[Joshua]

Guantanamo bay information: http://web.amnesty.o...ENGAMR510632005

Religious profiling information: http://www.anairhoad...profiling.shtml

2998 killed on 9/11, the only recent attack on US soil: http://www.september11victims.com
Quite a few. The first successful ist attack on the US was Oklaholma City. Average that out with the number of years the United States has existed, and it's lower than the following-

67 people killed per year by lightning: http://www.crh.noaa....06-17/index.php

Bush's abuses of power: http://www.aclu.org/...rs20041220.html
http://www.aclu.org/...rs20060116.html
http://www.aclu.org/...rs20060105.html
http://www.aclu.org/...es20051229.html
http://www.aclu.org/...rs20051222.html
http://www.aclu.org/...rs20051115.html


That's all I have time to post right now, but I assure you there's much more information out there as well.

[Yoda]

"Thanks" I was just worried that you were getting it from Al-Jazeera or from our bias new's media. Im happy now. "Oh Crap" The ACLU now thats a unbiased credible source.

This post has been edited by Yoda: 24 January 2006 - 12:10 AM

[Bondo]

Yoda, on Jan 23 2006, 11:56 AM, said:

How many times a day do you talk to Al-Qaida?

I don't talk on the phone at all. However, that is not the point.

Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls

Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report

Pentagon Labels Gay Kiss-In A 'Credible Threat'

Administration Refuses To Release Gay Spying Documents (this link sometimes has advertisements featuring shirtless men. Nothing pornesque, but if that is too much for you, consider yourself warned!)

Bush and company have been lying/misdirecting/obfuscating --whatever you call it-- about this from the start. They don't have any credibility in my eyes. And on the last two links, they have a cute idea of what constitutes a terror threat. And they won't even release info for clarification/so we can see what they've done.

Power also abhores a vacuum, and I have no doubt the government will expand every last space it can find, particularly among groups of undesirables.

This post has been edited by Bondo: 23 January 2006 - 09:15 PM

[Yoda]

Democrats are so consumed with hatred for President Bush that they have crossed the line into reflexive antiAmericanism. As a prominent politician once said: "There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities" This advice was offered May 5, 1995, and was delivered by the darling of the liberal media, Bill Clinton.

[Yoda]

If you want to play the blame game, blame Alec Baldwin he is the one that said "If Bush get's elected I'll leave the country" So everybody voted for Bush and he did not follow through on his pledge.

[Bondo]

Yoda, on Jan 25 2006, 09:22 AM, said:

This advice was offered May 5, 1995, and was delivered by the darling of the liberal media, Bill Clinton.

The "your man, Bill Clinton" defense doesn't hold water, but it is better than passing the buck and blaming Alec Baldwin.

Bill Clinton is capable of the very same emotional blackmail the Republicans use? Who'd a thunk it. Bush can get up there and squeal all he wants about how if you don't support him you support the terrorists, but it is not true.

The President has lost his way. There is an obviously legal recourse: Bush could get the court order, even retroactively. He did not. The structures were in place to deal with this issue. He did not use them. Instead, he appointed himself as the sole authority of what is and is not right, what is and is not permissible.

[Yoda]

If Osama bin Laden is calling someone or vice versa, I want our government listening. It is not clear to me how this is "eavesdropping on U.S. citizens". Democrats have no policy on terrorism. All they have is criticism, accusations, and rejoicing in failures of the United States.

[Jason Vines]

Yoda, on Jan 27 2006, 01:22 PM, said:

If Osama bin Laden is calling someone or vice versa, I want our government listening. It is not clear to me how this is "eavesdropping on U.S. citizens". Democrats have no policy on terrorism. All they have is criticism, accusations, and rejoicing in failures of the United States.

Saying anyone who criticizes the Bush administration rejoices in America's failures is scurrilous. We don't live in an authoritarian state yet, so let's not demonize people who exercise their rights to oppose the chief executive. Let's also not equate the chief executive with the United States itself.

As for the other comment: Bush misses the point... again.

[Jason Vines]

Yoda said:

Circumstances are not the same now. Benjamin Franklin can go fly a kite. Thats way way in the past. He didn't know about terrorist or nucular danger.

I think Benjamin Franklin knew something about threats to his country. When he was alive, armies from the most powerful empire in the world were occupying large portions of American territory. No American forces could survive many direct engagements with those enemy regiments. In addition, many Americans sympathized not with their home country but with the imperial power we were fighting.

So don't dismiss the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin so casually. He lived when the United States faced the gravest danger to its existence in its history.

(Maybe people back then were made of sterner stuff than modern Americans are? Or perhaps they didn't take their freedom for granted, so they didn't endanger it so recklessly as we do now.)

Yoda said:

I don't care about the constitution one rats ass if we can save one life.

Many Germans said the same thing when they allowed the Third Reich to destroy the Weimar Republic. Unfortunately for them and for everyone else, their indifference to constitutional law led to more death than anyone could have imagined.

And now, some Americans stand ready to repeat the same mistakes. Fortunately, according to opinion polls, they don't comprise a majority of our population, so hope exists for our republic yet.

Yoda said:

What good is the constitution if we are all dead.

What good is living if we're not free? To quote Founding Father Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

Yoda said:

Liberals fail to grasp the danger of our enemies. They think Bush is a bigger enemy.

As President of the United States, Bush is in a position to damage this country far more than any terrorist ever could. All a terrorist can do is kill people. Bush, though, can imperil our liberty.

Yoda said:

How many times a day do you talk to Al-Qaida? If the answer is none, you have nothing to worry about.

If all Bush is doing is spying on al Qaeda, he could have gotten a FISA warrant to do so. He didn't, thereby breaking the law. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust what a lawbreaking president says.

Besides which, since when do anti-war groups, Greenpeace, and gay advocacy organizations constitute terrorist cells?

Yoda said:

Democrats are so consumed with hatred for President Bush that they have crossed the line into reflexive antiAmericanism. As a prominent politician once said: "There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities" This advice was offered May 5, 1995, and was delivered by the darling of the liberal media, Bill Clinton.

If an impeached lawbreaking president said something, it must be right.

Anyway, notice how Clinton's pronouncement dovetails with fascism: Criticism of one's government entails hatred of one's country. The state becomes synonymous with the nation. Clinton should have paid copyright fees to the descendants of Benito Mussolini.

[Sim]

What I find relieving is that there are still so many Americans afterall, who consider the Constitution as important, almost holy even. Americans may tolerate many restrictions of civil rights, but the moment the Constitution seems to be violated, a line has been crossed and they understand this was one step too far.

There may be exceptions, sure, but there won't be a discussion about counter-terrorism like this one, without some Americans standing up for their Constitution.

This gives me a feeling of relief and trust in the American people. In moments like this, I feel glad that my country is allied with a great country such as the USA.

[Joshua]

Sim, I for one, speak out against every civil rights violation I hear of. And I do not consider our constitution holy. I consider it an icon, a symbol for civil rights. The reason so few americans stand up for our constitution but not civil rights is because they fail to understand what the constitution is about. Me, I care not whether it is out civil rights or our constitutional rights being violated... I'll speak out against violations regardless.

[Yoda]

What's a president to do?

The president's most solemn duty under our Constitution is to protect the American people. Yet it seems no matter what attempts are made, President George W. Bush and his administration are criticized.

After Sept. 11, 2001, our government was accused of failing to connect the dots. As a result, and to prevent another Sept. 11, the president signed the Patriot Act, which was passed overwhelmingly by Congress. Immediately critics claimed that it broke the law and violated civil rights. The Patriot Act is now up for renewal and, if the Democrats have their way, it may fall by the wayside.

The National Security Agency issue is not domestic spying on ordinary Americans. As Mr. Bush said, it is a terrorist surveillance program to keep America safe. Mr. Bush is going after the terrorists using all the tools at his disposal. In a recent poll, 71 percent of the respondents said that the administration has not done a good job of putting terrorists out of business.

The president's detractors criticize his terrorist surveillance program and accuse him of doing too little to protect the country.

What is a president to do?

This post has been edited by Yoda: 29 February 2008 - 03:19 PM

[Joshua]

Yoda, you have some valid points there, although I disagree with you. I would say that 9/11 wouldn't have been prevented even if we had more data and had connected the dots. Criticizing the president for not preventing such a catastrophe is far from constructive, and ignores the fact that Al-Quaida was to blame, not Bush. Personally, I think the patriot act is an immoral piece of legislation, and should never have even been brought to the table. It was signed out of fear, not out of need.

Now, what the president does to help solve the problems facing our nation... That is most definitely a valid area to criticize. Since 9/11, he's sold our liberties for security. Previous posts in this topic have repeatedly demonstrated that. Domestic spying is a violation of the rights of ordinary american citizens. Being muslim does not make one a terrorist. Being attracted to the same gender does not make one a terrorist. Being extremely liberal does not make one a terrorist. Being a convert to islam does not make one a terrorist. And yet all of these groups have been directly targeted by domestic spying. Quite frankly, Mr. Bush is not spying on true terrorists, he's spying on american citizens arbitrarily labeled 'threats'.

This post has been edited by Joshua: 31 January 2006 - 04:16 PM

[Bondo]

Yoda, on Jan 31 2006, 10:06 AM, said:

Yet it seems no matter what attempts are made, President George W. Bush and his administration are criticized.

Why not simply go through the FISA court? Then there is oversight aside from the President's "whatever I say goes".

[Jason Vines]

Bondo, on Jan 31 2006, 08:47 PM, said:

Yoda, on Jan 31 2006, 10:06 AM, said:

Yet it seems no matter what attempts are made, President George W. Bush and his administration are criticized.

Why not simply go through the FISA court? Then there is oversight aside from the President's "whatever I say goes".

Indeed! As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the real issue here is how the president is asserting authority, not his goal in doing so. Right-wingers are tossing out a red herring with their focus on who Bush might be spying on. (Although, as other posters have shown, Bush isn't merely observing terrorists, unless you qualify anti-war protestors as such.)

Yoda said:

The president?s most solemn duty under our Constitution is to protect the American people.

Let's say, for the moment, Bush is trustworthy. (He's not, but let's run with it for now.) What about subsequent presidents? Maybe they won't be as honorable. They could do a lot of damage with a limitless presidency. If Bush leaves an unchecked chief executive for future presidents, that'd be tantamount to abandoning a loaded gun out in the open. That's not protecting the American people, but endangering them.

Yoda said:

As Mr. Bush said, it is a ?terrorist surveillance program.?

Given Bush's record of misleading the American people regarding Iraq's WMD's (intentionally or not), violating the Constitution, lying in his speeches (such as when he told us all wiretaps had warrants), and keeping secrets from our representatives in Congress, how can you accept what Bush says at face value?

Yoda said:

In a recent poll, 71 percent of the respondents said that the administration has not ?done a good job of putting terrorists out of business.?

That might have something to do with attacking countries that have nothing to do with terrorism while we haven't even finished our job in Afghanistan.

[Joshua]

And now Bush is proposing to raise our defense budget by billions of dollars. Guess where the money's coming from? Education and health research. The NIH is being destroyed. What a sad, sad day it is when a high school drop-out can make a decent living as a soldier but the people working to treat cancer can't even get a grant.

[Jason Vines]

Joshua, on Feb 5 2006, 06:58 PM, said:

The NIH is being destroyed.

That's hyperbole. Most of NIH's programs are receiving modest budget cuts. (When these programs use billions of dollars a year, a few million dollars isn't much by comparison.) While that's unfortunate--I think efforts to cure cancer and other diseases should get substantially more funding, not less--it hardly constitutes destruction of the NIH.

Joshua said:

What a sad, sad day it is when a high school drop-out can make a decent living as a soldier but the people working to treat cancer can't even get a grant.

Fortunately, that's not likely to happen.

[Joshua]

You'd be surprised.

Bush is planning a 2.5 billion dollar budget cut on NIH funding.

Budget analysts say such a cut could plunge the NIH success rate for competing proposals to 1% from the current low level of 15-20%. That's right: 1%.

Fewer than 19% of all applications for grant funding are accepted. Do you have any idea how much work it takes simply to get to the point of submitting a grant idea for funding? Months. And these grants have to fund entire laboratories with upwards of 15 people in them. Even Nobel prize winners are being consistantly denied funding for their work. The majority of professors across the country are required to pay their own salary through grant money. When precious months must be spent to even have a 1 in 5 chance of getting funding, there are serious problems.

2.5 Billion dollars is not a "modest" budget cut.

This post has been edited by Joshua: 05 February 2006 - 07:27 PM

[Jason Vines]

From the New York Times article:

New York Times said:

Mr. Bush is requesting a second installment of money to protect the nation against the threat of pandemic influenza: $2.65 billion in 2007, on top of the $3.3 billion that Congress provided for this year.

...

Under the president's budget for 2007, the institutes would get $28.6 billion, the same as this year. Mr. Bush proposes small cuts for 18 of the 19 institutes ? all but the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is leading research on bird flu and biological terrorism.

In his 2007 budget, Mr. Bush is seeking $4.75 billion for the National Cancer Institute, which is $40 million less than its current budget and $71 million less than it got in 2005. He is requesting $2.9 billion for the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, which is $21 million less than the current budget and $40 million less than in 2005.

The budget says, "Chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes are the leading causes of death and disability in the United States, accounting for 70 percent of all deaths."

But the president's budget would cut spending for programs that seek to prevent chronic disease and promote healthy behaviors. Congress provided $900 million for those programs in 2005. Mr. Bush requested $840 million for 2006; Congress provided $839 million. Mr. Bush is now requesting $819 million for 2007.

...

Mr. Bush is requesting $8.2 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2007, which is $179 million below this year's level.

Under the president's budget, the centers would spend $824 million to help state and local health departments prepare for a terrorist attack or an outbreak of infectious disease. That is the same amount provided this year and 10 percent less than in 2005.

As you can see, Bush isn't so much cutting the money as he is reallocating it to combat any potential flu pandemic.

[Yoda]

We should be less concerned about rights, and more concerned about what damage the enemy could inflict on us. I hope we don't look back and say, why didn't we take action when we still could.