Listening In On Citizen Conversations
Ain’t nearly as bad when the democrats are in the majority. I guess when your the majority…and you know… have to protect citizens from terrorism, giving departments in charge of security some constitutional wiggle room just ain’t that bad after all.
Is it fair to say the democrats are not as dumb as those in their constituency who argue against these kinds of measures? They realize their is a very real threat and that potential acts of terrorism would be politically devastating if it was shown it could be prevent with this program in place.
I anxiously await strong denunciations of the democrats from Jaime, Darwin and Bettina. Better see the number 3 next to ‘comment’ on this post within the next 24 hours.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Wow, in simpe steve world we can grossly generalize everyone’s view point as the same and take every story and make it into something it is not. I’m not sure if you have a bad memory, are inflamatory on purpose, or are just stupid. I will, however, tell you that I’ve never taken the same postion on wiretapping as Brian or other hardliners. I have been concerned that Bush has used authority that he wasn’t granted. I believe this is what probably concerned the majority of people that were concerned by such things. Without proper voting procedures and checks and balances it was too slippery a slope to where it could lead. This article is all about establishing something that is clearly important, but also coming to some conclusions about how to do it correctly.
Just a question… Do you read or do you simply look at words and decide what you want them to say?
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
So you support Bush’s decision to enable wiretapping between citizen and international non-citizen that are suspect to be involved in terrorism?
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:36 am
If legal, I support it. The point of contention is whether or not he was able to make those decisions or if they had to come from a different governing body. But yes, overall I do favor intelligence level survalence as a pre-emptive measure to protecting this country, as opposed to blindly attacking some other country and assuming that will prevent terrorism from happending at home. In fact, I’d pay big tax dollars on this type of intelligence, but it would also have to be subjected to many, many checks and balances. A foundation of our government.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:18 am
The administration believed it was legal. What do you think?
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Well I don’t know what to think. The MSM told me it was illegal and they are always wrong, so it must mean that it was legal and that I simply don’t have the intelligence to make decisions on my own. I’m confused.
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
You should look into yourself and figure out if you think it’s legal or not. I looked into it and then decided where I landed on the issue.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:44 am
“Wow, in simpe steve world we can grossly generalize everyone’s view point as the same and take every story and make it into something it is not.” Yes, that’s exactly how it works with Steve, cause he’s self-actualized and sees more than we all could ever see: He has incorporated the ownership of the truth, and hence, he also possesses the monopoly of deciding what a given word means and what not.
Sorry, that this post goes off topic, but it is a revanche to this mornings conversation, where he restated that no matter what I think or do, he knows exactly why I do it, and no matter how I argue, it only testifies to my own insecurities, and no matter what I say, he knows already how I mean it. That’s the privilege of being self-actualized - an inherent claim to be allowed to interpete everything the way the self-actualized person wants it to be.
That makes Steve so special.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Bettina,
Sarcasm much. Sheesh.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:47 am
I can feel the love.