[Bondo]

There's talk about the upcoming US election being a "change election" and talk about which candidate can bring change.

I don't really understand this, and view it as media hyperventilating ("Do you believe in miracles?!") pundits use to make it seem more important than it really is because I predominately define "change" as explicitly anti-Bush. It is a response to the status quo, without anything grander behind it. That said, what is your definition of change, or what are your qualifications for a change election?

[Merlinus Ambrosius]

My requirements for change?

Criminal investigation of the Bush administration.
Reinstating the Constitution freedoms that Bush has shat all over.
Getting out of Iraq. NOW.
Balanced federal budget, without raising taxes.
The No Child Left Behind program getting Left Behind.



That would be a decent start.

[Yoda]

Wasn't the Democratic Congress supposed to change things? Do you think you will get change voting for a Democrat? Who are they? What do they stand for? It's so vague. They don't tell you what they will change. We need at least a trickle of common sense. "Vote for me and I will give you free stuff from the government. If you want something work for it. The media manipulates the elections to their own agendas.

This post has been edited by Yoda: 29 May 2008 - 09:14 AM

[antiliberal]

"My requirements for change?

Criminal investigation of the Bush administration.
Reinstating the Constitution freedoms that Bush has shat all over.
Getting out of Iraq. NOW.
Balanced federal budget, without raising taxes.
The No Child Left Behind program getting Left Behind.

That would be a decent start."

Criminal investigation into Bush? For what? Can you name one specific law the president has broken?
Did you support Clinton's impeachment? I can name a specific law broken by Clinton. It was perjury.
He lied under oath in a court of law. It was documented.

So again I ask, what law did Bush specifically break that would cause an investigation?

What constitutional freedom(s) have we lost? Can you specify? Freedom of speech? See McCain-Feingold. However, Bush signed it. It was legally enacted, however much I hate it. Therefore I do not call it a crime, because it is not. If it were, the dems in congress,desperate for revenge of the righteous Clinton impeachment, would have already impeached Bush. They have not. Why? No crimes committed.

Get put of Iraq. Let the terrorists win. Thousands of dead people for no reason. Sound just like Vietnam. You must know that if we leave the terrorists will take over. Why do you want that? Is making Bush look bad more important than defeating terrorism to you? I really hope not.

Balance the budget w/o raising taxes. We are in total agreement here! This makes sense.

NCLB. It is a travesty and a joke that W let the drunkard help write this bill. However, testing is a GOOD thing. Is this a perfect system? No way. Is it better than the "let the morons pass so we get paid" system of the past? No comparison.

I am glad we agree on taxes. But I would really like you to take an honest attempt to answer my previous questions. I am interested to see if you can find specific reasons for your statements, or if you just make these things up because you hate Bush. That was not an attempt at an insult. I have no need for insults. I really want to pick your brain. Maybe one of us will learn something.

[Merlinus Ambrosius]

Quote

Criminal investigation into Bush?

Bush administration. Not just Bush. Why?

Well, first of all, theres the whole illegal deletion of white house emails. Then, theres the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, which is a violation of the 4th Amendment, as well as violations of the 6th Amendment, which includes, but is not limited to such things as the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Quote

Get put of Iraq. Let the terrorists win. Thousands of dead people for no reason. Sound just like Vietnam. You must know that if we leave the terrorists will take over. Why do you want that? Is making Bush look bad more important than defeating terrorism to you? I really hope not.

First of all, Iraq has nothing to do with "terrorists". Secondly, saying that we should withdraw from Iraq has nothing to do with making Bush look bad. Thirdly, leaving soldiers in Iraq will do nothing to defeat terrorism.

Quote

NCLB. It is a travesty and a joke that W let the drunkard help write this bill. However, testing is a GOOD thing. Is this a perfect system? No way. Is it better than the "let the morons pass so we get paid" system of the past? No comparison.

The NCLB Act is hardly "better", when it places unneeded federal requirements on schools that do more harm than good. And it does actually end up facilitating the "let the morons pass" syndrome that you detest, since it results in teachers teaching solely for tests rather than actually doing any educating.

[antiliberal]

"Bush administration. Not just Bush. Why?
Well, first of all, theres the whole illegal deletion of white house emails. Then, theres the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, which is a violation of the 4th Amendment, as well as violations of the 6th Amendment, which includes, but is not limited to such things as the detainees at Guantanamo Bay."

I dont know that email deleting is illegal. If so, why has congress (democrats) not taken action against the president? The patriot act is not illegal. The wiretapping is on calls that go or come from abroad. Again, not illegal. The terrorists at Guantanamo do not have constitutional rights.

Again I ask, so many anti-Bush people are constantly asking for investigations and impeachment. The dems have congress. If Bush is so guilty of these so called crimes, why has the Democratic congress, elected to destroy Bush, done NOTHING? That is the question I want answered.



"First of all, Iraq has nothing to do with "terrorists". Secondly, saying that we should withdraw from Iraq has nothing to do with making Bush look bad. Thirdly, leaving soldiers in Iraq will do nothing to defeat terrorism."

That reply just blows my mind. Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism? WOW! Saddam was paying terrorists to kill American citizens! Saddam gassed his own people! Saddam's children had rape and torture rooms! Mass graves are constantly found in Iraq!

Al Queda was in Afghanastan. Al Queda was in Pakistan. Al Queda was in Korea. Al Queda was in India. Al Queda was in New York. Al Queda was in Florida.
But Al Queda was NOT in Iraq, a breeding ground for terrorists.

C'mon man, lets be real.

"The NCLB Act is hardly "better", when it places unneeded federal requirements on schools that do more harm than good. And it does actually end up facilitating the "let the morons pass" syndrome that you detest, since it results in teachers teaching solely for tests rather than actually doing any educating."

Its better than a system which only place an emphasis on teachers unions and teacher raises. The public school system in this country has destroyed generation after generation. There was very little education going on in any public school. I went from a privete to a public school. They were 4 years behind me, and the government spends more than twice per child as it costs for a private education. The idea for testing is good. The idea that we should even try to fix government education probably is not. The voucher system would drastically improve education. But the so called teachers and teachers union will never let that happen. They would lose their jobs, and the children would get educated.


And how in the hell do you use that quote box?

[Merlinus Ambrosius]

Quote

I dont know that email deleting is illegal.

The White House is supposed to keep records of their emails. Those records all vanished without a trace. Thats illegal.

Quote

The patriot act is not illegal.

The PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional.

Quote

The wiretapping is on calls that go or come from abroad.

If a call terminates or originates in this country, it cannot be wiretapped without a warrant. Thats the law, even according to FISA.

Quote

The terrorists at Guantanamo do not have constitutional rights.

They aren't necessarily terrorists, and there are plenty of individuals there who were picked up in this country, which means that they do have a right to a trial.

Take Jose Padilla, for example (who wasn't held at Guantanamo, but was held by the government). US citizen, held without charge for years before he was finally brought to trial on charges unrelated to what they were originally trying to pin on him.

Quote

The dems have congress. If Bush is so guilty of these so called crimes, why has the Democratic congress, elected to destroy Bush, done NOTHING? That is the question I want answered.

Because the Democrats are salivating at the prospect of getting to play with all the new toys Bush has provided.

Quote

Saddam was paying terrorists to kill American citizens!

No, he wasn't. Though he did offer up bounties for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Quote

Saddam gassed his own people! Saddam's children had rape and torture rooms! Mass graves are constantly found in Iraq!

Thats not my problem. We've killed how many civilians over there in our "liberation"?

Quote

But Al Queda was NOT in Iraq, a breeding ground for terrorists.

No, they weren't. Not in any official capacity.


As for the topic of public schools...you'll get no argument from me that our public school system is a disaster. But more testing is not necessarily a good thing. Because what ends up happening is that teachers spend all their time teaching to tests, and not actually educating. Additionally, threatening to cut funding to schools with low test scores (which NCLB does) is hardly an encouragement to do better. Its just encouragement to beat the system.

Quote

The voucher system would drastically improve education

The voucher programs that have often been advocated with accomplish nothing more than allowing the government to start controlling private schools, which is the last thing those schools need. A better option would be a tax rebate if your kids were enrolled in a private school. Not a voucher.

Quote

And how in the hell do you use that quote box?

Theres a little box with a quote balloon in it that says "wrap in quote tags" if you mouse over it.

[antiliberal]

Quote

The White House is supposed to keep records of their emails. Those records all vanished without a trace. Thats illegal.

So it is illegal. Has it been proven that Bush orderded the deletion?
Also, did you support the impeachment of Clinton for perjury under oath?

Quote

The PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional.

Wasnt it upheld by the supreme court?

Quote

If a call terminates or originates in this country, it cannot be wiretapped without a warrant. Thats the law, even according to FISA.

If so, why hasnt it been stopped?

Quote

They aren't necessarily terrorists, and there are plenty of individuals there who were picked up in this country, which means that they do have a right to a trial.

Take Jose Padilla, for example (who wasn't held at Guantanamo, but was held by the government). US citizen, held without charge for years before he was finally brought to trial on charges unrelated to what they were originally trying to pin on him.

In that one specific case, I would agree with you. On foreign terrorsits, I must disagree.

Quote

Because the Democrats are salivating at the prospect of getting to play with all the new toys Bush has provided.

That makes no sense to me. The dems ran specifically on a platform of hate and revenge against Bush. If they had the proof, Bush would have already been impeached.

Quote

No, he wasn't. Though he did offer up bounties for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

It was widley reported that he was.

Quote

Thats not my problem. We've killed how many civilians over there in our "liberation"?

Thats what they said about Hitler. It is not American military policy to kill civilians. It is the religous goal of islamic terrorists. And to suggest that is a reason to not enter a war, to me, is to suggest that tyrants be allowed to exists as long as it is not at home.

Quote

No, they weren't. Not in any official capacity.

Oh please. There is no such thing as an "official capacity" for terrorists organizations. Your answer clearly indicates you know full well Al Queda was in Iraq prior to 911.

Quote

As for the topic of public schools...you'll get no argument from me that our public school system is a disaster. But more testing is not necessarily a good thing. Because what ends up happening is that teachers spend all their time teaching to tests, and not actually educating. Additionally, threatening to cut funding to schools with low test scores (which NCLB does) is hardly an encouragement to do better. Its just encouragement to beat the system.


The voucher programs that have often been advocated with accomplish nothing more than allowing the government to start controlling private schools, which is the last thing those schools need. A better option would be a tax rebate if your kids were enrolled in a private school. Not a voucher.

I partially agree with you here. Yes it could open the door to government control of private schools, which would be a very, VERY bad thing.
I like the tax credit idea except, where is a poor family supposed to get the money up front? I would think vouchers with a law that specifically prohibits government interference in these schools may be workable. What do you think?

Quote

Theres a little box with a quote balloon in it that says "wrap in quote tags" if you mouse over it.

Thank you.

This post has been edited by antiliberal: 21 February 2008 - 10:40 PM

[Merlinus Ambrosius]

Quote

Has it been proven that Bush orderded the deletion?

Thats what the criminal investigation would be for. To determine what exactly happened.

Quote

Also, did you support the impeachment of Clinton for perjury under oath?

Yes.

Quote

Wasnt it upheld by the supreme court?

Irrelevant.

Quote

If so, why hasnt it been stopped?

Because the Democrats are pussies, and Congress has a rubber stamp.

Quote

That makes no sense to me. The dems ran specifically on a platform of hate and revenge against Bush. If they had the proof, Bush would have already been impeached.

What part of "the Democrats want the executive powers Bush grabbed so they can use them themselves" doesn't make sense? The part where the Democrats didn't have a problem with ECHELON?

Quote

It was widley reported that he was.

On what, Fox News?

Quote

Oh please. There is no such thing as an "official capacity" for terrorists organizations. Your answer clearly indicates you know full well Al Queda was in Iraq prior to 911.

So when will you be advocating the invasion of Canada in order to nab any terrorist cells that are operating up there?

Quote

I would think vouchers with a law that specifically prohibits government interference in these schools may be workable. What do you think?

The law would be overturned, since tax dollars would be being used to support private institutions.

[antiliberal]

Sorry for the delay. Life goes on.

Quote

Thats what the criminal investigation would be for. To determine what exactly happened.

Since you supported the Clinton impeachment, as did I, then I must at least call your position consistent.

Quote

Irrelevant.

We will have to disagree on that one. I believe the government has the right to do this. There is no such thing as a right to privacy.

* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Quote

Because the Democrats are pussies, and Congress has a rubber stamp.

What part of "the Democrats want the executive powers Bush grabbed so they can use them themselves" doesn't make sense? The part where the Democrats didn't have a problem with ECHELON?

That is just a way to pass of the feeling of defeat. The democrats and their willing accomplice, the left-wing media, told the nation they would get rid of Bush if elected. They said he would be impeached for lies and such. The truth is, it was the dems and the media that were full of lies. They lied to the people, emboldened the terrorists, caused how many more deaths, just to get elected. ECHELON?

"Intelligence victories add credibility to the arguments that defend such a pervasive surveillance system. The discovery of missile sites in Cuba in 1962, the capture of the Achille Lauro terrorists in 1995, the discovery of Libyan involvement in the bombing of a Berlin discotheque that killed one American (resulting in the 1996 bombing of Tripoli) and countless other incidents that have been averted all point to the need for comprehensive signals intelligence gathering for the national security of the United States."

ECHELON has been around for quite some time. How or why to blame the dems or Bush for ECHELON is beyond me.

Quote

On what, Fox News?

Yes, as well as other news outlets. Many of you, who seem to be on the left, seem to hate Fox News. To those on the left I say, any news network that does not lean left, automatically seems to lean to the right. Would it interest you to know that 80% of all campaign donations from Fox employees go to the democrats? Is Fox still a "right-wing" organization? No. Fox is fair and balanced. "Fair and balanced" is code for "not liberal." Again, they dont lean left so it only looks like they lean right. We are so used to all of the media being liberal, that this effect goes unnoticed.

Quote

So when will you be advocating the invasion of Canada in order to nab any terrorist cells that are operating up there?

When there is evidence of terrorists training camps in Canada! Are you going to be serious? If you are as thoughtful as I thought you might be, you might just want to admit there were terrorists in Iraq prior to 911. I would hate to see how much farther you might go with statements like that to avoid the painfully obvious.

Quote

The law would be overturned, since tax dollars would be being used to support private institutions.

Then that law should be changed. We agree the public school system is horrible. We agree change is needed. My ultimate wish is that the federal government is out of education all together, and all education is returned to the states. Agree?

[Merlinus Ambrosius]

Quote

There is no such thing as a right to privacy.

I disagree very, very strongly with that.

Quote

ECHELON has been around for quite some time. How or why to blame the dems or Bush for ECHELON is beyond me.

ECHELON was used by the Clinton administration for industrial espionage. Additionally, ECHELON was used to trade intelligence with our allies in order to circumvent warrant processes. We'd spy on British citizens for the Brits, and they'd spy on American citizens for us, then we'd trade intel, and there was no need for any warrants or oversight.

ECHELON may not have been started by the Clinton administration, but they certainly used it to infringe upon privacy rights.

Quote

If you are as thoughtful as I thought you might be, you might just want to admit there were terrorists in Iraq prior to 911.

So is the standard the presence of terrorist, or the presence of terrorist training camps? You don't seem to be able to make up your mind.

Additionally, the presence of alleged terrorist training camps in Iraq is entirely overblown. We found what...a couple of abandoned ones? Yeah, thats some dangerous shit right there.

Quote

Then that law should be changed. We agree the public school system is horrible. We agree change is needed. My ultimate wish is that the federal government is out of education all together, and all education is returned to the states. Agree?

Thats something I can agree with.

[antiliberal]

Quote

I disagree very, very strongly with that.

And I would like to agree with you. But the fact remains, there is no right to privacy. If I am wrong, please show me the text in the constitution that guarantees a right to privacy.

Quote

ECHELON was used by the Clinton administration for industrial espionage. Additionally, ECHELON was used to trade intelligence with our allies in order to circumvent warrant processes. We'd spy on British citizens for the Brits, and they'd spy on American citizens for us, then we'd trade intel, and there was no need for any warrants or oversight.

ECHELON may not have been started by the Clinton administration, but they certainly used it to infringe upon privacy rights.

Or, it was used to catch terrorists and criminals that hid under constitutional protections not designed to protect their illegal activities. As I posted before, it has been highly successful. Also, there are no people, that I know of that have been wrongly harmed by this program. In fact, many would deem it a brilliant way of keeping our rights while catching criminals who would otherwise get away by hiding under the constitution.

Quote

So is the standard the presence of terrorist, or the presence of terrorist training camps? You don't seem to be able to make up your mind.

Additionally, the presence of alleged terrorist training camps in Iraq is entirely overblown. We found what...a couple of abandoned ones? Yeah, thats some dangerous shit right there.

I have never changed my position on this. It has been my contention that terrorists were in Iraq prior to 911. It does seem you keep moving the goal posts (canadian terror camps) in order to support a position that has so totally been disproved.

Maybe finding a couple of abandoned terror camps might tell us, 1) there have been terrorists here, 2) there may be terrorists here, 3) either way this nation is involved in terrorism.

How could it possibly tell us there are no terrorists there? How can you not equate that to "dangerous shit." Where we smell smoke...



I am glad we agree on education. It shows there is common ground between us. And I think if more Americans, however opposed on some issues, can find some common ground, instead of all this hatred out there, we could actually move forward. Then we might be able to find common ground on the issues we are so opposed on.

That is why I like this site. The owner will not allow the type of stuff we see on so many other sites. The hatred and name calling used in place of intellectual discussion. I could never get this far on other sites, both on the left and the right, with someone that disagrees with me w/o them insulting and name calling. That never leads to intelligent discussion, and only deepens the divide.

I am enjoying our conversation, as I hope you are too.

[Merlinus Ambrosius]

Quote

If I am wrong, please show me the text in the constitution that guarantees a right to privacy.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects....ect. You just quoted it. That right there is a right to privacy. Thats why it talks about warrants.

Quote

Or, it was used to catch terrorists and criminals that hid under constitutional protections not designed to protect their illegal activities.

"Innocent until proven guilty", thats one of the creeds of our nation. Thats why we have constitutional protections. If someone is a criminal, then thats what the warrant process is for. Theres no doubt that programs like Bush's wiretaps or ECHELON were used to catch criminals. But they did a whole lot more. Do a little research on Clinton's use of ECHELON. You'll change your tune pretty quickly.

As for harm being done, well, here's an example:

Here

Quote

It has been my contention that terrorists were in Iraq prior to 911. It does seem you keep moving the goal posts (canadian terror camps) in order to support a position that has so totally been disproved.

No, here's my point: there are "terrorists" all over the place. There were probably some in Iraq. And the presence of some random terrorist in Iraq is justification to you for invading Iraq. When I said that since there's probably terrorists in Canada, and we should invade them, you said "only if theres terrorist training camps". But Saddam had no terrorist training camps in Iraq....so what exactly is your justification for invading Iraq in regards to the presence of terrorists? Sanctioned training camps? Or some guy living in an apartment?

Quote

Maybe finding a couple of abandoned terror camps might tell us, 1) there have been terrorists here, 2) there may be terrorists here, 3) either way this nation is involved in terrorism.

It tells us that they aren't there any more, and if its been abandoned for a while, then obviously they haven't been there for a while. It doesn't tell us that said nation is involved in terrorism, any more than Hmong freedom fighters training in Fresno proves that the US is planning on attacking Laos.

[Bondo]

antiliberal, on Feb 28 2008, 10:43 PM, said:

And I would like to agree with you. But the fact remains, there is no right to privacy.

If there was no right to privacy, Antonin Scalia would have been forced to answer the question, "Have you ever sodomized your wife."

Vaffanculo!