A threat from Bin Laden (possible debate)

[Mom2be]

then I suspect if you have such confidence and respect for the government that you would have no problem with a national health care plan? Or in leaving Social Security alone?

~Amanda

WAITING.......................................................................................

 

[wvrevy]

Thats the whole point - theyre not looking for "dirty little secrets"

Who is leaving in fear, now???

Please don't take offense at this, but are you really that naive ? You're talking about an administration that tried to subpoena abortion records under the (un)Patriot(ic) Act. You're talking about a president that won a primary by smearing his opponent through the south by whisper campaigns about his "mixed-race child." You're talking about a group of people that deliberately leaked the name of a CIA operative in attempt to embarrass a critic.

You are going to honestly sit there and try to claim that you have no worry about someone using the information they are gathering in an inappropriate manner ?

Wow...

 

[CathrynRose]

Still waiting to see this one answered.

Might I advise you dont hold youre breath?

If youre so disgusted with everything this country is doing, and how it's run, why are you here?

 

[CapeCodTenor]

Originally Posted by Mom2be
then I suspect if you have such confidence and respect for the government that you would have no problem with a national health care plan? Or in leaving Social Security alone?

~Amanda

WAITING.......................................................................................

Not sure if this was originally asked of someone specific, but I'll give it a go. National Health Care? Never

Social Security? I wouldn't mind having some contol over it.

 

[CheshireVal]

Might I advise you dont hold youre breath?

If youre so disgusted with everything this country is doing, and how it's run, why are you here?

Ah, the old America: love it or leave it argument. That's not really a helpful retort, since it just dodges the main issues of the debate.

Besides, just because someone doesn't love Bush doesn't mean they don't love the country itself.

 

[Maleficent13]

Might I advise you dont hold youre breath?

If youre so disgusted with everything this country is doing, and how it's run, why are you here?

And this, in a nutshell, is WHY it's been a long time since I posted on a political thread.

Have a good day everyone!

 

[CathrynRose]

You are going to honestly sit there and try to claim that you have no worry about someone using the information they are gathering in an inappropriate manner ?

Wow...

WHAT do you have to hide that youre so worried about??? What will they use, when they listen to your phone calls, against you, inappropriately???

Wow...

 

[peachgirl]

You have facts to back this up? You have reason to believe they have other intentions? Lets see 'em. Let's hear it. Press release *I* heard, it was targeting child-porn offenders. Do you have information otherwise?

Sounds like someone is paranoid and is depending on Faux News just a bit too much.

The gov't isn't trying to claim that they're targeting child-porn offenders. That's not the intent of the request:

the Bush administration depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore online child protection laws that have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

You did read that, right? Their request is based on a desire to restore laws the SC said were unconstitutional. Their request has nothing to do with capturing offenders.

Even if it did, the material they are requesting isn't material that is directly linked to specific people.

The government wants a list all requests entered into Google’s search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.

It could well be that if granted, the gov't would get a list of your searches and web address...you're not a child-porn offender are you?

 

[Mom2be]

Might I advise you dont hold youre breath?

If youre so disgusted with everything this country is doing, and how it's run, why are you here?

Okay - WTH?

Earlier you act all high and mighty and claim that those of us worried about abuse on ammendment rights would therefore also be against the 2nd ammendment. Of course Miss jasmine and myself prove you wrong. Yet now you are going to sidestep a question similar?

It is a legitimate ques - if you have faith in your government then I suppose you are pro National Health Care and pro leaving Social Security in the hands of the government. What is your position on this?

~Amanda

 

[Mom2be]

Not sure if this was originally asked of someone specific, but I'll give it a go. National Health Care? Never

Social Security? I wouldn't mind having some contol over it.

Okay - why? Why are you against National Health Care and why do you want more control over Social Security?

By the way - thank you for answering the question.

~Amanda

 

[brerrabbit]

The government has no right to wiretap without the proper supeona (sp). I lean conservative but the reality is the constitution guareentees us the right to privacy. If the secret court is available then the means exsisits to get a warrent to pursue the information. My only fear is that at some point the workings of the secret court becomes an issue and the left claims the doors must be thrown open and exposed to the light of day so we can make sure they are doing what they said. It's the classic dilema of the free society we live in, "who will watch the people who are watching us?" As far as some of the other constitutional arguments being thrown around here I find them funny. Those who are screaming at the top of their lungs about so many willing to trample on our rights to privacy would more than willingly trample on our rights to bears arms. Also, anyone who thinks the idea of listening to international calls without the proper documentation is something new think again. The NSA has been listening to phone calls both foriegn and domestic for years without any authorization. Lastly, the government asking for information from the internet search engines is wrong, and frankly illeagal. They claim to only want high level generic information because they claim to be going after pornography, specifically child pornography. Well thats a load because without specific information identifying specific internet users they will not catch or stop anything.

 

[CathrynRose]

It could well be that if granted, the gov't would get a list of your searches and web address...you're not a child-porn offender are you?

Look away - they'll be intoxicated and intrigued by my searches of "Disney Castle Pics" and "Migraines" and perhaps the "Alleviating Flu symptoms" would *really* give 'em something to think about.

 

[CathrynRose]

Okay - why? Why are you against National Health Care?

By the way - thank you for answering the question.

~Amanda

Why would anyone be against Nat'l health care? Ask anyone whom lives in a country WITH National Health Care.

 

[CathrynRose]

It is a legitimate ques - if you have faith in your government then I suppose you are pro National Health Care and pro leaving Social Security in the hands of the government. What is your position on this?

~Amanda

Im at work - I apologize for not answering your *questions* in a split-second.

 

[Mom2be]

Why would anyone be against Nat'l health care? Ask anyone whom lives in a country WITH National Health Care.

That is not answering the question - but nice deflection. WHY ARE YOU AGAINST NATIONAL HEALTHCARE?

 

[wvrevy]

WHAT do you have to hide that youre so worried about??? What will they use, when they listen to your phone calls, against you, inappropriately???

Wow...

Me ? Nothing much...I'm a pretty boring guy, in reality. Steady job...happy marriage. They couldn't really find much to embarrass me with.

But then, I'm concerned for more people than just myself. You scoffed at the notion that you stand about a 1 in a million shot at being killed in a terrorist attack, but that is a FACT...and despite that fact, you're so scared of the terrorist boogeyman that you're willing to throw away your rights as an American citizen - everything it means to be an American and be secure in your person from government abuse - just to thwart that tiny threat.

In the last ten years, there have been roughly 3100 deaths on American soil cause by terrorism. In that same span of time, roughly 25,000,000 have died in this country of one cause or another. In other words, for people that died during that time frame, only the tiniest fraction (.01%) died from terrorist causes during the period encompassing the two worst terrorist attacks on American soil in our country's history. But for that tiny chance, you're willing to hand over your rights to privacy, your fourth amendment rights, your rights to free speech (wouldn't want to "encourage the enemy" now would we...well, except if you're Bill O'Reilly and the target is San Francisco), your freedom of the press...just about everything that makes this country unique in history.

Sorry...but I'm not willing to do so. No matter how you sneeringly try, it is not for me to show what I have to hide from the government or from public consumption. The government must show cause. THAT is what the constitution says, and I think that is the side of history I would rather be on.

 

[peachgirl]

Look away - they'll be intoxicated and intrigued by my searches of "Disney Castle Pics" and "Migraines" and perhaps the "Alleviating Flu symptoms" would *really* give 'em something to think about.

What they might or might not find isn't the point. They have no right to look. This notion that as long as you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't mind gov't intruding into your private business is short sighted and dangerous.

If that's the case, why don't we just do away with any privacy laws we have and allow the gov't to pick and choose at their pleasure how much they'll invade our personal lives?

Why not let them take at look at your medical history whenever they choose? You don't have anything to hide there, do you?

Why not let them listen in on your phone calls? No problem, right?

How about letting them put a camera in your home, just to make sure that no deviant activity is going on...fine, right?

Where do you draw the line as to when the gov't can invade your privacy, or do you have no line at all?

 

[Mom2be]

The government has no right to wiretap without the proper supeona (sp). I lean conservative but the reality is the constitution guareentees us the right to privacy. If the secret court is available then the means exsisits to get a warrent to pursue the information. My only fear is that at some point the workings of the secret court becomes an issue and the left claims the doors must be thrown open and exposed to the light of day so we can make sure they are doing what they said. It's the classic dilema of the free society we live in, "who will watch the people who are watching us?" As far as some of the other constitutional arguments being thrown around here I find them funny. Those who are screaming at the top of their lungs about so many willing to trample on our rights to privacy would more than willingly trample on our rights to bears arms. Also, anyone who thinks the idea of listening to international calls without the proper documentation is something new think again. The NSA has been listening to phone calls both foriegn and domestic for years without any authorization. Lastly, the government asking for information from the internet search engines is wrong, and frankly illeagal. They claim to only want high level generic information because they claim to be going after pornography, specifically child pornography. Well thats a load because without specific information identifying specific internet users they will not catch or stop anything.

I have no problem with the 2nd ammendment. But I agree with everything else you said. See a conservative and liberal can agree - someone break out the wine! None for me though - I'll just have grape juice!

~Amanda

 

[CapeCodTenor]

By the way - thank you for answering the question.
~Amanda

No prob.

Okay - why? Why are you against National Health Care and why do you want more control over Social Security?

Healthcare ~ I don't see the Gov. running a national healthcare system very effectively. I see out of control spending all over the place. And who will pay for it? We will, and I'm not ready to have my taxes go up. And it has been my understanding that on one, in a time of need, will be turned down for healthcare.

Social Security ~ I'm 35 and I don't ever see myself receiving social Security when I retire...it just won't happen. So I wouldn't mind having the ability to take what I put into it and placing it somewhere where it could possibly earn more.

 

[Mom2be]

No prob.


Healthcare ~ I don't see the Gov. running a national healthcare system very effectively. I see out of control spending all over the place. And who will pay for it? We will, and I'm not ready to have my taxes go up. And it has been my understanding that on one, in a time of need, will be turned down for healthcare.

Social Security ~ I'm 35 and I don't ever see myself receiving social Security when I retire...it just won't happen. So I wouldn't mind having the ability to take what I put into it and placing it somewhere where it could possibly earn more.

I completely agree with you. Which is also why I am against tapping phone lines without a systems of check and balances. I don't trust the government to control the situation, I don't trust then to not let money run out all over the place. And I don't think the government will care if I am guilty or innocent without those systems of checks and balances.

The same thing for Social Security (I'm 26 and have the same fear) - I'm not big on Social Security controlling my money because I don't trust the govenrment with it.

Faith in the government is not always a good thing - I especially think so when the government takes supposively illegal actions against it's own citizens.

~Amanda