Worst USA President

E-Dub wrote: <<Terrorism is NOT going away.>> Unfortunately, you're right; but, I'd rather fight like hell than tuck our tail between our legs. E

Of course, but the way you're talking is irrational in my view. You act like the means to an end don't matter at all, as long as another terrorist attack doesn't happen. A lot of people hold this aspect in a lot of areas, so I won't be surprised if it's true and correct me if it isn't, but this is what I'm obseriving. We simply can't take away freedoms like having the right to carry on a conversation without an irritating feeling that a fed could be doing a routine listen. You may be fine with that but I'm not.

I hold true in most respects with my beliefs in the constituition, and one of the aspects of that constituion does say that the people have the right to overthrow their government. Now, say I'm really pissed off at some point and say, over the phone to a friend that "this bloody government is going to hell. I wish I could storm th capitol and take over this place," do you think any fed listening in would not raise an ear to that? Who knows if anything would happen, but the just the specter of the minute possiblity should disturb you a bit.

No, you may be disgusted (or not) that I might think something like that. But I didn't put it in the constitution, our revolutionary founding fathers did. And they are people we admire, no?
    

<<Of course, but the way you're talking is irrational in my view.>>

And those who plotted the attacks on New York or even the London subways (to name a couple) are irrational. Maybe you fight fire with fire.

E

I agree completely, Edub. Just an illustrative situation to show my point of view. Of course if someone threatens some catastrophic event, don't just write it off. My whole deal is to just have checks and blances about the whole wiretap situation. If the tap is logical, the a judge will approve it. I trust our government in this respect, but if one sector (in this case, it would be the executive) tries to unsurpt the oversight of another, then there is cause for concern, and why should I trust a sector of the government that regardless of their motives, wants to deny they checks and balances? On that "motive" subject, it always makes me chuckle a bit when these people are brought in to testify to a committe over a program like wiretapping, roports, or confidential sources. They always say, "We want to do this (usually something not fully legal) because we know something bad's going to happen. Don't ask us what we know or how we know it, but trust us." Gaah! You've already given me enough reason not to trust you by being so evasive! I don't know you personally, I don't know if you're trustworthy. Just because you're in the government doen not mean your a "good guy."

---Doesn't mean the opposite, too by the way---

I'd rather they just not have cameras in the room and tell the commitee everything and not have the damn press blow the whole thing! At least there'd be...you guessed it...checks and f**king balances.
    

Edited by stonebeard - January 02 2007 at 00:54

E-Dub wrote: You've seen this EVERY time?   Yes, believe it or not, there's even a person from an asociation with a panflet recommending to USA citizens to ask for their  embassy if some bad person wants to search them I even received one in the Miami Airport. As to why you're country doesn't search, I'm afraid you're asking the wrong person.   No, we search but we have people shouting always the common phrase "I'm an American Citizen"   And when anything happens to a USA citizen we have problems, when we used special courts to judge a USA terrorist (Found with plans of the Congress, using a fake press ID, hosting terrorists in a rented house, caught with a searched terrorist, she shouted in favor of the terrorists in National TV, in jail she married a terrorist), we were forced to trial her again, the problem is that USA has laws for them and laws for others.   I wonder what would had happened to a Peruvian in similar circumstances? Amendment II of our Bill of Rights reads: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.   Make a new Ammendment, I believe that law is outdated, but if something is in the Constitution, it must be respected. Sort of an antiquated notion in this life and time. Wouldn't you agree? Situations change and one must go with the flow.   I'm not against using the law no matter how hard it is, I'm even in favour of death penalty in certain cases, if you kill in Texas you know that they are going to fry you, so don't kill.   But put the things in the Constitution, make an ammendment saying that is legal under determined and specified circumstances to search you without a warrant, to arrest you just because a policeman thinks you're suspicious, that is legal to tap your phones, so people will not talk private uissues in their phones, won't act suspíciously.   Honest people also have things that they want to keep private, I'm not gay, but I know people who are gay and don't want anybody to know it, why should somebody discover his/her sexual orientation in a pivate phone conversation?   Why should a person be arrested for having a gun if the Constuitution says he/she can have it? For me it's better if guns are forbidden in the Constitution, nobody except police officers and army members should carry a weapon, but again, make an ammendment.   Law is what makes us different from terrorists, if you want to defeat them, respect the laws, not only civilians but also police, army, politicians, etc.   I'm in favour of your right to defend your country as you decide it's better, I don' have too much problems waiting to be searched because I have nothing to hide but do it according to the laws and Constitution, that's what USA is famous for, you know the Constitution works, don't change it now.   Iván

progismylife wrote: [QUOTE=Philéas]I still can't see the point of this thread...

To bash US presidents with no mercy.  . 
  the republicans are the worst,no mercy for presidents without mercy .

Edited by markosherrera - January 02 2007 at 12:08

stonebeard wrote: I agree completely, Edub. Just an illustrative situation to show my point of view. Of course if someone threatens some catastrophic event, don't just write it off. My whole deal is to just have checks and blances about the whole wiretap situation. If the tap is logical, the a judge will approve it. I trust our government in this respect, but if one sector (in this case, it would be the executive) tries to unsurpt the oversight of another, then there is cause for concern, and why should I trust a sector of the government that regardless of their motives, wants to deny they checks and balances? On that "motive" subject, it always makes me chuckle a bit when these people are brought in to testify to a committe over a program like wiretapping, roports, or confidential sources. They always say, "We want to do this (usually something not fully legal) because we know something bad's going to happen. Don't ask us what we know or how we know it, but trust us." Gaah! You've already given me enough reason not to trust you by being so evasive! I don't know you personally, I don't know if you're trustworthy. Just because you're in the government doen not mean your a "good guy." ---Doesn't mean the opposite, too by the way--- I'd rather they just not have cameras in the room and tell the commitee everything and not have the damn press blow the whole thing! At least there'd be...you guessed it...checks and f**king balances.

But we had them living in this country walking amongst us and taking flying lessons from licensed American pilots. As well coordinated as this was, they had to have had contact with Bin Laden or one of his minions. Had we had wire taps the days leading up to and on the morning of could've prevented this.

I just remember a heart wrenching message from a woman trapped in the WTC to her husband left on their home answering machine and how terrified she sounded and telling him that she'll always love him. I had tears welling up in my eyes. There are people out there who want you dead. They want me dead. They want my 4 year old daughter dead. They want your family dead.   

People are lashing out at the Bush Administration for even suggesting wire taps, but were also slamming him for not 'connecting the dots' on the terrorist's plot. It's true. No matter what the President does, he's in a no win situation. Sure it's encouraging to be steadfast and strong and say that we're not going to allow them to win by delegating on how we as Americans conduct ourselves, but the long and the short of it is there is unspeakable evil in this world. If tapping into my phone means extra security for our country, then I'm for it. I'd rather them do that than play Marco Polo with these maniacs.

E

micky wrote: E-Dub wrote: I just remember a heart wrenching message from a woman trapped in the WTC to her husband left on their home answering machine and how terrified she sounded and telling him that she'll always love him. I had tears welling up in my eyes. There are people out there who want you dead. They want me dead. They want my 4 year old daughter dead. They want your family dead.    People are lashing out at the Bush Administration for even suggesting wire taps, but were also slamming him for not 'connecting the dots' on the terrorist's plot. It's true. No matter what the President does, he's in a no win situation. Sure it's encouraging to be steadfast and strong and say that we're not going to allow them to win by delegating on how we as Americans conduct ourselves, but the long and the short of it is there is unspeakable evil in this world. If tapping into my phone means extra security for our country, then I'm for it. I'd rather them do that than play Marco Polo with these maniacs. E been following this discussion with some interest...E-dub-  I remember sitting in my vehicle crying as 9-11 happened.  I haven't forgotten... my mother works near the Pentagon and I was unable to reach her that day.  We know these people want us dead....  they are terrorists... what IS their goal... not to kill us all....  but to influence our policy and our way of life.  The policies of the current adminstration have given the terrorists a bigger victory than the deaths of 3000 Americans... need I remind you that we have lost more than that from our vaunted military propping up shakey democracies in Iraq and Afganistan.  Under Bush, in the name of 'fighting' terror hahhah..  that's another subject, we have become no better than the people we are fighting against.  Torture.. lack of respect for international law.. the international will.... our own laws... and so on and so on.  In that... we have handed the terrorists what they wanted.as far as playing Marco Polo (nice analogy)... that is EXACTLY what we are doing.  We have to get them every time... they only have to get lucky once in awhile... a long while.  What has this administration done to REALLY fight terror... the root of terrorism.  Not a goddamn thing... that why my kids... and yours someday... will be fighting this same war.  Reactionary tactics lose wars... never have they won them.

Micky,

True, but they have already achieved that goal. We can turn a blind eye, but they've directly and indirectly altered our way of life and policies the very second those planes were hijacked over U.S. air space.

The fact is the administration is trying. I shutter to think how this would be handled if, say, September 11th happened during Clinton's administration. The man who single handedly depleted our military power would be dribbling in his BVD's. Although I sort of like Clinton now (I view him as the dirty minded uncle you hardly talk about, but find kind of cool), he really had no backbone. That is a fact.

Essentially, what we're dealing with are animals with zero regard for human life...including their own. I firmly believe that their 'cause' is secondary, and what really matters is blowing stuff up. I really do. Their insanity is matched only by their gutlessness in going after the defenseless.

E

markosherrera wrote: IN THE FUTURE USA COULD HAVE A HILLARY (GOOD CHOICE I BELIEVE).

progismylife wrote: E-Dub wrote: progismylife wrote: Where are all the good US Presidents? It seems all the ones in the past century have been horrible except FDR. Although it was the mid 1800's, there will never be another president like Lincoln. You want to study a man of integrity and pure honesty, he was the blueprint. E      I wonder what would have happened if Lincoln wasn't assassinated.

E-Dub wrote: darksinger wrote: E-Dub wrote:   I shutter to think how this would be handled if, say, September 11th happened during Clinton's administration. The man who single handedly depleted our military power would be dribbling in his BVD's. E   he already did that with monica lewinsky... I just wonder if that was before or after the blue dress. E

Clinton loved Monica's dress as soon as he spotted it.