The destruction of the Free and the Brave

[MobBoss]

Do you not fear that the government become very powerful and in control of the people?

No, not in the least. People protest. People still have opinion. Nothing has changed. If anything the feelings pro or con have simply become more polarized - more are vocal on both sides of the issues.

It is allowing itself, in the name of security to become so.

Not in the least. Remember, a majority of americans SUPPORT such security measures. It makes sense to increase security during a time of war and conflict.....

This is not a problem when the government is honest, competent and trustworthy. But what if there happens unwarranted influence by corrupt people in or on government? Corruption is inevitable when government has excess power. This worries me.

Corruption existed prior to the Bush administration and will probably be around after he leaves office as well. In politics its part of the territory. Personally, I think this administration is just as honest, competent and trustworthy as any other. Every administration has its scandals, this one notwithstanding.

America is the most powerful nation on earth. This means that it cannot be destroyed from the outside. So why give government excess power and give chance for America to be destroyed from the inside(by corruption)?

Abraham Lincoln said,
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

If America fails it will fail like the Romans, moral dryrot from within.

 

[MobBoss]

If no one complained I would be even more scared. Sorry, that whining is called protesting, and it is a legitemate way to bring up and highlight dissagrements. The fact that you think no one should do so and that we should trust the state, when it has given no indication of trusworthiness (on the contrary it has been the exact opposite), alarms me really. It makes me want to ask how scared you really are. What are you willing to give up, how far are you willing to go?

I guess I disagree that this administration has not been trustworthy. I am not alarmed. As for complaints, I think complaining is fine - IF you have a valid complaint. And I for one, think a good majority of the complaints directed at this administration to be totally invalid.

Bottom line, life trudges on here in the USA. The government is just fine, the economy is fine and the people are just fine. My prediction is we will continue to roll along - just fine - regardless of whether a republican or democrat wins the next election. Now, if a Libertarian won....

Mob, the funny thing is, if Gore was president, and had done the same exact things Bush has, in the name of security, youd be screaming bloody murder. The even funnier thing is that me, you, and everyone else, know its true

No its not true. You assume too much. Most likely my life would go unchanged if Gore had been elected president and I see no reason to think that wouldnt be the case for the vast majority of americans out there. Chances are that he would have done the same exact things Bush has in regards to 9/11.....remember Clinton wasnt exactly a peace activist in Bosnia now was he?

 

[MobBoss]

Actually, it was. Every single issue that you want to try and use to divert attention away from this fact only reinforces the point.

If you want to discuss it further, PM me or maybe start a new thread?

Debatable. I would certainly say it was only a secondary factor (economics being the primary) until Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. But certainly debatable.

Yet another reason to impeach Bush.

For some reason it scares me when part-time history teachers use such rhetoric.

As for your quotes...tell you what...I will heartily agree with you if we put Bush before a grand jury and he directly lies under questioning.....

 

[.Shane.]

Debatable. I would certainly say it was only a secondary factor (economics being the primary) until Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. But certainly debatable.

No, its pretty much beyond debate. What is debateable is the degree to which other factors were important, and even those are almost all universally tied to southern slave-holding. The only people who try to stoke this fire are Southern apologists, buffs, or white supremacists. Again, fodder for a different thread.

For some reason it scares me when part-time history teachers use such rhetoric.

I don't sit in judgement of you so don't sit in judgement of me. I'm fully capable of separating my opinion from my professional obligations.

Rather than make assumptions, you might ask why I think Bush meets the now incredibly low bar of impeachment. But, you didn't, you just wanted to make assumptions and throw in your cheap shot. For instance, I'd never reply to one of your threads and say "scary when a soldier says something like this". Its rude and offensive, and, of course, is a comment on the quality of the poster and not the quality of the comment.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't sit in judgement of you so don't sit in judgement of me. I'm fully capable of separating my opinion from my professional obligations.

I said it makes me nervous when people in charge of educating our youth take such stances. Do you take such comments as a judgement upon your character? If so, your feelings are misplaced, as I know nothing about you but what you have disclosed here at CFC.

Rather than make assumptions, you might ask why I think Bush meets the now incredibly low bar of impeachment. But, you didn't, you just wanted to make assumptions and throw in your cheap shot. For instance, I'd never reply to one of your threads and say "scary when a soldier says something like this". Its rude and offensive, and, of course, is a comment on the quality of the poster and not the quality of the comment.

Once again, me stating my feelings regarding the subject isnt making an assumption, its stating how I feel about teachers who actively take a political stance pro or con. And if you dont think I havent faced that type of scrutiny here at CFC then you are kidding yourself.

Btw, I noticed your of such a quality poster yourself that you chose to insult me right back as opposed to answer the "why" part of your own question.

 

[.Shane.]

Once again, me stating my feelings regarding the subject isnt making an assumption, its stating how I feel about teachers who actively take a political stance pro or con.

ROFL, so because I teach I'm not allowed to express a political opinion? Now you're reaching.

...you chose to insult me right back as opposed to answer the "why" part of your own question.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

 

[MobBoss]

ROFL, so because I teach I'm not allowed to express a political opinion? Now you're reaching.

No, I think that since you teach, ethically, you need to be more responsible with your opinion and how you express it, than most.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Ah, so you were not referring to me and my post when you said "Its rude and offensive, and, of course, is a comment on the quality of the poster and not the quality of the comment."? I took this as a negative comment upon my "quality" as a poster since it was in direct reply to my post.

 

[.Shane.]

No, I think that since you teach, ethically, you need to be more responsible with your opinion and how you express it, than most.

In class, yes, I agree 100% and, in fact, I'm disappointed by how many teachers use the class to make political or religious points when they should not.

However, the idea in public or, of all places, some random corner of the internet, I'm not allowed to have an opinion, that's a joke.

Ah, so you were not referring to me and my post when you said "Its rude and offensive, and, of course, is a comment on the quality of the poster and not the quality of the comment."? I took this as a negative comment upon my "quality" as a poster since it was in direct reply to my post.

I thought your statement was rude and offensive. That about sums it up. You obviously don't. So be it. I think we'll both survive.

My point was to argue the arguments, not the person, or their profession.

 

[IglooDame]

No, I think that since you teach, ethically, you need to be more responsible with your opinion and how you express it, than most.

Presumably the same should be applied to soldiers.

 

[MobBoss]

In class, yes, I agree 100% and, in fact, I'm disappointed by how many teachers use the class to make political or religious points when they should not.

So, in light of your own disappointment of "how many" teachers are doing so when they should not, does not my statement regarding my concern make sense? I think you just confirmed that it most certainly does.

However, the idea in public or, of all places, some random corner of the internet, I'm not allowed to have an opinion, that's a joke.

You have every right to state your opinion here at CFC. Just dont expect me to agree with it.

I thought your statement was rude and offensive. That about sums it up. You obviously don't. So be it. I think we'll both survive.

Such is life.

 

[MobBoss]

Presumably the same should be applied to soldiers.

Bah, we all know soldier are mindless robots that are devoid of any opinion what so ever.

 

[IglooDame]

Not at all. Have the FISA courts been disbanded? No. Do we still have three functioning branches of gov? Yes.

Sorry, but the Bush administration does not have a "blank check" as you would have us believe. They cant do what they want.

If so, wouldnt have the Ports deal gone through?

@igloo: Tell me what you have given up. Please.

Disbanded? No. Bypassed? Yes.

Do we still have three functioning branches of government? Yes, but you can see the cracks if you've a mind to.

And we've been down this road before, but if you insist, I'll just cutnpaste my reply in a previous thread that had a similar question of yours:

I also haven't been affected in the least by laws regarding the ownership of fully automatic firearms, but I still have strong feelings about it. I haven't been affected by laws regarding estate taxes, but I still have strong feelings about it. You haven't been affected in the least by Roe v. Wade I'm guessing, and you sure as heck have strong feelings about it. You haven't been affected by infringements on freedom of religion, and I'm betting you have strong feelings about that. If they came out and said "we've been monitoring the sermons of Christian pastors/priests/ministers since 1972 and investigating those that don't agree with giving to Caesar that which is Caesar's" how would you feel?

Of course, since that thread came and went, I've figured out that you truly don't care, so perhaps it is better to visualize a person answering the questions that isn't convinced that our government cannot be corrupted by power.

 

[IglooDame]

Bah, we all know soldier are mindless robots that are devoid of any opinion what so ever.

Except for retired generals with book deals, right?

 

[MobBoss]

Disbanded? No. Bypassed? Yes.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the FISA courts themselves admitted that they can be bypassed in certain circumstances. And the number of times they have been bypassed have been minimal, and presumbably justifiable. If it were rampant I would be more worried.

Do we still have three functioning branches of government? Yes, but you can see the cracks if you've a mind to.

Yeah, and if I squint real hard I can see porn in the static of my channel number 2 on tv.

Of course, since that thread came and went, I've figured out that you truly don't care, so perhaps it is better to visualize a person answering the questions that isn't convinced that our government cannot be corrupted by power.

I humbly submit that the extent of my "strong feelings" are solely expressed upon these threads here at CFC. I am not a protestor, at least my feelings havent been "strong enough" to do so as of yet.

Except for retired generals with book deals, right?

Anomalies attributed to programming error is all.

 

[Brian_B]

Straw man. Straw man. Straw man. This is about the right to privacy.

There is no "right to privacy" in the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Brian_B]

Do you not fear that the government become very powerful and in control of the people? It is allowing itself, in the name of security to become so. This is not a problem when the government is honest, competent and trustworthy. But what if there happens unwarranted influence by corrupt people in or on government? Corruption is inevitable when government has excess power. This worries me. America is the most powerful nation on earth. This means that it cannot be destroyed from the outside. So why give government excess power and give chance for America to be destroyed from the inside(by corruption)?

This assumes or is reliant upon the fact that the same people will be in control of government for a prolonged period of time -- in excess of a few decades so that eventually this "police state" finally comes to fruition.

 

[Kayak]

There is no "right to privacy" in the U.S. Constitution.

Our Supream Court has seemed to found one...they are the ones who get to interpret these things.

I guess I disagree that this administration has not been trustworthy. I am not alarmed. As for complaints, I think complaining is fine - IF you have a valid complaint. And I for one, think a good majority of the complaints directed at this administration to be totally invalid.

Now answer the rest of the question. How far is too far? How far would you go?

 

[Brian_B]

Our Supream Court has seemed to found one...they are the ones who get to interpret these things.

Can you cite me a case? And I hope it's not Lawrence v. Texas because I guarantee you no true "right of privacy" substantive due process right will spring from that. Substantive due process rights tend to group around reproduction and sexual activity and are fairly well pigeon-holed in that area.

As I've mentioned in other threads, the closest thing this offends is the 4th Amendment as a matter of criminal procedure.

 

[.Shane.]

Can you cite me a case? And I hope it's not Lawrence v. Texas because I guarantee you no true "right of privacy" substantive due process right will spring from that. Substantive due process rights tend to group around reproduction and sexual activity and are fairly well pigeon-holed in that area.

For starters... and here is some theory on it...

It exists.

But I see your point about the pigeon-holing.

 

[Brian_B]

For starters... and here is some theory on it...

It exists.

But I see your point about the pigeon-holing.

Exactly. The whole Griswold, Roe, Casey, etc. etc. line is pigeon-holed to sex/reproduction. It is why you don't see assisted suicide/right to die cases suceed on the federal level under that argument and why there's some criticism in the Lawrence decision. Given the two recent appointments to the Supreme Court, it's going to be pigeon-holed for the forseeable future. Even more so if a republican wins the 2008 election.