Posted on 11/26/2002 5:59:57 AM PST by wingnuts'nbolts
So why are you niggling about the Slimes, which can barely get the avergae Republican's name right, about some lines in a law as thick as a phone book when the substance of their argument - that the law invites abuse - is basically correct, especially in light of the government track record and the truthfulness of the people implementing the law?
It is difficult for me to believe that you believe such an absurd statement. If you do, what evidence do you have to support your belief ? Evidence, not suspicion or perception. Indisputable evidence, hard facts not heresay.
Go suck eggs, jerk. I am not apologizing for anything. I simply prefer to deal with the truth, whereas you seem to think that figuring out the truth is somehow supporting the government. So if the government lies, it is wrong, but folks that re-enforce YOUR beliefs lie, it is no big deal? That's a crock.
Once again, it's telling that you consider getting to the truth "niggling"
which can barely get the avergae Republican's name right, about some lines in a law as thick as a phone book
Once again, I've read most of that law. Have you? You didn't answer my question the first time.
when the substance of their argument - that the law invites abuse - is basically correct, especially in light of the government track record and the truthfulness of the people implementing the law?
There were plenty of good editorials around the country that made a case against TIA and Poindexter without lying that the HSA authorized TIA and that TIA was a done deal with the passage of HSA. Once again, why do you find the truth so problematic?
That's a cop-out. It doesnt' take that long to read HSA - most of it, the administrative details, can be skimmed - it's hard to find tyranny in a section that raises discretionary spending limites for a certain level of manager from $7,500 to $10,000, or a section that discusses voluntary severance pay.
What I do care about is that it not appear that the moderate Muslims feel like their interests would be better served by throwing in with bin Laden. Period. We need bases in those countries I mentioned, and if we push too far in the anti-Islam rhetoric, the populations of those countries will demand our removal.
This is not a theological position I am taking; it is one that is strategic. That is all.
As we discovered with the Clintons, whether a law was in place to restrain or to enable their power made little difference. They did what they wanted, citing authority as they needed, or invoking the absence of same ("No controlling legal authority"). They ran rampant over our institutions.
It's a question of trust. It's up to the American people to elect public officials who can be trusted with the power of office. The Clintons were a stunning demonstration of what happens when we elect the untrustworthy.
We now have an administration that, instead of arrogating powers, asks for them via the appropriate legislative process. There is a difference.
If you distrust Bush like you distrusted Clinton, you're not making that distinction.
I cites concrete reasons to assume the worst:
1. Poindexter and Ridge are liars.
2. The government has a track record of abuse and killing citizens (e.g. Waco) that, while it can't beat Al Quaida, is better than your average Hamas bus bombing.
3. The people that committed those atrocities still walk free. Israel at least hunts down and kills Hamas and other killers.
4. The government appears to be too lazy to work on alternatives to spying on us: The borders are still sieve-like, etc.
So, I have to ask: Isn't it perfectly rational to assume the worst? Isn't trusting Tom Ridge bascially either the product of ignorance, or, if an informed person trusts him, psychotic behavior?
Sorry, but pointing out that Ridge and Poindexter are liars does not in turn justify that the Times lied and other folks ran with the lie without verifying it. I find your methods here rather strange.
A good point! I do, in fact, have a predisposition to trust Bush. However, it would be much much easier to trust Bush if he didn't appoint a liar to be Secy. of HSA, didn't exhume John Poindexter to riffle through my Amex receipts, and did out the Elian raiders, or arrange to have Horiuchi roped down into a cluster***k in some third world hell hole so he could die a hero, or do SOMETHING - ANYTHING - to add credibility to the process of creating the HSA. Like fire whatsherface at INS. Anything! I'm easy!
Yes I am aware of both the denial of the bases and the movement of the missiles. That is why it is important that we have Qatar!! If we officially attack Islam, Qatar would also throw us out!!
You have made my point!
Getting legislative approval for the reorganization and its rules of employment was only the first step. Let's see what happens next.
You might even go so far as to say, we are damned if we do and doomed if we do not.
Yes, suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was one piece of legislation I had in mind when I made that post. Under the enforcement of that "temporary" legislation it is estimated that between 13,000 to 14,000 people were detained. Chief Justice Taney ruled the suspension unconstitutional but Lincoln just ignored him. I have a list of similar war time acts saved somewhere... lemme see if I can find it. :)
But when they continue the "Islam means peace" mantra, while setting up an apparatus to spy on ALL Americans, it tells me that something more is afoot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.