code65536 wrote:XXXXX wrote:necessarily eroding some of our rights as a way to protect the country
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
I won't respond to the rest of your post because JamieW already did a fine job of responding to it.
JamieW wrote:All those words but not a drop of truth. You should have stuck with "baah." You may assume anyone here believes anything you say. But the fact is you are a dolt who assumes without evidence a great deal of things, the most important of which is that others are stupid. This is why you are a failure. Your next response should be "baaah" because logic fails you completely.
JamieW wrote:I love the "oh my god, terrorists!!!!" Less people have died from "terrorism" than so many other means.
And while I will argue against gun control as just controlling law abiding citizens, I will be consistent. Patriot Act doesn't control terrorists, it controls citizens.
Hard Republican platform is a conflict of its own ideas.
But I do love how propaganda and fear-mongering has driven you into this impenetrable shell of ignorance which lets you sleep at night. And I thought I told you to respond with "baah."
Ian wrote:I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act myself. It reminds me a little too much of Big Brother. Call me paranoid, but I'm not ready to trade in the freedoms this country has fought for quite yet. It might make you feel "safe" but putting too much power into the hands of a few is not a good thing.
JamieW wrote:I respond as you do:
FACT: You have never provided one.
FACT: You assume without knowledge.
FACT: I'm not compelled to provide anything except a commentary on your robotic rhetoric.
FACT: You should be responding with "baah."
JamieW wrote:Dude, you're an idiot who says nothing but in a great deal of words and understands even less. Now just stick with "baah," you sheep. Do as you're told. You're used to it.
JamieW wrote:It is amazing how quickly you get offended when someone applies the same tactics you have used. When you don't like the argument, you insult. Not because it is worthy of insult, but because you've got nothing better to say. Now, say "baah," boy.
XXXXX wrote:I agree, but faced with the effects of 9/11 it is not practical to sit and wait for round two as these other posters would recommend. Any new actions to ferret out terrorists from among our free society will be an erosion of freedoms. I don't like having my guns controlled, but I can understand the problems they cause in the wrong hands, and can support reasonable attempts to regulate some aspects of their ownership.
XXXXX wrote:No, the reality is because you were humiliated by my replies, and have at best resorted to quoting famous men, or having others fight your battles. Spoken like a true Libertarian from the fringes of the peanut gallery.
Ian wrote:XXXXX wrote:I agree, but faced with the effects of 9/11 it is not practical to sit and wait for round two as these other posters would recommend. Any new actions to ferret out terrorists from among our free society will be an erosion of freedoms. I don't like having my guns controlled, but I can understand the problems they cause in the wrong hands, and can support reasonable attempts to regulate some aspects of their ownership.
There needs to be a fine balance. Personally, I'd rather have better screening of people let into the country than have Big Bro listen into my phone calls and/or emails. Before they extend the Patriot Act for other things, it needs to be reviewed and see if it really worked and how to make it better, without intruding on the privacy of citizens.
Given, I'd have no reason to be worried, but I really wouldn't want to have the FBI camped outside my door because they heard me say "bomb" and "alqueda" on the phone.
code65536 wrote:XXXXX wrote:No, the reality is because you were humiliated by my replies, and have at best resorted to quoting famous men, or having others fight your battles. Spoken like a true Libertarian from the fringes of the peanut gallery.
Do you have anything in your arsenal except name-calling? This is pointless. Not because I'm humiliated. Not because I'm defeated. But because I feel like I'm talking to a bloody record player saying the same "I'm great, you're stupid" thing over and over again. Grow up. Learn to debate maturely. And then maybe I'll continue this. Good riddance!
Thomas Jefferson had 187 slaves. We know that because he kept meticulous hand-written records, which we still have. On January 14, 1774, after he inherited slaves from first his mother and then his father-in-law, Thomas Jefferson wrote his inventory of 187 slaves.
The only changes on the Y chromosome are rare sporadic mutations in the DNA that accumulate slowly over centuries. Male lineages can therefore be distinguished from one another through the characteristic set of mutations carried in their Y chromosomes.
The new DNA evidence is likely to renew questions about Jefferson's position on slavery, Lander and Ellis believe. "Jefferson's stated reservations about ending slavery included a fear that emancipation would lead to racial mixing and amalgamation," they wrote in their commentary in Nature. "His own interracial affair now personalizes this issue, while adding a dimension of hypocrisy."
Spare me the heapings of praise for Ronald Reagan.
He was one of the worst presidents we've ever had.
In fact, he should have been impeached for the Iran-Contra scandal, and he might have been had Congress and the media just done their jobs. Reagan misappropriated funds, and then he lied about it. He traded with Iran, an enemy of the United States, and he lied about that, too.
But Congress went weak in the knees when Ollie North showed up strutting in his uniform.
And the media fell down, too. Katherine Graham, owner of The Washington Post, said the country couldn't handle another impeachment crisis, and so the Post downplayed it.
Let's be clear on Reagan's record.
Reagan was responsible for killing tens of thousands of innocent people in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Honduras as he waged illegal wars and funded brutal militaries. The truth commission of El Salvador investigated the murders of 75,000 people during the civil war in the 1980s, and it found that the Salvadoran military, or death squads connected to the military, had committed the bulk of those crimes. At the time, Bush was lavishing hundreds of millions of dollars on the Salvadoran government, and his CIA was working with the death squads.
Reagan was responsible, as Christopher Hitchens has noted, for approving Israel's invasion of Lebanon, which killed about 18,000 civilians.
Reagan was responsible for his own unilateral invasion of that huge threat to the United States called Grenada. (Oh, the great liberator!)
Reagan was responsible for inciting a racist backlash. He kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign in--of all places--Philadelphia, Mississippi, where Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and James Cheney were murdered in 1964. Reagan also fueled racism with his stories about "welfare queens" and his defense of the apartheid regime of South Africa.
Reagan was responsible for attacking women's rights, as he tried to legitimate the backlash against feminism. He appointed the far right justice Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court, and he loaded the lower court benches with anti-choice ideologues.
Reagan was responsible for a woeful response to the AIDS epidemic, which needlessly jeopardized the lives of millions of people. He also consorted with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who called AIDS divine revenge on homosexuals.
Reagan was responsible for shredding the social contract between labor and management, and he declared open season on trade unions when he fired the air traffic controllers.
Reagan was responsible for flattening out the progressive income tax and for giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and to corporations. His economic policies, as Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic Policy and Research has noted, dramatically redistributed income--to the rich.
Reagan was responsible for hooking millions of people overseas on tobacco, as he turned the Commerce Department into the advance team for Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds.
Reagan ("We begin bombing in five minutes") was responsible for the multi-billion dollar boondoggle that goes by the name of missile defense.
Reagan was responsible for launching an assault on our environment (remember James Watt!) that is now reaching its apotheosis under George W.
In a way, Reagan was W's father. The macho swagger, the studied anti-intellectualism, the infatuation with military spending, and the overriding concern for corporations and the rich--all these Bush has inherited from Reagan.
And while Reagan consulted Nancy's astrologer for advice, Bush does him one better by consulting the Lord Himself.
The only difference is that Reagan knew how to read his lines.
-- Matthew Rothschild
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
|All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2016 CDRLabs Inc.|