Fairweather

You been talkin lot 'bout violence and ass kickin these past two days, AK. Is sat what happens when yer doctor tell ya to stay away for the wildwood weed?

Who are "we"? You and your narcissistic west seattle friends? You are a simpleton.

crazy t: "The Guzzler"

are you posting from the bunker in case osama attacks again? Read post #721468, ADD boy.

i am self-employed. seize my credit card, then i won't have to pay my debt. i know how to survive in the wilderness. this goverment won't be the problem, remember this thread is titled a brave new world. the problem will be a world government. live free or die. I agree. But the romantic notion of "surviving in the wilderness" long-term is full of hunger, damp, stink, filth, and sorrow. I'll keep the world we have, thanks. But I won't live in the beehive some here seem to think is da shit.

...you mean most people.

Small arms are not an effective tool against the bureaucracy. Your licences - professional and otherwise will be null and void. Your SS#, credit cards, will be shut down. Your accounts seized. Your employer will not have you. You will be a homeless shell. Fortunately, the military in this country is sworn to uphold the constitution - and I firmly believe it will if it ever needs to. I'm almost sad to say that I sometimes have more faith in the officer corps of our military than I do in the political process. Not really - but as a last defense. You won't ever see any UN blue helmets in your neighborhood. if you do - fire at will. The guns in our houses are there to protect our families, certainly. But don't kid yourself into believing they're an effective hedge against government-sponsored mob rule.

Nobody answered the question, because there has been no loss of basic freedoms. The government has a right - as it always has - to conduct surveillance on individuals or groups suspected of planning violence against American citizens at home or abroad. Nobody answered the question, because the only freedom anybody here has lost is the freedom to think sans this current social paranoia enveloping a very narrow segment of a privileged, yet disaffected political class.

Yes, that was the question - a rhetorical dodge to avoid responding to the very here and now reality that, in the name of fighting terror, the Bush administration HAS chipped away at the Constitution and eroded our image as a beacon for liberty - with the backing of Congress. "Eroded our image as a beacon for liberty" - Is that why so many people - like Glassgowkiss - have continued immigrating here? The challenge is still open - and on your terms, even. I'll grant you the Jose Pedilla case. The guy was an American citizen and should not have been subject to military justice. But the court came through for the guy and he now sits convicted in a federal penitentiary. Other than this, can you demonstrate where Bush has taken away guaranteed freedoms for Americans or persons here under any circumstances? Listening to overseas telephone conversations of foreign nationals? Not covered. Why is it that the same folks who conjure up this federal boogey man steelin' their rights are always the first to rant hysterically that "they should have connected the dots!" after something bad happens? The question about lost freedom was posed to Justin, but if he is unable or unwilling to answer, then, by all means, you can be his proxy, Matt.

Yes. You do need to know before you refer to your country is such a manner as you did. If you can't articulate your perceived loss of freedom or give specifics thereto, then your premise becomes defined as nothing more than paranoia. The case you cite is being perused by New York State government. Not Bush Admin. How does this differ from drug seizure laws enacted long before Bush? I don't agree with either, but DA's will always try to stretch statutes for effect. This has nothing to do with Bush. But again, I'll ask, what freedoms has Bush taken from you?

You're the one with training wheels for an avatar, junior.

Seriously; what freedoms have you actually lost?

Nothing wrong with that. Seriously. I still feel that Bush - despite his obvious shortcomings - is superior leadership to almost anything Democrats or a third party have to offer. I believe that the line differentiating liberal and leftist is getting more blurred every day and that the communal ideology ensconced therein is a threat to my freedom and the country I know.

"Any remaining freedom"? Gimme a fucking break. Your statement above is part of the reason this conflict will be longer, and more drawn out than need be. Put simply; you are an enabler.

Internet tough guy transplant, you. Go suck a bagpipe.

I can think of many cc.comers who would say the exact same things! Is al-Qaida taking over cc.com? Exactly. But I still fear the left-politics of many of the goof-balls here more than some old bearded turd who may or may not still be alive and who's fucked-up religion will never take root in anglo-western culture.

charity bump for the big yawn generator

Recently discovered on Tvashtarketena's bookshelf - er, well, ok, it was actually found along with his crayons on his mom's kitchen table:

I'm not sure why you think I would be interested in that story. I have never professed any religious beliefs here whatsoever. The fact that you paint people with whom you disagree with such a broad brush speaks volumes about you. A few people here do, but you don't know me, so save the religion bullshit for someone else.

...but I don't want some left-wing nanny idiot telling me I can't if I decide I want to. Are you a book burner like your buddy Crux?

Fairweather, have you read Richard Clarke's book? He offers quite a different view on it. Clark has his own agenda. My point here is that the suppression of freedom of expression by those on the left seems to get a frequent pass at best, and active participation in the case of Crux. Do you really think that ABC would suppress a piece that portrayed Republicans in the same manner? No. The fact that I can't go out and purchase a documentary that portrays a point of view simply because a presidential candidate (and New York Senator - home of ABC) has the power to stop that DVD release is startling. The fact that one side of the political process has that kind of pull and the other does not is even more starling. The fact that the same lefties who claim to be gasping for air beneath Bush's heel are the same ones calling for the imprisonment of media executives is unforgivable. This ain't about the truth, Jon. It's about freedom...and hypocrisy.

authoritarian freudian? Huh? No slip at all. It's called humor. I didn't expect Old Joe to get it, but I thought you were a little brighter.

I really don't care whether or not the president can impress you with his verbal prowess, as long as he's effectively restricting your freedom.

Still doesn't explain what makes you stupid.