President Bush

[Benhuntn]

He is my president

He's not perfect but he is my president. God Bless him. With whatever flaws he has his ten times the president that any democratic appeaser could ever be.

 

[sqwkvfr]

Re: I've been bad

sqkvfr--I owe you a public apology for my previous post. It's been edited and retains the central message but without the inflammatory language.

Been a little testy lately. Sorry.

TB--it's in your best interests to defend civil rights.

Dammit! OK, here's my heavily edited reply:

These issues that you discuss have a lot to do with the 4th amendment....this means that you want to treat the terrorist problem as a legal issue. IT'S NOT! The government has tried to prosecute ONE 9-11 terrorist in the legal system....perhaps you've heard of the Zaccharias Moussui case in Minnesota? Do you know that this has turned into a legal nightmare? Do you know that in the court of law there's thing thing called "discovery" that requires the prosecution to turn over any and all evidence against a defendant? Do you understand that when prosecuting terrorist "discovery" will destroy oodles of intelligence AND render useless the method by which it was gained? President Clinton (and mind you, I'm not blaming the man or his adminstration) tried to treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem and it didn't work! The CIA and NSA by federal statute couldn't talk to the FBI, DEA, FAA or whomever...that's changed as a result the same patriot act that you seem to despise so much, but it's still very hard to give this information to domestic law enforcement and eventually, through "discovery," right back to the terrorists. For this reason, a lot of people think that terrorist need to be treated as war criminals....and it makes sense to me.

You say this is serious.....you're right! I gotta tell ya, I'm glad those terrorist are locked up in Cuba as opposed to walking the streets of this country........One can only wonder how many attacks have been prevented. George Tenet said recently that after years of cuts, it's gonna take another FIVE YEARS to recruit, train, and place enough agents to get the US's intelligence services up to snuff...until then, I'm willing to do what it takes to make sure that another terrorist attack doesn't happen here.

Right now, somewhere, there's a person or people actively planning to kill as many westerners as possible. These people don't want our sypathy, they don't want our money, they don't want us to change....they want us DEAD. In planning this, they use telephones, the internet, tracks, cars, planes, money, PDA's, EVERYTHING! These things are not only bastians of freedom and technology, they can also make for effective and deadly weapons, and I think it's a life or death decision whether to give law enforcement and intelligence added tools to move forward against this newly emboldened and technically savvy enemy.

I worked as a law enforcement officer for 8 years....and I think the reason I attach such a negative image to someone screaming about their civil liberties is because the only people I heard it from were dopers (settle down, not you) in cuffs and on their way to jail.

You have every right to be concerned...this is a fuzzy area, but until we give terrorism a good hard knock on it's ass (and mind you I don't think we've done that just yet), I'm willing to give George W and Co. the benefit of the doubt.

I read your post before you edited it...believe me, I've been called worse.

Here's little side story on the right of having you're "rights read:"

Ernesto Miranda was arrested and convicted in Arizona for kidnapping and raping and mildly retarded 18 year old girl in 1962. Reports on this are mixed but the police interrogated "Miranda" for several hours during which he confessed to the crime. Miranda appealed, claiming that he was unaware of his "right to remain silent, etc." He won when the US Supreme Court ruled that when a person is detained and questioned, the police MUST advise him of his rights before questioning; thus the now-familliar "Miranda Warning."

Miranda was re-tried and based on other evidence, was convicted again....he served his time and was in and out of jail/prison for several years after his name became a civil rights icon. About 12 years after his landmark case, Miranda was stabbed and killed outside of a Phoenix bar. When the police arrived on scene a suspect was detained and read his rights..........he chose to remain silent: due to a lack of evidence, he was released........and Ernesto Miranda never recieved the justice that even he deserved.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Typhdood

And they should! Monitoring of electronic communication is part of any war. They watch for certain combinations of keywords and investigate the source.

That stuff has been going on for some time. Nothing new here which was my point. But I do agree with you. Thanks for splain'n it so even I could understand.


Flint-

As a former DEA agent, I must say your post doesn't tell the whole story. The vehicle may be seized but has to undergo the same due process as an individual might before it is forfeited to the government. In the scenario you described I can say with confidence that the car would almost definitely be returned. Reference Title 21 USC

The scenario I described happend in Florida. I am not sure if the vehicle was returned or not, but it made national news 5-6 years ago. I guess what I was getting at here is that different variations of these laws have been in place for some. The FAA has always been able to revoke a liscense based on their own assumptions, not facts. There is of course a way to get it back. The DEA rules are a good example. The car would have been impounded pending an investigation so you will losse it for some time at least. Just stating Bush is responsible for all of these newfound lost freedoms is rediculous. These same individuals spouting that Bush is going overboard with the security issues of America are the same ones that will state that he did not do enough if we get attacked again. It will never be good enough for them unless Skarry is in charge, then all the problems will still be Bushes fault.

 

[merikeyegro]

Those who choose to give up essential freedoms for a little temporary security shall receive neither. I think we should remember that beautiful saying.

If you choose to give up your rights and privacy to the government, it will not stand back and just stop there. You can fight for your freedom and get killed or let the government take it away and likely get killed a few years later.

Giving up your privacy, to quote one of the Republican posters on this board, is a policy of appeasement. It may not support terrorism, but it is appeasement to one's own government for shaky reasons. If you think for one second that giving up your own personal freedom so that the government can possibly find one stinkin', no good terrorist, is a good idea, then by all means have at it. Fact of the matter is that, without the USA PATRIOT Act, the US government had the power to stop terrorism. The 9/11 hearings lend credibility (based on testimony of ALL subjects, Bushies included) that it was policy, not power, that couldn't stop 9/11 or something similar. The government already had the power to get the judicial consent needed to tap someone. It could surveil suspects. It could get a warrant based on probable cause derived from intelligence, especially if that person were a foreign citizen. It's part of the Foreign Intelligence Services Act (FISA). The USA PATRIOT Act, however, extends the powers derived from this act to allow surveillance of US citizens based on mere suspicion (not evidence) that used to be reserved only for foreigners in the US. Do not let the Bushies tell you otherwise. Go to www.house.gov and read the Act yourself. If you sort through all the BS, you'll find this power in the surveillance part. Just read the titles of each section and you'll find the power, along with that of the "sneak and peek" provision (Section 215). It allows the government to snoop your $hit and not tell you about it. The judge providing the warrant may not question the reasoning for it. (S)he must comply with the request. I find this to be rather insufficient judicial oversight, if you ask me. Go to the site and read the Act. Please. This is a disturbing Act, indeed.

Whoever said that licenses were not really property was a little off base. There are protections and due process if you're taking away anything earned, license or not. You did your training, paid your dues, keep current. The government cannot take that license away - driver, pilot, etc. - without due process. Yes, government CAN take it away, but it must go through the process. The TSA attempted to take the due process away by allowing you no appeal and no access to evidence. Kinda goes against the 5th Amendment right to face one's accuser. Again, lost freedom. Thankfully, the FY2004 FAA Reauth. Bill instates an appeal process. Sad that it took Congress to reinstate this protection. The executive branch had to be overridden...Anything you have that was earned (not simply allowed you) must be taken away by due process. This is clearly stated in the 5th Amendment. Please recognize this before your endorse any further erosion of your own personal liberties. You may need them someday.

Keep in mind that your right to bash anyone you so desire is a personal right that you so freely employ. We talk a lot about lousy government, terrorists, and endorse anti-Bush/pro-Bush propaganda here on this site. Without 1st Amendment protection, you'd have no case if you were detained, per the PATRIOT Act, based on "suspicion" of sympathizing with terrorists. The Bush Admin has made no secret that it likes to punish critics. It uses "national security" to back up its abuses of power. It's not much of a stretch for them to say that, since you are "against us," you must be "with" the terrorists, thus you may be held without charge and without access to your accuser's evidence due to "national security" reasons.

Really, the only thing protecting you from government intrusion is the Constitution. Don't be so fast to denounce it in the name of security.

 

[Crizz]

Those who choose to give up essential freedoms for a little temporary security shall receive neither. I think we should remember that beautiful saying.

And I believe you will find the person who coined that beautiful saying to have more parallels to the current administration than the proposed.

 

[Timebuilder]

Those who choose to give up essential freedoms for a little temporary security shall receive neither. I think we should remember that beautiful saying.

Then the question is "what freedoms, or rather their manifestations, are essential?" If we cling to a static idea in the face of a changing dynamic, are we wise, or foolish?

If you choose to give up your rights and privacy to the government, it will not stand back and just stop there. You can fight for your freedom and get killed or let the government take it away and likely get killed a few years later.

No one is talking about "giving up your rights." What we are discussing, or at least what I think we are discussing, is the question of the level of privacy we can afford or expect as individuals while terrorist elements are using privacy as a part of their plan to destroy us. How much "privacy" is too much, and how little is not enough?

Let's say we draw a line in the sand, and instead of the judicially sanctioned, carefully drawn, and appropriate use of domestic intelligence that is part of our current defensive posture, we opt to go in the reverse direction. We revoke the Patriot Act, and disband Homeland Security, returning to a pre-attack status quo of "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil." Would this give terrorist elements the added advantage they need to operate here with impunity? Possibly so. In fact, we already know that our political and social sensitivity to those of foreign origins, our pre-existing level of privacy, and our notion that appeasement is an effective tool in maintaining our security was proven dreadfully inadequate on 9-11. While there are loud voices complaining that we have embarked on a mistaken path, those same voices offer no alternative plans to either Patriot or Homeland Security. Why? Perhaps it is because this is the only path we have, given the present circumstances.

Fact of the matter is that, without the USA PATRIOT Act, the US government had the power to stop terrorism. The 9/11 hearings lend credibility (based on testimony of ALL subjects, Bushies included) that it was policy, not power, that couldn't stop 9/11 or something similar.

With this amount of hogwash, we are getting a very clean hog.

The 9-11 investigation is a political vehicle meant to reclaim power. That's the whole idea in a nutshell. When you have long grandstanding speeches from democrats trying to get a grip on lost power while pretending to ask questions, using a book put on sale during an election written by a demoted and clearly disgruntled staff member whose private testimony does not square with his published testimony, you have a commission whose intent is questionable at best.

The reason that they are upset with Condi Rice is that they have no opportunity to lecture her publicly, and give more speeches that they hope to eventually use as sound bites. What a terrible disappointment for them.

The intent of folks like Richard Clark, Madeliane Albright, and the chorus of others who were on duty before the Bush administration moved into the White House is to make their eight years of inaction appear reasonable, as if they were doing all the right things and had the situation well in hand, and it was only some fault of the Bush administration, some lack of insight, ability, or activity that resulted in the 9-11 attack.

If you believe that, we don't have a common basis for a discussion. We might as well call in Ted Kennedy to explain how Bush concocted a war in Texas in order to benefit himself and his friends. It's sad to hear how half a century of hard drinking has destroyed Ted's mind. At least the young George Bush had the good sense to stop years ago.

The USA PATRIOT Act, however, extends the powers derived from this act to allow surveillance of US citizens based on mere suspicion (not evidence) that used to be reserved only for foreigners in the US. Do not let the Bushies tell you otherwise. Go to www.house.gov and read the Act yourself. If you sort through all the BS, you'll find this power in the surveillance part. Just read the titles of each section and you'll find the power, along with that of the "sneak and peek" provision (Section 215). It allows the government to snoop your $hit and not tell you about it.

I hate to be the one to reveal this, but this surveillance has been going on on a small scale for a long time. 9-11 showed that the previous level of surveillance was insufficient for the purpose. Therefore, we clearly needed to increase our diligence to the level of "due."

Now we can go ahead and revoke the Patriot Act if you like, but I don't think the resulting mayhem is a good trade against whether they know which commercials I have told a friend about in my emails, or which bills I paid this month out of my checking account. I other words, I have more to gain from a "sneak and peek" as a citizen than I see as a benefit of keeping that information more secret.

The TSA attempted to take the due process away by allowing you no appeal and no access to evidence. Kinda goes against the 5th Amendment right to face one's accuser. Again, lost freedom. Thankfully, the FY2004 FAA Reauth. Bill instates an appeal process. Sad that it took Congress to reinstate this protection. The executive branch had to be overridden...Anything you have that was earned (not simply allowed you) must be taken away by due process.

I have to point out to you that due process can simply be the written law that allows them to do it, as given in the trespass example above. Congress can certainly override this idea, which is one of the reasons we have three branches of government. Now, if you can get the judicairy to stop legislating things that could never be passed by our elected representatives, then you will start to get support from me. Want to keep the 10 commandments out of a couthouse? Pass a law in congress. You and I know that can't happen, since that would violate the first amendment. If only the courts knew they had no standing in this matter, according to the founders.

Keep in mind that your right to bash anyone you so desire is a personal right that you so freely employ.

I try to avoid bashing people, only errant ideas.

The Bush Admin has made no secret that it likes to punish critics.

Every administration tries to punish critics. And critics try to punish administrations. Was this a secret to you?

It uses "national security" to back up its abuses of power.

If Congress legally gives power, is its use an "abuse?" What abuses are you talking about?

Really, the only thing protecting you from government intrusion is the Constitution. Don't be so fast to denounce it in the name of security.

These statements come with subtexts of supposition, like the reference to "abuse of power." The word "abuse" is chosen quite purposefully, and is intended to be taken at face value, as if it is a known value. Unless proven, this is only a charge, an opinion, or an impression.

So, you think someone has "denounced" the constitution. Who has done that here? No one has. It's a red herring.

So, why not ditch some of the hyperbole, the Kennedyesque subtexts, and come up with some real alternative suggestions. Anyone who does so will be the FIRST, since no one I have heard has shared a single new or improved idea. All I hear is complaints, and not a suggestion among the critics. The truth is this: many liberals DO have an alternative idea or two, but they dare not articulate those ideas, since none of them will fly with the American people. This is why the senate democrats fear appointing judges who will judge according to the law, and not see their job as a de facto legislator. This could lead to forcing liberals to bring bills before the public and having them defeated, instead of having the country ruled by federal courts who are friendly to their ideas. This is in a word, tyranny, and anyone interested in the subject of "rights" should be very interested in its defeat.

 

[TonyC]

Some guys have a serious complex when dealing with me, I guess.

...I've made it no secret that Bush needs to go, ...

Someone oughta choke that man with the American flag. Maybe I'll just do it myself.

Freedom of speech at work, boys.

Nope, that's not freedom of speech. Threatening harm to the sitting President of the United States of America is serious business, and it is NOT protected speech. I'd say this Message Board is incurring a serious risk by allowing this type of posting to remain.



Hey MAR - - I'm surprised to see you posting on this thread. I would have thought that you would have skipped over it based solely on the title. After all, it's not aviation related!

Admit it, friend. You like to talk about other stuff, too!

Cheers!

 

[Swass]

Why are all of you pilots? It seems painstakingly obvious to me that you should be in politics or the leaders of some movement to change things as you see fit (be it right or left). It blows me away to see such cranial talent wasted.


Enough already, try again in '08.

TB is as close to being correct as any here, wake up. Try to tell me that most of America doesn't share his beliefs? Sway it any way you want.............

 

[mar]

Tony C

Why am I posting here? To be perfectly honest: I snapped.

I was temporarily insane. Blinded with rage. I was in a fit of all-consuming passion.

Your typical conservative these days is of the opinion that there is nothing American about being liberal.

I'm on a righteous crusade to remind neo-cons everywhere of the tremendous liberal tradition we used to call American Democracy.

Today it's known simply as Special Interest.

So when I came across a post that seemed to diminish the importance of the struggle, not just in this nation, but world-wide, for maintaining ourselves as leaders in modern civilization in the arena of civil rights--well, my dear friends and esteemed colleagues--I just sort of LOST MY FRIGGIN' MARBLES.

Know what I mean?

Oh wait.

You mean, it's not aviation related. I never really cared about that to begin with. I just wanted to get Bart banned from the board.

Have a nice day.

 

[TonyC]

Re: Tony C

You mean, it's not aviation related. I never really cared about that to begin with. I just wanted to get Bart banned from the board.

Have a nice day.

LOL OK, OK, OK... we hear ya!

... and a nice weekend, too!

 

[Caveman]

I love it when liberal democrats try to portray themselves as defenders of liberty when their actions and legislation are the antithesis of personal freedoms.

The following examples of defending personal liberty are all brought to you courtesy of liberal democrats:

Sealtbelt laws.

Antigun laws.

Roadblocks to screen for drunk drivers. So much for the 4th Ammendment.

Affirmative action.

The social security pyramid scheme.

Hate crime legislation. (aka the Thought Police)

The ACLU's relentless and continuing attack on my right to practice my religion.

Redistribution of personal wealth via the IRS.

Republicans have their share of ideas that I'm not crazy about either but the idea that neo-libs are protecting our interests is patently false.

 

[TonyC]

Why are all of you pilots? It seems painstakingly obvious to me that you should be in politics or the leaders of some movement to change things as you see fit (be it right or left). It blows me away to see such cranial talent wasted.

You caught us. We're not pilots, we just pose as pilots. Some of us stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, and the rest of us are 11th grade English teachers.


The expression is "painfully obvious."

"Painstakingly" has a completely different usage.

 

[mar]

Caveman

I assume you're referring to me.

I'm not a liberal democrat.

I'm your worst nightmare.

By the way, explain to me how the ACLU is attacking your right to practice your religion?

By removing "under God"? The bloody persecution!! Yes, soon we'll all be godless-commies. You're right. This country is in lock-down from the radicals.

And seatbelt laws/helmet laws/smoking laws/anti-gun laws/etc...those my friend are all the result of Special Interests/Lobbyists.

One person. One vote. = Democracy.

If it were up to me there would be no ACLU and likewise no Christian Coalition. There would be no NOW and likewise no NRA.

I hope it's warm in your Cave. Man.

 

[Timebuilder]

TB is as close to being correct as any here, wake up. Try to tell me that most of America doesn't share his beliefs? Sway it any way you want.............

I'm sorry, I wasn't able to follow that comment. Can you expand on it so I can address it? Whose beliefs?

Mar, if you don't get answers to those questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

 

[Swass]

TB, I was a little tipsy when I posted that last night, sorry to you and TonyC for all the garble.

What I meant by that is that I agree wholeheartedly with your stance, politically and otherwise. You make great arguments, and articulate them very well. Although I am getting bored with politics as of late, I still can't keep coming back for more. These discussions are like heroin to a junkie in need of a fix.

 

[Snakum]

are you really comparing the Bush administration to nazi Germany?

How's this ...

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denouce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Herman Goering

Minh
(Hey ... you asked. )

 

[Timebuilder]

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denouce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Herman Goering

Okay, you asked.

All that quote shows is that evil can mimic good. Satan does this all the time. Evil appears rational and sometimes, even compassionate. Evil exploits our tendencey to trust ourselves, rather than God, or even a Godly man who is a leader.

In other words, Goering was exposing that people can be lied to, not revealing that every time we are attacked (which cannot be denied) it is for some evil or secondary purpose for the end of misleading people.

The important difference that might be missed is that the same words have two entirely different applications, one of truth, and one of deceit. Goering was highlighting how easy that deceit came to the third reich. Ted Kennedy says things that are not true all the time, but that doesn't make him a nazi any more than George Bush is a nazi. It does make Kennedy disingenuous, but we already knew that.

 

[Caveman]

mar,

You assume wrong. It wasn't directed at you personally. I made a statement that essentially equates neo-libs with hypocrisy. But, if the shoe fits.....

I'm your worst nightmare. I doubt it, but self-serving big government liberal philosophy is.

Technically it's a representive republic, not a democracy.

As far as the ACLU goes, well for starters my kids aren't allowed to meet after class to have a prayer meeting with other like minded kids. I'd say that qualifies as religious oppression. Actually the original concept of the ACLU was a good one but it's been corrupted by neo-lib anti-gun pro-homosexual atheists. If they stuck to their original charter and defended individual rights instead of only promoting a leftist agenda they would get my support.

Those special interest laws were all foisted upon us by neo-lib organizations.

You still didn't address confiscatory taxation or affirmative action.

Finally, your last resort was an ad hominem dig at my nickname. Pretty lame.

 

[Tim47SIP]

What?

I'm not a liberal democrat.

OK, I'll bite, just what the heck are you? I think I have my definitions wrong.

Caveman
The following examples of defending personal liberty are all brought to you courtesy of liberal democrats:

Affirmative action.

I could be wrong here, but after doing some research, I think the GOP was unfortunately responsible for affirmative action. Sometimes we are are own worst enemies.

 

[mar]

Labels

<sigh> Where would politics be without labels?

That's right, I'm not a liberal democrat.

I consider myself "liberal" only because it's convenient to use the label but I happen to have some stereotypical conservative beliefs as well. For example, I'm in favor of gun ownership.

Not that it's anybody's business (but I've posted it before so it's no secret) I happen to be a card carrying member of the Green Party.

So America isn't a democracy. It's a representative republic. Ok. Very well. The way I see it, one term describes the *spirit* of America (Democratic) and the other (representative republic) is a more technically correct description of how our government works--or should I say, *should* work.

You know, I hate semantics.
And I have a real distaste for rhetoric.

You know why? Because it's obsures the real argument.

Another thing Caveman, your description of how your family suffers "oppression" smacks of the same crap that I'm sure makes you sick to your stomach when a lazy minority blames his problems on "the Man that's keeping him down."

Oppression.

Give me a break. You don't know from oppression. Jews in WWII Germany could still manage to practice.

Christians in the USSR could still manage.

Buddhist monks in China seem to gather the necessary resolve.

So your kids have problems meeting for cupcakes with other kids after school. That's a bummer and sounds really silly to me but let's not get melodramatic ok?

Look, any point you had to make pretty much fell apart when you suggested that every modern problem this nation has is the result of the Liberal.

Even your compatriot Tim47SIP has taken issue with your stance.

Nothing will ever be honestly addressed until people can start attacking ISSUES rather than assigning BLAME.

But it's much easier to point fingers (and make lame ad hominen attacks) isn't it?

Peace brother, worship however you like.

 

[Timebuilder]

The GOP is responsible for the passing of the Civil Rights Act, not the addition of "affirmative action."

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html

As far as the ACLU goes, well for starters my kids aren't allowed to meet after class to have a prayer meeting with other like minded kids. I'd say that qualifies as religious oppression. Actually the original concept of the ACLU was a good one but it's been corrupted by neo-lib anti-gun pro-homosexual atheists. If they stuck to their original charter and defended individual rights instead of only promoting a leftist agenda they would get my support.

I agree. Much of what used to be the good work of the ACLU has become lost as it has transformed into an engine of the left.

If the ACLU was truly interested in the civil liberties guaranteed under the constitution, they would be holding rallys for private property rights and the ability to exercise religious beliefs.

I would imagine there is an even smaller chance of that happening than a Beatles reunion concert. Even if you raised George and John from the dead.

 

[Caveman]

mar,

"Look, any point you had to make pretty much fell apart when you suggested that every modern problem this nation has is the result of the Liberal."

I didn't suggest that every modern problem is the result of liberalism. I listed a few problems that were brought to us courtesy of liberalism. I'm pleased to see that we do agree those specific items are problems and that they are liberal ideas.

As one who subscribes to christian beliefs I am being oppressed. I am not allowed to publicly affirm my beliefs without being shouted down. I don't want to change your mind I just want to be able to wear a cross on my lapel without some atheist screaming that I'm forcing my religion on him. I want my kids to be able to silently pray without some leftist teacher stopping them. I want to be able to voluntarily gather with other christian minded souls and be able to do so at publicly funded buildings that we helped pay for without the American Communist Left Union trying to stop us. I'm not asking you, the governemnt or the ACLU to pray with us nor agree with us. I'm demanding that you leave us the h@ll alone and let us practice our choice of religion just as the 1st Ammendment allows.

The thing that galls me most about neo-libs is their insistence on demanding that every one agree with them. For example, I think that homosexuality is unnatural and weird therefore I'm labled as hateful and intolerant. Notice that all I did was form a belief that two guys blowing each other is weird. I don't hassle homosexuals. I just leave them the h@ll alone because I don't want to be around them. They on the other hand insist that I not only accept their lifestyle and codify it but that I must also have my children exposed to it so that they will also be culturally enlightened. BS. By forcing my hand the neo-libs attempts to demand my acquiesence will backfire. That's why there is a recent resurgance in the conservative movement.

Some conservatives are just as bad as the neo-libs that I'm railing about. They too are h@ll bent on imposing their ideas on unwilling liberal folks that also just want to be left alone. Live and let live I say. I won't impose my ideas on you if you don't try to make me live yours. Anything the government does should allow differing ideas to coexist without undue restrictions on either side. That doesn't mean there aren't limits, but as of right now we are collectively governing from far too left of center.

But besides all this stuff congrats on the DC-6 type. Frankly I'm a bit envious. Any knucklehead can get the opportunity to fly an RJ but a DC-6, now that's cool.

 

[mar]

You're my kind of conservative

First, thanks for the congrats.

Second, "Live and let live," yes, life is better that way.

I believe you're not the type of Christian to come knocking on my door and neither am I the type of goddless-commie to stop your kids from practicing during school.

But I do believe that multi-culturalism and diversity (two words that have become almost cliche as of late) are critical elements in the social development of an adolescent.

I believe one of the true elements of liberalism is inclusiveness--not division or oppression.

So.

Homosexuals teaching your children that some kids have two moms pisses you off because you consider homosexuality "unnatural and weird."

I can understand that. But hear this Caveman: Do you remember when you were in college or in the service and you met a kid who was away from home for the very first time. And it was starkly obvious that he had been sheltered and protected until he left the security of his parent's nest. That kid probably had problems adjusting to new situations and relating to different kinds of people.

The point I'm trying to make is that the world is not like Happy Days or Lavernne and Shirley, you know?

There are muslim fanatics.
And gay ACT UP activists.
And environmental monkey-wrenchers.
And shady, duplicitous business men.
And lying, self-serving politicians.
And men in robes that would commit the most unspeakable acts on the most innocent of children.

You musn't hide your children from what seems distasteful to you because you're not protecting them from anything. In time they'll be in the world and have to deal with these challenges all on their own. You can either hide them from it and let them learn on their own *or* you can be there when they come home from school and ask the most surprising question...

Peace man.

 

[Timebuilder]

I agree that you should have some kind of an answer when your kid comes home and asks about said "ring."

I do NOT think that question should have come from a faculty-led class discussion of adult toys and appliances.

Liberals often think that's okay.

I don't.

 

[Snakum]

Nothing will ever be honestly addressed until people can start attacking ISSUES rather than assigning BLAME.

A couple people here should have this tattooed on their foreheads, in reverse, so when they look in the mirrow they'll get a clue.

Well said ...

Minh "Centrist/Realist" Thong

 

[mar]

Timebuilder, toys and appliances

PLEASE!!

Do you ever read what you write??

You can't be serious!! You know, liberals have kids too.

Or maybe you think all these liberal families just sit around and smoke weed after indulging some freaky incestuous orgy.

C'mon Timebuilder....at least *try* to be reasonable for ONCE!!

Ok, let me guess your retort: Joycelynn Elders got fired by Clinton (of all people) for asserting masturbation should be taught as an alternative to sex.

If I have mis-interpreted Dr. Elder's words I apologize to her but I think that was the general idea.

Now. What is so radical about that anyway? As I said above, certain activities are a fact of life. You can either discuss them in a non-judgemental environment or you can sweep them under the rug and let them fester.

Snakum:

 

[Timebuilder]

In the criminal justice system, a search for the responsible party is considered fundamental to "justice." This is simply a part of taking a logical approach to problem solving.

This is not the same as assigning "blame." Often these ideas mistakenly become interchangeable in the minds of people.

When you can identify the genesis of failed ideas, and see a consistent trend of failed ideas in general, and the philosophies behind ideas which are the antithesis of basic American values in particular, then you have a far better chance of improving your society by becoming adept at recognizing and eliminating these same failed ideas.

That is not done for the purpose of finding "blame," but for the purpose of preventing further erosion of our culture and society.

In other words, restoring sanity and accountability rather than a victim mentality.

 

[Timebuilder]

Now. What is so radical about that anyway? As I said above, certain activities are a fact of life.

There is no credible reason that masturbation be taught in school.

I can't believe you raised Elders as some example of cogent liberal thought. She is a loon.

 

[mar]

The Last American Victim...

...is the Average White Male.

And his whining is just as pathetic as any.

TB--we ain't talking criminal justice. We're talking politics.

Your tangents and diatribes tax my patience.

I'm out before I blow another gasket and end up making another apology.

AAaaarrrrgghhhh...

 

[Timebuilder]

Re: The Last American Victim...

...is the Average White Male.

And his whining is just as pathetic as any.

TB--we ain't talking criminal justice. We're talking politics.

Your tangents and diatribes tax my patience.

I'm out before I blow another gasket and end up making another apology.

AAaaarrrrgghhhh...

I have never said I am any kind of victim. That's number one.

Number two is: the logical approach of the criminal justice system is dictated by law. Law created by representatives of the people, elected to their posts as defenders of our freedom, our way of life, and our values as a country. In evaluting policies, the logical approach of the criminal justice system of evidence and actors is well suited to political discussions.

In any discussion of politics, we need to identify and address what is positive and what is negative. Now, more than ever, these ideas are being discussed actively by the American people. Folks are no longer willing to abide by the pronouncements of the Dan Rathers, the Peter Jennings, the Courics, or the CNN's. They are identifying the problems, and looking at those who have been proponents of those problems.

Nothing could be more "American" than that, my friend.