Kerry vs Terrorism — Page 2

nyordinary:
Yeah.. you've been around much longer than me. A whole month, in fact. (perhaps your "star" status is a result of lots of posts like I've seen in this thread.

"I'm glad you respect mine because I don't respect yours."

Not respecting opinions, crying because people think differently, boo hoo.

You may be 19 and you may aspire to be a diva... but I can think of one thing that I KNOW you are...

And I can tell you that, BECAUSE it's a free country.
See isn't it nice to mindlessly bash someone? I feel better already.

---

Updated On: 2/2/04 at 05:24 PM

To Mr Matt

Something tells me if we knew about 9/11 on 9/10, we could have avoided it. I can not believe the question

To JRB Actor
You are in effect saying it's gonna happen so why try to do everything in your power to stop it. I would rather be alive with alledgedly a few less liberties than stone cold dead with all my liberties intact. Here is a flash with speech codes & sexual harassment courses & many words being banned on campus & in the workplace for fear of offending someone, your free speech ( a prime liberty) is gone right under your nose & either you are oblivious to it or don't care. This is the scary thing that free speech no longer exists in the US but people are worried about extra security measures offending them or taking a few extra minutes from their precious time. The next time we are hit it will be much worse than 9/11 & if Bush is in all those blasting him now will be screaming why didn't he protect us. Maybe we have to live like they do in Israel with the threat of daily suicide bombers before we get the message

Kerry is saying we are fighting terrorism the wrong way ( no attacks since 9/11) . He says we should be doing it in the courts. Yea let's serve Bin Laden with a subpeona & put him in cuffs & drag him into court. The inmates are really running the asylum
This is like a Twilight Zone episode.

---

Who doesn't care about the erosion of free speech? Your arch nemeses the American Civil Liberties Union is ALWAYS standing up for the right to free speech, have you made a donation to them lately, Rox?

It's funny how many Americans, basically well meaning people in the majority, would happily sign away their constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties if given the chance. When people complain about the Patriot Act, Rox, it's not about spending a little more time getting searched at the airport. It's about the absolutely illegal notion of the government going into your house, going through your things, and NEVER EVEN HAVING TO TELL YOU THEY'VE BEEN THERE.

It's about the government NOT HAVING THE RIGHT to hold you in prison without charging you with a crime. Your civil liberties are not a gift from the government that the government can just take back. It doesn't work that way and that is why the framers of the constitution wrote it the way they did.

Papa, I absolutely do not think that US citizens are more at risk today than they were five years ago. I think Americans no longer have the illusion of safety that they lived under until 2001. Because anybody who was paying attention after the '92 trade center bombing knew that. I never, ever looked at the twin towers between '92 and '01 without thinking of that, and the vow that they would "bring them down" one day.

I also believe in my heart that Bush's unilateral decision process has not made any of us in the world any safer, and we here even more unsafe.

---

"it's about the absolutely illegal notion of the government going into your house, going through your things, and never even having to tell you they've been there."

namo, they've been allowed to do this for decades in rico investigations. all they did was expand the circumstances under which it could be invoked. that's it. the tool was already there and was utilized by law enforcement, but because the law was narrowly tailored to specific cases it could not be applied to terrorists. while the language is a bit vague and that is somewhat disturbing, don't pretend that no one has ever done a sneak and peek. all lawful and legal-like.

i know that you are opposed to the unilateral nature of gw's foreign policy, and we differ on that. i think that sometimes power must be applied unilaterally and with no regard for allied or enemy opposition or even good sense. the thugs who attacked us respect power and had been convinced that the united states was a paper tiger who'd run at the first sign of peril. part of what won the cold war was the soviet's belief that reagan was nuts. sometimes it's good to have a loon in control or at least someone who looks like one.

despite how much he's hated, or perhaps because of it, gw will get four more years and i think that's the best thing. let him stay and be a good wartime president. by 2008 a democratic iraq, a democratic iran (after a bloody revolution that makes the islamic revolution of almost a quarter century ago seem tame by comparison), a big bowl of glass where israel and palestine used to be, and u.s. troops in qatar only and then it'll be time to hand the reins over. then we'll see what hillary has got and if the nation is ready for a woman president.

---

What I'm saying is (and thank you, Namo (and others), for already stating this)that a terrorist attack is going to happen regardless of who is in office. One happened when Clinton was in office--the other when Bush was in office. The terrorists have their own timeline. You make it sound like Bush has done a good job preventing terrorist attacks. Maybe he has. Maybe there haven't been any attempts--or we would have had one. Do you really think the terrorists won't find a loophole? My point is that saying that if a Dem is elected, we will have one is ridiculous. Do I think Bush has riled things up? Yep. But, I think an attack will happen when an attack happens.

I do think the Bush admin uses terror alerts to their advantage. I do think that they are abusing our fears and sorrows over 9/11. More crucially, the admin has lied to us repeatedly. And, yet, Clinton was impeached over a freakin blowjob. People have died over Bush's lies!

I have seen part of the Patriot Act, and, papa, I'm surprised to find that you are a lawyer! Because, one would have to be to discipher the Patriot Act--and would need to also have every law it alludes to on hand to gather all of the changes to said existing laws. Especially when passages of the Act read something to the effect of: change "or" to "and" and such.

I have also read of stories where the Patriot Act has been used for other gains (I will have to regather these, if you actually need me to prove this--I think you know better). And, frankly, we are repeating history by our injustice to people who have been detained without any protections that our Constitution supposedly provides. Of course, we have to FINALLY act like a country who is a target for terrorism (we should have long before 9/11). But, the Patriot Act takes things too far.

I do believe that this is an abusive administration that seeks to reach gains for the corporations and the rich. I do not believe that Bush cares anything more for the rest of us except to gain votes and continue control over us. I do think this administration has reached depths that do reside near fascism--beyond any administration in U.S. History--and that is saying alot, I know.

I know that we will all continue to disagree on this matter, but I do wish you would at least accept that this is a passionate issue for many of us. It isn't just a matter of the usual namecalling.

As much as I can't believe that almost half of this country voted for the man, I really can't believe that he stands a chance in hell in being reelected with all of the hatred aimed at him. And, yes, I want to see his butt shipped back to Crawford. His father would have far more deserved the honor of being a 2 term President.

---

Updated On: 2/3/04 at 01:42 AM

jrb, i know that this is a passionate issue for many people and i respect that passion and am glad to see people getting fired up over issues. we disagree on the fundamentals of the patriot act, you can find your examples of abuses and i can find examples of how it helped law enforcement. it comes down to the fact that you want gw to go and i want him to stay. it's a difference that no amount of facts or logic or passion will sway.

and erik, the "record deficit" that we're running right now is still short of the "record deficit" that reagan ran in the 80's when taken as a percentage of gdp. right now it's just over 4% and in the 80's we hit 5.5%. now, straight cash talk, it's the most, but one cannot pretend the economy exists in a vacuum. ugh, i'm hearkening back to the good old days of ronny. i so gotta get outta this thread beofre i start trying to dig out my parachute pants.

---

Yep. But lets see what happens to the deficit when the cost of the war, excluded from GWB's proposed budget (you know...can't really put it in be cause you just don't *know* how much it might be...), gets tallied in. My guess is Ronny will slide into the #2 spot.

---