Hedging you bets...will they lose control? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Will the Republicans lose the House and/or Senate or retain 1 or both?
The GOP will retain the Senate and the House 8 22.86%
The GOP will lose the House only, but keep the Senate 11 31.43%
The GOP will lose both the House and Senate and the Democrats will anoint Queen Nancy as speaker 9 25.71%
I have no clue of what you are polling of diamondbruno9, nor do I give a frog's fat a**! 4 11.43%
diamondbruno, are you smoking crack again? 3 8.57%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-17-2006, 01:08 PM   #31
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


That being said, a true conservative party would stand for "less government".

A true conservative party would also realize that special circumstances sometimes require special action. They would support the president in tapping the bad guys' phones and the phones of their associates in order to help keep America safe.

I hope you realize the contradiction here...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-17-2006, 01:30 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I'm not for taking away any legitimate rights. There is no legitimate right to take the life of an innocent baby.



i really don't want to get into an abortion discussion, but can we agree that it is a complex issue, one that reasonable people can disagree on, and there are varying perspectives all of which have some degree of legitimacy?



Quote:
While it is true that one issue is by far the most important for me, I'm not a single issue voter. If the Republicans and Democrats were all prolife, I would still vote Republican. I side with the Republicans on the vast majority of issues. There are very few issues with which I side with the Democrats.
what are the issues with which you side with the Republicans?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-17-2006, 01:47 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



i really don't want to get into an abortion discussion, but can we agree that it is a complex issue, one that reasonable people can disagree on, and there are varying perspectives all of which have some degree of legitimacy?





what are the issues with which you side with the Republicans?
abortion, national security, border control, tax issues, just to name a few
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-17-2006, 01:48 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I hope you realize the contradiction here...
There is no contradiction, because when people talk about "less government", they're talking about bureaucracy, not "less national security".
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-17-2006, 01:53 PM   #35
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


There is no contradiction, because when people talk about "less government", they're talking about bureaucracy, not "less national security".
No, a true "less government" party would be appalled by the wire tapping power that's given to today's government.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-17-2006, 01:58 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


No, a true "less government" party would be appalled by the wire tapping power that's given to today's government.
When people talk about "less government", most of the time it is in reference to the size of the bureaucracy, not to national security.

I was not contradicting myself.

But since you seem to want to talk about it, how would "not spying on terrorists and their associates" provide "less government"?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-17-2006, 02:10 PM   #37
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


There is no contradiction, because when people talk about "less government", they're talking about bureaucracy, not "less national security".

are you bothered by all the spending that's gone on the past 6 years, totally unrelated to national security? having gone from surpluses to record deficits?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-17-2006, 02:19 PM   #38
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


When people talk about "less government", most of the time it is in reference to the size of the bureaucracy, not to national security.
You are confusing too many issues here. When people talk about less government it's not about beaucracy, it's about the power the government has over the individual.

And the idea that security at the cost of civil liberties is definately off the list for 'less government" folks.

This is exactly why Republicans have no right really calling themselves Republicans these days.

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

But since you seem to want to talk about it, how would "not spying on terrorists and their associates" provide "less government"?
A true definition of a terrorist would be a good start, right now anyone can be spyed on. Please take a closer look.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-17-2006, 04:11 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:46 AM
i think only internet porn addicts need be afraid of being spied on or others that indulged in illegal and illict activities on the internet.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-17-2006, 04:18 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

are you bothered by all the spending that's gone on the past 6 years, totally unrelated to national security? having gone from surpluses to record deficits?
I've never paid as much attention to the spending as I should have, to be honest. However, if I were to have all the info I need and could actually understand it all, and found that the spending was unnecessary, yes I would be bothered.

However, I do know enough to know that not all the pundits agree that there were these huge surpluses the Clinton Admin bragged about.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-17-2006, 04:23 PM   #41
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
i think only internet porn addicts need be afraid of being spied on or others that indulged in illegal and illict activities on the internet.

dbs
Yeah it couldn't possibly be used to wire tap opposing campaigns, get trading tips, or any other legal activities by simply defining the "potential" of terrorism or treason.



Ignorance may be bliss, but it will also destroy your libertites.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-17-2006, 04:24 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

And the idea that security at the cost of civil liberties is definately off the list for 'less government" folks.
I don't put much value on protecting the rights of terrorists and their associates to have "tap-free" phone conversations.


Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
A true definition of a terrorist would be a good start, right now anyone can be spyed on. Please take a closer look.
Do you think they have the time and manpower to spy on people who are not involved in terrorism?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-17-2006, 04:33 PM   #43
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I don't put much value on protecting the rights of terrorists and their associates to have "tap-free" phone conversations.
So are you a terrorist? For it's your rights I'm concerned with.

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

Do you think they have the time and manpower to spy on people who are not involved in terrorism?
Absolutely, it's already been used to spy on anti-war protestors, busting marijuana pocessions, and other non-terrorist activities...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-17-2006, 06:28 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Do you think they have the time and manpower to spy on people who are not involved in terrorism?
The government does not have a great historical track record. Why do you think that there were rules in place to ensure that the FBI and the CIA not communicate? Because the system was abused, and while we're to believe that these measures are going to be used solely for "anti-terrorism" purposes, it could very easily be used for political motivations. Indeed, this is what happened the last time around, and I don't see any reason why human nature will change that.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-17-2006, 06:34 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


The government does not have a great historical track record. Why do you think that there were rules in place to ensure that the FBI and the CIA not communicate? Because the system was abused, and while we're to believe that these measures are going to be used solely for "anti-terrorism" purposes, it could very easily be used for political motivations. Indeed, this is what happened the last time around, and I don't see any reason why human nature will change that.

Melon
I agree. But I also feel that warranted eavesdropping is an essential component of fighting terrorism.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com