Ahahahahahah! Please, I don’t think this much laughter is good for me.
Rainjack, I hate to break it to you, but a lot of policy and strategy is decided based upon looking foward, before events happen, and figuring out what might happen based on how events unfold.
You know, like a game of chess. You consider the moves you might make, the moves your opponent might make and so forth. In the political arena the principles at play and past interactions with them help you figure out what moves the various players might make.
You can travel through your entire life looking only at the past if you wish… but sometimes people like to look ahead and deal with what if’s prior to encountering a situation.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack: I deal in the real world.
Ahahahahahah! Please, I don’t think this much laughter is good for me.
Rainjack, I hate to break it to you, but a lot of policy and strategy is decided based upon looking foward, before events happen, and figuring out what might happen based on how events unfold.
You know, like a game of chess. You consider the moves you might make, the moves your opponent might make and so forth. In the political arena the principles at play and past interactions with them help you figure out what moves the various players might make.
You can travel through your entire life looking only at the past if you wish… but sometimes people like to look ahead and deal with what if’s prior to encountering a situation.[/quote]
What in the HELL are you blathering aout now? Are you upset because nobody wants to sit under the thinktard tree with you?
I hate to break this to you - but you are breaking no new ground here. The issues are pretty black and white, and I don’t know what place what-if analysis has in discussing current events. there must be several folks that agree with me seeing as how you seem to be playing beneath the thinktard tree by yourself.
[quote]vroom wrote:
…there must be several folks that agree with me seeing as how you seem to be playing beneath the thinktard tree by yourself.
You are starting to sound like a herd animal… looking to others for support.[/quote]
No - I’m just wondering why you are singling me out when it is obvious that I am not the only one wanting to base the debate in something other than your alternate reality where we all sit around and think about possibilities without regard to reality.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Would someone mind explaining to me how this is “ok” to anyone? Expanding the powers of the NSA drastically in secrecy to where it now directly affects Americans is now acceptable?[/quote]
Would you rather have all your loved ones die by a terrorist bomb than to have the government listen to a few conversations over the phone of American citizens? There have been many cases of US citizens who have plotted terrorists acts.
not a guy that pulls together coalitions with foreign powers , not a effective people guy
This is an unfair and inaccurate criticism. When you realize Russia, France and Germany had been cheating wildly with the Oil for Food program you see why they have opposed us on the invasion of Iraq.
No amount of diplomacy would have brought them around.
[/quote]
Dude nobody else wants to be over there unless we are doling out foreign aid. Its a completely manufactured multi-national force and they have been pulling out right and left
This is an unfair and inaccurate criticism. When you realize Russia, France and Germany had been cheating wildly with the Oil for Food program you see why they have opposed us on the invasion of Iraq.
No amount of diplomacy would have brought them around.
Good point! What should we do in an evil world filled with immoral assholes that want to screw us or kill us? “Well, let’s follow the rules and play like good boys now.” Good way to wind up with another 9/11.
I for one like it if Bush stretched this law to find and root out these vermin. I don’t know if he did, but if I and my family wake up tomorrow because of that, then God bless him.
[/quote]
I am for dealing w/ these evil immoral assholes only when they constitute a direct threat to us or the situation warrants this, and its a lot of grey area i know but you have to not make idiotic decisions in the first place.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Would someone mind explaining to me how this is “ok” to anyone? Expanding the powers of the NSA drastically in secrecy to where it now directly affects Americans is now acceptable?
Would you rather have all your loved ones die by a terrorist bomb than to have the government listen to a few conversations over the phone of American citizens? There have been many cases of US citizens who have plotted terrorists acts.
[/quote]
That doesn’t mean that the answer is to start monitoring anyone who is a possible “threat” without a warrant. Eventually, someone will use that against the American people. I would rather us not fork over individual rights just for the illusion of safety. If anyone in this country is walking around thinking they shouldn’t be on the lookout for suspicious activity themselves or if anyone believes they are truly “safe” as if there isn’t a risk in this country, they are idiots. The Oklahoma bombing was not related to Iraq. Iraq is NOT our only threat in this country. Just because it is a hot topic for right now doesn’t mean that is where all of our focus or expectations should be.
Giving away freedoms due to fear is a great way to lose them all, including any freedom we once thought we had.
This is an issue because it a gray area. If it was as cut and dry as many conservatives wish it were, there would be no discussion.
How, may I ask is this actually a leak? A news publication came forth and told us something that concerns our freedom and social liberties, a secret our government should have let us in on quite some time ago.
Leaking classified information about how we spy on enemies in a time of war is a leak. We should not hear about this until years after the war is over.
Its a democracy, remember? The people are supposed to run the government. And what if it turns out Bush did do something illegal? You wouldnt want to know about that?
Democracy has nothing to do with spying on our enemies and keeping information classified.
Bush has apparantly done nothing illegal.
What if Bush raped a bus load of nuns?
He should prove he didn’t, until then he is guilty in your mind.[/quote]
ummm. he already admitted spying, thank you very much.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Leaking classified information about how we spy on enemies in a time of war is a leak. We should not hear about this until years after the war is over.[/quote]
This first hit the press in 1999 and Bin Laden changed his communication tactics.
Since then none of this stuff is new and can not be considered a leak.
I know you understand that.
Lose the right wingnut talking points and think for yourself.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
…
ummm. he already admitted spying, thank you very much.
He admitted spying on our enemies within the guidelines of the law.
You have accused him of breaking the law. Do you see the difference?[/quote]
No - he doesn’t. And neither does the radical left wing idiots in congress.
If Gin-Nosed Ted is on one side - conventional wisdom dictates that the correct place to be is as far away from him as possible. Same goes for Dirty Harry Reid, Tom Daschle and “Never Had A Fucking Job” Rockefeller.
Granted Daschle is nothing more than a bad memory now - but he was around when it was happening.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
…
ummm. he already admitted spying, thank you very much.
He admitted spying on our enemies within the guidelines of the law.
You have accused him of breaking the law. Do you see the difference?
No - he doesn’t. And neither does the radical left wing idiots in congress.
If Gin-Nosed Ted is on one side - conventional wisdom dictates that the correct place to be is as far away from him as possible. Same goes for Dirty Harry Reid, Tom Daschle and “Never Had A Fucking Job” Rockefeller.
Granted Daschle is nothing more than a bad memory now - but he was around when it was happening. [/quote]
Thanks for speaking for me rainjack, now if you would politely go fuck yourself, I could probably continue with the discussion, or do you have anything further to add on my behalf?
The probability of what Bush did being “legal” is about 10%. No, I dont have proof, but as far as the principle behind it, this whole thing stinks, and although he will probably be never be found “guilty” of anything, what’s happened has put more mistrust than ever in this administration.
[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
Thanks for speaking for me rainjack, now if you would politely go fuck yourself, I could probably continue with the discussion, or do you have anything further to add on my behalf?[/quote]
Naw - I’m good. And I’d like to thank you for keeping this discussion respectable. I’m glad it was you that decided to break out the insults once again. I can hardly imagine the whining and moaning you would be doing had I used the ‘F’ word to refer to you.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
Thanks for speaking for me rainjack, now if you would politely go fuck yourself, I could probably continue with the discussion, or do you have anything further to add on my behalf?
Naw - I’m good. And I’d like to thank you for keeping this discussion respectable. I’m glad it was you that decided to break out the insults once again. I can hardly imagine the whining and moaning you would be doing had I used the ‘F’ word to refer to you.
Nice job.
[/quote]
Yes, well you gave me quite a good reason to. After all, even though I dont agree with you, I havent stooped to the level of answering for you. And im quite sure it wouldnt make you happy if I did.
Why you would presuppose to know what im thinking is beyond me. Please do not answer for me again, even though your intellectual superiority has just been revealed, I just as soon answer my own queries. Thank you sir, and Have a pleasant evening.
[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
Yes, well you gave me quite a good reason to. After all, even though I dont agree with you, I havent stooped to the level of answering for you. And im quite sure it wouldnt make you happy if I did.[/quote]
The funny thing is that my answer was the same as yours - you just took longer to say it than I did. That has to cheese your ass being so predictable, doesn’t it? My happiness is derived from pissing people like you off. You just proved that I succeeded in doing that.
Becasue you are easier to read than a Highlights Magazine.
Well - it’s hard to keep this brain from acting on its own. Maybe it wouldn;t be that way if I weren’t exchanging barbs with someone that is so obviously beneath my level.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
Yes, well you gave me quite a good reason to. After all, even though I dont agree with you, I havent stooped to the level of answering for you. And im quite sure it wouldnt make you happy if I did.
The funny thing is that my answer was the same as yours - you just took longer to say it than I did. That has to cheese your ass being so predictable, doesn’t it? My happiness is derived from pissing people like you off. You just proved that I succeeded in doing that.
Why you would presuppose to know what im thinking is beyond me.
Becasue you are easier to read than a Highlights Magazine.
Please do not answer for me again, even though your intellectual superiority has just been revealed, I just as soon answer my own queries. Thank you sir, and Have a pleasant evening.
Well - it’s hard to keep this brain from acting on its own. Maybe it wouldn;t be that way if I weren’t exchanging barbs with someone that is so obviously beneath my level.
[/quote]
Ummm…where did u answer anything the same as me? Your happiness is derived from pissing people off on an internet forum? What a sad, dillusional little world we’ve built for ourselves.
Try as I may to live up to your obvious intellectual superiority, I feel almost bad now even retorting your reply. If it makes you happy, have at it. so sad, so very fucking sad.