what a dolt!

[Mos_Chillin]

... leadership

[tvashtarkatena]

I would think that the explicit loss of the right of habeus corpus, as specified in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, would be enough to chill any self-professed libertarian. In the case of certain feaux libertarians on this site, apparently it is not.

 

A massive, extra legal electronic surveillance program, enemy combatant status (which, after all, has been applied to US citizens), Guantanamo Bay, Extra-Ordinary Rendition, secret CIA prisons, toture; all should give anyone concerned with how our government violates basic human rights (and not just those effecting our own punk ass skins) pause. Supporters of this administration (and yes, when you support their policies, you support them FW, KKK, despite your self professed 'libertarianism') are quick to fire off the play book argument of "Well, how have YOU been effected?". This is bullshit logic, of course, because the question really is "How have these policies affected our country?" When viewed in this light, these policies have been an enormously damaging issue for us around the world. It has sapped our credibility and hobbled our ability to pursuade the Arab world, and the rest of the world, for that matter, to move closer to our point of view and help us deal with violent extremists. It has a major root cause for our foreign policy failures over the past six years.

 

Or perhaps I'm just being paranoid.

Edited September 8, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[mattp]

I long for the good old days when I was free to take toothpaste and nail clippers on an airplane.

[JayB]

Some excerpts:

 

"People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they agree to spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and the war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment...

 

In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop the unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation.

 

And so Kennedy was killed, and al Qaeda wasn't present at that time, but rather, those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing...

 

This war was entirely unnecessary, as testified by your own reports. And among the most capable of those from your own side who speaks to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn't like those who give advice....

 

The entire world came out in unprecedented demonstrations to warn against waging the war and describe its true nature in eloquent terms like "no spilling red blood for black oil," yet he paid them no heed....

 

So in answer to the question about the causes of the Democrats' failure to stop the war, I say: they are the same reasons which led to the failure of former president Kennedy to stop the Vietnam war. Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn't be any cause for astonishment -- and there isn't any -- in the Democrats' failure to stop the war. And you're the ones who have the saying which goes, "money talks." And I tell you: after the failure of your representatives in the Democratic Party to implement your desire to stop the war, you can still carry anti-war placards and spread out in the streets of major cities, then go back to your homes, but that will be on no use and will lead to the prolonging of the war....

 

In fact, the life of all mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories and of the major corporations, yet despite that the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statics speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa. This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerating fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives....

 

The capitalist system seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of "globallization" in order to protect democracy....

 

And if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing of your war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard...."

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

It was only a matter of time before some moron injected the bin Laden speech into what is actually a serious issue. Thanks, JayB...way to enhance your already shakey credibility.

[ericb]

I would think that the explicit loss of the right of habeus corpus, as specified in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, would be enough to chill any self-professed libertarian. In the case of certain feaux libertarians on this site, apparently it is not.

 

A massive, extra legal electronic surveillance program, enemy combatant status (which, after all, has been applied to US citizens), Guantanamo Bay, Extra-Ordinary Rendition, secret CIA prisons, toture; all should give anyone concerned with how our government violates basic human rights (and not just those effecting our own punk ass skins) pause. Supporters of this administration (and yes, when you support their policies, you support them FW, KKK, despite your self professed 'libertarianism') are quick to fire off the play book argument of "Well, how have YOU been effected?". This is bullshit logic, of course, because the question really is "How have these policies affected our country?" When viewed in this light, these policies have been an enormously damaging issue for us around the world. It has sapped our credibility and hobbled our ability to pursuade the Arab world, and the rest of the world, for that matter, to move closer to our point of view and help us deal with violent extremists. It has a major root cause for our foreign policy failures over the past six years.

 

Or perhaps I'm just being paranoid.

 

TTK...I believe the question was what freedoms have YOU lost

[mattp]

TTK...I believe the question was what freedoms have YOU lost

 

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.

 

Why can't we wait in front of the airport terminal to pick somebody up? It is not about security, it is about making us fearful on the one hand and grateful for our government on the other. If the bad guy has a trunk full of explosives they will either (A) blow themself up to get to heaven, or (B) jump out of the car and run away, with a timer set to go off before the airport security has a chance to call a towtruck. There is no rational basis for the anti-terror restriction. Even though our daily lifestyle has not changed much, we've been told to trust the government and do what they say. And we're going to pay for it for decades, at least.

[ericb]

TTK...I believe the question was what freedoms have YOU lost

 

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.

 

Why can't we wait in front of the airport terminal to pick somebody up? It is not about security, it is about making us fearful on the one hand and grateful for our government on the other. If the bad guy has a trunk full of explosives they will either (A) blow themself up to get to heaven, or (B) jump out of the car and run away, with a timer set to go off before the airport security has a chance to call a towtruck. There is no rational basis for the anti-terror restriction. Even though our daily lifestyle has not changed much, we've been told to trust the government and do what they say. And we're going to pay for it for decades, at least.

 

So what you are saying is that after ~ 6 years of rule by the republican trifecta, the alleged "puppet" of the religious right, the "radical" religious right that is equally as dangerous as radical Islam, the only time you notice your life is different is when you are picking someone up from the airport??? So much for the world according to Rosie O'Donnell

[cj001f]

No one has yet mentioned the genius thanked OPEC (he was at the APEC meeting) and commented on how he liked meeting the Austrian troops

[Fairweather]

TTK...I believe the question was what freedoms have YOU lost

 

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.

[ericb]

No one has yet mentioned the genius thanked OPEC (he was at the APEC meeting) and commented on how he liked meeting the Austrian troops

 

I don't think Bush's intelligence is the subject of the recent thread drift here....but thanks for another non-answer

[ashw_justin]

Ok fine, what if I correspond with a friend in a foreign country, and the government guesses that they are a terrorist. Shit would hit the fan and I would most likely be subject to all of the special treatment outlined in several new anti-terror laws, whether or not I was ultimately proven innocent. I also no longer have the freedom of privacy in that scenario; instead I must fear being the object of misplaced anti-anti-establishment zeal. I call that a loss of freedom. Hell, if this propaganda works like I think it will, crossing the U.S. border in possession of anything written by Chomsky is going to be grounds for detainment...

 

Only because of oversight by 'paranoid liberals' have the anti-terror policies been so (apparently for now) limited in scope. If no critics are paying attention, those in power are guaranteed to walk over the rights and freedoms of the less powerful, even of their own people, either inadvertently or intentionally. That simply holds in general. But it must be nice for the flagwavers to go ahead saying that everything is alright, knowing full well that a mob of vigilant paranoid liberals are keeping watch against totalitarianism for them.

[mattp]

So what you are saying is that after ~ 6 years of rule by the republican trifecta, the alleged "puppet" of the religious right, the "radical" religious right that is equally as dangerous as radical Islam, the only time you notice your life is different is when you are picking someone up from the airport??? So much for the world according to Rosie O'Donnell

 

Did I ever say any of that?

 

1. It is closer to the truth to say that the Bush Administration has used the religious right, rather than the other way around. Who here has said that Bush is a puppet of the religious right?

 

2. I don't think anybody here has said that the radical religious right is a dangerous as radical Islam. Yes, they are capable of blowing things up and killing people, and they HAVE done so INSIDE the U.S., but there is not the same worldwide suicide terrorist movement associated with the "religious right."

 

3. What I wrote was that the hassles with airport security are not so much a loss of freedom (though there is some of that, I suppose), but a stupid charade that is part of the ongoing effort to distract us.

 

Go back to school or take some reading comprehension lessons at the Kuman Learning Center.

[No. 13 Baby]

 

[ericb]

 

2. I don't think anybody here has said that the radical religious right is a dangerous as radical Islam. Yes, they are capable of blowing things up and killing people, and they HAVE done so INSIDE the U.S., but there is not the same worldwide suicide terrorist movement associated with the "religious right."

 

are you referring to the six abortion center incidents in the past ~ 10 years, or McVeigh....the confessed AGNOSTIC

[tvashtarkatena]

The question is never "What freedom have YOU lost". When one person loses a basic civil right, we all do. All of us are now subject to government spying without probable cause. Any of us may, at any time, be kidnapped and sent to a secret CIA prison, whether due to a mistake, misuse of power, or political vendetta. The record clearly shows such 'mistakes' have happened many, many times.

 

But again, it's not about the probability of any one individual suffering such a fate. This is the 'small man' argument, which people like FW, (I'd add EricB and KKK, but they never actually seem to have an argument of any time...they're more moronic Greek chorus than cogent voice for their causes) consistently put forth and wrap in a paranoic's cloke. The larger argument is what we, as citizens, want our government to stand for in terms of basic human rights.

 

It's pretty clear to the rest of us here that the FWs of the world, and, unfortunately, they are a dime a dozen, either a) really don't give a shit or b) have a very low standard when valuing basic human rights, except for, of course, when they apply to them personally. This should come as no surprise. These are the same people who vote their pocket books rather than the greater good, despite the wealth, priveledge, opportunities, and security that the greater society has given them.

 

Well, some of us do give a shit, even if we haven't been tortured in the Dark Prison in Afghanistan or had our phones tapped.

[crazy_t]

"its reputation worsened, its prestige was broken globally and it was bled dry economically"

 

accurate assessment, unfortunately.

[Crux]

 

2. I don't think anybody here has said that the radical religious right is a dangerous as radical Islam. Yes, they are capable of blowing things up and killing people, and they HAVE done so INSIDE the U.S., but there is not the same worldwide suicide terrorist movement associated with the "religious right."

 

are you referring to the six abortion center incidents in the past ~ 10 years, or McVeigh....the confessed AGNOSTIC

ericb writes, "the confessed agnostic," as though being an agnostic were a crime, the crime. Interesting.

[ericb]

 

2. I don't think anybody here has said that the radical religious right is a dangerous as radical Islam. Yes, they are capable of blowing things up and killing people, and they HAVE done so INSIDE the U.S., but there is not the same worldwide suicide terrorist movement associated with the "religious right."

 

are you referring to the six abortion center incidents in the past ~ 10 years, or McVeigh....the confessed AGNOSTIC

ericb writes, "the confessed agnostic," as though being an agnostic were a crime, the crime. Interesting.

 

not so much....some lefties point to his Roman Catholic upbringing and thus deem his acts those of a Christian terrorist. His own statements counteract this supposition

[tvashtarkatena]

 

2. I don't think anybody here has said that the radical religious right is a dangerous as radical Islam. Yes, they are capable of blowing things up and killing people, and they HAVE done so INSIDE the U.S., but there is not the same worldwide suicide terrorist movement associated with the "religious right."

 

are you referring to the six abortion center incidents in the past ~ 10 years, or McVeigh....the confessed AGNOSTIC

ericb writes, "the confessed agnostic," as though being an agnostic were a crime, the crime. Interesting.

 

not so much....some lefties point to his Roman Catholic upbringing and thus deem his acts those of a Christian terrorist. His own statements counteract this supposition

I've never once read or heard of McVeigh ever being associated with Christianity. I'd make an educated guess that you just made that up off the top of your head, you know, like you do the rest of your arguments.

 

You've apparently got the Militia Movement mixed up with the Army of God. That's OK though, no clarity of thought is expected, so none is missed.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[ericb]

 

2. I don't think anybody here has said that the radical religious right is a dangerous as radical Islam. Yes, they are capable of blowing things up and killing people, and they HAVE done so INSIDE the U.S., but there is not the same worldwide suicide terrorist movement associated with the "religious right."

 

are you referring to the six abortion center incidents in the past ~ 10 years, or McVeigh....the confessed AGNOSTIC

ericb writes, "the confessed agnostic," as though being an agnostic were a crime, the crime. Interesting.

 

not so much....some lefties point to his Roman Catholic upbringing and thus deem his acts those of a Christian terrorist. His own statements counteract this supposition

I've never once read or heard of McVeigh ever being associated with Christianity. I'd make an educated guess that you just made that up off the top of your head, you know, like you do the rest of your arguments.

 

You've apparently got the Militia Movement mixed up with the Army of God. That's OK though, no clarity of thought is expected, so none is missed.

 

 

so which bombings was MattP referring to?

[Adam13]

Before they had to bring in metal detectors and security, people bombed abortion clinics in the name of god, so there's one example.

[tvashtarkatena]

That's the Army of God. Check out their website. So many different brands of Christianity to choose from.

[Adam13]

Every other group in society, from black people to arabs have to suffer because of what bad individuals belonging to those races do, but christians get to just say "oh those people are radicals they dont represent what we believe in", when a hardcore religious person does something crazy, that's bullshit.

[Fairweather]

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.