Should we start stripping down our democracy because of fear

[delusional]

would impeaching bush solve all your problems what does it do to help america we are in iraq now and it would be insensible to just outright leave because all i see is democrats wanting to be in the white house as soon as possible which makes me sad because i see our country be split in two over different points of views which is exactly what terrorists want

 

[CptStern]

funny how little it took to impeach clinton ..this is the same scenario except the only person clinton was harming was his family ...bush sent over 2300 americans to their deaths and another 100,000 iraqis (conservative estimate) to an early grave

if that doesnt deserve some measure of justice I dont know what does

 

[kirovman]

Ah but violence = good, sex = bad.

 

[delusional]

more iraqis would have been killed if we didnt go to war and we didnt impeach clinton tried to though

 

[Reaktor4]

more iraqis would have been killed if we didnt go to war

What makes you think that?

 

[CptStern]

more iraqis would have been killed if we didnt go to war

excuse me? how do you figure that? the US between 12 years of sanctions and another 3 years of war has caused the deaths of over 1 million iraqis ..it took saddam almost 30 years to cause a quarter of that many casualties

and we didnt impeach clinton tried to though

really?

 

[kirovman]

more iraqis would have been killed if we didnt go to war and we didnt impeach clinton tried to though

Clinton was impeached, but he was acquitted (or got banned for three matches, I forget).

Also, the sanctions and war killed more than Saddam did.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

...Can we start stripping yet?

-Angry Lawyer

 

[kirovman]

You mean you haven't already?

D:

 

[delusional]

i havent been clothed since this thread started

 

[Solaris]

I didn't even open the thread without first getting naked.

 

[No Limit]

read the patriot act because it gives the president power to do alot of things like wiretapping and tracking money and many other stuff but not sure if it said anything on judicial approval since its hard to understand and i also think i saw that the attorney general had to inform congress every once in a while but this was approved by all branches

They were not acting under provisions of the patriot act, go to the cspan web site and watch the alberto gonzales hearing from a few days ago. At about 2:14:00 gonzales admits they could not use the provisions under the patriot act and even says that war was never declared, which means the president doesn't have war powers.

 

[15357]

All I want to know is why Bush shouldn't have to get approval from the other 2 brenches of government like the constitution calls for. 15357 I know its 3 am but you still haven't replied to the point.

Ineffective. Takes too much time to do needed things.

 

[Man|-|unter]

Should we be so terrorized by Al Queda that we should completely ignore the fact that the president is going beyond the constitution and our laws so that he has the power to fight terrorists (so he says). Or should we show Al Queda that we are not scared and that we will not change our values because of a single attack on our country? I refuse to be terrorized by these terrorists so I want accountibility in my government, who's with me?

"Democracy does not create strong ties between people. But it does make living together easier." if u living is not so easier then u shld. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." if ur gov is unable to fight with terrorism and u refuse to be terrorized then go and kill ur gov(Democracy) don't look for others help DIY.

If you don't come to democracy, democracy will come to you.

 

[Tr0n]

"Democracy does not create strong ties between people. But it does make living together easier." If your living is not so easy then you should. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." If your government is unable to fight with terrorism and you refuse to be terrorized then go and kill ur government(Democracy) don't look for others help DIY.

If you don't come to democracy, democracy will come to you.

Corrected.

Actually, even when I corrected the words, it still doesn't make sense.

 

[Man|-|unter]

it's simple, refuse to be terrorized.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Kill ur government?

 

[Tr0n]

It's hard not to laugh at that.

 

[Man|-|unter]

Kill ur government?

Go against your government and ask for freedom from terrorism.

 

[No Limit]

Ineffective. Takes too much time to do needed things.

:rolling:

I really can't help you, I tried though. Sometimes, when a person thinks everything we have fought for, and millions have died for, should be abolished there simply isn't anything you can do to undo the brainwashing done by the GOP.

Please read John Dean's (a republican) book sometime, maybe that will help you understand:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/06...ef=sr_1_1/104-6381837-9259904?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

[15357]

Well, that was the only response I could do without contradictions.

 

[99.vikram]

Simple question, I would appreciate a simple answer from you. In time of crisis which do you think Al Queda would consider a victory:

A) Having the american people step up to al queda and showing them we are not afraid of these terrorist threats by protecting our democracy and stepping up to anyone that challenges that democracy.

or

B) Cowering down by stripping the most basic liberties we have in this country by letting the president do anything he wants without having to check with the legislative and judicial branches of our government.

Which is it, A or B.

I believe there is an option C - boost security, but preserve the basic rights like free speech and privacy. If and only if required, violate them. Eg - tapping phones to nab terrorists.

 

[MultiVaC]

I believe there is an option C - boost security, but preserve the basic rights like free speech and privacy. If and only if required, violate them. Eg - tapping phones to nab terrorists.

But who decides when it's required? The the same guys who sent us to war with Iraq because they supposedly had WMDs and ties to al Qaeda?

 

[Angry Lawyer]

It's a tough one to balance, but it involves voting in people other than Bush.

But, yeah, as much as everyone takes the piss out of Numbers, you CAN have both freedom and security. Just, he wants more security than the rest of you.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Solaris]

It's a tough one to balance, but it involves voting in people other than Bush.

But, yeah, as much as everyone takes the piss out of Numbers, you CAN have both freedom and security. Just, he wants more security than the rest of you.

-Angry Lawyer

You can have both, to the extremes, just don't make enemys.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Heh, lol, yeah, though unfortunatly in this world even taking a dump gets you enemies.

 

[Flyingdebris]

So wait lets see.

People blame 9/11 on bush because we didn't take enough security precautions to prevent it.
Now that bush is trying to take security precautions to prevent another one people are complaining that our freedoms are being taken away.
Last i checked people still have freedom of speech and all that jazz, its only that the government has a wider range of jurisdiction and leeway when it comes to identifying and dealing with suspected terrorists, and that airline security is more stringent.

Way i see it, it seems like a lot of people would just like to stick their heads in the sand and try to ignore the problem.

Oh and solaris, your sig should read "don't shoot i'm che, I'm worth more to you alive than dead"

 

[Raziaar]

The main problem I see in it... is that as the government is investigating more potential terrorists... they are also doing more watching of us regular people, and using this 'ability' of theirs to size up and make records of us... sometimes catching us for things we might normally not have been caught before.

I dunno. I'm just paranoid.

 

[No Limit]

You guys that are trying to argue that we are against giving the government more power to fight terrorism are completely missing the point of this discussion. I am all for giving the tools needed to our government to fight terrorism. What you guys are arguing for is giving a single person, the president, all that power without having to check with the legislative and judiciary branches of our government. You are pretty much saying **** the constitution, Bush can piss all over it if he wants; doesn't bother you at all.

Do you understand how unamerican and how facist it is to say that? Do you not understand millions have died in our 300 year history to prevent exactly what is happening now? How is forcing the president to comply with our laws and our regulations somehow stopping him from fighting the war on terror?

FISA was set up in the 70s by a democratic senator specifically for this reason. All that Bush would have to do is inform the courts 15 days after a search or wiretap or whatever was executed to make sure what he did was legal, the he wasn't spying on his political enemies, his wife, or whatever. Why do you neocons have such a problem with this, please, explain it to me.

 

[Flyingdebris]

I'm against giving excessive power to one man, that i find is a very legitimate concern. However my main concern right now as far as anyone having too much power is the supreme court. As they have been pretending to be the final word on everything when their job is supposed to be to verify whether or not something is unconstitutional.

You can thank that emminent domain law that allows large companies to take your stuff on the supreme court.

 

[No Limit]

I'm against giving excessive power to one man, that i find is a very legitimate concern. However my main concern right now as far as anyone having too much power is the supreme court. As they have been pretending to be the final word on everything when their job is supposed to be to verify whether or not something is unconstitutional.

You can thank that emminent domain law that allows large companies to take your stuff on the supreme court.

That's the problem with the republican majority (there goes no limit attacking republicans again). They have now confirmed 2 conservative judges appointed by Bush and a third judge is on his way out. If Bush gets his man the third time he will have total control over the supreme court. This is why midterms are going to be extremely important. It won't be an election about typical issues, I believe it will be an election to decide if we should go on with the democracy we've built up for the last 300 years or it will be for giving one group total control over everything.