Political Crossfire Forums

[lovebush]

mr.snruB wrote: You know, lovebush, things would be a lot more efficient if you replied to more then one person per post. You could take 2 or 3 quotes and put them all into one post, instead of making about 30 in a row

its the same amount of reading! Ok Ill admit it, I dont know how :!oops: It does look funny when I spend a few hours trying to catch up on a long thread like this then I get to the end and have ten posts in a row. :P

[agentkgb]

lovebush wrote: mr.snruB wrote: You know, lovebush, things would be a lot more efficient if you replied to more then one person per post. You could take 2 or 3 quotes and put them all into one post, instead of making about 30 in a row

its the same amount of reading! Ok Ill admit it, I dont know how :!oops:
Quote something, then copy-paste it onto a word or notepad or whatever document, then quote the next post. Respond to them all after the [/quote] for each and then paste the whole thing back when you're done.

[lovebush]

agentkgb wrote: [
well that depends. If I am joe boring who never does anything that might be a cause of concern to the gov I dont expect or want them to listen to my phone calls. But If I look into purchasing large amounts of ammonium nitrate and I rent a Ryder truck. I hope they will not only listen to my phone calls but I hope they drop by my home and have a look through my under ware drawer. Now Im I being dishonest?

Quote:
First, they wouldn't know which it is until they listen (unless listening isn't so essential). Second, what would stop them from listening to the first person's if a warrant's not required?


lack of interest, About six years ago I was like you guys , very concerned about my privacy and not being searched, then I quite selling drugs and wow! For some reason Im just not so worried anymore. I think there needs to be over sight for these programs and Im not for doing away with warrants, I think the three branches of gov will keep each other in check and government intrusions will eb and flo over time. I would worry more if the liberals were worried less. if that makes any sense.

[lovebush]

agentkgb wrote: lovebush wrote: mr.snruB wrote: You know, lovebush, things would be a lot more efficient if you replied to more then one person per post. You could take 2 or 3 quotes and put them all into one post, instead of making about 30 in a row

its the same amount of reading! Ok Ill admit it, I dont know how :!oops:
Quote something, then copy-paste it onto a word or notepad or whatever document, then quote the next post. Respond to them all after the for each and then paste the whole thing back when you're done.[/quote]

:shock:thanks! but I think my way is simpler Im not that good with a computer. when Im posting and my kid wants to go online, she begs me to let her type it for me. :!oops:

[agentkgb]

lovebush wrote: agentkgb wrote: [
well that depends. If I am joe boring who never does anything that might be a cause of concern to the gov I dont expect or want them to listen to my phone calls. But If I look into purchasing large amounts of ammonium nitrate and I rent a Ryder truck. I hope they will not only listen to my phone calls but I hope they drop by my home and have a look through my under ware drawer. Now Im I being dishonest?

Quote:
First, they wouldn't know which it is until they listen (unless listening isn't so essential). Second, what would stop them from listening to the first person's if a warrant's not required?


lack of interest,
Somehow that's not reassuring.
lovebush wrote: About six years ago I was like you guys , very concerned about my privacy and not being searched, then I quite selling drugs and wow! For some reason Im just not so worried anymore. I think there needs to be over sight for these programs and Im not for doing away with warrants, I think the three branches of gov will keep each other in check and government intrusions will eb and flo over time.
I'm not a criminal or terrorist or anything but I still don't think that there's any reason for me to trust the government not to invade people's privacies. Governments have been known to keep surveillance on innocent people and I don't know why I would trust our government never to become like that.
I would agree that we shouldn't do away with warrants and that there should be oversight though.
lovebush wrote: I would worry more if the liberals were worried less. if that makes any sense.
Perhaps for some reason liberals tapping your phone is more concerning to you than Republicans tapping your phone, otherwise no that doesn't make much sense as far as I can tell.

[micfranklin]

lovebush wrote: pete wrote: Absolutely not. Giving up your Liberty is asking for Tyranny!

such bias! :lol:

I wouldn't call that a biased opinion. I think its the truth.

[Whitefields]

callous wrote: I wouldn't give up a toenail clipping for the government to protect me from s**t.

Conservatives want the government to protect us from everything. I am not a conservative, therefore I am not pro-big government and I am not pro-imperialism.

How far the Republican party has wandered.

I'm a true conservative and I wonder why our elected leaders have ignored the principles they were elected on. We need smaller government and the intrusion on our guarunteed rights is frightening.

I'm sorry that you believe conservatism no longer upholds these American values. I believe it still does, but our leaders have strayed.

[soldierofsoul]

Is it temporary if you die in a attack?

[callous]

Whitefields wrote: callous wrote: I wouldn't give up a toenail clipping for the government to protect me from s**t.

Conservatives want the government to protect us from everything. I am not a conservative, therefore I am not pro-big government and I am not pro-imperialism.

How far the Republican party has wandered.

I'm a true conservative and I wonder why our elected leaders have ignored the principles they were elected on. We need smaller government and the intrusion on our guarunteed rights is frightening.

I'm sorry that you believe conservatism no longer upholds these American values. I believe it still does, but our leaders have strayed.

I have no problem with the founding principles of the Republican party. The founding principles have been ignored since Reagan first took office.

[Fionn mac Cumhaill]

What is "temporary security"?
Makes as much sense as a temporary lifetime warranty.

this question is usually posed by those who think we should take no action to prevent another terrorist attack, because the act of defending ourselves is a violation of their essential liberties.

Most believe our liberties have been severely curtailed
but cannot name one thing they can't do now that they enjoyed doing pre-9-11.

If you think you can have liberty without ever having to defend it, you're living in lollipop land. But don't worry, there are plenty of others who will defend it for you while you sit at your desk and call them war mongers.

[callous]

Fionn mac Cumhaill wrote: What is "temporary security"?
Makes as much sense as a temporary lifetime warranty.

this question is usually posed by those who think we should take no action to prevent another terrorist attack, because the act of defending ourselves is a violation of their essential liberties.

Most believe our liberties have been severely curtailed
but cannot name one thing they can't do now that they enjoyed doing pre-9-11.

If you think you can have liberty without ever having to defend it, you're living in lollipop land. But don't worry, there are plenty of others who will defend it for you while you sit at your desk and call them war mongers.

The problem is that you affiliate yourself with a government increasing in size to satisfy your paranoia, and not taking into consideration anyone else.

I will fight a war that threatens me. Terrorism does not threaten me. If you would like to create a situation where you are threatened, you can go to iraq and help search for car bombs.

I will not have my government "protecting" me from things that don't threaten me.

[Fionn mac Cumhaill]

callous wrote: Fionn mac Cumhaill wrote: What is "temporary security"?
Makes as much sense as a temporary lifetime warranty.

this question is usually posed by those who think we should take no action to prevent another terrorist attack, because the act of defending ourselves is a violation of their essential liberties.

Most believe our liberties have been severely curtailed
but cannot name one thing they can't do now that they enjoyed doing pre-9-11.

If you think you can have liberty without ever having to defend it, you're living in lollipop land. But don't worry, there are plenty of others who will defend it for you while you sit at your desk and call them war mongers.

The problem is that you affiliate yourself with a government increasing in size to satisfy your paranoia, and not taking into consideration anyone else.

I will fight a war that threatens me. Terrorism does not threaten me. If you would like to create a situation where you are threatened, you can go to iraq and help search for car bombs.

I will not have my government "protecting" me from things that don't threaten me.

I affiliate myself with a country that at least has the notion of free speech, private property rights, freedom of association and a government of for and by the people in its founding paper work. No, it doesn't always live up to it, but I'm not content to let it fall because you don't like the logo on the current occupant of the oval office.

You're right, the odds that you'll be one of the next 3,000 killed are pretty slim. That doesn't mean we sell out the next set of victims just because they'll no doubt be a small percentage of the population and probably not you or me.

If your government is really supressing or oppressing you, aren't you morally obligated to overthrow it?

pick a side and act accordingly

[lovebush]

micfranklin wrote: lovebush wrote: pete wrote: Absolutely not. Giving up your Liberty is asking for Tyranny!

such bias! :lol:

I wouldn't call that a biased opinion. I think its the truth.

I was actually just teasing pete, he said I was not credible because I was biased.

[Mr. Sunshine]

DMS wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: DMS wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Theoretically, yes. In reality, I haven't had to(on American soil). As a law abiding American nothing has made me change my lifestyle or quality of life other than having to smell peoples' stinky feet while boarding planes at Airport. I know I am supposed to theoretically be upset by the Patriot Act and other neo-con acts of legal fascism, but in reality the only downside is toe jams. :lol:

You probably never will, even if dissent becomes illegal because you are a Republican drone that supports your party regardless of what they do.

I am not a Republican. Give me a personal example of how your day to day life has been altered by The Patriot Act. Please include video of you being waterboarded for renting the wrong type of movie from Netflix. :roll:

Sunglasses on secondary to blinding reflection off your tin foil hat combined with the light of truth shining upon it.

8:)

Please!!!!!!!!!! Too young to vote?

Do not trust either side with this power. Neither side is easilly going to give it up. Both sides have the potential of abusing in the future. Not everyone in the world is only concerned with their own personal welfare. Torture has no place in a free just society. Why change what makes our country different than totalotarian nations?

You trust our government or any government not to abuse power :rotf:

The sunshine must be coming from your own tin foil hat son, stop looking in the mirror.

Your response and lack of a personal example proves you are waging a "virtual" argument against the theoretically potential abuse of liberties, Tinman. 8:)

The right to not smell toe jams at Airport security boarding stations is not a Constitutional guarantee. :roll:

Trick or treat smell my feet, a terrorist you'll never meet. :lol:

[callous]

Fionn mac Cumhaill wrote: callous wrote: Fionn mac Cumhaill wrote: What is "temporary security"?
Makes as much sense as a temporary lifetime warranty.

this question is usually posed by those who think we should take no action to prevent another terrorist attack, because the act of defending ourselves is a violation of their essential liberties.

Most believe our liberties have been severely curtailed
but cannot name one thing they can't do now that they enjoyed doing pre-9-11.

If you think you can have liberty without ever having to defend it, you're living in lollipop land. But don't worry, there are plenty of others who will defend it for you while you sit at your desk and call them war mongers.

The problem is that you affiliate yourself with a government increasing in size to satisfy your paranoia, and not taking into consideration anyone else.

I will fight a war that threatens me. Terrorism does not threaten me. If you would like to create a situation where you are threatened, you can go to iraq and help search for car bombs.

I will not have my government "protecting" me from things that don't threaten me.

I affiliate myself with a country that at least has the notion of free speech, private property rights, freedom of association and a government of for and by the people in its founding paper work. No, it doesn't always live up to it, but I'm not content to let it fall because you don't like the logo on the current occupant of the oval office.

You're right, the odds that you'll be one of the next 3,000 killed are pretty slim. That doesn't mean we sell out the next set of victims just because they'll no doubt be a small percentage of the population and probably not you or me.

If your government is really supressing or oppressing you, aren't you morally obligated to overthrow it?

pick a side and act accordingly

The logo? You think I'm fighting this as a republican problem? Your kidding right?

The next victims are people who live in this country, are American as a birthright, and are living among risks as a result of it. They will die because of elite corporations wanting to sway public opinion towards aggressive foreign policy, not because a ragtag group of arabs don't like the fact that our women have managerial positions in retail stores.

And I certainly am morally obligated to change the political atmosphere of my country should it go south on me. The things I participate in towards those ends are not privvy to anyone but me and those who support me and I support.

Unless you want to know whether I march in idiotic far-left WTO parades, which I do not. I happen to be in the habit of not wasting my precious time on this earth.