ACLU fires back at Bush and Democrat-Controlled Congress

[bamacre]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...tTi1o7Zf6_gNLasM0E1vAI

Good, I hope they win. Our government's reaction to terrorism has destroyed much more than terrorists could ever hope to do so.

As I said in another thread...

If there is validity in the belief that politicians will inevitably abuse powers, either given to them, or taken, due to the war on terror, then terrorism can win simply by existing. Our country is not a set of borders or even the people themselves, it is simply a set of beliefs and rules of law. And if those are destroyed, effectively, so is the nation.

That's why it makes me cringe when people use the words "in a post-9/11 America," because it is in a sense, nothing short of waving a white flag.

As a nation, we have failed to understand that while they toppled two big buildings and killed a lot of people, it is our choice whether or not they did more damage than that. In my mind, they did not, but I'm afraid too many have a different perspective.

 

[Robor]

McCain criticized Obama's vote in favor of the law as an inconsistency,

Meh. Hey John, here's something that's consistent: You're still waaay too old to lead this country.

Edit: And I didn't mean that as a troll post. I don't agree with you in your support of Paul's foreign policy views but I do agree with you in what you say about our WOT. I don't care what any *alleged* success we *might* get out of Iraq. The cost of it will *NEVER* be returned. All we're doing now is attempting to patch what we caused and despite our denial the rest of the world has been watching.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Robor

McCain criticized Obama's vote in favor of the law as an inconsistency,

Meh. Hey John, here's something that's consistent: You're still waaay too old to lead this country.

HOW DARE OBAMA VOTE THE SAME WAY MCCAIN WOULD HAVE IF HE HAD BOTHERED TO SHOW UP.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Robor

McCain criticized Obama's vote in favor of the law as an inconsistency,

Meh. Hey John, here's something that's consistent: You're still waaay too old to lead this country.

HOW DARE OBAMA VOTE THE SAME WAY MCCAIN WOULD HAVE IF HE HAD BOTHERED TO SHOW UP.

HOW DARE ANYONE POINT OUT THAT OBAMA WAS INCONSISTENT.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Robor

McCain criticized Obama's vote in favor of the law as an inconsistency,

Meh. Hey John, here's something that's consistent: You're still waaay too old to lead this country.

HOW DARE OBAMA VOTE THE SAME WAY MCCAIN WOULD HAVE IF HE HAD BOTHERED TO SHOW UP.

Hey, maybe John was taking a nap? Damn you for your ageism you bigot!

Oh wait, that was me. Sorry, I live in FL.

 

[Lemon law]

In my mind, its not such a simple issue. Maybe we can define it in somewhat of another way. And the analogy I choose is the process of choosing who will be our policemen.

But when we mint a policemen, we issue them a gun, and then hope they use it responsibly. On one hand, we can try to regulate the hell out of them, try to anticipate any action they take, and it just ends up making them totally ineffective. And then somehow justifies the dirty Harry type, who wants to fight crime for the good of us all, and will bend regulations to do so. But at the same time you have other dirty Harry types who will use their positions to actually deal drugs, commit burglaries while on duty, or otherwise abuse their positions because we choose morally bankrupt people to be policemen. Which describes both GWB and Saddam Hussein to a T, who will abuse the system to have power.

On the other hand, if we don't choose morally bankrupt people to be policemen, we don't need all that many regulations, because they will police themselves.

 

[ChrisFromNJ]

God bless the ACLU.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Robor

McCain criticized Obama's vote in favor of the law as an inconsistency,

Meh. Hey John, here's something that's consistent: You're still waaay too old to lead this country.

HOW DARE OBAMA VOTE THE SAME WAY MCCAIN WOULD HAVE IF HE HAD BOTHERED TO SHOW UP.

HOW DARE ANYONE POINT OUT THAT OBAMA WAS INCONSISTENT.

WTF would it have mattered either way? You act like (D)'s are in full control. The senate is pretty much a split so neither side has any 'power'. Anyway, considering these illegal activities started with our own government shouldn't you be most angry at them?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: ChrisFromNJ
God bless the ACLU.

Too little to late. Why wait until an election year?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: ChrisFromNJ
God bless the ACLU.

The ACLU doesn't appreciate you putting them in the same sentence as God.

I don't appreciate you putting God in the same sentence as the ACLU.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: ChrisFromNJ
God bless the ACLU.

The ACLU doesn't appreciate you putting them in the same sentence as God.

I don't appreciate you putting God in the same sentence as the ACLU.

The ACLU doesn't care if you put them in the same sentence as god. They're just here to make sure the god squad doesn't shove good 'ol jesus into our government. God bless the ACLU indeed.

 

[ChrisFromNJ]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: ChrisFromNJ
God bless the ACLU.

The ACLU doesn't appreciate you putting them in the same sentence as God.

I don't appreciate you putting God in the same sentence as the ACLU.

Bless the ACLU and all they do for this country.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...tTi1o7Zf6_gNLasM0E1vAI

Good, I hope they win. Our government's reaction to terrorism has destroyed much more than terrorists could ever hope to do so.

As I said in another thread...

If there is validity in the belief that politicians will inevitably abuse powers, either given to them, or taken, due to the war on terror, then terrorism can win simply by existing. Our country is not a set of borders or even the people themselves, it is simply a set of beliefs and rules of law. And if those are destroyed, effectively, so is the nation.

That's why it makes me cringe when people use the words "in a post-9/11 America," because it is in a sense, nothing short of waving a white flag.

As a nation, we have failed to understand that while they toppled two big buildings and killed a lot of people, it is our choice whether or not they did more damage than that. In my mind, they did not, but I'm afraid too many have a different perspective.

While I appreciate and understand what you are saying (and agree to some extent) when is the time to change to the"post 9/11" mindset, after we lose another 3k, 6k, 10k people?

For me it's like the whole torture debate, both candidates say they wouldn't torture our enemy's even if it were to save American lives..... I appreciate what they are saying but I completely disagree.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Robor

McCain criticized Obama's vote in favor of the law as an inconsistency,

Meh. Hey John, here's something that's consistent: You're still waaay too old to lead this country.

HOW DARE OBAMA VOTE THE SAME WAY MCCAIN WOULD HAVE IF HE HAD BOTHERED TO SHOW UP.

HOW DARE ANYONE POINT OUT THAT OBAMA WAS INCONSISTENT.

WTF would it have mattered either way? You act like (D)'s are in full control. The senate is pretty much a split so neither side has any 'power'. Anyway, considering these illegal activities started with our own government shouldn't you be most angry at them?

Are you responding to me or Eskimospy? He's the one that brought up the fact that McCain would have voted the same way. My only point was that Obama was inconsistent.

And yes, of course it matters which way someone votes. Unless you only care about what they have to say, instead of what they actually do, like so many McCain and Obama supporters.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JD50

Are you responding to me or Eskimospy? He's the one that brought up the fact that McCain would have voted the same way. My only point was that Obama was inconsistent.

And yes, of course it matters which way someone votes. Unless you only care about what they have to say, instead of what they actually do, like so many McCain and Obama supporters.

Nah, I just thought it was funny that had Obama voted against it McCain would have whined that he was helping the 'terrists', and if Obama votes for it then McCain complains he's inconsistent.

I mean it's bad enough that Obama voted for that piece of shit, but at least he wasn't an enthusiastic supporter like McCain is. I mean... jesus.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JD50

Are you responding to me or Eskimospy? He's the one that brought up the fact that McCain would have voted the same way. My only point was that Obama was inconsistent.

And yes, of course it matters which way someone votes. Unless you only care about what they have to say, instead of what they actually do, like so many McCain and Obama supporters.

Nah, I just thought it was funny that had Obama voted against it McCain would have whined that he was helping the 'terrists', and if Obama votes for it then McCain complains he's inconsistent.

I mean it's bad enough that Obama voted for that piece of shit, but at least he wasn't an enthusiastic supporter like McCain is. I mean... jesus.

Well yea, of course McCain would do that, but he'd be wrong on the former and right on the latter. And a vote for it is a vote for it, regardless of how enthusiastic about it you are. At first, I was excited about Obama, but it's looking more and more like he's just another politician.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...tTi1o7Zf6_gNLasM0E1vAI

Good, I hope they win. Our government's reaction to terrorism has destroyed much more than terrorists could ever hope to do so.

Yet another one time conservative Republican finally discovers the ACLU.

Welcome, son. We've been here on the side of freedom -- true, ideologically unbound freedom -- all along. :thumbsup:

I give money each and every year to the ACLU!

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JD50

Are you responding to me or Eskimospy? He's the one that brought up the fact that McCain would have voted the same way. My only point was that Obama was inconsistent.

And yes, of course it matters which way someone votes. Unless you only care about what they have to say, instead of what they actually do, like so many McCain and Obama supporters.

Nah, I just thought it was funny that had Obama voted against it McCain would have whined that he was helping the 'terrists', and if Obama votes for it then McCain complains he's inconsistent.

I mean it's bad enough that Obama voted for that piece of shit, but at least he wasn't an enthusiastic supporter like McCain is. I mean... jesus.

He should of been consistant and voted present.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...tTi1o7Zf6_gNLasM0E1vAI

Good, I hope they win. Our government's reaction to terrorism has destroyed much more than terrorists could ever hope to do so.

Yet another one time conservative Republican finally discovers the ACLU.

Welcome, son. We've been here on the side of freedom -- true, ideologically unbound freedom -- all along. :thumbsup:

I give money each and every year to the ACLU!

And if you were a country you would have been invaded and occupied a long time ago.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...tTi1o7Zf6_gNLasM0E1vAI

Good, I hope they win. Our government's reaction to terrorism has destroyed much more than terrorists could ever hope to do so.

Yet another one time conservative Republican finally discovers the ACLU.

Welcome, son. We've been here on the side of freedom -- true, ideologically unbound freedom -- all along. :thumbsup:

I give money each and every year to the ACLU!

And if you were a country you would have been invaded and occupied a long time ago.

Yes! Freedom kills! I take your point, Il Duce! The trains on time > our Constitution and the Bill of Rights! :roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...tTi1o7Zf6_gNLasM0E1vAI

Good, I hope they win. Our government's reaction to terrorism has destroyed much more than terrorists could ever hope to do so.

As I said in another thread...

If there is validity in the belief that politicians will inevitably abuse powers, either given to them, or taken, due to the war on terror, then terrorism can win simply by existing. Our country is not a set of borders or even the people themselves, it is simply a set of beliefs and rules of law. And if those are destroyed, effectively, so is the nation.

That's why it makes me cringe when people use the words "in a post-9/11 America," because it is in a sense, nothing short of waving a white flag.

As a nation, we have failed to understand that while they toppled two big buildings and killed a lot of people, it is our choice whether or not they did more damage than that. In my mind, they did not, but I'm afraid too many have a different perspective.

While I appreciate and understand what you are saying (and agree to some extent) when is the time to change to the"post 9/11" mindset, after we lose another 3k, 6k, 10k people?

For me it's like the whole torture debate, both candidates say they wouldn't torture our enemy's even if it were to save American lives..... I appreciate what they are saying but I completely disagree.

You're dramatically oversimplifying an incredibly complicated issue, it's not a matter of having the right or the wrong answer, you're not even asking the right question. You assume a "post 9/11" mindset helps save lives, it's the same faulty premise that drives the ticking time bomb style questions on torture. By even engaging in a debate started by the questions you're asking, too many assumptions have been granted based on absolutely no supporting evidence.

So before what you said would apply, I have some questions that people should really think about first. Does a "post 9/11 mindset", up to an including torture as a method of interrogation, do anything to help save lives? Because while it sort of seems to go without saying that Jack Bauer holds all the secrets to fighting terrorism, I don't think it's at all obvious outside of poorly written TV shows.

 

[fallout man]

Self-described reputable sources told me that G.W. Bush, in preparation, sodomized Laura Bush with the pen he was hoping to use for signing the bill into law. Anonymous sources close to Laura Bush reveal that this was the "stiffest punishment" she has received since her driving-related manslaughter debacle decades ago.

Same sources tell me that President Bush was "very eager to get it over with" because Buddy was watching intently, and salivating onto the original draft of the constitution lining the floor of his play area.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...tTi1o7Zf6_gNLasM0E1vAI

Good, I hope they win. Our government's reaction to terrorism has destroyed much more than terrorists could ever hope to do so.

As I said in another thread...

If there is validity in the belief that politicians will inevitably abuse powers, either given to them, or taken, due to the war on terror, then terrorism can win simply by existing. Our country is not a set of borders or even the people themselves, it is simply a set of beliefs and rules of law. And if those are destroyed, effectively, so is the nation.

That's why it makes me cringe when people use the words "in a post-9/11 America," because it is in a sense, nothing short of waving a white flag.

As a nation, we have failed to understand that while they toppled two big buildings and killed a lot of people, it is our choice whether or not they did more damage than that. In my mind, they did not, but I'm afraid too many have a different perspective.

While I appreciate and understand what you are saying (and agree to some extent) when is the time to change to the"post 9/11" mindset, after we lose another 3k, 6k, 10k people?

For me it's like the whole torture debate, both candidates say they wouldn't torture our enemy's even if it were to save American lives..... I appreciate what they are saying but I completely disagree.

You're dramatically oversimplifying an incredibly complicated issue, it's not a matter of having the right or the wrong answer, you're not even asking the right question. You assume a "post 9/11" mindset helps save lives, it's the same faulty premise that drives the ticking time bomb style questions on torture. By even engaging in a debate started by the questions you're asking, too many assumptions have been granted based on absolutely no supporting evidence.

So before what you said would apply, I have some questions that people should really think about first. Does a "post 9/11 mindset", up to an including torture as a method of interrogation, do anything to help save lives? Because while it sort of seems to go without saying that Jack Bauer holds all the secrets to fighting terrorism, I don't think it's at all obvious outside of poorly written TV shows.

My question is simple, I assume your against wire tapping but would you change your mind if we had a couple more attacks on our country?

The torture question was given in a couple debates and it was oversimplified "would you torture if it were to save American lives" and both candidates said they wouldn't.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

My question is simple, I assume your against wire tapping but would you change your mind if we had a couple more attacks on our country?

The torture question was given in a couple debates and it was oversimplified "would you torture if it were to save American lives" and both candidates said they wouldn't.

Absolutely not. We have a Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures and warrantless wiretaps are certainly a violation of that. If more terrorist attacks happen in this country and if there is firm evidence that wiretapping could help prevent further attacks, I would be all for the establishment of a system in which warrants were issued for the wiretaps and could be obtained quickly and discretely.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Well I know where all the money, I was going to donate to Obama is going now...

At least the ACLU still cares...what a great org...I started a local chapter at my college when I was in school and I'm still really proud of that...

I think i'm going to just start giving them a equivalent of a tithe out of my paychecks because i have so much for the work they do.