America... Spying on Americans

Debra_Law wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
That's true. But they might be setting the precedent for consolidated presidential power for a future president with even fewer scruples.

Like Lincoln, Wilson and FDR did?

It's reasonable, I think, to debate this issue as one based on the separation and limits of the powers of the three branches of government.

I would like to think this can be done without the associated hysteria of comparisons with Hitler, warnings of pending dictatorships and screams for impeachment, but apparently it can't.

I've stated on more than one occasion that the ventures of some posters into hysterical realms sorely undercut what might otherwise be valid points, but by responding ad nauseum, and in some instance ad hominem, to these ridiculous claims I have been contributing to and perpetuating pointless exchanges. Time for me to resist the urge and simply provide reasoned responses (peppered with the occasional smart-ass quip) to reasonable posts.

It will be tough. No matter how many times I see some nut running down the street bare-assed naked, I'm going to feel compelled to yell: "Hey you nut! Don't you know you're naked?!"...but I guess me yelling at them isn't going to make them put some clothes on. Of course I'm also not about to sit them down on their bare asses and try to talk sense into them, God knows what else might be wrong with them.

How very delusional of you, Finn. In your cocoonish world, you are the sole voice of reason. According to you, anyone who dares to compare the the fear propaganda, the suspension of civil liberties, and the establishment of a dictatorship in Germany after the terrorist attack on the Reichstag to what is currently happening in our country after 9/11 is a nut who running down the street naked. The historical warning signs of unchecked executive power are vivid for those who can see and screaming out to those who can hear. Yet, you bury your head in the sand where your vision and hearing is obscured and declare yourself to be the sane one and everyone else to be insane.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Must not tell Debra_Law that she is running down the street naked. Must not tell Debra_Law...

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Says the man with no pants.

That's hardly fair. Easy, but hardly fair.

0 Replies

And I missed it!!! Sad

Anon

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Well, many of us on a2k do not want you guys to hog/monopolize the idiocy level of debate like your "running down the street naked" retort to Debra.

"I keep trying to get out, and they keep dragging me back in!"

Al Pacino - Godfather III

With you around CI, there's no chance of anyone else monopolizing the idiocy level of debate on A2K.

0 Replies

To Debra, Ticomaya wrote:

. . . you're like a nut running down the street naked

To Ticomaya, FreeDuck wrote:

Says the man with no pants.

If I'm running down the street naked, it's most likely because the secret police are in hot pursuit. I mean, how dare I speak out against our leader--our trusted protector and savior?

If Ticomaya has no pants, he's probably in total denial of his pantless state. His leader, the tailor of false illusions and the new world order, has told him that he is wearing the most magnificent pants that can possibly be woven. Inasmuch as Ticomaya knows better than to question the savior and trust his own eyes--he walks around with no pants.

0 Replies

I must say that I am greatly honored by the impact my "naked nut running down the street" analogy seems to have had on this thread. Although I never sunk to identifying anyone as the naked nut, we seem to, already, have a couple of pretenders to that tin throne.

(Puckish; not mean: in keeping with my 2006 resolution)

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Well, many of us on a2k do not want you guys to hog/monopolize the idiocy level of debate like your "running down the street naked" retort to Debra.

"I keep trying to get out, and they keep dragging me back in!"

Al Pacino - Godfather III

With you around CI, there's no chance of anyone else monopolizing the idiocy level of debate on A2K.

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

And I missed it!!!

Anon

Yeah! Assuming Debra actually resembles Lady Liberty in face and form, seeing her run down the street naked would have been quite a sight.

(Somebody stop me!)

0 Replies

finn wrote:
With you around CI, there's no chance of anyone else monopolizing the idiocy level of debate on A2K.

And it's even more idiocy to continue to read my posts. Welcome to the idiocy club.

You're hooked, heh? ROFLMAO.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Anon-Voter wrote:
And I missed it!!!

Anon

Yeah! Assuming Debra actually resembles Lady Liberty in face and form, seeing her run down the street naked would have been quite a sight.

(Somebody stop me!)

Speaking of form, I already mentioned the likely possibility that my legs are far more attractive than mortkat's legs . . .

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Anon-Voter wrote:
And I missed it!!!

Anon

Yeah! Assuming Debra actually resembles Lady Liberty in face and form, seeing her run down the street naked would have been quite a sight.

(Somebody stop me!)

Speaking of form, I already mentioned the likely possibility that my legs are far more attractive than mortkat's legs . . .

I'll take that on faith! Could you make another dash while I'm watching Twisted Evil

Anon

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Says the man with no pants.

That's hardly fair. Easy, but hardly fair.

Oh, I think it's plenty fair. Balance, my dear.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Says the man with no pants.

That's hardly fair. Easy, but hardly fair.

Oh, I think it's plenty fair. Balance, my dear.

T'would be fair and balanced if Tico had argued that Debra_Law, Cicerone, Blueflame, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi et al were vile traitors and desirous of seeing America fall on its knees before its enemies.

Comparing a hysterical rant to ideologically informed opinions is hardly balanced...or fair, my dear.

Tell gungasnake that his ass is bare and I might go along with you.

0 Replies

Quote, "T'would be fair and balanced if Tico had argued that Debra_Law, Cicerone, Blueflame, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi et al were vile traitors and desirous of seeing America fall on its knees before its enemies."

That's what the righties like to say when anybody disagrees with their agenda. They started with "if you're not with us, you're with the enemy."

What can we espect from people that can only use ad hominems and straw man arguments?

0 Replies

This administration is a bunch of chicken-hawks; they didn't serve when we had a war in Vietnam, then when they're 30-years older, they send our young men and women to a war that has no real justification except "stay the course."

They have the gall to call us "vile traitors and enemies," because they understand nothing about what is democracy is all about.

0 Replies

"Ideologically informed opinions" is a contradiction. Ideology supercedes evidence.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Comparing a hysterical rant to ideologically informed opinions is hardly balanced...or fair, my dear.

Main Entry: ide·ol·o·gy

1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

Our founding fathers were visionaries. History had taught them that placing restraints and limitations on government was necessary to prevent abuse of power and tyranny. Ideologically, they would rather live free than be bound by the chains of oppression. They risked and sacrificed their property and their lives to achieve that ideal. They established a government designed to secure liberty for themselves and their posterity (for us). Those ideals are embodied in our constitution and are the foundation of this country. The American people must be vigilant and guard against encroachments upon our liberty interests.

Main Entry: in·formed

1 a : having information <informed sources> <informed observers> b : based on possession of information <an informed opinion>
2 : EDUCATED, KNOWLEDGEABLE <what the informed person should know>

History has taught us that a democracy can be destroyed when a law-and-order crisis is created and our government offers a 'solution' that requires an abdication of civil liberties and a powerful but unaccountable central authority.

Since 9/11, the actions of our government amply demonstrate that the people have been required to sacrifice their liberty interests in exchange for alleged security. We are becoming more aware of the president's exercise of unchecked powers. We are engaged in war against an amorphous enemy that may never end; thus there exists an excuse for the government to continue to erode our civil liberties. Our president's claim to inherent authority to override the rule of law is without boundaries.

Those of us who do not see the president as a benevolent war-making president who is acting merely to protect us are called hysterical ranters. Those who are willing to sacrifice our liberty in exchange for illusory safety ironically proclaim that THEY are the "ideologically informed" thinkers of the nation. They are spinning a contradictory farce while our president chips away our democracy and the rule of law before our very eyes.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

T'would be fair and balanced if Tico had argued that Debra_Law, Cicerone, Blueflame, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi et al were vile traitors and desirous of seeing America fall on its knees before its enemies.

Comparing a hysterical rant to ideologically informed opinions is hardly balanced...or fair, my dear.

I said he had no pants, not that he was naked.

Quote:

Tell gungasnake that his ass is bare and I might go along with you.

Of course. But gunga and his naked band of brothers are on my scroll list so I don't tell them much of anything.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's what the righties like to say when anybody disagrees with their agenda. They started with "if you're not with us, you're with the enemy."

What can we espect from people that can only use ad hominems and straw man arguments?

What can we expect from those who constantly resort to hyperbole?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

This administration is a bunch of chicken-hawks; they didn't serve when we had a war in Vietnam, then when they're 30-years older, they send our young men and women to a war that has no real justification except "stay the course."

They have the gall to call us "vile traitors and enemies," because they understand nothing about what is democracy is all about.

I dont know if they understand democracy or not.
But,it is apparent that you dont understand our system of govt.

The US has NEVER been a democracy,it is a representative republic.
We elect people to represent us and to vote on and make policy in our name.

In a democracy,EVERY issue would be voted on by the people,and we would have no need for a Senate or a house of reps.

0 Replies

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know