...continued elsewhere #1

[Verisimilitude]

Wiretapping in no way inconviences me or you, nor does it infringe on our civil liberties, unless you have some mastermind terrorist plan. But please, stop being afraid for me.

I’m not afraid of you or the terrorists and have nothing sinister to hide. I call and speak with family overseas quite often. It’s not the confessional but it may as well be and by nature of the deed of wiretapping is an infringement on my civil rights.

You have it backwards. It is city law that forbids federal officers from asking these things. This is Constitutionally invalid, and prevents an essential layer in the defense of illegal immigration. Your city willfully spites the executive due to partisan bitterness.

How backwards? It is what it is, it is not just my view. My current gov used to be state AG who (is Catholic) plea bargained illigal immigrants with ‘agricultural trespassing’ when they were actually caught with smuggling drugs, running from law enforcment resulting in damage and injury to others.

“It was up to the federal government to deport them,” Ritter said.
His public platform on abortion is he wants to make no change but protect the right to choose. My city is not alone, nor is my state senators and representatives in DC like the border-state nominee for President.

These are extreme measures to combat minor threats. Wiretapping is a minor measure to combat a minor threat.

So minor it should be stopped and infringes on more people than aught.

A more prudent measure to prevent vehicular homicide is the institution of a driver’s license, or criminalization of a DUI. You should seriously consider the implications of what you say before you say it, otherwise it represents you negatively.

Thanks.

I heard you the first time. And nobody is restricting your right to walk the streets free. You are losing touch with your own argument.

The street leads to a public building and getting undressed in the lobby even moderately is more than just an inconvenience. It’s stupid and extreme.

Not really. A predictable use of the tritely misplaced middle finger analogy reduces your credibility as an open minded individual.

Thanks.

Did we give the world the finger when Pearl Harbor happened? The parallels between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are quite easy to see, if one takes a second to look.

They both used planes is about the extent of the similarity. A closer parallel would be the Barbary Pirates.

They are both to blame, but by no means equally deserving. Both sides have made mistakes, just one side tends to make these mistakes a bread and butter part of its party platform.

A mistake is too mild a term and we should hold ourselves more accountable.

Taxes are stolen from those who oppose them. Are taxes immoral? Read John Locke’s theory of social contract.

Read the Constitution. Why was the 16th Amendment required? Who argued for/against it and why?

Whereas in the WOT I think the pros outnumber the cons. Trying to combat an ideology that proclaims the destruction of our country I believe will yield positive results in the long term.

This is a topic worth expanding on and the reason for the new thread. If you are willing.

I am not sure what you mean by WOD. In no way am I paranoid or irrationally fearful. Your close minded commitment to calling me names in clear spite of my logical approach is beginning to irk me.

War on Drugs. Most intelligent people need a good irking once in a while to be less myopic. My mind is wide open. I used to feel as you.

10,000 terrorists don’t threaten our sovereignty. 10,000,000 terrorists DO threaten our sovereignty.

Ok. I want to go here next. I think this is really important but this is too long a post as is.

They are a hybrid criminal and militant group that poses a grave threat to the U.S. America has never lost a war against a conventional opponent, but it has yet to defeat a guerrilla force. Iraq has yet to be decided.

We are making political/policy errors. The military as always is phenom.

I was hoping that the use of three smileys could convey my sardonic tone. That was supposed to be an olive branch, but instead you throw Twain at me. It’s a war now!:knight2:

Well, if I bring out the clean-up batter (Jesus) it’s sure to be knocked out of the park and I am enjoying the debate because truth is worth it.

 

[summasix]

I’m not afraid of you or the terrorists and have nothing sinister to hide. I call and speak with family overseas quite often. It’s not the confessional but it may as well be and by nature of the deed of wiretapping is an infringement on my civil rights.

Maybe, but the concept of wiretapping is nothing new. The 4th Amendment bans unreasonable searches and seizures, where unreasonable has traditionally been interpreted as warrantless. So if the President gets a court warrant, than he is acting in the same manner as our police forces have acted, sanctioned by the judicial branch, for centuries. I think you mean to say that is an infringement of civil liberties. And if you feel that way, then you are claiming a civil liberty that never previously existed.

How backwards? It is what it is, it is not just my view. My current gov used to be state AG who (is Catholic) plea bargained illigal immigrants with ‘agricultural trespassing’ when they were actually caught with smuggling drugs, running from law enforcment resulting in damage and injury to others.

“It was up to the federal government to deport them,” Ritter said.
His public platform on abortion is he wants to make no change but protect the right to choose. My city is not alone, nor is my state senators and representatives in DC like the border-state nominee for President.

That AG doesn’t speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. On top of promoting anti-Catholic social stances (probably since you couldn’t get elected otherwise in DC), he is clearly allowing for violent criminal activity, a seperate issue itself from immigration. And no you aren’t alone. That doesn’t make it moral to allow criminals to roam the streets. Whether or not it is the government’s job to stop immigration, he has the chance to bring the hammer down on proven violent offenders, but has refused to do so. You will be hard pressed to argue that is moral to the slightest degree.

So minor it should be stopped and infringes on more people than aught.

No, not that minor. I meant it was minor compared to, let’s say, sending covert missions to capture suspected terrorists. I think we both agree that is a bad idea.

Thanks.

Just returning the favor.

The street leads to a public building and getting undressed in the lobby even moderately is more than just an inconvenience. It’s stupid and extreme.

The public building is courthouse where thousands of legal opinions and laws restrict our actions to a pattern of politically approved correctness. We have to deal with countless inconveniences and restrictions, ironically, to “protect” our civil liberties. That’s stupid and extreme. By comparison, I’d be willing to wait a couple extra hours on an airline flight to protect our national security.

Thanks.

Your welcome.

They both used planes is about the extent of the similarity. A closer parallel would be the Barbary Pirates.

You’re right. The Japanese internment camps are way more extreme than the wiretapping and airline flights. As for the Barbary Pirates, we took down all parties involved. However, military attacks on Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Middle East was determined to be out of the question politically.

A mistake is too mild a term and we should hold ourselves more accountable.

That is the word choice you used. I was staying consistent.

Read the Constitution. Why was the 16th Amendment required? Who argued for/against it and why?

I honestly don’t know if I understand this correctly. The 16th Amendment allowed, in practical means, the government’s ability to tax based on a premise of an individual’s income rather than tax based on the end amount raised. The left argued for, saying it would allow the government to better tax on the principles of rich vs. poor. The right argued against, saying it allowed for the infringement of state equality.

This is a topic worth expanding on and the reason for the new thread. If you are willing.

A thread separate from this one?

War on Drugs. Most intelligent people need a good irking once in a while to be less myopic. My mind is wide open. I used to feel as you.

Then I am supposed to follow your path. What was it, specifically, that changed your “feelings”?

Ok. I want to go here next. I think this is really important but this is too long a post as is.

Another thread? Or shall we juggle topics on this thread?:juggle:

We are making political/policy errors. The military as always is phenom.

No. Civilian leadership has always been to blame. In numerous instances in history, civilian leadership has doomed campaigns to failure against the advice of military leadership.

Well, if I bring out the clean-up batter (Jesus) it’s sure to be knocked out of the park and I am enjoying the debate because truth is worth it.

Fine, let me spell it out to you. I was sarcastically mocking the “patriots support the war” propoganda. You aren’t looking very hard for points of agreement, are you? I’ve been dropping them all over the place, this being the most obvious.

 

[Verisimilitude]

You’ve acknowledged:

I agree, and this makes for inconsistent and often weak foreign policy. But America has crowded company in this regard. And although morally wrong, this doesn’t default our right to defend our citizens from foreign spawned violence.

These are extreme measures to combat minor threats. Wiretapping is a minor measure to combat a minor threat.

When we begin to accept moral wrongs and extreme measures it would be prudent to examine what we are accepting. Like being a little bit pregnant…it’s a false description.

Maybe, but the concept of wiretapping is nothing new. … So if the President gets a court warrant, than he is acting in the same manner as our police forces have acted, sanctioned by the judicial branch, for centuries. …

No, I meant a violation of my civil right and the purpose of the lawsuits that will be dismissed was because the President acted without a warrant. Moral wrongs, civil rights violations, and extremem measures. This shold be becoming aparent.

We have to deal with countless inconveniences and restrictions, ironically, to “protect” our civil liberties. That’s stupid and extreme. By comparison, I’d be willing to wait a couple extra hours on an airline flight to protect our national security.

Like what? Waiting a few hours does noting to protect our security, it’s just stupid to frisk the lady with 3 kids and not the swarthy looking chap that fits a profile.

You’re right. The Japanese internment camps are way more extreme than the wiretapping and airline flights. As for the Barbary Pirates, we took down all parties involved. However, military attacks on Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Middle East was determined to be out of the question politically.

Don’t compare the response, compare the impetus for the attacks and who attacked (nation state vs rogue elements). Where in your Christian ethic is it permitted to attack others based upon a threat?

I honestly don’t know if I understand this correctly. The 16th Amendment allowed, in practical means, the government’s ability to tax based on a premise of an individual’s income rather than tax based on the end amount raised.

The simple point is a tax on a persons income was not intended by the Framers. Certainly not a permanent tax and a standing army was not envisioned either. To say the ‘times have changed’ as a reason to support them now is a false choice.

A thread separate from this one?

You mentioned ideology that threatens the destruction of our country. Whose and what ieology do you refer to?

Then I am supposed to follow your path. What was it, specifically, that changed your “feelings”?

A better understanding and application of my faith to my daily life and political positions.

Another thread? Or shall we juggle topics on this thread?:juggle:

Juggle here. They all tie together. Expand upon the idology of the 10,000 vs the 100,000 ‘terrorists’.

No. Civilian leadership has always been to blame. In numerous instances in history, civilian leadership has doomed campaigns to failure against the advice of military leadership.

The policy to send them in was the mistake. We fight the threat you fear for me wrongly.

Fine, let me spell it out to you. I was sarcastically mocking the “patriots support the war” propoganda. You aren’t looking very hard for points of agreement, are you? I’ve been dropping them all over the place, this being the most obvious.

To what are we going to agree; that some moral wrongs are worth safety? Muslims and Mormons look for places to agree with scripture in order to be tolerated and accepted and feel their ideology is ‘as good as any’. Some things are right, and some are wrong and ideology is where those determinations are made.