinko pinko Klinton pinko (huge smirk) pinko pinko mate pinko pinko pinko pinko paper - NYT pinko pinko.
Somebody call the asylum. I think Zack’s roomie needs his meds again…
By Netbanker
May 22, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! I don’t think that either one of the columnists responded to the question posed. That said, I agree with Diane’s statement that “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good people do nothing. And next to nothing is what we’ve done.” Our government does all kinds of stuff we never know about and that is pretty scary. What is equally frightening is that when caught they block the investigations and scream about the whistle blower rather than the breach of law or ethics. It’s kind of like a defense attorney at trial blaming the police for catching his client to distract the court from the fact that the client broke the law.
What does Zacharias Moussaoui have to do with tracking phone calls? I don’t agree that his privacy should have been protected in any way since he was CAUGHT doing something wrong and they were trying to establish his part in the grand scheme of terrorism and terrorist organisations. That is entirely different than tracking the phone calls of the innocent. As GOB and Renee pointed out by tracking ALL calls it becomes harder to identify patterns due to the clutter of useless information (i.e. the BILLIONS of calls from/to the known innocent).
By Renee
May 22, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
It’s amazing how some people cannot disagree with someone and/or their views without being completely disrespectful in the process.
By Time fer Troof
May 22, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Listen up, y’all. Danny boy breaks it down for ya real good.
By Mara
May 22, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
(snicker) tftt’s 1:22 is exactly how the wingnut haters usually talk anyway, so why get all het up about it? Blah, blah, blah, pinko ‘murika hater blah, blah, blah…
p.s. - it’s slick willie ‘C’linton, dumba$$.
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
Pinko pinko pinko pinko wonderfully incisive conservative perspective pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko liberal pinko pinko Klinton pinko (huge smirk) pinko pinko mate pinko pinko pinko pinko paper - NYT pinko pinko.
This is too funny … here we have an object lesson in liberal moral fascism and intellectual dishonesty. They cannot actually answer awkward logical points so they resort to abuse/sneers. When their sneers/abuse is effectively countered they become snottily petulant. At least we see them for what they are.
As for the “topic”…
The whole deliberately inflammatory pointlessly repeated by USA Today NSA story is manufactured by the liberal drive by media as part of their visceral, ongoing leftist campaign to completely undermine the Bush admin’s pretty effective (domestic) war on terror. Its just more Bush hate and its pretty pathetic that liberals put security below scoring empty points against Bush. The lefties have desperately tried to smear Bush by moronically and dishonestly asserting that “he’s listening in to your phone calls - without court authority etc”, typical liberal fear mongering. Its not Bush that would do this anyway - and its simply not happening. Even the lefty intelligence senators who have been secretly briefed have stated that there is no listening in to calls. THE WHOLE THING IS YET ANOTHER LIBERAL LIE!!!
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
its “sick wille klinton” you brainless trollope - the ‘k’ is a sardonic Maoist use of the letter as in the commie spelling of Amerika back in the late 60’s early 70’s. A subtle political snidey that is undoubtedly wasted on someone whose complete political ignorance is evinced everytime it posts!!
By GOB
May 22, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
hey cannot actually answer awkward logical points so they resort to abuse/sneers. When their sneers/abuse is effectively countered they become snottily petulant. At least we see them for what they are.
The above was posted at 1:40
its “sick wille klinton” you brainless trollope - the ‘k’ is a sardonic Maoist use of the letter as in the commie spelling of Amerika back in the late 60’s early 70’s. A subtle political snidey that is undoubtedly wasted on someone whose complete political ignorance is evinced everytime it posts!!
This was posted at 1:45
Interesting.
By The72John
May 22, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
its essentially a moronic liberal drive by media distortion of the truth about essential NSA type security by pinkos
If one were to remove “NSA type security” from this sentence, you would have the Hannity/Limbaugh response to any and every situation. It’s utterly meaningless, plays on fears and misconceptions, and invokes the “liberal media” meme that has been so effectively created by the Limbaughs of the world.
Couple this with a shameless invocation of cold-war anti-communist hysteria that accuses anyone who deviates from the ultra-nationalist viewpoint of treason and Socialism, and you have a tool that can be applied to any circumstance.
By Monica
May 22, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Mara, I was referring to a sanctioned curfew or something of that nature (kind of like on 24 right now - ha ha ha).
RF, do you happen to know which asylum Zack and his roomie are in? Maybe we should give them a courtesy call to let them know that they are out of their rooms…
By RF
May 22, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Our government does all kinds of stuff we never know about and that is pretty scary.
Problem is, it has gone on, unchecked, at least since Hoover ran the FBI. The technology now makes it all but unstoppable. It’s not just about the phone companies giving up records. Do we honestly think the government needs ISPs or phone companies to give up info? If they want it, they have the capacity to get it, and entirely without the innocent ever knowing. It truly should scare us. The only reason I can see for getting info from the phone companies and ISPs is to have a legitimate source so the government doesn’t have to reveal how it obtained sensitive information illegally.
By Mara
May 22, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
anybody catch what that trollsters “points” were, other than (as John & GOB pointed out) the usual wingnut talking points? I was blinded for a minute by the flying lip-spittle…
By Archie
May 22, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
“Classic head-in-the-sand excuse #1. If you aren’t breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about.
Enjoy your Gestapo-run country, Jack. The citizens of every dictatorship and autocracy in the world probably said the same thing early on. Those secret police are only looking for criminals. They won’t come after us…
For someone who jumps all over people and tells them to get out of “his” country, you don’t seem to have an f’n clue about what this country actually stands for. Beyond some high schoolish “We’re number one!” idea of kicking butt and taking names, the concepts of freedom and liberty seem to escape you.”
72John I agree with all of the aforementioned words. If you trust this administration you really do have your head in sand. The people in one small city weren’t secured(see New Orleans) so how can tracking millions of phone calls help out government incompetence. The real reason phone calls are being tracked is politics. Heck if you can catch politician a cheating on his/her spouse then you can get that project you want or that vote you want. Realistically no one looks at billions of calls but they identify certain numbers and it would be naive to think that NSA does not do favors for some powerful politician. I work for government and confidentiality depends upon the integrity of the person with access to information. When are we going to hold this president accountable for breaking the law and lying???
By RF
May 22, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
you brainless trollope
Soooo, it’s okay to call names if you’re not a pinko? Just making sure I understand the double standards we are expected to adhere to while in your company.
By RF
May 22, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Archie- problem is there won’t be any offical written record to connect the president to any actual wrongdoing. The NSA might take a hit, and they’ll offer up some sacrificial peons if they’re ever cornered. But, you can rest assured after Nixon the White House learned a few things about covering tracks! LOL
By Monica
May 22, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
I am a very sound, clear thinking centre-right conservative, but I truly DETEST the backward simpleton dogma of christianity and mohammedanism and all organised religion!! Bush is way too pious/smug with his bible bashing for my taste!! I am not an atheist - more a very militant agnostic!!
Well, folks, now you have seen a conservative who is not a “fundie.”
By Mara
May 22, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
Monica, I see. I think a curfew would have an effect on local crime, but don’t see how rolling up the sidewalks at 10 p.m. would have much effect on global terrorism. But that may not have been your point. Perhaps you meant it to illustrate some small infringement, like the intrusive searches and confiscations in airports?
By GOB
May 22, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
RF - The NSA will just deny security clearance to anyone wanting to investigate, so they are basically untouchable right now. Gotta love those checks and balances…
By Monica
May 22, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
Mara, exactly. If taking off my shoes for inspection means my plane won’t explode, then I will be happy to oblige.
By craig
May 22, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
So, Shaunti, you think that since 54% of the people in a poll were okay with NSA spying, that makes it acceptable? Okay, since more than 50% of people in Massachusetts have no problem with gay marriage, are you going to back off your support for the FMA?
By The72John
May 22, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
Mara, exactly. If taking off my shoes for inspection means my plane won’t explode, then I will be happy to oblige
Taking off your shoes is something you have the right to opt out of. Sure, you can’t get on the plane, but you do have the right to say “I choose not to be searched”.
You don’t have any choice when the government is monitoring you without your knowledge.
By Monica
May 22, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Point well-taken, 72J! Of course, you can also choose not to use the telephone (keep in mind that I agree with you on this topic; just having a little fun).
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
we now see the abject hateful dishonesty of liberals… “Gestapo run country” and all their conspiracy crap … my recent response is logical and factual. my NSA type security observations have nothing to do with ElRushbo or the more smug papist Hannity. Its simply a statement of fact. Mass monitoring of phone call patterns are essential for everyone’s security. Note the lefties here resort to “do you trust Bush?”. It isn’t Bush that is doing the monitoring, although he has executive responsibility for it. It was done under sick willie after a law was passed, although pre 9/11 on a much more restrained basis - note that sick willie invariably used only a legal response to terrorism - terrorists need killing or jailing - then they cant perpetrate terrorism. The liberal worship of the suspect rather than the victim is telling … There were many shrill US lefties who objected to liberating Afghanistan. In WW2 the 400,000 nazi war machine prisoners in the US happily didn’t all have liberal lawyers … the post/telegrams etc were monitored back then the leftist ACLU nutters who hate Bush are simply using every legal ruse possible to undermine a policy they despise. The US is at war - as is the rest of west - its a very different kind of war and winning it will take years and years. It took almost a decade to finally impose peace in what was nazi germany in a much less hostile environment than the middle east today is. Thes pinkos even oppose the sovereign USA sealing its border and dumping illegals back in mexico etc and stopping huge illegal narcotics smuggling etc- mexico tolerates NO illegals and is an unbeleivably corrupt country.
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
the govt is monitoring mass phone call patterns only - not millions and millions of people’s actual phone calls … they are NOT monitoring us per se … you are a paranoid lefty wacko mate!!
By RF
May 22, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
GOB- not that there would be any actual record of anything to investigate if anyone could get clearance.
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
RF you brainless trollope… Soooo, it’s okay to call names if you’re not a pinko? Just making sure I understand the double standards we are expected to adhere to while in your company.
you are a complete moron mate …
this woman? insulted me for no reason at all and I simply mirrored it back. christ I hope you dont vote or breed!!!
By The72John
May 22, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Isn’t it funny how those who reflexively refer to anyone remotely liberal as pinko commies become indignant and accuse others of “abject hateful dishonesty” at the drop of a single facist reference?
By GOB
May 22, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
time for the truth - You seem like a really pleasant guy.
By RF
May 22, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
The liberal worship of the suspect rather than the victim is telling
Actually, the point of today’s debate (not that you noticed while trying lamely to label everyone here a liberal pinko) is that we are all potentially victims. There doesn’t seem to be any clear distinction from either the White House or the NSA as to where the authority to “snoop” ends.
By GOB
May 22, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
It wouldnt take a lot for the program to move from data collection to the wiretapping that is already going on. If I were to call the FBI and say that my Arab neighbor has been acting weird and asking all kinds of strange questions, that would be enough for the NSA to actually start listening to his phone calls. That could make his life a living hell, when all I wanted to was get revenge on him for not returning the hedge-clippers he borrowed.
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
if you actually understood what “fascism” actually means ideologically then the pathetic reference to it re: the USA is beyond absurd!!!
BTW your political ignorance is quite shocking - I never mentioned fascism. although you did … the Gestapo were actually part of a nazi regime, not fascist - HINT: the two ideologies are NOT interchangeable and have very obvious differences.
my pinko reference is perfectly reasonable - because it refers to liberals who are not (yet) full blown commies/reds. It is the more extreme liberals on here I have sardonically deemed pinkos. Given the frequent extreme liberal remarks/abuse on here my comments seem rather restrained.
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
utter rubbish!!! you seem to smugly and deliberately ignore the fact that ONLY mass phone patterns are what’s at issue here!! your obtuse point about us all being “potential victims” is hilariously paranoid and utterly dishonest. We are “all” potential victims of far more serious actually injurious occurences everyday. Having the NSA monitor calling patterns in the collective interests of national security is hardly a big deal - unless you’re a terrorist/criminal type. It doesn’t bother me at all - as it stands. It sure “seems”to bother you because you hate Bush etc!!!
By GOB
May 22, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Given the frequent extreme liberal remarks/abuse on here my comments seem rather restrained.
Just out of curiousity, what do you feel are “extreme liberal remarks/abuse?”
By Second coming of Anna
May 22, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Hey, Time for Truth, I have two words for you and everyone else that thinks the phone database/wiretapping/monitoring thing can’t get out of control quickly. Richard Jewell. How quickly everyone forgets a man, falsely accused, was thrown completely under the bus by every government agency and every media outlet - only to be exonerated. Now, in Jewell’s favor, a command of the English language (although like most of us southerner’s, somewhat tinged), a born US Citizen, and he was a white man (as I am, before anyone runs with that statement). What about trying to round up Qaeda “sleeper cells”? What if they think someone in the police dept. or national guard is a “sleeper” because they fit the profile. Or the guy that does my dry cleaning - he’s an Arab, calls his family in Pakistan all the time - you think they aren’t listening to him? Where do we draw the line here? Is anyone else buying the argument that because of all this stuff, we haven’t been attacked again?
By RF
May 22, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
That could make his life a living hell, when all I wanted to was get revenge on him for not returning the hedge-clippers he borrowed.
ROFL True—sad, but true.
my pinko reference is perfectly reasonable - because it refers to liberals who are not (yet) full blown commies/reds.
So, have you stopped ranting long enough to notice you’re the only one here with this opinion, mate? Hmmmm, seems we have a new Don Quixote among us today. Go tilt at your pinko/commie windmills and leave us pinko commies to our misguided notions of justice, fairness, and respect for human beings. It is indeed a sad moment in history when anyone would think that individual liberty mattered nearly as much as “national security”.
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
the tired old slippery, slippery slope argument … the govt has NO interest in the mudane conversations of tens of millions of us … and they dont have the money/time/manpower to do anything with it - it has no focus or point either … this is dishonest liberal paranoia again. If a demoncrat president was doing exactly what Bush was doing I would have NO problem with it.
if the hypothetical arab had no terror/crime connections they;’d stop listening - resources usually have to be justified quickly these days. also law enforcement are aware of revenge/anti-arab motives and dont just eagerly start to monitor any arab type because of a neighbour’s peeved say so. a very stupid point mate!!!
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Couple this with a shameless invocation of cold-war anti-communist hysteria that accuses anyone who deviates from the ultra-nationalist viewpoint of treason and Socialism, and you have a tool that can be applied to any circumstance
Enjoy your Gestapo-run country, Jack. The citizens of every dictatorship and autocracy in the world probably said the same thing early on. Those secret police are only looking for criminals. They won’t come after us
(snicker) tftt’s 1:22 is exactly how the wingnut haters usually talk anyway, so why get all het up about it? Blah, blah, blah, pinko ‘murika hater blah, blah, blah…
p.s. - it’s slick willie ‘C’linton, dumba$$.
there’s three (unedited) examples
By The72John
May 22, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
Let’s just stop feeding the troll and hope that he takes his reactionary hysteria back to the Lukovich blogs where it belongs.
What did we do to deserve his twaddle?
By GOB
May 22, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
if the hypothetical arab had no terror/crime connections they;’d stop listening - resources usually have to be justified quickly these days. also law enforcement are aware of revenge/anti-arab motives and dont just eagerly start to monitor any arab type because of a neighbour’s peeved say so. a very stupid point mate!!!
What is your basis for making this claim? How do you know they would stop or that they would be hesitant to even begin? Is there actually any foundation for this statement, or is it just something you think they would do?
By GOB
May 22, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Wise advice John…
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
without national security, individual liberty wouldn’t exist for ‘x’ millions or even everyone … you’re a complete IDIOT!!
just because several pinkos agree doesn’t mean they’re right - anymore than several conservatives together are necessarily right - its just opinion - though pinko opinion is invariably poorly argued, as on here today, and that’s the problem!!!
funny how ALL the pinkos object to anyone disturbing their little hate Bush world though!! that;s why the ajc is doing so badly with its circulation - most folks in NW GA dont want a pinko multicultural paper - so they dont buy it!!
By GOB
May 22, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
What did we do to deserve his twaddle?
Thats easy…We are commie pinkos who believe all of the liberal media lies.
By Second coming of Anna
May 22, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Time for truth, do you work in technology? Do you have any idea the lack of resources it takes to perform the monitoring we are talking about? I’m not talking about necessarily you and me - you have stated before you have nothing to hide, neither do I. But I would probably be correct in assuming that neither of us work for a Halliburton competitor, a Democratic Senator, an environmental NGO, is a tenured professor at Cal Berkley, or a Branch Davidian. Now with the exception of the professor and Branch Davidian - I would hope that you would agree with me that the current administration would have a vested interest in seeing the phone records of the others. Yes. I could turn it around to a Rose Law Firm competitor, a Republican Senate staffer, and NRA director couldn’t I? I’m sorry if my concern goes beyond the front and back door of my house (or mini mansion if you are a Republican). How this data mining affects others concerns me, even if I totally agree with you that my calls to my friends isn’t of consequence.
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
how does this idiot “know” that he could even set the feds on his arab neighbour? its a stupid point he made and I highlighted it in my response
By Time fer Troof
May 22, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Yew people caint handle the TROOOOF!
By RF
May 22, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
time for “truth” (not that you’d know it if it ran you down in the street)- I don’t hate Bush. I voted for him- both times (hardly a pinko trait I should think). And it is hardly paranoid to see how quickly we could go from “monitoring potential terrorists” to playing Big Brother. Just trying to see the possibilities, and while I doubt they seriously would listen to millions of phone calls daily, do we know what they are and are not doing? We can only hope and guess, since there seem to be no clear guidelines or regulations about what they could do.
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
you have no idea if anyone is listening to the arab drycleaner love, that’s paranoia … as for Jewell, that was a klinton fbi thang - done under butch reno - who corruptly refused to investigate klinton and gore for blatant corruption etc . mistakes happened then - waco, the cuban kid deportation etc. the NSA thing cant get out of control that quickly because its NOT listening to phonce calls . a stupid point. Jewell was a local criminal investigation into a major bombing - which is very different!!
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
the klinton regime abused the IRS and audited hundreds of opponents continuously. as for the data mining - NOTHING is secret or private these days - and that’s nothing to do with Bush et al. Its the corporate/IT technology that’s out there. Your very selective list is idiotic - “haliburton competitor” - come on love … get over your Cheney hatred as well. It is PINKOS who leaked this NSA non -story to the pinko press to embarass Bush - sooner or later any such spying would be leaked by those who hate him. The CIA has anti Bush lefties leaking all over the place … despite signing the USA official secrets act … and pinko hacks now get pulitzers for undermining national security.
RF
Obviously I see the (almosy unlimited) potential for abuse of electronic spying - there are “trigger words” that kick in in phone calls. BUt until there is hard PROOF that’s being done systematically for NO legitimate security reason then I will continue to accept it - as is … as its been described and accepted by even senator feinstein.
By Mara
May 22, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
And to think the politicalcompass.org test pegged me as a moderate liberal. Maybe trollbreath could trot on over there and tell them to fix their questions because the abusive-extreme-pinko-liberals are masqurading as “moderates”….
Monica, you didn’t mention on how you would be able to guage if these small civil rights concessions had made you any safer.
By Mara
May 22, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
later darlin’s. Air kisses to all who don’t dwell under fairy tale bridges XXXOOO :^)
By Second coming of Anna
May 22, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
Okay TFT - engaging in obfuscation, name calling and blatant disrespect… entirely okay in a blog! Now, the point I wanted to make by bringing Jewell to light is the rush to judgement and total overreaction by many otherwise thoughtful people. Now, if you believe that Janet Reno and Bill Clinton mind controlled all the people that worked in the government agencies (that were hired, not appointed, many of them during the Bush term) so that they acted irresponsibly, who’s paranoid now “mate”? Hmmm.. am I wrong to remember the FBI and ATF all over Richard Jewell and his mother’s Disney movies??? Maybe you didn’t live here then but the Fed’s took that thing over in about 20 seconds after it happened. I’ll close with this, TFT, you are proving in plain English (although spelling is a little off) what I have found many of my fellow American’s to be today - totally devoid of the ability to see past your own interests. If it doesn’t affect you, you don’t care. Like the folks I know who feel that “healthcare is not a right. If you don’t have insurance, too bad. The rest of us shouldn’t pay to keep you alive”, and yes those people had parents who were in the military and now work for a Fortune 50 corporation. They’ve never been without health insurance, ever. So, keep on looking out for number one TFT, but be sure you don’t step in number 2!
By GOB
May 22, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
When you are reading his posts, just imagine a thick british accent. It makes them that much more comical. Then you have a Saturday Night Live skit in your head…or maybe something from the Colbert Report.
By Shhh
May 22, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:. | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.: | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=: | | '=(\ 9 9 /)=' | Thank you, | ( (_) ) | Management | /`-vvv-'\ +-------------------+ / \ | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \ | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\||||/ | | \| \,,\ /,,/
\||/ | | | (_Y_)
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
mara,
my pinko comments are aimed at the handful of liberal types who have consistently engaged m and tried to insult me this afternoon … its particularly obtuse to “extend” this shameful label of liberal/pinko to yourself if you aint a liberal type!! BTW I hate moderates as well!! :) (big ironic smirk)
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
again you’re being thoroughly dishonest - I NEVER suggested that klinton and butch reno were “controlling everyone” in govt agencies - I cited the IRS and a few infamous abuses of govt power … Like I said Jewell was an active actual criminal case, emotively rehashing it doesn’t change what happened - reprehensible as it was!!
I see very well past my own interests love - its in my interests and my wife’s and neighbours’ and ultimately all of us … to be protected from terrorists - and the NSA monitoring of potentially terror related NUMBER PATTERNS is fine as it stands … your anti- Bush paranoia is kicking in again!!
My spelling is fine - my country was around long before yours was ever dreamed of in Hollywood, as were our dictionaries (grin) - and I am a US citizen - so I’ll be voting GOP again in November :)
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
Cheers for the anti-British bigotry mister wanker!!
so now we get pathetic “liberal?” racism!!!
HOW HYPOCRITICAL IS THAT!!!
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
BTW GOB … there is NO such thing as a “british accent”.
Its either a regional English one, a “standard” English one or Welsh or Scots etc … nice to see that your dunce like ignorance is flourishing!! I guess that GED is less impressive than you thought when you bought it!!
By sanhan
May 22, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
I think the NSA is collecting a database on all phone users as a means of catagorizing us as friends or enemies of the state. At the risk of overusing the Bush/Hitler metaphor, this is a similar strategy that the Third Reich used to categorize the inhiabitants of every city and town they invaded, collecting the records from churches, synagogues, and family Bibles, public recrods, etc., saving the information on IBM punch cards. In their war effort, they merely had to look at the cards and direct their slave labor units as needed.
This administration’s penchant for smearing and defaming its critics, along with the signing statements, secret rendition, torture, lack of due process, secrecy, bending the constitution and granting unprecedented power to the executive, ignoring and destroying the balance of powers, makes the argument that if you have done nothing illegal you are safe moot. This administration has given itself the tools to frame you in ways that until recently remained a secret.
The media is not discussing the fact that this illegal surveillance began before 9/11, and thus the claim that it is keeping us safe is ridiculous and dangerous.
The president actually gave John Negroponte, a convicted felon from Iran Contra, not only a position in his cabinet as Director of National Intelligence, but executive power to pardon individuals who have broken privacy laws.
We have not tried and convicted more terrorists because we have secretly tortured several suspects for information, and thus the information extracted is not trustworthy nor admissable in court. We cannot risk putting them on the stand for their day in court where their words will be heard around the world, worsening our international standing, putting our engaged troops in greater danger.
The secrecy is destroying America from within, the only way we can be destroyed. Our enemies are those Washington officials who have bastardized our constitution.
By sanhan
May 22, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this
I think the NSA is collecting a database on all phone users as a means of catagorizing us as friends or enemies of the state. At the risk of overusing the Bush/Hitler metaphor, this is a similar strategy that the Third Reich used to categorize the inhiabitants of every city and town they invaded, collecting the records from churches, synagogues, and family Bibles, public recrods, etc., saving the information on IBM punch cards. In their war effort, they merely had to look at the cards and direct their slave labor units as needed.
This administration’s penchant for smearing and defaming its critics, along with the signing statements, secret rendition, torture, lack of due process, secrecy, bending the constitution and granting unprecedented power to the executive, ignoring and destroying the balance of powers, makes the argument that if you have done nothing illegal you are safe moot. This administration has given itself the tools to frame you in ways that until recently remained a secret.
The media is not discussing the fact that this illegal surveillance began before 9/11, and thus the claim that it is keeping us safe is ridiculous and dangerous.
The president actually gave John Negroponte, a convicted felon from Iran Contra, not only a position in his cabinet as Director of National Intelligence, but executive power to pardon individuals who have broken privacy laws.
We have not tried and convicted more terrorists because we have secretly tortured several suspects for information, and thus the information extracted is not trustworthy nor admissable in court. We cannot risk putting them on the stand for their day in court where their words will be heard around the world, worsening our international standing, putting our engaged troops in greater danger.
The secrecy is destroying America from within, the only way we can be destroyed. Our enemies are those Washington officials who have bastardized our constitution.
By Guy Fawkes
May 22, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
Wake up people. Doesn’t matter if you’re a lefty or a righty when you don’t add up all the facts. 9/11 was a sham staged by our own government to do what? assume greater control of the populace and reap billions of dollars for those involved. Go to google video and watch “9/11 Loose Change.” It presents alot of evidence and facts that have never been addressed publicly that point to a massive conspiracy to deceive the American public. For example, there are only 3 buildings in history that have “collapsed” from fire: the twin towers and building 7. Building 7 in particular didn’t get hit by any planes and the official story as to why it collapsed was that the fire from the twin towers somehow started building 7 on fire. Or maybe it was so Larry Silverstein could collect his billions of dollars in insurance money against the policy he had just setup to protect against fire and airplanes flying into the buildings! Watch “9/11 Loose Change” and see how it adds up all the little known facts into the greatest deception ever perpetrated on the US people.
By time for the truth
May 22, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
and now the real paranoid WACKOS slither out …
By Julia
May 22, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
Randy-Don’t lose heart. They laughed at and mocked Jesus too. (Be of good cheer-you’re in good company!)
By Billy
May 22, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
“truth”, you have single-handedly ruined this week’s debate. Congrats. No such thing as a British accent? Then there’s no such thing as Britain. The accents of everyone, from Queen to Cockney, are British. Sure, they are quite different. But still…British. Much like the accent of the American South is different from that of South Boston is different from that of North Dakota. There’s no “standard” American accent, but they all are American accents.
By Mike
May 22, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Why should we believe the Bush administration is using the illegal wiretapping program to track terrorists? Google “ThinThread” which was a system the NSA did not implement. Not only was ThinThread a superior system in terms of tracking terrorists but it had safeguards for protecting citizen’s privacy (4th amendment) rights.
The frame that Feldhahn is pushing is FASCISM=SECURITY. Hence, warrantless spying, the Patriot Act, toture, rendition, illegal combantants, preventative war, etc…are necessary to prevent another 9/11.
One must ask, why did 9/11 happen? Was it because the government did not have police state powers? Was it because the multi billion dollar intelligence/military apparatus was outfoxed by 19 hijackers with boxcutters?
I know there are terrorist groups who hate the US and would love to attack us. The question is not intent but capability. 19 hijackers could not have pulled this attack off without lots of help. IMO, based on research (I don’t think research is yet against the law) is that some US officials were complicit in the attacks.
By GOB
May 22, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
Cheers for the anti-British bigotry mister wanker!!
It isnt the accent that would be funny, but the things you are saying…the accent would just add to the comedy. I am a huge fan of the british (big Spurs fan BTW), just not particularly you, based on your crazy comments.
By Randy
May 23, 2006 07:17 AM | Link to this
Thanks Julia, They just prove my point. If I had said that about any other religion(other than Christianity)it would not bother anyone. But Jesus can really get to people, some he comforts the rest he causes a reaction(their afraid they might have to give up their sin). Really the ones who comfirm my FAITH the most are the reactions of the non-Christians. If their reactions don’t prove his power and truth “what does”. It’s a shame they don’t come over here on the side of truth and live a truly happy life. Have a great day.
By The72John
May 23, 2006 07:56 AM | Link to this
If their reactions don’t prove his power and truth “what does”
Randy, you’re basically saying that if you were beating someone over the head with a stick and they kept saying “Ow, stop hitting me! Stop hitting me, you SOB”, that their being angry at you for hitting them would prove that you are right and that your version of God exists?
Seriously. Seek help.
By Lyrazel
May 23, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this
We have Moussaoui behind bars. Whoopie. Now he is going to cost the American taxpayer over 200,000/year in incarceration fees on top of major security for his 4x5 cell plus 24 hr suicide guard. (I mean he cant die in jail, god forbid) LOL Now ask what would have happened if an American had been apprehended by the (name the Middle East country here) police for joining a successful bombing plot? Firing squad or decapitation? Place your bets but NEVER would they let the guy live with 3 meals/day, hot showers and comfy quarters.
Here is the joke for all the paranoids who believe our govt. is capable of covert acts using the NSA information of phone number banks. The big chortle comes from reading of the theft of data from the VA. LOL see the government employees selling YOUR data for cash! Wow! And what is to stop a NCLB employee from doing the same with all your childrens records/SSI numbers and home phone/address records COVERTLY collected at school—giggle. Nothing! And you cant do a damn thing about it! Think of it, you are 16. You apply for a college grant and discover your data has ALREADY been compromised—that is where these huge data banks are problems. Think of them as giant levies without ANY way YOU as a citizen can protect yourself against the deluge of data theft running amuck now. Two major banks, three govt. agencies, two credit companies all have had major data theft of information…who is next?
So tell me, why cant the government be held to task for RESPONSIBILITY to maintain all their data banks? Maybe because the govt. really does not comprehend what they have and how easily it can be compromised? Why is it suddenly a veterans responsibility to make sure her data is undistributed and not the Federal Govt who collected data? Why cant we freeze our credit info from being distributed from viewing by unknown/unwanted/government sources? Politics as usual!
You want things to worry about—-why not choose something real instead of believing this govt is capable of anything covert! LOL!
By Renee
May 23, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this
Please no religion today. It’s a pointless subject. Nobody’s changing their mind, at least due to any blog posting.
By Brian Curtis
May 23, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel: I’m not clear on what you’re saying here. Should we be OK with the government’s illegal tracking of phone calls because they’re incompetent?
Somehow, that’s not very reassuring to me.
By E. Lewis
May 23, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this
kimberly, you are right we did arrest, charge and jail terrorists involved in the World Trade Center Bombing in 1993. Of course we know who the president was then.
I should have prefaced my earlier comment by saying that since the 9/11 attacks…………….
By Monica
May 23, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Mara, I didn’t mean to neglect your question. Ideally, we should be able to trust the government. As far as giving up some small civil rights, if the government suggests that such actions will make us safer, then I will trust its judgement. Of course, if there had been no previous threats of any sort that would warrant a sacrifice of civil rights, then I would question it. IMO (insert RF’s copyright here), tracking phone records of all citizens is not a small civil right to privacy. It’s a huge deal. For the record, I am a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide, and I still don’t like the idea of my phones being wired or my phone records tracked.
Hi Julia! How’s it going? We wrapped up our T-ball season last Saturday. How about you?
By Jack
May 23, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
“later darlin’s. Air kisses to all who don’t dwell under fairy tale bridges XXXOOO :^)”
Mara. I thought we were friends?
By Billy
May 23, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
Did we really go an hour without a new post?
By Mara
May 23, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
Jack sweetie, the bridge you live under is made of solid thought and sturdy ideas, not ephemeral flights of gauzy wingnuttery, therefore the XXXOOO’s were partly for you! LOL!
See Monica. That’s where most of us differ, I think. I don’t trust the government (be it under Dems or Reps control…) to be honest with me about what they’re doing and whether they’re guarding my rights while they do it. While I may be able to rationalize the monitoring of law-abiding citizens phone records, I definitely want someone reasonably independant watching the watchers. It isn’t the program itself that most object to, it’s the secrecy and lack of oversight.
By lozen
May 23, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
That Madonna! Ya just gotta love her!
By cd
May 23, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
I think anyone who gets into the business of spying is a freak. And criminals who want to steal personal identities are the only people who are trying to get hold of social security numbers. Some “normal” people don’t think like these nutjobs, and don’t see the danger in giving their personal info away because they just don’t relate. Voyeurs really get off in some messed up way when spying and taking advantage of normal people.
By Jack
May 23, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Thanks Mara. :)
By Mike
May 23, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Is the War on Terror in reality a fearmongering campaign directed against the AMERICAN PUBLIC?
In the name of “fighting terror” the government has been reorganized with new layers of bureacracy (the Department of Homeland Security and the DNI). Draconian legislation has been passed. Military spending has been jacked way up.
Yet, the same corrupt officials who did nothing to protect the country before and on 9/11 are still in office. Doesn’t anyone find that strange?
By kimberly
May 23, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
Mike, yes I find it not only strange, but a sad testimony to the fact that Americans are (at best) not paying attention, and (at worst) too preoccupied with meaningless drivel like a national kareoke contest or their preacher-incited outrage o’ the week to actually pay attention. It’s not hard to see we were, and are currently being, lied to. But people don’t want to see. They’re to busy being grossed out by the idea of gay love, or blaming some teen welfare mother or poor hispanic for the fact that their cost of living is rising faster than their incomes. As if… Sad, but sadly not so strange.
By Jack
May 23, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
Don’t worry Mike. The Republicans have blown it by not protecting our borders and wanting to give social security benefits to illegal aliens. The Democrats should win next go round. BUT you never know, look at what New orleans did.
By Jack
May 23, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
Hi Sweet Thing. :)
By kimberly
May 23, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
Hello, manly one. Looks like no one wants to argue today, huh? Must be the blissfully nice weather. Or perhaps, while we were working, peace on earth, tolerance for all, and an end to ignorance and poverty have been achieved! Woo-HOOOO!
By Jack
May 23, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
Gotta be the weather. :)
By Mara
May 23, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
What’d y’all want to argue about? Can’t really argue about the wiretaps since nobody (on this forum, anyway)really has enough info to decide whether they’re needed, effective, or even legal. On a different, but related note, how many of you know that the Departments of Justice, State, and Homeland Security spend millions buying up commercial databases that contain phone numbers as well as financial and bigraphical data? By using this method, the government neatly bypasses the 1974 Privacy Act as well as the protections and rights of the 4th Amendment. And the funny part? Despite the findings of the Government Accounting Office, all departments are denying that they do it!!
By Renee
May 23, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
It’s definitely not the weather here!! :( I’m definitely considering a move back. This is for the birds!
By RF
May 23, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
Renee- you waterlogged up there yet?? Send some of that down here. The georgia clay dust is flying today!!
By Joe L.
May 23, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
It’s quite simple. Much as our Founding Fathers well understood, any power you give government should be assumed to be abused at some point. So if you aren’t comfortable with the ABUSES of a power, don’t give it to the government. I don’t think many people here would like the abuses of being held without accusation, being easedropped without warrant, and being tortured.
By Renee
May 23, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
Waterlogged is an understatement. We are in the process of gathering up animals 2 x 2 lol. It has rained, and rained, and rained. And guess what is in the forecast. MORE RAIN! I don’t even remember what sun looks like anymore.
I was already in the beginning stages of major depression and this weather is helping NONE!
By Monica
May 23, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
Did anyone catch the season finale of 24 last night? I’m telling you, Jack Bauer is my hero. He can fly a chopper and a plane, weasel a confession out of someone, remove a bullet from someone’s side while managing to stop the bleeding, and get the blueprints to any federal building downloaded to his PDA! I also want to know who his cell phone service provider is. He never has a bad connection, and he apparently can use his cell phone extensively for 24 hours without having to re-charge it!
By Jack
May 23, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
Renee’. Please don’t load up any mosquitoes or gnats on your ark. LOL
By RF
May 23, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
Renee- you thought you were moving to New England. Sounds more like Seattle, doesn’t it? LOL
By Scalia
May 23, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
Hi RF…how’s it hanging? (hehehe) Have the students run you off?
And Jack, no, I am a big Spurs fan. I was rooting and cheering when they won on Friday. But alas, they lost and will not be going to the finals.
By Zack
May 23, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
GOB, I read over some of your comments about me last week. Why don’t you contribute something to the conversation as opposed to throwing around adolescent statements? You’re sounding an awful lot like John and a few others.
I said last week that this country was founded upon the Bible, and it was. You can tell me I’m wrong, but you can’t support your statement.
As for phone conversations , if our homeland security requires it, so be it.
By Renee
May 23, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
No mosquito’s or gnats, I promise lol.
It does sound a lot more like Seattle. I’m hating it up here right now. I want to move back home so badly, but my partner is not going to be in agreement with that. I’ve already brought it up every way I know how, including planning the romantic evening to “talk”. I’ve gotten the same answer….NO!
By RF
May 23, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
Scalia- hangin’ is all it’s doing!! LOL I love my kids this year, but I’m soooooo ready for them to go and bother momma for a few weeks! How ‘bout you?
By Jack
May 23, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
I thought you would be a Mavericks fan. (you know horses and all. LOL)
By Netbanker
May 23, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
We are in the process of gathering up animals 2 x 2 Renee….don’t forget to consult that web site on the ark since the fundies have already figured out how to save every living thing in a boat 40 cubits by 40 cubits. And don’t forget the dino eggs!!
perhaps, while we were working, peace on earth, tolerance for all, and an end to ignorance and poverty have been achieved! Woo-HOOOO! Oh thank God! I’m having a really sh itty week already and could use some good news. Damn! I just realized that list didn’t fix laziness. You Hooo! God? You forgot to fix the laziness! If you’re not too tired we have one more thing that needs a some fixin’.
By kimberly
May 23, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Monica, Yes, Jack Bauer is my hero as well! Honestly, though. They TOTALLY need to get him a new chick for next season. I am SO OVER this one! He’s wayyyyy too hot for her! Poor Chloe. She had a rough day too.
By Jack
May 23, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
Net. You can’t fix lazy or stupid.
By Scalia
May 23, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
RF—I’m also ready. I am going to miss some of my kids. They are nice, and do whatever I ask them to do.
What’s that I read recently about a guy wanting a guy that is half man and part horse? It was funny whatever it was.
By Netbanker
May 23, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
I said last week that this country was founded upon the Bible, and it was. You can tell me I’m wrong, but you can’t support your statement. Zack…what about ME?! Am I wrong too even after I gave you a treaty that says specifically we aren’t founded on Christianity? And links from scholarly types that says so too based on a treaty ratified by our very own Senate in the 1780’s right after we became a country?
Where is YOUR support for YOUR statement? Why isn’t the Bible mentioned in the Declaration of Independence OR the Constitution OR the Bill of Rights OR even the record of the Continental Congress that wrote 2 out of the 3 documents mentioned above as a book on which our country was founded? Link? Book? Article? Something? Anything?
By Harold
May 23, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
6000% as many Americans have been killed by cars since 9/11/2001 than were killed by terrorists on 9/11/2001.
So, where is our War on Cars?
By Netbanker
May 23, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
Oh…right, Jack. I forgot that God made them that way in his own image. Hey wait! Does that make God lazy and stupid too?
By blablabla
May 23, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
From Sanhan:
I think the NSA is collecting a database on all phone users as a means of catagorizing us as friends or enemies of the state.
and…
This administration’s penchant for smearing and defaming its critics, along with the signing statements, secret rendition, torture, lack of due process, secrecy, bending the constitution and granting unprecedented power to the executive, ignoring and destroying the balance of powers…
ironically, if this was 1998 i would think we were talking about bill clinton. funny how selective everybody’s memories are about the fbi filegate fiasco, and chris lehane/mark fabiani, the most recent masters from the left of the politics of personal destruction. the party out of power always accuses the party in power of abusing its authority.
By RF
May 23, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Scalia- I’ve heard that one somewhere. Most of the ones I’ve met lately have turned out to be the horse’s butt! LOLOL
My kids keep coming back. I still get hugs from them two years later. I ran into one last night that I taught 6-7 years ago. Talk about feeling old!! She’s married with kids now, but she made a point to come across the room to my table to talk. Keeps me focused on why I do this every year! Big plans for your summer?
By Netbanker
May 23, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
OK…I know I won’t be here on Friday and this was too funny not to share:
See what your stripper name will be, and share it with your friends:
We all need a little stress-reliever! This only takes a minute. Please don’t be a prude and ruin it. Send it on to everyone you know including the person that sent it to you.
Sometimes when you have a stressful day or week, you need some silliness to break up the day. And, if we are honest, we have a lot more stressful days than not. Here is your dose of humor…
A. Follow the instructions to find your new name.
B. Once you have your new name, put it in the subject box and forward it to friends and family and co-workers. Don’t forget to forward it back to the person who sent it to you, so they know you participated.
a = Fantasia b = Chesty c = Starr d = Diamond e = Montana f = Angel g = Sugar h = Mimi i = Lola j =Kitty k = Roxie l = Dallas m = Princess n = Heidi o = Bambi p = Bunny q = Brandy r = Sugar s = Candy t = Raquelle u = Sapphire v = Cinnamon w = Blaze x = Trixie y = Isis z = Jade
a = Leather b = Dream c = Sunny d = Deep e = Heaven f = Tight g = Shimmer h = Velvet i = Lusty j = Harley k = Passion l = Dazzle m = Dixon n = Spank o = Glitter p = Razor q = Meadow r = Glitz s = Sparkle t = Sweet u = Silver v = Tickle w = Cherry x = Hard y = Night z = Amber
a = hooter b = horn c = tower d = fire e = thighs f = hips g = side h = jugs i = shock j = cocker k = brook l = tush m = sizzle n = ridge o = kiss p = bomb q = cream r = thong s = heat t = whip u = cheeks v = rock w = hiney x = button y = lick z = juice
So if you ever happen to be in an establishment with a Montana Glitz-Hooter I’d appreciate a BIG tip.
By RF
May 23, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Speaking of stupid, what is it with folks on I-75? Did they just not tell me that the left lane is now the slow lane?
By blablabla
May 23, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
bauer rules. i think he needs a hotter hottie as well. audrey just isn’t doing it, although she did look better this season than last. mrs. bla can’t stand her.
but thank g-d we got rid of sherry palmer. she was always messing things up with her dirty paws.
and the interaction between chloe and her ex hubby was hysterical.
By Renee
May 23, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
haaaaaaaaaa….NET!!! I needed that today.
From now on please refer to me as Bambi Meadow-Cheeks!
By Netbanker
May 23, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Harold…why is everything the goverment does these days suddenly a war? Maybe we’d start winning a few more wars if we stopped declaring them on non-entities like terror, drugs, homelessness, poverty.
By Zack
May 23, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, please don’t try to pass off gay “love” as being natural, because it isn’t.
Here comes the typical liberal response. Who knows what I’ll be called this time?
By RF
May 23, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
From now on please refer to me as Bambi Meadow-Cheeks!
Is that because the cheeks are big as a meadow?? LOL
And dancing next to you is the utterly fab-u-lous Bambi Silver-heat!!
By Monica
May 23, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
Okay, Net, I had to stop what I was doing so that I could determine my new name. My husband should love it: Heidi Dixon-Shock!
By Renee
May 23, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
I actually like that better than Anastasia Beaverhausen (which I always found toooo funny)
By Renee
May 23, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, please don’t try to pass off gay “love” as being natural, because it isn’t.
I agree!!! (lol, trying reverse psychology)
By Renee
May 23, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
Tooo funny RF….I am cracking up over here!!!
With your name you have to be fabulous!
By Harold
May 23, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
Cars do exist, so we can have a successful war on them. We have hello copters that can explode them with a missile.
By RF
May 23, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
I’m just cracking up over the image of *meadow-cheeks”, peeling off the flowers and meadow grass patches as the music booms!! LOL
What is the fascination with those places? Who wants to look and not touch? As if that weren’t enough, you have to pay to get in!! I don’t get it!
By Mara (aka Sugar Glitterhorn)
May 23, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Ah, but Harold…Wouldn’t that be auto-cide and not “war”, since they’re basically helpless victims?
By Brian Curtis
May 23, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
Netb: “the party out of power always accuses the party in power of abusing its authority.”
And the funny thing is, they’re always right, too.
.-.
Zack: “This country was founded on the Bible… Gay love is unnatural… Who knows what I’ll be called this time?”
Well, you’ll be called “wrong.” Because you are, and you’ve bee proven wrong time and time again.
Not that it matters, since you usually ignore any evidence or argument that proves you wrong and go back to repetition as if that constituted a valid argument.
So here’s my name-calling: Zack, you’re wrong.
.-.
“If our national security requires it [phone conversation monitoring], so be it.”
Well, no. Not even slightly, not even close. Real Americans don’t cower under their beds and trade their freedoms for the promise of safety. But then, real Americans weren’t successfully terrorized by 9/11, despite the administration’s best efforts to whip up that fear. The fact is, “national security” has always been a lame excuse for seizing more police power.
That may explain why Bush’s approval ratings keep dropping… people are tired of being afraid and watching all the governmental abuses of power being justified “in the name of 9/11.” That excuse has worn thin.
America is NOT—-repeat, NOT-—under attack by an enemy who can really hurt us. We’re more likely to do it to ourselves in a panicky overreaction to what was, essentially, a sucker punch. And no amount of shredding the Constitution is going to make us “safe” from something like that.
By Brian Curtis
May 23, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
Whoops… been proven wrong.
By Netbanker
May 23, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
please don’t try to pass off gay “love” as being natural, because it isn’t And your supporting research for THAT statement in light of numerous zoological studies proving and documenting same-sex behaviors among numerous species? You can look on the National Geographic website to find them.
By Jack
May 23, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Bauer has nothing on me.
By Netbanker
May 23, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Well I see we’re going to have to have a Dance Off with the Bambi’s (Renee and RF) against Glitter and Glitz (Mara and Net)
By Netbanker
May 23, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
Jack Bauer vs McGyver…who would win?
By Renee
May 23, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Oh, the Bambi’s will take that!! Glitter and Glitz will be mere confetti after we’re done.
By Zoe
May 23, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
If gay love isn’t natural then what is it…unnatural? Supernatural?
Unnatural implies something doesn’t occur in nature…
falling in love occurs in nature… humans are part of nature… gays are humans… gays are part of nature also… gays falling in love is part of nature..i.e., natural.
Zack feel free to refute this…
Will you use any type of logic or just post an irrational rant…I can’t wait to read your response..
By Netbanker
May 23, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this
Heidi Dixon-Shock…serve a little Swiss Miss cocoa and dress up in one of those cutesy outfits and he’ll DEFINITELY love it! Yodelay he who? (oh my! that takes on a whole new meaning, doesn’t it?!)
By Netbanker
May 23, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
Yeah right. Glitter and Glitz will be so dazzling the Bambi’s will be caught like dear caught in the head lights!
By Netbanker
May 23, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
oops…that’s deer not dear.
By kimberly
May 23, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
Zack, why don’t YOU find somebody to love, and then actually love him or her (as in “love” the VERB, not some idealogical concept), and then you’ll be (a) too busy, and (b) too happy to worry about other peoples’ private business? Try it, whydoncha!
By Archie
May 23, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
“America is NOT—-repeat, NOT-—under attack by an enemy who can really hurt us. We’re more likely to do it to ourselves in a panicky overreaction to what was, essentially, a sucker punch. And no amount of shredding the Constitution is going to make us “safe” from something like that.”
Brian I said that weeks ago but it’s like talking to the wind. 19 people caused us to spend billions of dollars. We’re fighting a gang with the most high tech weaponry of all time. I have to admit I have never heard of gay activity in animals but it does not matter since I decided awhile back that a person’s sex life is just that, a person’s sex life. This whole gay thing proves that man simply does not know everything.
By kimberly
May 23, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
Jack, can you growl in my ear and make me trust you with my life in less than five seconds like Bauer can? (oooo, goosebumps!)
By Jack
May 23, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
2 seconds. :)
By The72John
May 23, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
The party out of power may always accuse the other of abusing its authority, but this administration responds with “So what - I’m the President and you can’t stop me”. That’s what makes this administration different and far more frightening than other administrations past, be they Republican or Democrat.
He’s the Decider, after all.
By RF
May 23, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
Everyone loves cute little Bambi!! Well, I wouldn’t call it little, but I digress!! LOL The Bambi’s will surely show you G-strings what FABULOUS is really about!! (snapping fingers and areched eyebrows implied).
By RF
May 23, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
arched, not areched. I hope I drive better than I spell this time of day…
By Gary Harrison
May 24, 2006 07:59 AM | Link to this
Zoe: Way off the original subject but gay “love” IS unnatural. If you see two male or two females of almost any life-type on Earth produce offspring together, I might reconsider this. But you won’t, because it IS not designed by Nature, i.e., God to happen. On that same note God says in numerous places that it is abomination for a man to lay with a man like he is a woman and abomination for a woman to lay with another woman like she is a man. Abomination is nasty. It stinks to God. But YOU, being Biblically illiterate, don’t know that and probably do that as a result. Don’t believe me. You WILL see. God is real and any type of sin makes Him very angry, which an individual BETTER fear. Mock me. Laugh at me. Call me a crazy homophobe. Quote lies at me. It only underscores your final destiny: a lake of fire. Once that happens, I bet you won’t laugh.
By Brian Curtis
May 24, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this
Gary: The topic is wiretapping, not gay-bashing.
And God designed creatures to do all kinds of activities that don’t result in offspring, such as picking bugs off each other and eating them. I suggest you try it before knocking God’s plan.
By Brian Curtis
May 24, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this
Gary, Randy, and others like him illustrate a common problem when religious zealots post on discussion forums: they don’t listen.
They don’t WANT to listen. They’re not HERE to listen. That’s not their purpose in coming here. They’re not even preaching, since that implies a sincere effort to persuade people (a legitimate forum activity). They just make their pronouncements, shower everyone with contempt, and run away.
This leads to the obvious question… Why DO they come here? Answer: To show off their faith. Zealotry isn’t driven by compassion or knowledge, like sincere faith is; where fundamentalism devolves entirely into hate, the middle stage of zealotry is best characterized by insecure arrogance.
The zealot is drawn to his faith because it makes him feel superior, but that’s not enough. He has to SHOW he’s superior to everyone else. And one handy way to do that is to come to a “discussion” forum and loudly refuse to discuss anything. (Yes, that makes sense in the crazy world of the zealot!)
After declaring “Nothing anyone says or shows me will convince me otherwise”—-thus negating the purpose of discussion—the zealot then announces that All Who Disagree With Me Shall Burn, nyah nyah… and runs away. This, he tells himself, counts as “spreading the gospel,” and its lack of acceptance makes him a holy martyr. He feels virtuous and noble: mission accomplished.
Then, when the buzz wears off, he comes back for another round and another hit of endorphins. It’s a safe and reliable high, because all disagreement or dismissal he encounters gets chalked up to the “martyrdom he endures for his faith.” Sometimes they run to a mirror to see if a halo has appeared yet.
Since responding doesn’t work (by definition) and ignoring them only results in escalation (and is hard to enforce forum-wide), I think the best response is simple mockery. One thing the zealot’s fragile ego can’t handle is laughter.
So fire off a joke or two and move on with the topic at hand, folks; don’t let the zealots get you down.
By Monica (Heidi)
May 24, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this
I’d much rather continue the discussion of 24. Net: Bauer vs. McGyver, gee that’s a tough one. Bauer does have the technology edge that Mcgyver didn’t have access to, but McGyver could make a bomb out of a pencil, a gum wrapper, and duct tape!
Kimberly and blahblah, don’t be so hard on Audrey Rains! Actually, I’m partial because I loved watching Kim Raver (Audrey) on Third Watch, the NBC series that ended a few years ago. She has evolved nicely as an actress. Kimberly, I did forget to mention that Jack Bauer is hot!
By RF
May 24, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this
Brian- I find that most can’t understand the word zealot if you give them a dictionary! LOL
By Jack
May 24, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this
Brian. Julia is a fine example of how a Christian should act. She has her beliefs and states them on the forum to show her faith without trying to push those beliefs on to others. She promotes her faith by being a good example for us to witness. You go girl.
By Sanhan
May 24, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this
Good morning. Thought I’d pass this along.
www.truthout.org/docs
Editorial from Truthout
“So, what is the real purpose of Bush’s NSA spying program? Is terrorism being used as a cover to collect reams of information about Americans to establish a central database? Could there be political motives?
Given this history, is it such a stretch to think the White House might find this information useful in helping Republican candidates hold on to national power in 2008? You really think it would never occur to Bush or Karl Rove that private knowledge of which Democratic supporters were contributing to which candidates, or which campaign advisers were leaking to which reporters, would be an advantage in a tough campaign? Or that a little listen-in to their conversations might produce a few votes? We don’t know that this thought ever crossed their minds, but there’s so much we don’t know about what they are thinking. So we just have to trust the integrity of the administration’s public statements. Oh, goodie. Do you feel safer now?
Given that Bush rejected the ThinThread (Clinton’s method, also reviewed on Truthout web site) program that is reported to be both effective at finding terrorists and provide protection to privacy rights, one just has to wonder at the real reason for the NSA program.”
Seems to me that this administration is less interested in catching terrorists and more interested in keeping us afraid. Scared people are more willing to give up freedoms.
Again, the similarities of Nazi Germany keep appearing: The burning of Reichstag (our 9/11), the rise of religious-based patriotism, the collection of data, privitazation and war profiteering, and convincing citizens that giving up their rights will keep them safe (Kristalnacht).
Anyone want to review the rise of fascism fun facts again?
By Renee
May 24, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
I have to agree Jack. Julia does do a good job. It’s about being strong in your faith and being mindful that it is “your” faith.
The way the gay bashing is starting, one would think that a gay person on here is trying to convert a straight person. I mean if any gay person on here spent as much time trying to convert someone straight as Chuck and the crew do with the religion, it would be comical.
On the for real, who cares what Randy, Gary or anyone feels about the “sinful gays”.
Monica, I would enjoy continuing the 24 discussion except for one thing. I don’t watch it LOL. Idol, Desperate Housewives, House anyone? I want to be able to join in.
By blablabla
May 24, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
but this administration responds with “So what - I’m the President and you can’t stop me”. That’s what makes this administration different and far more frightening than other administrations past, be they Republican or Democrat.
c’mon, john. you don’t think most presidents think and act like they can do whatever they want, to he!! with the law? bill clinton didn’t act like he was above the law in your mind?
forget presidents, don’t you think most politicians think they’re above the law? a great example from this past weekend - the fbi raid the office of william jefferson with a legal warrant because of suspicions of him taking bribes (and they got him on tape), and they find 90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer. in the halls of congress, our leaders aren’t furious about one of their colleagues taking cash bribes. instead, they’re furious that the justice department would search a congressman’s office. how dare congress have to live under the laws the rest of us have to.
they all think they’re above the law and can’t be touched. it’s nothing new.
By Jack
May 24, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
Sandy. I know Renee’ has had bunches of rain in Vermont. Are you guys flooding there in upstate New York?
By blablabla
May 24, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
oh, and i love my new name…
isis leather-tower
:)
By Monica
May 24, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
Ooh, House is my other show (given that I have two small children, the 3 shows I watch are on at 9:00 after the boys are in bed) that I love!! Last night had me reeling, Renee! How does Hugh Laurie lose that British accent? Can you picture a Southerner (like me) attempting to speak without a drawl? I don’t think it’s possible. :)
As you can all see, humor is my defense/escape mechanism. I don’t like the tension on the blog when anyone begins to rant and rave, be they gay, straight, religious, agnostic, or atheist. Debate is one thing; bashing another person or group of people is another. I too am a Christian with fairly conservative beliefs, but I know that I won’t win anyone over by bashing.
By FatMoose
May 24, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
Back from a MUCH needed vacation in Cancun/Cozumel and all turned out pretty incredible.
Nothing like a fresh new relationship to put your last one in perspective! Geez, I was an idiot to have stuck in it for so long. Funny how you loose perspective when inside a bad relationship; I began thinking all of them were as futile.
Do you all think these zealots do this in real life? Walk into a room and begin declaring their god, and themselves, as supreme? Kind of a funny/scary thought.
By FatMoose
May 24, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
BTW - I am Sugar Leather Tush;)
By blablabla
May 24, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
taylor hicks cleaned house last nite. that dude won idol pretty convincingly. and yes, mrs. bla makes me watch.
and monica, i think bauer would whup up on mcgyver, although now i have the theme song stuck in my head, so thanks a lot.
By Renee
May 24, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
Hugh Laurie, IMO, is a phenomenal actor. It is amazing how he totally loses that accent for his part. I know they are not going to kill him off (the show couldn’t be called House anymore). But I think it was a fabulous Season Finale.
I too hate when debates turn personal. I especially hate when one person cannot respect the fact that another has an opinion which is opposite of theirs. I hate when another tries to pass off an opinion as a fact. There are some that will talk all day and berate others and have no desire to listen to what another may have to offer.
By Renee
May 24, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this
bla - I concur!!!
By Mara (aka Sugar Glitterhorn)
May 24, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
hey Gary? You do know that lying is just as bad in Gods eyes as same sex fornication, right? (Perhaps even worse, since he didn’t seem to find homosexuality important enough to include on the Big 10) I’m assuming that since you are such a biblical scholar you know that you’re lying when you write “On that same note God says in numerous places that it is abomination for a man to lay with a man like he is a woman and abomination for a woman to lay with another woman like she is a man.” The Bible only names homosexuality an “abomination” once, not “in numerous places” and it doesn’t actually say anything about lesbianism at all. Not even the Domininist/Reconstructionist wackos pretend that it does. And since “any type of sin makes God angry” you best get to prayin’ fer forgiveness for your lying ways. Oh, and next time you decide to jump into a forum and preach about how scripturally illiterate everyone is, you should actually read some of the archived posts. In this case most of our regulars are quite familiar with the Bible, and many of us with the texts of other religions as well.
sheesh. As if Zack and chuck weren’t bad enough…
By RF
May 24, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
Monica- you’re like Julia. You live your life and show people what a good life you have. People want that peace and happiness, not the “God’s gonna getcha” brand of religion many espouse. So many think you can logically argue a person to an acceptance of something in their spirit, which is guided more by emotion than intellect anyway. The few that argue, rant, and preach condemnation sure do give the true christians a bad name and lose the power of witnessing. It isn’t about convincing or heaping guilt, it’s about simply being a vessel to let the spirit reach out to do the convincing. Keep it up!
By Renee
May 24, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
Well put RF, especially “lose the power of witnessing”.
I am too attached to the tiara to give it up, however.
By RF
May 24, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
That’s okay Renee. I can never seem to get the shoes dyed the right shade anyway, and those pointy toes just hurt after a while!! LOL
I agree with you about the berating. I’ve fallen into that abyss a few times, and it really just ends up sounding like a playground fight “he did it first…nuh-uhh, you did, no you did!!” (can you tell I’ve been refereeing a lot lately??—LOL)
By Mara (aka Sugar Glitterhorn)
May 24, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
oooohhhh. House! Love that show. Last nights episode was especially good. Can’t wait til next season to find out if the Ketamine(?) therapy he asked for will work as well in “real life” as it did in his hallucination…
bla, hate to disagree but I think MacGyver would make Bauer look like an idiot. Bauer is tough, quick, and amoral…but MacGyver is clever and smart. I mean, really. MacGyver could defuse a nuclear bomb with a paperclip and a gum wrapper. Jacks gotta try and fly it to a remote location and let it explode…LOL!
By Shhh
May 24, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
Bla, surely you see the difference between an entrenched expectation of privilege and an administration that has its spokespeople and chief officials stand up before the American public and say “We don’t think we need to obey this law because we don’t want to”?
And when did “It always happens” become an excuse or justification?
By Sanhan
May 24, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
Hey Jack- We had a lot of rain last week, but no flooding. Everything is very, very green. You can see the pollen washing away on the concrete, which I don’t remember ever seeing in Upstate New York before I moved to Atlanta… The temperatures are going up into the 70s this week, but can still dip into the 40s at night.
I miss the beautiful and early spring of Atlanta, but nice weather is rarely taken for granted up here.
Bla, it’s about the legality of the search. If a member of congress is illegally searched with no outcry, then what’s to stop illegal searching of the regular folk? It’s a balance of powers issue as well. If they’ve got that much evidence against Jefferson, why would they risk blowing the case with an illegal search, or having it go to the Supreme Court? Perhaps it’s their one chance to ostentatiously convict a Democrat to take the attention away from Safavian, Reed, Norquist, DeLay, Rove, Libby, etc? Or to take attention away from the fact that the Attorney General is doing everything he can to shut down free press and reporting?
By Jack
May 24, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
They had a warrant to search Jefferson’s house. How is that illegal? Congress just wants to be above the law. Put him under the jail with the guy that just killed his wife and two toddlers.
By Monica
May 24, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Jack,
Being buried under the jail is too good for the man who killed his wife and babies. You, know, demonic possession is the only thing I can use to rationalize an act such as that.
By Jack
May 24, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
I thought of that after I posted that Monica. I would love to bring pictures of the wife and kids and 10 minutes in the cell with him.
By Jack
May 24, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
This about sums it up!!!
A little boy goes to his dad and asks, “What are Politics?”
Dad says, “Well son, let me try to explain it this way:
1. I’m the head of the family, so call me The President. 2. Your mother is the administrator of the money, so we call her theGovernment.
3. We’re here to take care of your needs, so we’ll call you the People. 4. The nanny, we’ll consider her the Working Class. 5. And your baby brother, we’ll call him the Future.“Now, think about that and see if it makes sense.” So, the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said.
Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has severely soiled his diaper. So, the little boy goes to his parent’s room and finds his mother sound asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny’s room. Finding the door locked, he looks in the peephole and finds his father in bed with the Nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed.
The next morning, the little boy says to his father, “Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now.”
The father says, “Good, son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about.”
The little boy replies, “The President is screwing the Working Class while the Government is sound asleep! The People are being ignored and the Future is in deep s-h-i-t.”
By The72John
May 24, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
I recently heard a quote - “Revenge is the lowest form of Justice”.
By Jack
May 24, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Yes John. I also heard revenge is best served cold.
By RF
May 24, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
I recently heard a quote - “Revenge is the lowest form of Justice”.
But, sometimes it’s just so dang fun!
I’m with Jack—make the guy suffer for killing his wife and babies. God will handle him, I’m sure, so let’s send him there in the express lane.
By Monica
May 24, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
“Revenge is the lowest form of Justice”.
But it’s cheaper and will save taxpayers thousands! LOL
By Georgia Peach
May 24, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
One would almost think the media is complicit in hiding the real facts about the attacks of 9/11, because they continue to repeat the propaganda of the true evil doers ad nauseum since 9/11. Bush had over fifty specific, detailed warnings that Bin Ladin was “determined to strike in the U.S.”, including many from foreign intelligence services, as well as the famous August 6th presidential daily briefing from the CIA. He was warned that Al Qaeda intended to use airplanes to crash into American buildings, despite Condoleeza’s Rice’s forked-tongued, false denials. “Who could have imagined…” Well, it didn’t take much imagination since they were specifically warned. The media won’t tell you and the 9/11 Commission, staffed by ethically-challenged stooges, hand-selected by the Bush administration and managed by a Bush insider, hid vast amounts of information from the public, protected the terrorist-funding Saudis, stiff-armed the 9/11 victims’ families and stifled U.S. government whistleblowers who knew that the government knew before 9/11 what was coming. Yet Bush pretended ignorance and stayed on vacation, clearing brush. Ashcroft stopped taking commercial flights and told the FBI he was “tired of hearing about terrorism”. Cheney orchestrated “war games” on 9/11, which simulated planes flying into buildings, after rescheduling the training exercises originally designed to take place in October. On 9/11, Rummy, the Secretary of DEFENSE hid in his office until the Pentagon was attacked, pretending he was “out of the loop” and uninformed. Bush sat reading My Pet Goat to students and the Secret Service did not rush him from the school upon hearing the words “America is under attack”. Why didn’t the Secret Service rush the President to a place of safety immediately? They knew that no planes were heading to Florida. THEY KNEW. So please don’t tell me that we should give up our civil liberties and our privacy, which the U.S. Constitution protects. The Founding Fathers envisioned a day such as this when charlatans would abuse their power and lie to the people. Americans have fought and died to protect our freedoms and yet the quaking, uninformed masses are only too eager to hand over those precious rights in exchange for the notion of false security. Wake up, America, and do not trust anyone who promises to protect you, if only you hand over your Consitutional rights. The same people who have sworn to defend the Constitution now trample that very document and all its solemn protections. Remember all those dire warnings and orange alerts just before the 2004 election? Why did they disappear immediately after the election? Think about it, America. It’s still our country and we ourselves must rise up and take responsibility for protecting our freedoms and our lives. Trust no one who has lied to you over and over and usurped your rights. Especially do not trust those who wrote prior to the 2000 election in the Project for a New American Century, the Neocon manifesto, that they needed a New Pearl Harbor to win the support of the American people for their agenda of perpetual war for greed and empire. Choosing safety over freedom is a cowardly act, not worthy of American patriots. Stand tall, stand fast and insist on freedom and security. Do not trust the very people who have gained their power through lies, intimidation and false promises. Seek the truth about 9/11, demand real investigations and real justice for every victim of 9/11, those who died that day and those who have died since, due to this phony “War on Terror”, which we are told will not end in our lifetime. Do it because you love your country and do it for the future of your children. Do it because Patrick Henry’s words “Give me liberty or give me death” were not just quaint words for another time. Too much American blood has been spilled for us to cower blindly in the presence of true evil. Demand the truth and work for justice.
By Jack
May 24, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Georgia Peach. I take it you work for the government? Quite a story you tell. What about Sudan offering BinLaden to Bill Clinton and no action on his part? Oh I forgot, everything is Bush’s fault.
By Mara (aka Sugar Glitterhorn)
May 24, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Jack, it wasn’t the search of Jefferson’s home that is causing the controversy. It was the search of his congressional office. Many see the search as a breach of the seperations of powers and a violation of the Constitutions “Speech and Debate” clause. By searching and rifling through Jeffersons papers, many of which were surely unrelated to the criminal proceeding but most pertaining to his legislative activities, Gonzalas’ men probably did either tread upon, or at least tippy toe around, the clause.
By tenshi
May 24, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
Jack, the oft-repeated story about Sudan offer bin Laden to Clinton is untrue. Read about it here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008
By Mara
May 24, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
Yeah, Jack, sure. Why is it that when the actions of George Dubya are laid out as they are perceived by some individuals, we never hear much about the actual “charges”? What we usually get is “But Bill Clinton did…(insert charge)and it was far worse! Bush is soooo misunderstood”
And if you bothered to find out why Clinton didn’t extradite Bin Laden…it was pretty much because the Sudan didn’t actually offer him to the U.S., they offered him to the Saudis. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.
GOP propaganda and misinformation aside, the facts are easy enough to find if you care to know the truth. Even the 9/11 Commission dismissed this story as an urban myth.
By Mara
May 24, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
Monica, Jack, etc - what do y’all think of this “woman of faith”?
San Francisco - “A woman accused of killing her three young sons by tossing them into frigid San Francisco Bay believed God summoned her to sacrifice her children, her lawyer told a judge.
“The voice of God called upon her to sacrifice her three children,” Teresa Caffese said at the woman’s preliminary hearing in San Francisco Superior Court.
Lashaun Harris, 23, was arrested last October, shortly after authorities said she dropped her children, one by one, over a rail and into the bay.
Taronta Greeley Jr., 2, was buried. The bodies of Treyshun Harris, 6, and Joshoa Greeley, 16 months, were never recovered.”
Just like Abraham and Isaac, except God wasn’t kidding this time…
By The72John
May 24, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
It’s not about blaming Bush for everything, it’s about expecting him to take some shred of responsibility for the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
If we want to blame any one thing for 9/11, it SHOULD be the culture of secrecy between the various intelligence agencies that are supposed to be protecting us. There is significant evidence that various agencies knew enough about the parts of the whole to have stopped the plot, had they only been willing to communicate with each other.
As for Bush, there is overwhelming evidence that he dismissed the dangers of terrorism upon taking office in favor of pursuing his vendetta with Iraq. There ARE documents AND reports from members of the intelligence community that indicate that on the day Bush took office, terrorism took a back-burner to Iraq.
Do I think Bush could have stopped 9/11 personally? No. But do I blame his administration and the blinkered conquer Iraq focus that was its halmark from Day One for making it easier to Al Qaeda to carry out its strike? Do I blame him for then pretending that he was actually interested in stopping bin Laden and not just looking for an excuse to invade Iraq? I sure do.
By The72John
May 24, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
And Jack, tell me how your “Blame Clinton and Carter” is any better than “Blame Bush”? How is it more reasonable or more accurate?
How about “Blame Reagan for supporting Bin Laden and making him the man he is today” or “Blame Reagan for making Hussein the man he is today”? These are facts, Jack. Both these men were supported and elevated to power by the Reagan administration, but all I hear from you is “Blame Clinton” and “Blame Carter”. Interestingly enough, the things that you lay at their feet, on research, all turn out to be factually inaccurate.
By Jack
May 24, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
Mara. I think she is probably sitting in Satan’s lap about now. As far as the search. Cops will tear apart anywhere they search and will not clean up the mess even when nothing is found. I’m surprised they didn’t do a cavity search on him.
By The72John
May 24, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this
I think she is probably sitting in Satan’s lap about now
Yes, because people with severe, extreme chemical imbalances and mental disorders like schyzophrenia are evil and completely responsible for their actions.
By Jack
May 24, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Oh I forgot she didn’t drown. Satan is waiting for her.
John. I recall saying Carter had no gonads. I may have blamed him for the 20+% interest rates when he was in office. He needs to stick to building houses. He was the worst prez ever. (but that is only my opinion)
By kimberly
May 24, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
Mara, thanks for de-bunking that “Clinton turned down Osama’s head on a platter!” hogwash. (As IF he would turn down a little head anyway… HELLO?) Clinton and his people were not the ones arming middle-eastern dictators and doing BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BUSINESS with the Bin Laden and Saudi royal families for decades, or helping them leave the country without interrogation on September 12th. BTW, anyone think they know what happened at Tora Bora? (If you do, you might wind up in Gitmo tomorrow.)
By Jack
May 24, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Thats right John. Blame it on chemical imbalances. let’s nip it in the bud and drug all of our children so they can be good little robots.
By kimberly
May 24, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
Hi Jack. This t-shirt of truth disagrees with you.
By Mara
May 24, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
Jack - on the search. nobody cares about the strewn paperwork. It’s the search itself, that action, that may have been unConstitutional.
and why is Abraham revered for being strong in his faith but this woman is assumed to be crazy and damned? What’s the difference other than God giving Abraham a good “I was just kidding…”? How many evangelicals truly believe that they hear God “speaking” to them? (lots I think. My BFF converted many years ago and she didn’t think it was odd when Bush said that he listens to God….) Shouldn’t the woman be lauded for listening to God?
By Jack
May 24, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
Ms. Yates who drowned her 5 children must have also had an imbalance. She should be set free so she can have more children, we mustn’t deny her that freedom since it wasn’t her fault. Brian Nicoles should go free since he had an imbalance, he really didn’t mean to kill those people at the courthouse.
By The72John
May 24, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Carter was not effective as President, no. Too much diplomacy, too little ruthlessness to be effective in the abattoir that is Washingto DC.
However, he has done more to “spread democracy” since leaving office than George Bush will ever do with his wars, and certainly more after leaving the Presidency than W will do the next 20 years comfortably raking in lectureship honorariums.
By Mara
May 24, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
thanks kimberly. one of the things that drives me so nuts about debating politics these days is the tendancy of the public to believe something if they hear it often enough. I think that it is assumed that if the other side doesn’t dignify the charge with a defense, why…it must be true. That’s one reason why I seldom make difinitive statements of belief until I’ve done some checking (factcheck.org rules!) And you’re right on the money about the Reagan years. How soon we forget about stuff like Iran-Contra…
anyway, gotta take the honey-bunny to the doctor. see ya tomorrow all!
By Scalia
May 24, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
RF—my summer will be spent studying. How about you?
And that was funny about visiting those places, Bambi. It is nice to get a lap dance here and there. If you pay enough, they do all sorts of tricks. :)
And Gary, the lake of fire is funny. How does a lake of fire work? Is gasoline on top and a match thrown on top of it? Or is it a lake of lava similarly to what changed Anakin to Darth Vader? Who knows, all of the sinners could end up leading the empire? Storm troopers might be fun.
By Jack
May 24, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
“and why is Abraham revered for being strong in his faith but this woman is assumed to be crazy and damned? “
Ask those who wrote the bible. I wasn’t there.
Kim. I think it was Uncle Jimmy who armed Iran before it hit the fan. Besides we all know polticians are like dirty diapers.
By The72John
May 24, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Thats right John. Blame it on chemical imbalances. let’s nip it in the bud and drug all of our children so they can be good little robots
Hi Jack. Welcome to the real world of science. Schizophrenia is a real illness that causes people to sometimes do terrible things. And it is caused by chemical imbalances. And modern medicine is often able to mitigate that through the use of medications that cause people who are otherwise incappable of living a normal life to do so.
What does treating a real, diagnosable illness have to do with drugging all the children into robots? Medicating those who NEED it has nothing to do with giving out medication to kids like candy.
I guess it’s easier to believe that people are just bad when they do things like that, huh? Makes that revenge you love so much less guilty-feeling if they deserve it.
By RF
May 24, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
John- so what should be done with her? I didn’t like taking away my sister’s kids, but she had some serious issues and chose chemical dependency to deal with them. She refused treatment or repeated pleadings for years to let us get her the help she needed- both with the mental issues as well as the addictions. This woman, whether sane or not, killed her children. She hasn’t exactly earned much mercy at that point. It’s hard to feel bad for someone who could do that. I have no doubt she has some serious issues, but saying “God told me to” doesn’t mean she can’t know her actions were wrong. She’s insane, but she’s now become a criminal as well and has to accept the results of those actions.
By RF
May 24, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
Scalia- I’ll be continuing work on an online master’s and taking a four day PLU class. Not nearly as easy or fun as most people think, is it?
I just don’t see the point in paying for something I can get for free and have a lot more fun in the process!! :-)
By Scalia
May 24, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
John—you really don’t believe that some people are born to be bad people. I do feel that some need to be medicated, but not all. In my personal opinion, I think that everybody is born both good and bad. It depends on events in your life. Do you think that Chuck Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and the DC Sniper were all chemically imbalanced?
By Renee
May 24, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
“and why is Abraham revered for being strong in his faith but this woman is assumed to be crazy and damned? “
Interesting question. I know one thing taught by by Christianity, or at least when I was a heavy attendee, is that one is to obey the “laws of the land”. Well being that the “laws of the land” change and/or are modified consistently, it’s hard to keep up. I mean there was a time when it was perfectly normal to sacrifice a daughter etc.. So this would be an instance when the laws of the land are not in agreement with biblical laws.
I really use the “obey the laws of the land” towards the gay marriage argument. If it is ruled that gay marriage is okay, then shouldn’t it also be accepted by the Christians, since they are instructed to follow the the “law of the land”.
By blablabla
May 24, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
sanhan - the fbi had a search warrant signed by a federal district judge. we should probably also note that for the last eight months, jefferson had refused to respond to their subpoena. i’m no constitutional scholar, but i don’t remember seeing anywhere in the constitution that the members of congress are exempt from searches where there are properly issued warrants. perhaps the fbi searched the property because they don’t think it’s illegal and don’t think it will blow the case?
you may have a point about deflecting attention. in my mind though, it simply re-inforces my belief that corruption and wrongdoing by political leaders isn’t the exclusive province of either political party or movement.
shhh - i’ll answer your questions in reverse order…
And when did “It always happens” become an excuse or justification?
that’s not an excuse, nor is it intended to be justification. it was a response to john’s assertion that this administration’s activities are so much more “freightening” than the activities of previous administrations. the current administration going after its political enemies with smear tactics or acting above the law doesn’t bother me any more or less than the same acts committed by the previous administration. i find them equally reprehensible and disturbing. but i reject the notion that this behavior is somehow new, and that the “new-ness” makes this admin more scary than previous ones.
Bla, surely you see the difference between an entrenched expectation of privilege and an administration that has its spokespeople and chief officials stand up before the American public and say “We don’t think we need to obey this law because we don’t want to”?
maybe. but i see an entrenched expectation of privelege as exactly the type of thing that leads to one believing you don’t have to abide by the law if you don’t like it.
that said, i’ve not heard an administrator say that. when the wiretapping of conversations first became an issue, the administration presented its side of the legal argument. you may disagree with their legal argument, or you may be referring to some different issue, but i don’t think they’ve said “we don’t want to obey that law”. because that would be like laura bush saying she doesn’t have to respond to federal subpoenas because “we are the president”.
By The72John
May 24, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
Ms. Yates who drowned her 5 children must have also had an imbalance. She should be set free so she can have more children, we mustn’t deny her that freedom since it wasn’t her fault
This has nothing to do with your original statement condeming this woman to “Satan’s Lap” because of her actions.
We incarcerate people who are dangerous to society or themselves for the protection of the greater good. That is not the same as assigning evil to someone’s actions. Nor do all criminals of all kinds commit acts because of treatable illnesses or conditions.
But ask yourself this, Jack. If you, as many schizophrenics experience, actually SAW and HEARD things that weren’t real, but were absolutely real to you, do you think YOU would be able to distinguish reality?
By kimberly
May 24, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
Without a clear motive (to punish an ex, or a plan to collect life insurance $$ and run off with the poolboy) then, [as a mother, I have to believe that] anyone who murders her children in such a manner is INSANE. The evil are devious. (Susan Smith made up a kidnap lie; some make it look like an accident.) The insane do it without running or lying or benefitting, and say that God told them to do it. Once their babies are dead, they are dead inside too. No one tried to stop Rusty Yates from remarrying and having another family. Why not? As head of his [religio-nutjob] household, he forced his mentally ill wife to have more & more kids, home-school them, left her alone every day with them, and then did nothing when she went off her powerful, psychotropic meds. Isn’t HE a dangerous father too? “Oh poor Rusty,” my a—. The SOB is beyond complicit.
By Renee
May 24, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
I think a lot of crimes signify mental illness. Anytime you can kill someone, for no reason (other than self-defense) somethings wrong upstairs. Anytime you can hurt a child (FOR ANY REASON!) something is wrong.
How much can someone be rehabilitated once they have been a detriment to society. The key is, somehow, getting these people help before these travesties happen. But, I guess that would be the equivalent of me stating that pigs should fly. It will never happen, and couldn’t happen.
By Renee
May 24, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
I agree 100% Kimberly. Andrea is not the only one at fault. Although she is the main one “at fault” if you will.
By Billy
May 24, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Jack — I thought God wrote the Bible…
And worst president ever? Carter? When you ask historians you’ll get different answers…I personally always had Andrew Johnson in that spot, with Nixon a close 2nd. But now? The man in office is the worst, and more and more are coming to that conclusion.
By The72John
May 24, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
Actually, I am “Shh”, bla. Just neglected to change the alias back to my normal one.
Can you cite examples where the Clinton Administration encased itself in secrecy, declared it did not feel required to abide by international treaties, violated Constitutional privacy protections and claimed that “It could because it wanted to” or silenced its critics through various nefarious means?
See, I think your assertion that this isn’t new is false. Certainly, there have been abuses of power with every administration, but never in the concerted, secretive fashion that they are perpetrated by this administration, and never before with such utter disregard for the checks and balances meant to constrain such abuses.
Blame it on “Bush Hating” if you want to - that seems to be the traditional conservative response. I prefer to blame it on my distaste for a President who is doing everything he can to undermine the civil liberties and freedoms of the citizens of this country.
By GOB
May 24, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
I think a lot of crimes signify mental illness. Anytime you can kill someone, for no reason (other than self-defense) somethings wrong upstairs.
Well, if someone kills another person, there is always a reason. It might not be a good one, but there is a reason. If there isnt, it is an accident. That doesnt mean everyone who kills someone (other than self-defense) is mentally ill. I would expect any one of us could be driven to that extreme under the right circumstances.
The insane do it without running or lying or benefitting, and say that God told them to do it.
But most of them actually believe that god really and truly is talking to them. Most have been raised in a church that portrays it is absolutly normal to have god talk to you. If you are mentally unstable to begin with, imagine how that could mess you up.
To Mara’s point about Abraham and modern double-standards, I have always found it odd how the church and so many christians are so quick to denounce people today who do things that Jesus or the disciples did in the bible. What happens if someone today claims to be the son of god? The same thing that happened 2000 years ago. Most people laugh, and a few dedicated people will follow, and almost certainly, lose their life for it in the end…How do the religious among us know that the real second coming hasnt already happened? Maybe jesus is in a mental ward somewhere.
By Jack
May 24, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
I’ve got to go to a meeting for the rest of the day but I would like to say that YES. Her husband is also responsible. i didn’t buy into his “I support my wife” for one minute. He should get his a* kicked into jail. he knew his wife was not right. i hope he thinks of that every night as he tries to sleep.
“But ask yourself this, Jack. If you, as many schizophrenics experience, actually SAW and HEARD things that weren’t real, but were absolutely real to you, do you think YOU would be able to distinguish reality?”
John. That depends on how long ago the chemical was ingested and the tolerance of the person taking it. (you never saw walls breath?) :)
By The72John
May 24, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
I think a lot of crimes signify mental illness
The difference is that a schizophrenic, or someone suffering from a similar disease, is wholey at the mercy of that disease. Give them medications and they are normal. Take their meds away and all of a sudden the world is full of fairies and dwarves and aliens and talking gods, and voices and…
By The72John
May 24, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
How do the religious among us know that the real second coming hasnt already happened? Maybe jesus is in a mental ward somewhere
Here’s a simple test. If you talk to God, you’re devout. If God talks back, you’re nuts.
By RF
May 24, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
kimberly- tell us how you really feel!!LOL I’m with you! I’ve maintained from the start that there should be some way to legally hold the person who allows the mentally ill to stop taking meds responsible as well. IMO he, at the very least, ought to have his ability to procreate removed forthwith!
John- a schizophrenic should be treated and dealt with. What’s sad is how many there are who go unnoticed. I can’t imagine how, but seems they do get by for a while.
By Renee
May 24, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
Well, if someone kills another person, there is always a reason. It might not be a good one, but there is a reason. If there isnt, it is an accident. That doesnt mean everyone who kills someone (other than self-defense) is mentally ill. I would expect any one of us could be driven to that extreme under the right circumstances.
I would take the “right circumstances” to mean one would feel as if their life or a family members life is in danger. In my opinion, yes, that would be under “normal” or “understandable” circumstances. I’ll even broaden the spectrum to include friends or even a passerby whose life is in danger and you are being a good samaritan.
Short of those scenarios, what would be a sane reason to kill someone. And yes, I do believe insanity can be permanent or temporary.
By RF
May 24, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
so what happens if they refuse meds or stop taking them, as in the Yates case? Should they still then be able to use the illness as a defense? I think not.
By Renee
May 24, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
Maybe, in some of these violent crimes, it isn’t mental illness at all, as I first said. Maybe it is just bad people. Some people are good, some are bad.
By RF
May 24, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
Here’s a simple test. If you talk to God, you’re devout. If God talks back, you’re nuts.
ROFL
By GOB
May 24, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Short of those scenarios, what would be a sane reason to kill someone. And yes, I do believe insanity can be permanent or temporary.
Renee - Like I said, the reason might not be good, or even sane, but if the right buttons were pushed hard enough, anyone is capable of killing someone. I am not talking self-defense or defending someone else either. If we all have this capability, is it really mental illness? Maybe it is, in a temperary insanity kind of way, but is there anyone who hasnt lost their temper and done something stupid before? Is that temporary insanity, or just part of the human condition?
By Jack
May 24, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
Kim. XOXO gotta go!
No time to engage with you Needle D. (Billy) Maybe tomorrow.
By GOB
May 24, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
so what happens if they refuse meds or stop taking them, as in the Yates case? Should they still then be able to use the illness as a defense? I think not.
If they arent taking their meds, then their mental illness would be even worse, right? It seems backwards to say because you are so mentally ill that you cant see or understand the benefit of your medication, you cant use that illness in your defense.
By Zack
May 24, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
John-
Your previous post showed once again just how hateful, bigoted, and blind you really are. You really take pride in being trashy, don’t you?
Nothing you say is backed by reason. You can take your hateful, bigoted, childish stabs at me all day, and I can just smile and go on, but you really might want to take a good look at your worldview just for your own sake.
By Monica
May 24, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
I agree with you, Renee. I saw an interview with Jeremy Jones on a meth abuse special a few months ago. Even he said that he couldn’t be trusted around women. He said that when is not taking meth, he is fine. But if he were free in society, he would use meth and start his little raping/killing sprees again.
By Renee
May 24, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
anyone is capable of killing someone
I just have to disagree. I know I could never take the life of another unless my life or families life is in danger. It’s not in me. I don’t think I am alone with that trait.
By Scalia
May 24, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
So…if Andrea Yates had continued taking her meds while she was pregnant, wouldn’t that have caused birth defects?
Personally, I think that they should have used some sort of birth control.
By GOB
May 24, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
anyone is capable of killing someone
I just have to disagree. I know I could never take the life of another unless my life or families life is in danger. It’s not in me. I don’t think I am alone with that trait.
There is no way to honestly say that. Luckliy, the vast majority of us will never be in a situation in which the right buttons are pushed in the right way to make us go to that extreme. But to say that you dont have that ability in you seems very false to me. You are able to control that ability, but that doesnt mean it isnt there.
By Billy
May 24, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Jack — I love you! We are soulmates! Let’s leave our wives and move in together! We can’t get married, but that doesn’t mean we have to deny our true feelings!
By blablabla
May 24, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
john, i was pretty sure you were shhh. even though i’ve been gone for awhile, your writing style is distinctive.
and i don’t blame your positions on bush-hating. hopefully you will do me the courtesy of recognizing the same in me after you’ve read my post.
let me turn your question back to you: can you cite an example of the bush administration saying “it could because it wanted to” as it relates to violating the law? i’ve not seen or heard that.
don’t take this as a clinton bash, but you asked for examples:
did i see the clinton administration use nefarious means to silence its critics? heck yeah, all the time. these were the years when the “politics of personal destruction” became part of political lexicon. they employed hatchet men like chris lehane to trash anybody who disagreed with them or tried to dig too close to all the skeletons the clintons have in their closet.
other illegal and nefarious means employed by the clintons: hello, filegate. the white house got caught with well over 1,000 fbi files in its possession. most of these files were for republicans. you think they weren’t using those files to identify “friends and enemies of the state”? this is the precise reason people are so uncomfortable with building an NSA database…and you say this stuff hasn’t been done before?
they brought in the fbi to make billy dale’s life a living he!! just so they could get in their cronies to run the white house travel department. dale was acquitted of all charges in like an hour by a jury - they just wanted to destroy the guy.
have you somewhere forgotten the number of clinton cronies that are either in jail or dead? it’s a staggering figure.
encase itself in secrecy? these people didn’t respond to federal subpoenas for years on end. virtually every single thing involving the clintons was some complicated plot cloaked in secrecy. my memory may be failing, but didn’t people like ickes and panetta get themeselves into a fair amount of trouble for deceiving prosecutors at the beginning whitewater?
john, perhaps the best question to ask, and i mean no offense by this, is how could you have forgotten all of this stuff? the clintons had a secret scandal exposed for nearly every letter in the alphabet, and that’s only the stuff we know about…
again, hopefully you don’t see that as a clinton bash, but an attempt to answer your question. i don’t think i could pick two better words to describe the clinton presidency than nefarious and secretive. maybe scandalous.
By RF
May 24, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
Scalia- she and her f-ed up hubby were told several times not to have any more children due to her mental condition and need for meds. Depends on the meds as to what threat they pose for the baby. I can’t see allowing someone to willfully stop taking meds that help them function normally and then using that as the defense. To me, if you choose, while on meds and capable of rational thought, to stop taking the meds, then you also forfeit the right to use the disease as your primary defense.
By Randysfriend
May 24, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
Randy, I truly wanted to answer your Mon and Tue posts after praying about what you said and reading my Bible. You are right Randy! We should put up the things the Bible says (not some of them but ALL of them) in our government buildings and all the schools. This country was founded on God’s word and we exactly what we should be doing based on his words from the Bible. These are God’s laws that we should be following:
• Ex 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
• Lev 20:13 - 2 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
• Genesis 38:8-10 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased [1] the Lord: wherefore he slew him also. (It says also because God first slew Onan’s brother when he was displeased with him.)
• 1 Tim 2:11-1211 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
• Deut 21:18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
• Deut 25:11-12-11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: 12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
• Luke 14:26 -26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
• Isaiah 13:15-16 (God’s words to his people pertaining to other people who worshipped Molech.) Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. 16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
• Exodus 21:20-21 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. [1] 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
• Col 3:22-23 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: 23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
• Deut 22:13-2113 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
I ask all Christians to consider these verses. A God who is all knowing and who loves us gave us these rules to follow. Are we following them? NO! That’s why our country has been attacked and why we suffering from hurricanes and crime and all manner of evil on the loose. We are headed for total ruin because we don’t do what God commanded us to do. Randy I want you to know there is one person here on your side.
By Renee
May 24, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
GOB - Nobody knows me more than me. While I understand your logic, I have to disagree. You are correct, I have never been in a situation, where I would kill someone. But I’ve been in situatons (or at least one off the top of my head) where someone could have been killed. By that I mean I have read stories that are similar in the newspaper and someone has ended up dead. There is no button you could push, other than threatening me or my child, parents etc., that would make the thought of “killing” even cross my mind. I don’t have the ability.
By GOB
May 24, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
To me, if you choose, while on meds and capable of rational thought, to stop taking the meds, then you also forfeit the right to use the disease as your primary defense.
Why should they have to forfiet anything? They can claim whatever they want, and let the jury decide.
By Randysfriend
May 24, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
dear Randy, I forgot to send you this one.
Lev 18
19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. (You men who have relations with your wives when she’s having her monthly time need to heed this one!) 20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her. 21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, [3] neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord. 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you… They got cast out and we are headed that way too.
By Zack
May 24, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
GOB—
You don’t do too well understanding reason, either, do you?
By RF
May 24, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
These are God’s laws that we should be following:
hmmmmm…so mix-n-match to fit my idea Bible interpretation is allowed!!! Thanks, I feel so much better!!
By The72John
May 24, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Does anyone have any idea what post Zack is talking about this time, or is he just ranting and raving in typical fashion?
By GOB
May 24, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
You don’t do too well understanding reason, either, do you?
well, not yours.
And John, I dont think any of us have any clue what he is talking about. At least he is consistent.
By lozen
May 24, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
Ha, ha, ha, ha, HA! Randy’sfriend: Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, HA!!!
By RF
May 24, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
GOB- true, but I think insanity as a defense is awfully ambiguous and gray at best. I don’t think juries buy it very often anyway. A person with a diagnosed condition, mental or physical, has the right to refuse treatment. But, that refusal to take medication shouldn’t, logically, allow that person the right to then use the condition as a “reason” for committing a crime. That’s too easy an excuse. If Andrea Yates had been medicated, chances are greater that her kids would still be alive. As it is, she stopped for the purpose of having yet another baby. She didn’t go back on the meds, so to me she is to some degree responsible for the results of her choices.
By lozen
May 24, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
Yeah you guys stay away from your wives when they’re menstruating! god says so. It’s one of his biggest concerns I see. I did not realize that’s just as bad as gay sex. But… the bible says so!
By lozen
May 24, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
Well, Zack was passing the computer station between getting his meds and going to talk to the psychiatrist again today…..
By GOB
May 24, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
RF - I understand your point, but it is a bit of circular reasoning, I think. If the person is mentally ill, can they really be trusted to make the best decisions regarding their mental health? And can we then punish them for making a poor decision?
Now, that said, I dont believe their is a total abdication of responsibility for one’s actions if they are mentally ill. I do believe it should be a mitigating factor, however, whether that be in sentencing, or what degree the charges are, etc.
You are right that juries rarely go for the insanity defense. I just think the person should be allowed to use whatever defense they want. Is it really any different than someone on trial for shooting someone else saying the other person pulled a gun first, regardless of whether it is true or not?
By RF
May 24, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this
I’ll agree on the defense point. They can use anything, but the jury has to consider what the evidence says.
So, then shouldn’t we keep anyone with a certified mental disorder out of normal society because they are not capable of making rational decisions? Of course not!! We’d be locking up millions! Actually, that’d clear up most of the problems in Washington right now, but I digress…LOL Because they can function seemingly within normal limits of acceptable behavior, they are allowed the rights the rest of us have. If they choose to stop taking the meds which allow them to function normally, it gets a bit slippery to suddenly allow them an out legally because they no longer take their meds. I’ll agree that it should, and I think it is now, a mitigating factor in sentencing, isn’t it? That’s why Yates is getting a new trial, I think.
Well, we’ll agree to disagree on this one. I gotta go grocery shopping now, so I’m outta here!! Have a good evening!
By Cindy
May 24, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
I could care less about my phone calls. However, it is a very BIG deal that the Constitution is blatantly abused! I would willingly sacrifice my life to preserve the Constitution; that’s what being a patriot is all about. America is about the Constituion, folks, not politics, not the president. We are a free country because we live under the Constitution. If we give up our constitutional rights, there is no freedom to protect. Oh, it won’t be given up all at once, but by chipping away little by little…like spying on citizens’ phone calls. Americans need to demand from their Congressional representatives and President that the Constitution comes first.
By The72John
May 24, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
Gosh, my only point was that it is simplistic to condemn someone as evil because they commit terrible acts while in the grip of an overwhelming delusion that has scientifically established physical and chemical causes.
Didn’t know I would spark such discussion!
By GOB
May 24, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
RF - I dont think we are really too far apart on this one actually. I dont think they should have an out, but they should have the opportunity to attempt to convince a jury that their mental illness was at least a contributing factor.
By kimberly
May 24, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
John, it’s a discussion worth having, IMO. My point was that Mr. Yates KNEW his wife was “teched in da head” and yet he (a) continued to knock her up (b) continued to leave her alone all day with the children with no relief for her, not even school for the older ones, and (c) IGNORED the fact that those types of meds not only have side-effects, but have SERIOUS side effects upon withdrawal. Yet HE gets to remarry and start over, and she’s left being judged as the most horrible creature that ever lived. Anyone here ever quit their anti-Ds or tranqs cold turkey? Those are nothing compared to what that woman’s “doctor” put her on, then yanked her off of. THE LESSON IN ALL THIS: DON’T MARRY A FUNDIE! They’ll hurt you and desert you. They’ll take your soul if you let them, oh, but don’t you let them!
By GOB
May 24, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
John - I know you have mentioned myspace before, so you might probably appreciate this. I got an email with links to myspace pages for Jesus, Virgin Mary and God…good times.
By Sabra
May 25, 2006 07:55 AM | Link to this
Here is the point, the right to privacy is not guaranteed but the general expectation of privacy is. To me, this means if the government suspects me of terrorist activity they can go by constitutional means and get a wiretap warrent from a judge. With the wording of the Patriot Act (how I laugh at that name, as a patriot would not allow such platent injection of government into my home) its as easy as pie.
At least try to show the resembalance of a government I used to trust.
By concerned citizen
May 25, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this
“Freedom isn’t free.” “Freedom costs a buck’o’five.” And I guess since we’re a gozillion dollars into deficit, the Bush administration can no longer afford our freedom. Thanks GOP.
The people who planned Sept 11th are still at large. We’re mired in a war in which we had no valid reasons to enter into and we have no clear allies or enemies, that has cost us too many young American men and women in addition to billions and billions of dollars. We let an entire region of our country be wiped away by a hurricane due to incompetent cronism and not having the money to help out due to the war. We have a Congress and administration that seem more concerned with preventing gay marriage and prolonging the life support of one woman in Florida than making positive changes for America. We have a Congress that allow lobbyists to dictate and in a lot of cases actually write legislation that gets passed no problem. This same administration is so full of holes that it can’t stop leaking classified information. But everyone should just shut up and accept the fact that they need to use wiretapping without a court ordered warrant. I’m sorry, but this administration and Congress have shown me nothing that says they deserve my trust and patience.
I have four requirements of the next Congress/administration:
1) Catch or kill Osama bin Laden. We p** away billions and tie up 130,000 troops in Iraq, meanwhile less than 10,000 U.S. troops are in Afghanistan, the real place where terrorism was plotted, planned, executed. Not enough has been done in Afghanistan, to help stabilize the new government or find bin Laden. 2) Get out of Iraq now. I don’t care how this makes us look. It was a mistake, the sooner we move on, the sooner we can repair the damage done to our reputation. 3) Balance the budget. I’m sick of our government being run like a college student with credit cards. If you want it, then you have to plan a way to pay for it. There is plenty of revenues coming in to pay for what we need. Cut out the pork barrel spending and stop letting special interests write legislation. 4) Reform healthcare. Staying alive is the most basic human instinct. So why is it wrong to want a system in which every human being is guaranteed the ability to get the healthcare they need? Why is that branded socialistic and frowned upon by conservatives? Everyone pays the same premium and gets complete coverage. The savings are in pooling the catastrophic illnesses. Everyone gets a cold once in a while. But not everyone has cancer. But everyone needs to be covered just in case. Hey, it’s life. We’re all in this together. Let’s make it easier to stay alive.
By GOB
May 25, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this
“Freedom isn’t free.” “Freedom costs a buck’o’five.”
Thanks, now I am going to have that song stuck in my head for the rest of the day…
By kimberly
May 25, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
So why is it wrong to want a system in which every human being is guaranteed the ability to get the healthcare they need? Why is that branded socialistic and frowned upon by conservatives?
Concerned Citizen, thanks for your sensible comments. To answer these questions, you have to look at the minds and hearts of the people running this country and their conservative, fundamentalist supporters. You see, despite the teachings of the Deity they claim to worship, they DO NOT value all human life the same. People who are born into poverty should just get sick and die, if it will save them $5 on their taxes. The very IDEA that they should give a rat’s fuzzy a— about their “neighbors” is cause for calling you much worse names than a “socialist.” Their lives are important. Their selfish persuit of the almighty dollar is a noble virtue. People who think like them matter. If you’re different, then screw you… basically. Unless you’re a fetus (that they have no intention of supporting later), and therefore a policial pawn in the election process that gives power to their preachers, YOU DON’T MATTER.
By Scalia
May 25, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
Randy’sfriend, those posts yesterday were so funny. I lost it.
Why is everything being put to death? Could you imagine if society really implemented these laws? I do think that they should bring back stoning. Seemed like good, fun times. :)
By RF
May 25, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
Scalia- I know lots of people who’ve been stoned—-oh wait, that was the Pink Floyd concert and not the stoning you were talking about…. ;-) Can you tell it’s silly-time for the high schoolers?? Actually, I think a lot of them are stoned!! LOL
By Mara
May 25, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
regarding the parsimmony of conservatives per kimberlys reply to Concerned Citizen -
I’ve found that most true conservatives (as opposed to the theo-cons who now make up the powers-that-be in the GOP) aren’t as selfish/greedy as kimberly (hey kim!) makes them out to be. They oppose programs like welfare, medicare, social security, etc because they view it as a) wealth redistribution, b) charity, and c) unfair to those who, through hard work, have succeeded. In their view giving to “charity” is a private choice. By the government taking their money to help the needy, they no longer have a choice on which “charity” they give their money to. Thus, it isn’t really charity. It’s the government taking their hard-earned money and giving it to the poor, or more succinctly, wealth redistributuion. They view high tax-rates as punishment for succeeding. In their opinion, each is responsible for ones own lot in life and for the government to use tax money to help some but not others is unfair in the extreme. Why should a poor person get a student grant while a middle-class person ends up having to take out a loan? If a woman keeps getting pregnant even though she can’t care for the children she already has, why should responsible citizens have to pay for her bad choices? Why should she get to sit around her rent-subsidized apartment collecting food stamps, WIC, help for her utility payments and daycare, yet has no obligation to improve her situation? See, they think that people who are poor are lazy. They don’t want to work. They have no work ethic nor any intention of working one iota harder than they have to. The prevailing attitude, as far as I can tell, is that if the poor wanted to, they could improve their lives if they wanted to. They could buy a book instead of a “40”. They could manage their money better. They could get more education, if they wanted to. IOW, they’re poor because they want to be. Conservatives don’t necessarily think that the poor should just up and die, but they fail to see what makes it their responsibility to pay for the ills of those too lazy to improve their lot in life.
Just some view points I picked up from my (true-)conservative friends….
By concerned citizen
May 25, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
I find it ironic that the GOP is the party of the Christian right. Honestly, I believe Jesus would be a Democrat. Think about it. He wouldn’t support this persecution of gays. Jesus was often seen fraternizing with the lower rungs and outcasts of society. He didn’t buy into societal stigmas. His arms were open to anyone who would hear his message of love. He wouldn’t support this ridiculous “war of choice” in Iraq. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. He was a man of peace. He wouldn’t support the manner in which poor people are disguarded. He said to be kind to the poor. He would support a separation of church and state. Jesus said “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” So the whole GOP Christian movement is ironic.
By Jack
May 25, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
“Jack — I love you! We are soulmates! Let’s leave our wives and move in together! We can’t get married, but that doesn’t mean we have to deny our true feelings!”
Hahahahahahahaha! Best laugh of the month! Hahahahahah!
By Chilao
May 25, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
Kimberly’s 10:48 on Monday took care of my contribution about this subject, instead of the Supreme Court appointing our most high reverend Falwell as President, how about the possibility of Diebold, Inc. electing him? And then the TheoNazis getting religiously vigilant, as she stated?
Back with some jokes tomorrow. No, her and my comment was not a joke, unfortunately.
By Brian Curtis
May 25, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
Concerned Citizen, you are truly a fine member of our society. Thank you for raising some very obvious—and painful—questions for our neocon and Christian Right neighbors.
“Who Would Jesus Bomb?”
By Jack
May 25, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
…they’ve come to snuff the rooster….
By Chilao
May 25, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
oh, 72John, finished Surfacing, (Atwood’s second novel, way back, 1973). Fortunately there was an interview with her in the end about it, seems ecofeminism involves reverting to the land, as the female human narrator of the story eventually had a lair/den, was extremely hirsute, and ate grubs, berries, and non-poisonous mushrooms. LOL
By Jack Bauer
May 25, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
Bauer vs. McGyver, gee that’s a tough one.
The only reason that McGyver is conscious right now is because I don’t want to carry him.
By Scalia
May 25, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
RF—that’s funny. There were quite stoned. And the person that got the highest SAT score when I graduated, a perfect 1600, was the biggest stoner in my class.
And Mara, I can see what you mean. I look at my students. They don’t see the need to get an education, you have to fight them to get them to read, and homework is never done. So the cycle will perpetuate.
By kimberly
May 25, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
…but he ain’t gonna die….
By The72John
May 25, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
Conservatives don’t necessarily think that the poor should just up and die, but they fail to see what makes it their responsibility to pay for the ills of those too lazy to improve their lot in life
Poor != Lazy. The numbers of working poor in this country who work multiple minimum wage jobs are surprisingly large.
Not everyone is going to be wealthy. Many people simply lack the intellectual ability to grow beyond basic jobs. Others lack the opportunity to develop themselves.
It is exactly what you describe that makes me and others think that “true” conservatives are callous, uncaring people. Their haughty “I made it, why can’t you” attitudes represent a basic lack of human decency and compassion for those less fortunate.
By Chilao
May 25, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Y’all know Bauer and McGyver are fictional TV characters, correct? LMAO
or are they just evolved First Blood? LOL
By GOB
May 25, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
It is exactly what you describe that makes me and others think that “true” conservatives are callous, uncaring people. Their haughty “I made it, why can’t you” attitudes represent a basic lack of human decency and compassion for those less fortunate.
It also comes from a lack of understanding of how the world truly works. Obviously there are execptions, but the vast majority of conservatives come from middle to upper-middle class backgrounds. There is no way to really understand what it means to be poor and have no real options to escape. If you are surrounded by people who have taken advantage of the opportunities they had to do well for themselves, it is easy to assume that everyone else had those same opportunities, but was too lazy to do anything with them. It is this lack of comprehension that scares me the most.
By kimberly
May 25, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
It is this lack of comprehension that scares me the most.
That scares me too. Because if these people looked at the numbers (follow the money!), they’d see that only a tee-nincey percentage of their “hard earned money” actually goes to “those lazy poor people.” Far MORE tax money goes to subsidize big corporations, or to fund pork projects that benefit only a few, or to make up for money that the rich SHOULD pay in taxes, but don’t. Far MORE of their hard-earned dollars go to ever-increasing insurance premiums, energy and communication costs, and the resulting inflation of everything else. The Insurance execs who raise premiums every year (but not service) and the big DEFENSE CONTRACTORS (can you say no-bid contract?)are rolling in both dough AND tax breaks — funded by the conservatives’ hard earned money. They don’t want you to look their way, though, so they point the finger at the poor people and scream, “LOOK! The lazy poor people are taking your money!” Um.. nope, they’re not actually.
By The72John
May 25, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
There is no way to really understand what it means to be poor and have no real options to escape. If you are surrounded by people who have taken advantage of the opportunities they had to do well for themselves, it is easy to assume that everyone else had those same opportunities, but was too lazy to do anything with them. It is this lack of comprehension that scares me the most.
True. And it’s also true that there ARE remarkable people who DO manage to escape from crushing poverty by sheer will power and hard work. As much as I dislike her, Condi Rice is a truly admirable person for making as much of her life as she did.
BUT - she is obviously possessed of a powerful native intelligence and ability. Conservatives often point to people like her and say “See - SHE did it, why can’t YOU”
Well…most people don’t have genius-level IQs and other abilities needed to pull one’s self up by one’s bootstraps. But because SOME people do it, Conservatives claim that those who are unable are just lazy, and deserve their poverty.
By RF
May 25, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
There is no way to really understand what it means to be poor and have no real options to escape.
Absolutely true. Many of us here have escaped poverty at one time or another because we have the emotional and mental resources to know we want out and how to get there. Poverty is a cycle for many that is unbeatable because they don’t have the ability to see and believe that they will get out of it if they try hard for years. It takes years to beat poverty, and many who are genuinely trying can’t always get there. No matter what the teacher tells you, if you’re poor and everyone around you is poor, you tend to believe that’s reality for you too.
By Chilao
May 25, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
I do not know Condi Rice’s exact economic background and she is certainly to be admired for a host of reasons, but since Birmingham Alabama has a substantial well-educated upper-middle class black environment and has for many years, I am not certain she herself pulled herself up from ‘crushing poverty’.
no, indeed she has not, her Dad was Dean of Stillman College, among other things.(a HBUC) anyone who names their kid after some Italian musical notation term….LOL
http://www.christianitytoday.com/tc/2002/005/1.18.html
By Jack
May 25, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
Sweet Thing. Remember, no matter the party, it’s all about the money. Why Iraq and not places where genocide is being done? Show me the money. If there was profit feeding the poor everyone would eat. Show me the money. We can care about the environment but…show me the money.
By Mara
May 25, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
I’m gonna play Devil’s Advocate today, just because we need a good rip-roarin’ arguement to despel the tedium of an average slow Thursday…:^)
kimberly - “Far MORE of their hard-earned dollars go to ever-increasing insurance premiums, energy and communication costs, and the resulting inflation of everything else. The Insurance execs who raise premiums every year…DEFENSE CONTRACTORS…are rolling in both dough AND tax breaks…”
But conservatives can choose to pay insurance. They choose how much energy they use and shop around for their comminications needs. And after all, it’s their money so if they want to spend it on such things…well, they earned it and should be able to spend it as they see fit. As for “Defense Contractors”, they are simply well paid to provide the government the means to do their job, i.e. defending American interests. So to a conservative, these are reasonable outlays. It’s kinda like the whole “eminent domain” principle. If you take someones property, ostensibly for something that all the citizens can avail themselves of (defense spending?), that’s alright. But when you take property (taxes) and give it to a private entity (poor people) then that’s just wrong.
By The72John
May 25, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
huh. Guess the stories of her disadvantaged childhood were exagerrated, huh :-)
By Ga Liberal
May 25, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Too bad Shaunti Feldhahn isn’t a student of history or she would know exactly how much her arguement is flawed. All tyrants exploite fear and promises of protection to keep the masses under control. Hitler and Stalin did the same thing; curtained civil rights in the guise of protecting people from evil. I think it was Lenin that said ‘Control is easy. Just make them believe they are in danger.’ Bush is just ripping pages from the tyrant’s playbook.
By kimberly
May 25, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
Guilty on all charges. Guilty on all charges… la la la la la la la la Ken Lay is guilty on all charges. Yay!
By Jack
May 25, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Hey, did you see on the news about the town East of SanFran called Hercules where Walmart wanted to build between the town and the bay. The town was so outraged the seized the land through eminent domain saying that a big box store was a blight and told Walmart to stick it. Walmart who has used that same law to aquire land is all upset and their spokesman said it wasn’t fair. Oh poor Walmart. Boohoo.
By The72John
May 25, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
Well, Mara…
Social programs provide a stability to society that would otherwise not be there. Imagine how much crime rates would increase if the only option left to the poverty-stricken when they need food or medical care were theft? By ensuring that the poor are provided with at least their basic needs, the wealthy are made that much more secure.
We need only look at the systems of the past - the poorhouses of Dickensian England, the Hoovervilles of the Depression - to see how much better things are now.
By The72John
May 25, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
I think it was Lenin that said ‘Control is easy. Just make them believe they are in danger
Actually, that was Goerring: “Why of course the people don’t want war. But it is the leaders who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country”
By Mara
May 25, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
hey GA Liberal. You should compare sound bites from their speeches. That’ll raise the hair on the back of your neck…
By Mara
May 25, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Tut-tut, John. What do you mean “the only option left to the poverty-stricken when they need food or medical care were theft”? They could always get a job…
(ducking & covering…”I’m only the Advocate! Just the Advocate!”)
By Jack
May 25, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Before they can take complete control they first have to disarm the American people. Like most law abiding Americans, they will get my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.
By kimberly
May 25, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this
To support my previous comments about REPUBLICAN GREED, the tax $$ they avoid paying, and their intent to remain above or around the law: (and because the board is slow today) “At last count Halliburton had 58 offshore subsidiaries in Caribbean tax havens. With Cheney at the helm Halliburton’s tax payments to the U.S. went from $302 million in 1998 to zero in 1999, when they also received a refund of $85 million from the Internal Revenue Service.
“During Cheney’s tenure as CEO from 1995 to 2000, Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. The Halliburton subsidiary does approximately $40 million a year worth of oil field service work for the Iranian government. 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl visited the subsidiary in the Cayman Islands and found that it had no office and no employees. The mailing address was a local bank with which the subsidiary is registered. Stahl was met there by the banks manager who informed her that all mail to the subsidiary is forwarded to Halliburton headquarters in Houston. Halliburton had created the subsidiary to allow itself to do illegal business with a rogue state and to skip out on its taxes in the process.
“With Iran’s president vowing to destroy Israel and being accused by the Bush administration of harboring and aiding al-Qaeda operatives, Cheney’s company is doing business with Iran through a subsidiary and dodging its tax obligations to the U.S.” - Tom Turnipseed: Dick Cheney: War Profiteer
By RF
May 25, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Mara- having been there myself once upon a time, having a job isn’t always enough. I’ve worked two at one time and not been able to pay all basic expenses (food, rent, utilities, child care-which is WAY too expensive even in a cheap daycare). In some cases, they work and try very, very hard, but they just aren’t skilled enough or lucky enough to get the right job. Everyone has to start somewhere, but many of us end up “behind the eight ball” and need a little help for a short time until we can get on track. I don’t think we should indefinitely subsidize poverty, but everyone deserves a little help for the short term, don’t you think?
By The72John
May 25, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
Tut-tut, John. What do you mean “the only option left to the poverty-stricken when they need food or medical care were theft”? They could always get a job…
Refer back to the mention of the working poor - those who DO work and still fail to make enough to rise above the poverty line.
And no, before you bring it up - not all of these people are spending all of their money on big screen TVs and fancy cars. In fact, most of them probably aren’t.
By Monica
May 25, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, if you haven’t already, you need to see Syriana. And, yes, Chuck, Chilao, et al, I know that it’s fiction, but art does imitate life…
By Chilao
May 25, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Thanks Kimberly, and I heard it here first.
on Ken Lay. There is (sometimes) justice after all. LOL
By Mara
May 25, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
RF - personally I do agree. But in my role as D.A….
I will point out that in desperate cases like that, help could be given in return for, say, community service or volunteer work. The government should require something from them in return for tax-payer money. It shouldn’t be a something for nothing hand-out.
(do you think I need to disclaimer every post so that nobody gets confused when I return to voicing my own opinions?)
By The72John
May 25, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
Before they can take complete control they first have to disarm the American people. Like most law abiding Americans, they will get my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands
You don’t honestly believe this, do you Jack? The average American (and I contest that the majority of law-abiding citizens is a rabid member of the NRA) is a sheep. Guns don’t serve as a deterrent on the power of government.
People would have to be outraged to fight for their freedoms, and people today AREN’T outraged. They are absolutely complacent. The government can track their buying habits, monitor their phone calls, spy on them without a warrant, censor the press, or declare dissent to be sedition, and most people will just smile and nod.
By Monica
May 25, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
*do you think I need to disclaimer every post so that nobody gets confused when I return to voicing my own opinions?
Just use your stripper name, Sugar. :)
By The72John
May 25, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
I will point out that in desperate cases like that, help could be given in return for, say, community service or volunteer work. The government should require something from them in return for tax-payer money. It shouldn’t be a something for nothing hand-out
We’re not confused Mara, never fear.
So…you’re suggesting that people who are already working themselves to exhaustion trying to work enough hours to feed their family should have even less time to spend with them?
What amazes me is that the average conservative prattles on and on about “family values”, but when push comes to shove, they fail to demonstrate any real committment to families.
If we spent a fraction of what we spend on building new and better ways to blow things up on programs to train and empower the poor and uneducated, we could start to make a dent in the large percentage of people working and living below the poverty level. If we invested in people a tenth as much as we invest in pork projects and lobbyists and political campaign budgets, we would be so much better off.
But no - we would rather spend our money on those things. We’d rather have the poor around to give us someone to feel superior to.
By RF
May 25, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Mara- FDR had it right with the WPA. They had to chance to do a job and earn the help. Of course, the poverty line has risen since then, and much of what we consider poor wouldn’t have been in 1930’s. And, if we tried to do something that simple today, the political bureaucracy would mess it up, wouldn’t they?
I think, I don’t know, but I think there is a limit on welfare now and many have to go to work. I don’t think it’s automatically lifetime anymore.
By The72John
May 25, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Dangit, my stripper name is apparently Mimi GlitterThong.
By GOB
May 25, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
But no - we would rather spend our money on those things. We’d rather have the poor around to give us someone to feel superior to.
Imagine if the improved poor formed a voting block…Thats another reason to keep them from improving their lot in life by funding the types of programs you mentioned.
By Chilao
May 25, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
Ize Sugar Dazzle Kiss, who could have guessed? (well, their names are…LOL)
forgot I had seen that and wanted to send around.
By The72John
May 25, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Mara- FDR had it right with the WPA. They had to chance to do a job and earn the help. Of course, the poverty line has risen since then, and much of what we consider poor wouldn’t have been in 1930’s. And, if we tried to do something that simple today, the political bureaucracy would mess it up, wouldn’t they?
The difference is that the WPA provided jobs for the vast numbers of people who were completely unemployed and unable to find jobs. I agree a similar program would be helpful for the unemployed, but that only helps with a small portion of the equation. According to the Bureau of Labor’s 2000 census statistics, there were over 6 million working adults classified as working poor, and 31 million people total living below the poverty level.
By Jack
May 25, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
Unfortunately John, you are probably right. But in 1776, the majority was also apathetic.
By Monica
May 25, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
The difference is that the WPA provided jobs for the vast numbers of people who were completely unemployed and unable to find jobs. I agree a similar program would be helpful for the unemployed…
But John, the illegal immigrants have stolen all the jobs away from the American people; did you forget so soon? he he
By Zack
May 25, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
Let me know if John and/or GOB type something worthwhile as opposed to their typical childish and desperate insults.
By blablabla
May 25, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
kimberly,
That scares me too. Because if these people looked at the numbers (follow the money!), they’d see that only a tee-nincey percentage of their “hard earned money” actually goes to “those lazy poor people.” Far MORE tax money goes to subsidize big corporations, or to fund pork projects that benefit only a few, or to make up for money that the rich SHOULD pay in taxes, but don’t.
lots of people, obviously including you, say this. unfortunately, it’s not true. look at the white house budget for 2007. social security is $581B, medicare is $390B, medicaid is $205B, other social programs are budgeted at $319B. added together, this just under $1.5T, or over 55% of the 2007 budget for outlays.
if i do as you suggest, and follow the money, over half your federal tax dollar goes to a social program, not pork or some defense contractor. no offense, but perhaps you should take your own advice.
By blablabla
May 25, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
“At last count Halliburton had 58 offshore subsidiaries in Caribbean tax havens. With Cheney at the helm Halliburton’s tax payments to the U.S. went from $302 million in 1998 to zero in 1999, when they also received a refund of $85 million from the Internal Revenue Service.
kimberly, i certainly don’t want you to think i’m picking on you, but since mara is playing some devil’s advocate, why not me. i looked at this and had to ask you a question.
if you owned a company that paid $300 million in income taxes, and you could avoid them by moving offshore, would you really sit here in the US and continue to pay $300 million a year? Or would you move and save yourself a boatload of money? i’d move in a heartbeat.
Who are you really mad at here…Halliburton for moving offshore, or the stupid US tax system that gives companies incentive to take their jobs and offices and move them overseas?
By Sugar Glitterhorn
May 25, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
good idea, monica LOL!
“Mimi”…didn’t say it made sense, I said it’s how conservatives “think”… see, how can you pretend that being poor isn’t a choice? People choose not make the most of their educational opportunities. They choose to drop out instead of go to the hard work of learning. They choose to watch TV instead of reading a book, to go to the arcade instead of the library. To party instead of study. People choose to ingest alcohol and drugs, to spend their money at the strip club instead of at Wal-mart. They make bad choices and who ends up footing the bill so their kids don’t starve? That’s right. Good ol’ Uncle Sam. There’s always a choice involved. The person in your anecdote made the choice to have a family even though they obviously are unable to support one. Bad choice. So now that they’re comfortably on the dole, why would they make any effort to get off of it?
Say…Net. why all girl stripper names and no guy stripper names?
By Magnus ThunderRod
May 25, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
Did someone say something about guy stripper names??
By GOB
May 25, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Let me know if John and/or GOB type something worthwhile as opposed to their typical childish and desperate insults.
We’ll be sure to keep you posted…
By blablabla
May 25, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
mara -
i think you’ve done a good job of playing DA today, but two things i would add to what you’ve said is this:
gov’t programs tend to be very inefficient, and it’s pretty tough to measure what their level of success is.
if you ask a conservative what they dislike about funding social programs, the answer you’ll get most will generally involve one or both of those elements.
i’m fine with paying what is required to help people, but i’d like the money to be spent efficiently on the recipient, and i’d like to see some measurable improvement in the recipient for the money that is spent.
add that with your comments and i think you get a pretty clear picture of why some many conservatives don’t like gov’t social programs. it’s less the concept, and more the execution.
By Sugar Glitterhorn
May 25, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
boy. trying to think like a conservative makes my head hurt and my stomach kinda queasy….LOL!!
anyway, it’s quittin’ time YAHOOOOOOOO!! C-ya for jokes tomorrow XXOO
By RF
May 25, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
Sugar- what’s not quite right in your logic is that they actually know they’re making that choice. I see in my kids at school. They don’t really see poverty as a choice when it’s all they’ve ever known. They also see, based on their parents’ stories, that there is a job “ceiling” that is very low for everyone they know. They see as fact that they will never rise above a certain point, so why try? I fight it every single day I’m in the classroom, and some get the message and are willing to work, for years, to get out. Some aren’t willing to work, or try and keep getting knocked down until they give up. It isn’t a cut and dry “make a choice” situation.
By The72John
May 25, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
The only problem, Sugar, is that you are strawmaning the hell out of your argument. YOU are defining the characteristics of an entire group of people and saying “See - these people are horrible!”
But those characteristics DON’T necessarily describe all poor, therefore your argument is false.
By The72John
May 25, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Let me know if John and/or GOB type something worthwhile as opposed to their typical childish and desperate insults
Eh?
By kimberly
May 25, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
Who are you really mad at here…Halliburton for moving offshore, or the stupid US tax system that gives companies incentive to take their jobs and offices and move them overseas?
Both of those, and pretty much every last one of the hypocritical conservative blow-hard “Krissschuns” who voted for the bastards — in both parties — who make all this possible. BTW, my personal tax burden is much less than that of comparable people in other developed countries that have a much higher standard of living for ALL their citizens, so I don’t complain about it like the whiny a— rich people do. I DO complain about my government going into debt to China and other countries in order to make the industrialized war machine (that Eisenhower warned us about) and their executives FILTHY rich profiteering while spilling the blood of our fine men & women in uniform in the process.
Something else Bla: it’s really hard to forgive people who aren’t sorry.
By Jack
May 25, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
I was watching a cooking show and they were talking about tartlets. I like that word. (gotta pull my mind out of the gutter)
By Jack
May 25, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
Oh Lord I need a bigger fan. :)
By Julia
May 25, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
I just wanted to let you know that I have not one but TWO people now sharing my office space….which is why I haven’t had time to blog. I tried to read through a few days worth of posts. I want to say thanks to Jack and Renee!
Oh, and by the way, according to Net my name is Dallas Heaventush! LOL
Will try to check in on you guys more….I love you guys and miss blogging.
Monica-Tball ended Tuesday. They went to the Tournament and were 3rd in the league. My son is so proud of his first trophy!!! :)
By Julia
May 25, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
Jack-if you weren’t married I’d come fan you!;)
By Jack
May 25, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
Thank you Julia. :)
By Mara
May 26, 2006 07:42 AM | Link to this
Well, finally! Friday! Thanks all, for the support on my (admittedly) half-hearted attempts to think like a Republican. Bla, couldn’t agree more, but couldn’t quite work it into the conversation :^) RF, John - I tend to agree that mindset has an effect, but as the “representative conservative” I’d have to disagree that there isn’t a “choice” being made on whether to give up or try harder. But…in honor of yesterdays conversation:
Things Republicans Believe
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness. “Standing Tall for America” means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.
Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s driving record is none of our business.
You support states’ rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the ’80s is irrelevant.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
By Monica
May 26, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this
RF, Scalia, It’s the last day of school!!! Woo-hoo!!
By Renee
May 26, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this
Hilarious Mara, especially the second one.
Okay everyone, joke day????
By Renee
May 26, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
There once was a rich man who was near death. He was very grieved because he had worked so hard for his money and he wanted to be able to take it with him to heaven. So he began to pray that he might be able to take some of his wealth with him.
An angel hears his plea and appears to him. “Sorry, but you can’t take your wealth with you.” The man implores the angel to speak to God to see if He might bend the rules.
The man continues to pray that his wealth could follow him. The angel reappears and informs the man that God has decided to allow him to take one suitcase with him. Overjoyed, the man gathers his largest suitcase and fills it with pure gold bars and places it beside his bed.
Soon afterward the man dies and shows up at the Gates of Heaven to greet St. Peter. St. Peter seeing the suitcase says, “Hold on, you can’t bring that in here!”
But, the man explains to St. Peter that he has permission and asks him to verify his story with the Lord. Sure enough, St. Peter checks and comes back saying, “You’re right. You are allowed one carry-on bag, but I’m supposed to check its contents before letting it through.”
St. Peter opens the suitcase to inspect the worldly items that the man found too precious to leave behind and exclaims, “You brought pavement?!!!”
By Jack
May 26, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
Hi All. Here’s one.
Sam and Sarah knew the only way to pull off a Sunday afternoon quickie with their 8 year old son in the apartment was to send him out on the balcony with a Popsicle and tell him to report on all the neighborhood activities.
He began his commentary as his parents put their plan into operation:
“There’s a car being towed from the parking lot! “, he shouted.
A few moments passed .. “An ambulance just drove by”
A few moments later, “Looks like the Anderson’s have company”, he called Out.
“Matt’s riding a new bike…..”
A few moments later, ‘Looks like the Sanders are moving”
“Jason is on his skate board….”
A few more moments, “The Coopers are having sex!!”
Startled, Mother and Dad shot up in bed!!!
Dad cautiously asked, “How do you know they are having sex?”
“Jimmy Cooper is standing on his balcony with a Popsicle.”
By Mara
May 26, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
Renee - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! “pavement”?!! LOL…
Texans in Hell
A group of Texans are driving down the road, whooping it up, drinking beer and shooting off their guns when they get into an accident with busload of nuns and orphans, killing everyone. The Texans go straight to Hell. When they arrive the Devil is shocked to see that they are not in agony over the heat and he demands an explanation. “Well, sir, we’re from Texas, and we’re used to the heat,” says one.
This infuriates the Devil and he cranks the thermostat up to its highest setting. The lost souls all over hell start wailing. “I’ll check on them in the morning and see how they like THIS.” He snorts and disappears in a ball of fire.
The next morning, the Devil shows up at the Texans’ camp site, and sure enough they are showing some signs of discomfort. They have taken off their 10 Gallon hats and are fanning themselves. One has even rolled up his sleeves. “Well, sir,” explains a Texan, “when you have been on a cattle drive in Lubbock during August, this ain’t hardly nothing.” The Devil is now so angry he is seeing red.
“Those damn Texans seem immune to heat, let ‘s see what happens when I turn OFF the heat,” he says as he heads to the thermostat. “I’ll check on them tomorrow.”
So in the morning the Devil arrives at the Texans’ campsite, and they are all whoopin’ and hollerin’ and drinkin’ the beers from the ice chest in the back of the pick up, now that they have ice to chill them with. The wail of the lost souls is deafening but the Texans are partyin’ like there is no tomorrow.
“I don’t get it,” the Devil says, completely defeated. “I tried to roast you and it had no effect, and then I tried to freeze you and you are partying. You Texans are made of tough stuff. But why are you celebrating?”
A Texan takes a swig from a Bud in a longneck and replies, “Look around! Hell is frozen over. That’s just gotta mean there is another Bush in the White House.”
By The72John
May 26, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
Please refrain from posting jokes like “Texans in Hell”. My co-workers look at me strangely when I spit coffee all over the cubicle.
By Jack
May 26, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
((((RING)))) (((RING)))
Pick Up
“Hello?”
“Hi honey, this is Daddy, Is Mommy near the phone?”
“No Daddy, She’s upstairs in the bedroom with Uncle Frank.”
After a brief pause, Daddy says, “But honey, you haven’t got an Uncle
Frank.”
“Oh yes I do, and he’s upstairs in the room with Mommy, right now”
Brief Pause…
“Uh, okay then, this is what I want you to do. Put the phone down on
the table, run upstairs and knock on the bedroom door, and shout to
Mommy that Daddy’s car just pulled into the driveway.”
“Okay Daddy, just a minute.”
A few minutes later, the little girl comes back to the phone.
“I did it Daddy.”
“And what happened honey?” he asked.
“Well, Mommy got all scared, jumped out of bed with no clothes on and
ran around screaming. Then she tripped over the rug, hit her head on
the dresser and now she isn’t moving at all!”
“Oh my God!!! What about your Uncle Frank?”
“He jumped out of the bed with no clothes on too. He was all scared and
he jumped out of the back window and into the swimming pool. But I
guess he didn’t know that you took out the water last week to clean it.
He hit the bottom of the pool and I think he’s dead”
Long Pause
Longer Pause
Then Daddy says, “Swimming pool??? …..Is this 555-7039??”
By GOB
May 26, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
A horse walks into a bar, and the bartender says, “Hey, why the long face?”
By Renee
May 26, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
good one mara
By Renee
May 26, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Excellent Jack!!! hahahahaha
By Repetitive Joke Poster
May 26, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
((((RING)))) (((RING)))
Pick Up
“Hello?”
“Hi honey, this is Daddy, Is Mommy near the phone?”
“No Daddy, She’s upstairs in the bedroom with Uncle Frank.”
After a brief pause, Daddy says, “But honey, you haven’t got an Uncle
Frank.”
“Oh yes I do, and he’s upstairs in the room with Mommy, right now”
Brief Pause…
“Uh, okay then, this is what I want you to do. Put the phone down on
the table, run upstairs and knock on the bedroom door, and shout to
Mommy that Daddy’s car just pulled into the driveway.”
“Okay Daddy, just a minute.”
A few minutes later, the little girl comes back to the phone.
“I did it Daddy.”
“And what happened honey?” he asked.
“Well, Mommy got all scared, jumped out of bed with no clothes on and
ran around screaming. Then she tripped over the rug, hit her head on
the dresser and now she isn’t moving at all!”
“Oh my God!!! What about your Uncle Frank?”
“He jumped out of the bed with no clothes on too. He was all scared and
he jumped out of the back window and into the swimming pool. But I
guess he didn’t know that you took out the water last week to clean it.
He hit the bottom of the pool and I think he’s dead”
Long Pause
Longer Pause
Then Daddy says, “Swimming pool??? …..Is this 555-7039??”
By Mara
May 26, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
A Guide to U.S. Newspapers
The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
The New York Times is read by people who think they run the country.
The Washington Post is read by people who think they should run the country.
USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don’t really understand the Washington Post. They do, however like the smog statistics shown in pie charts.
The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn’t mind running the country, if they could spare the time, and if they didn’t have to leave L.A. to do it.
The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country.
The New York Daily News is read by people who aren’t too sure who’s running the country, and don’t really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
The New York Post is read by people who don’t care who’s running the country either, as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren’t sure there is a country, or that anyone is running it; but whoever it is, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority, feministic atheist dwarfs, who also happen to be illegal aliens from ANY country or galaxy as long as they are democrats.
The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.
and speaking of newspapers, did any of you read the story on the op/ed page by the woman who got tossed from a restaurant because her kid was disturbing other patrons? Not exactly a joke, but pretty funny, all things considered. My question would be…how did she manage to get into a restaurant, drop off her packages and purse at the table, accompany her 6-year-old to the restroom, do what needed to be done, washed the hands, returned to the table and began quieting the 2-year-old…all in under 3 minutes? I mean…three minutes?!
By Chilao
May 26, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
Good vs. Evil
In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth and populated the Earth with broccoli, cauliflower and spinach, green and yellow and red vegetables of all kinds, so Man and Woman would live long and healthy lives.
Then using God’s great gifts, Satan created Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream and Krispy Creme Donuts. And Satan said, “You want chocolate with that?” And Man said, “Yes!” and Woman said, “and as long as you’re at it, add some sprinkles.” And they gained 10 pounds. And Satan smiled.
And God created the healthful yogurt that Woman might keep the figure that Man found so fair. And Satan brought forth white flour from the wheat, and sugar from the cane and combined them. And Woman went from size 6 to size 14.
So God said, “Try my fresh green salad.” And Satan presented Thousand-Island Dressing, buttery croutons and garlic toast on the side. And Man and Woman unfastened their belts following the repast. God then said, “I have sent you heart healthy vegetables and olive oil in which to cook them.” And Satan brought forth deep fried fish and chicken-fried steak so big it needed its own platter. And Man gained more weight and his cholesterol went through the roof.
God then created a light, fluffy white cake, named it “Angel Food Cake,” and said, “It is good.” Satan then created chocolate cake and named it “Devil’s Food.” God then brought forth running shoes so that His children might lose those extra pounds. And Satan gave cable TV with a remote control so Man would not have to toil changing the channels. And Man and Woman laughed and cried before the flickering blue light and gained pounds.
Then God brought forth the potato, naturally low in fat and brimming with nutrition. And Satan peeled off the healthful skin and sliced the starchy center into chips and deep-fried them. And Man gained pounds. God then gave lean beef ! so that Man might consume fewer calories and still satisfy his appetite. And Satan created McDonald’s and its 99-cent double cheeseburger. Then said, “You want fries with that?” And Man replied, “Yes! And super size them!” And Satan said, “It is good.”
And Man went into cardiac arrest.
God sighed and created quadruple bypass surgery.
Then Satan created HMOs.
By Chilao
May 26, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
Thought for the day
There is more money being spent on breast implants and Viagra today than on Alzheimer’s research. This means that by 2040, there should be a large elderly population with perky boobs and huge erections and absolutely no recollection of what to do with them.
By Chilao
May 26, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
A couple had only been married for two weeks when the husband, although very much in love, couldn’t wait to go out on the town and party with his old buddies. So, he said to his new wife, “Honey, I’ll be right back.”
“Where are you going, Coochy Coo?” asked the wife.
“I’m going to the bar, Pretty Face. I’m going to have a beer.”
The wife said, “You want a beer, my love?” She opened the door to the refrigerator and showed him 25 different kinds of beer, brands from 12 different countries: Germany, Holland, Japan, India, etc.
The husband didn’t know what to do, and the only thing that he could think of saying was, “Yes, Lollipop, but at the bar, you know… they have frozen glasses.”
He didn’t get to finish the sentence, because the wife interrupted him by saying, “You want a frozen glass, Puppy Face?” She took a huge beer mug out of the freezer, so frozen that she was getting chills just holding it.
The husband, looking a bit pale, said, “Yes, Tootsie Roll, but at the bar they have those hors d’oeuvres that are really delicious. I won’t be long. I’ll be right back. I promise. OK?”
“You want hors d’oeuvres, Poochie Pooh?” She opened the oven and took out dishes of different hors d’oeuvres: chicken wings, pigs in blankets, mushroom caps, and pork strips.
“But my sweet honey, at the bar…. you know.. there’s swearing, dirty words, and all that.”
“You want dirty words, Cutie Pie? Listen up sh*t-for-brains! Sit your @ss down, shut the hell up, drink your beer in your frozen mug, and eat your f—-ing hors d’oeuvres, because your married @ss isn’t going to a d@mned bar! That crap is over. Got it, Numbnuts?”……..
And, they lived happily ever after. Now, isn’t that a sweet story?
By FatMoose
May 26, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
Just got four weeks notice due to reduction of staff….Off to find a new job.
Good luck all.
By Mara
May 26, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
Chilao - ROTFLMAO!!! a big fat 10 for you, my friend! Too funny for words!
By kimberly
May 26, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
Chilao, that’s depressing. I’m never getting married again. Why do people equate extortion with love?
Mara, where did you read that? I’d love to check it out! Was on a plane last year when they tossed a woman and her two brats before takeoff. It delayed the flight, but she had zero control, and the little screamers would NOT sit down, buckle up, or shut yaps. The mother made such a pitiful noise when they said, “NOPE. Here’s your stuff. You’re outta here.” The march of shame…. I almost stood up and applauded.
By kimberly
May 26, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
oooooo… Sorry Moose. Been there. NO fun. {:-< Even worse without notice or severance.
By Chilao
May 26, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
I forgot to add a SNORT to that honey-pie joke..>LOL
wow, FM, yet not another company making their great profits from business IN the USA, but want to move offshore to avoid taxes? good luck.
By Chilao
May 26, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
funny day, guys, Renee, Mara, Jack, some getting forwarded on.
By Jack
May 26, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
Chin up Moose. You’ll find something that’s probably better. Wishing you much luck.
By Chilao
May 26, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
Obviously it was a woman who sent me the married joke, with that ‘sweet story’ bit at the end and all. LMAO
By Mara
May 26, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this
kimberly - I keep forgetting the W2W is syndicated now and appears in other publications besides the AJC. But go to the Atlanta Journal opinion page and you’ll see the whole pitiful tale recounted in a commentary peice titled “Restaurant proves family-unfriendly”. The woman actually says “I would have expected the manager to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Instead, he interrupted me as I calmed our child instead of asking if he could get her a drink or some crackers.” Now, the husband was with the 2-yr-old so I don’t know why he had to wait for the woman to come back and calm the child, but I do know that it wasn’t the managers job to do it…
By Mara
May 26, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
what is a billion…?
According to a recent government publication …
A billion seconds ago Harry Truman was president.
A billion minutes ago was just after the time of Christ.
A billion hours ago man had not yet walked on earth.
A billion dollars ago was late yesterday at the U.S. Treasury
Good luck, FM. Write when you get a chance…XXOO
By Monica
May 26, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
Good luck on the job search, Moose!
For the record, the best restaurant we have taken our boys, 5 and 2, is Longhorn, which is loud already. I wouldn’t dream of taking kids to Ruth’s Chris or somewhere of that nature until they are at least 10 (it’s too expensive, and the kids would only want chicken fingers anyway). And if you’re ever in a restaurant and see a screaming towhead accompanied by a woman on a mission on the way to the restroom, that would be me! A simple bathroom beat…, er, “chat,” usually whips mine back into shape. I’d love to know the restaurant where this happened.
By Jack
May 26, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
A woman went to the doctor’s office where she was seen by one of
the younger doctors. After about four minutes in the examination room,
she burst out, screaming as she ran down the hall. An older doctor
stopped her and asked what the problem was and she told him her story.
After listening, he had her sit down and relax in another room.
>
The older doctor marched down the hallway to the back where the
young doctor was writing on his clipboard. “What’s the matter with
you?” the older doctor demanded. “Mrs… Reid is 62 years old, has
four grown children and seven grandchildren and you told her she was
pregnant?”
The younger doctor continued writing and without looking
up said, “Does she still have the hiccups?…..
By Renee
May 26, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this
I haven’t read the story but in my opinion, I think there are some restaurants which are not the place for children. There are some places that I go out to eat too, that I never, ever took my daughter to until she got much older.
For the record, I would’t take my daughter to Ruth Chris now, it’s too much LOL. I’m glad she still gets excited about Red Lobster and Olive Garden.
Can you all believe there is not one Red Lobster in this entire state. There is only one Olive Garden. Not that these are fine eating establishments, but it would be nice to go to.
By Jack
May 26, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
Renee’, they probably don’t need a Red Lobster being so close to Boston & Maine. :)
By Jack
May 26, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
YeeeHa! I’m outta here. veryone have a wonderful and safe holiday. Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do! XOXO
By kimberly
May 26, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Thanks Mara… duh… it was right there in front of me. From the mother’s telling, it certainly seems that they were treated rudely and unfairly. My hesitation in feeling immediate outrage comes from both your “three minute” suspicions, and from only hearing one side of the story. (There are at least 3 sides to every story!) People w/o kids DO need to cut us some slack. Who do they think will be providing goods & services for THEM when they’re old? OUR KIDS, thats who! Likewise, parents need to be considerate of others in public, and know their kids’ limitations!
The plane incident I witnessed was a no-brainer. The woman had no control over a 2yo and a 5yo, who was jumping in the seat, barking like a dog, and screaming “NO!” when the attendant and co-captain came over and explained you HAVE to buckle up before we can take off. I suspected they would be trouble back at the gate when she had the older kid on a LEASH and she was screaming at her then! Any wonder that she was behaving like an animal?
Babies are gonna cry. Deal. Mitigate as best you can. Interesting to see a restaurant at a MALL being rude to families, though. Malls are crawling with the stroller people, which is why I avoid them whenever possible!
By Scalia
May 26, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
But you have to realize that some parents refuse to discipline their children. You have to put fear in a child’s heart, or else. If they fear no authority, then how will they respect the law when they grow up?
It does appall me how a parent can have no control of their children, especially when they are young. A child is going to be dependent on the adult for everything.
By Mara
May 26, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
kimberly - I agree that some understanding for the child-burdened should be extended. And as you say, the restaurant is in a mall, where one would expect to find families and children. But the “3-minute” thing wasn’t the only part that sounded fishy to me. The story said that the 2-y-o was raising a fuss because it (no gender given, so “it” it is…)wanted to play with the toys and games that were provided by the restaurant. This doesn’t sound like a child-intolerant establishment, so I gotta wonder. And the father. The father knew why the child was raising a fuss, so why didn’t he ask the server for a toy, or cracker, or water? How long was the child really screaming? Somehow, I doubt that anyone started agitating for expulsion upon the first peep from the tot. The story just doesn’t jive, y’know?
‘nother joke…
A visitor from Holland was chatting with his American friend and was jokingly explaining about the red, white and blue in the Netherlands flag. “Our flag symbolizes our taxes,” he said. “We get red when we talk about them, white when we get our tax bill, and blue after we pay them.”
“That’s the same with us,” the American said, “only we see stars, too.”
By RF
May 26, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
I take mine to Golden Corral, Long Horn, anywhere with a plastic play area. We DON’T go to nice restaurants just because it’s boring for the boys. I miss going to nice places, and go with friends when I can. From what I read, the couple was treated a bit unfairly, but I think Dad should have been able to do something while Mom was gone to the bathroom.
Monica- I agree with the bathroom “chat”. Works every time for me!! Now, I just mention it, and they usually adjust their behavior!
By Scalia
May 26, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
RF, Chuck, Monica, have a good summer! We made it. I am going to go and celebrate now. I will be back at work on Tuesday and Wednesday, but my kids are gone. YEA!!!!!!
Have a good and fun Memorial Day weekend, kiddies.
By Renee
May 26, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
I have the “death glare” inherited from my mother, which I still use and she’s 15.
How r u Bambi??
By lozen
May 26, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
Chilao, your 10:28am was great. Take it from someone who just lost ten lbs. on her diet, but today for lunch had a whole pizza and a big salad with creamy dressing and a beer! But it was a lite beer….
By RF
May 26, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
Just fine, Bambi!! How’s the weather up there? any better yet? It’s HOT, DRY, and still somehow HUMID down here in the ATL.
Scalia- I’m sticking my tongue out at you. I have kids until next Friday, but a long weekend this week will help!! Enjoy!!
By Renee
May 26, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
We finally warmed up. By Monday we may see 86 (minus the humidity). And only occasional thunderstorms. For a while, I forgot what sunshine even was.
By Mara
May 26, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
ah, well. Another Joke-Friday down the tubes. Got to work tomorrow, but at least I’ll still get 2 whole days off ! Woo-hooooo! Have a great holiday weekend, drive safe and buckle up. (And don’t call me to bail ya out if ya don’t! LOL)
Ta-ta y’all.
By wonderingaboutchristians
May 26, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
For all christians who are so against abortion: Why aren’t you working to end poverty? If we could bring about a change in the number living below the poverty line in the U.S., we’d see abortion numbers fall proportionately. If you’re really concerned about living children (and not just unborn ones) why aren’t you working on cleaning up the environment? You do know how many babies are born with birth defects in this country due to air pollution don’t you? You seem to me to be very short-sighted people.
By Julia
May 26, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
To the single parents out there-what are your tricks of the trade to get your child to mind? A spanking in the restroom of the restaurant? Any ways besides spanking that works for you? Just looking for some tips. Thanks.