PDA

View Full Version : After reading this..............



Sooner24
6/27/2006, 08:47 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/media/25keller-letter.html


I wonder how he will feel when NY City gets it right between the eyes again? :rolleyes:

Scott D
6/27/2006, 09:05 PM
What exactly that he wrote are you objecting about? He's not bashing the program by any means.

Sooner24
6/27/2006, 09:14 PM
Sometimes you don't tell everything you know.

Sooner24
6/27/2006, 09:16 PM
http://www.archives.gov/research/ww2/photos/images/ww2-26.jpg

Sooner24
6/27/2006, 09:17 PM
http://www.readyayeready.com/posters/loose-lips-sink-ships-tn.jpg

StoopTroup
6/27/2006, 09:20 PM
Freedom has a price.

Some folks think it shouldn't.

They are wrong.

http://www.kestan.com/travel/dc/monument/images/IMG_9493%20WWII%20memorial,%20with%20washington%20 monument,%20dusk%20(ok).jpg

jeremy885
6/27/2006, 09:22 PM
"After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco."

If this is true, I just lost some respect for Kennedy.

Scott D
6/27/2006, 09:33 PM
oh ok...so it's not like the Times did anything like tell terrorists to change their financing methods, you know...since they were doing that well before this article and subsequent editorial ever came out. I just wanted to be sure about that.

Sooner24
6/27/2006, 09:43 PM
oh ok...so it's not like the Times did anything like tell terrorists to change their financing methods, you know...since they were doing that well before this article and subsequent editorial ever came out. I just wanted to be sure about that.


They would if they could.

Scott D
6/27/2006, 09:45 PM
they would what?

Frozen Sooner
6/27/2006, 09:48 PM
Well-written and cogent defense of something that should need no defending.

Freedom surely isn't free-and the price of freedom isn't freedom itself.

Sooner24
6/27/2006, 09:49 PM
tell terrorists to change their financing methods

:twinkies:

Scott D
6/27/2006, 09:54 PM
tell terrorists to change their financing methods

:twinkies:

oh you mean unlike when George Bush said the following on Nov. 10th 2001?


"The most basic obligations in this new conflict have already been defined by the United Nations. On September 28, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373. Its requirements are clear. Every United Nations member has a responsibility to crack down on terrorist financing. We must pass all necessary laws in our own countries to allow the confiscation of terrorist assets.

"We must apply those laws to every financial institution in every nation. We have a responsibility to share intelligence and coordinate the efforts of law enforcement. If you know something, tell us. If we know something, we'll tell you. And when we find the terrorists, we must work together to bring them to justice.

Sooner24
6/27/2006, 09:56 PM
How do you think this helps the cause?

Scott D
6/27/2006, 09:57 PM
So you are in favor of an ignorant populace who has no idea upon what actions their government may be taking in regards to their safekeeping, despite the fact that the overall subject is known worldwide, especially by those whom said actions are being taken against?

Sooner24
6/27/2006, 10:00 PM
So you are in favor of an ignorant populace who has no idea upon what actions their government may be taking in regards to their safekeeping, despite the fact that the overall subject is known worldwide, especially by those whom said actions are being taken against?

Word.

Scott D
6/27/2006, 10:01 PM
Word.

I think I just heard Washington and Jefferson rolling over in their graves in disappointment.

Sooner24
6/27/2006, 10:04 PM
I bet if the NYT had had the info they would have printed that Washington was going to cross the Delaware before he did. :rolleyes:

Scott D
6/27/2006, 10:07 PM
I bet if the NYT had had the info they would have printed that Washington was going to cross the Delaware before he did. :rolleyes:

Doubtful, since the article in question was on things that have been in effect long before the article came out. They probably would have shocked you with reporting on the definitions of the Bill of Rights about a week after they came out.

StoopTroup
6/27/2006, 10:11 PM
I heard we are at War.

With who?

I forgot.

Sooner24
6/27/2006, 10:11 PM
People that think they "need" to know everything that goes on are usually paranoid and worried that someone is watching them.


http://www.goodlaughter.com/funnypictures/pics/peepingtom.jpg

Scott D
6/27/2006, 10:16 PM
People who don't think it's proper to question the government and what they 'May' be doing, are just deceiving themselves.

http://www.twaze.com/aolpix/ostrich.gif

Frozen Sooner
6/27/2006, 10:18 PM
People who need people are the luckiest people.

Sooner24
6/27/2006, 10:20 PM
You mean like this?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9809/02/clinton.lewinsky/monica.bill.jpg

StoopTroup
6/27/2006, 10:33 PM
http://toon.heindl-internet.de/usa/b800/047220013-hollywood-michael-jackson.jpg

Sooner24
6/27/2006, 10:34 PM
:eek:

Octavian
6/28/2006, 12:41 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062701708.html?nav=rss_print/style


President Bush calls the conduct of the New York Times "disgraceful." Vice President Cheney objects to the paper having won a Pulitzer Prize. A Republican congressman wants the Times prosecuted. National Review says its press credentials should be yanked. Radio commentator Tammy Bruce likens the paper to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

They're sooo good at selective outrage.

http://img457.imageshack.us/img457/2505/storygeraldofox7fh.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

*cough* in an election year *cough*

Condescending Sooner
6/28/2006, 08:54 AM
Sooner 24, you just need to realize that Scott D takes sides against the Bush administration on EVERY issue. I sometimes wonder whose side he is on. Unless you have huge amounts of cash in foreign bank accounts and have been suspected to be associated with Al Queda, there was no intrusion on your freakin "Liberties". What some people don't understand is that we are at war, and the government could care less, and in no way has the manpower to monitor the average joe's activites.

Vaevictis
6/28/2006, 09:25 AM
What some people don't understand is that we are at war

Technically, no, we are not. The White House didn't ask for a declaration of war, and Congress didn't issue one. Absent a declaration of war, the President is denied wartime powers; being at war de facto is insufficient. If the President wants to exercise wartime powers, he should go to Congress and ask for a Declaration of War, plain and simple.

Wartime powers are the powers of a tyrant. Why is it that you people can't wrap your noggins around the idea that it's probably a bad idea to set the precedent that the President can exercise wartime powers without Congressional consent?


and in no way has the manpower to monitor the average joe's activites.

That's a criminally stupid excuse. If you write a program that uses Bayesian nets, set it up with a control group and a group of people who exhibit the financial behavior you're looking for, the computer will *find* transaction records that exhibit the same behaviors with no more effort on your part.

The average joe can be monitored in this way, and man power is not an obstacle.

Dio
6/28/2006, 09:45 AM
I had to laugh at the part where he said the Times had no animosity towards the administration.

jeremy885
6/28/2006, 11:03 AM
Technically, no, we are not. The White House didn't ask for a declaration of war, and Congress didn't issue one. Absent a declaration of war, the President is denied wartime powers; being at war de facto is insufficient. If the President wants to exercise wartime powers, he should go to Congress and ask for a Declaration of War, plain and simple.
So we haven't been in a war since WW2?



That's a criminally stupid excuse. If you write a program that uses Bayesian nets, set it up with a control group and a group of people who exhibit the financial behavior you're looking for, the computer will *find* transaction records that exhibit the same behaviors with no more effort on your part.

The average joe can be monitored in this way, and man power is not an obstacle.

Someone still has to pull the data, look into the programs results, and track down the person the computer flags. Doesn't that require manpower? If it was this easy, I think the government would use it to catch criminals (drug lords) first, before they would go after the average joe.

BoomerJack
6/28/2006, 11:07 AM
I wonder why G. Dub and "Shotgun" Dick aren't outraged at the Wall Street Journal for doing the same thing the NYTimes did.

Vaevictis
6/28/2006, 11:11 AM
So we haven't been in a war since WW2?

From a technical point of view, we haven't.

(Yes, I know that for all practical purposes, we have been from time to time.)


Someone still has to pull the data, look into the programs results, and track down the person the computer flags.

Just set your threshold at .9999999 and slowly move the threshold towards 0 until your available manpower can't handle the load. Move it back up just a little bit, wait until more manpower is available, repeat ad nauseum.

Everyone will be considered, but only those with the appropriate level of confidence will be flagged for further investigation.


If it was this easy, I think the government would use it to catch criminals (drug lords) first, before they would go after the average joe.

Early on, I expect that the criminals will be the first ones to get flagged (as I expect their confidence levels will be higher).

But c'mon, you know how government beauracracy grows. Sooner or later, it will filter down. It's just a matter of time. Better techniques will continuously reduce the manpower required as well.

What it really boils down to is that with such filtering methods, it becomes easier to "select" the average joe for certain behavior patterns. What happens when the government decides they want to select for behaviors that aren't criminal at all?

Heh, better yet, what happens when someone takes the database home and gets the laptop stolen? ;)

Tear Down This Wall
6/28/2006, 11:54 AM
I wonder why G. Dub and "Shotgun" Dick aren't outraged at the Wall Street Journal for doing the same thing the NYTimes did.

Because the NY Times was the first the run the article, WSJ and LA Times went in second. They didn't write/investigate the story, NY Times did.

Tear Down This Wall
6/28/2006, 12:02 PM
Look, we in flyover country fully understand that the self-appointed intelligensia on the coasts hates Goerge W. Bush. He's been whipping their butts for well over a decade now, starting with their favorite Texas gal Ann Richards all the way to a classic Massachusetts blow hole, John Kerry.

They could never beat Bush at the polls. They couldn't take down Karl Rove. So now the NY Times continues trying to invent something else to feed their liberal circle jerk. It's old hat by now. Security of the country be damned, they've got to somehow make people hate W.

These are adults. Grown people. Supposedly highly educated. Sad. Very sad, indeed.

Oops..lunchtime!

soonerscuba
6/28/2006, 12:13 PM
Look, we in flyover country fully understand that the self-appointed intelligensia on the coasts hates Goerge W. Bush. He's been whipping their butts for well over a decade now, starting with their favorite Texas gal Ann Richards all the way to a classic Massachusetts blow hole, John Kerry.

They could never beat Bush at the polls. They couldn't take down Karl Rove. So now the NY Times continues trying to invent something else to feed their liberal circle jerk. It's old hat by now. Security of the country be damned, they've got to somehow make people hate W.

These are adults. Grown people. Supposedly highly educated. Sad. Very sad, indeed.

Oops..lunchtime!

You know who probably doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on terrorism? People from New York.

The fine people of Bumble**** county need to set them professional newsy readin' men straight. :rolleyes:

Sooner24
6/28/2006, 12:15 PM
I had to laugh at the part where he said the Times, Vaevictis and ScottD had no animosity towards the administration.

That's better. ;)

Octavian
6/28/2006, 12:44 PM
They could never beat Bush at the polls.

http://img435.imageshack.us/img435/4944/algore2003nov9pb0945397uk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

;)

KABOOKIE
6/28/2006, 12:59 PM
I can’t imagine the self-serving ****s of today having to live during WWII and rationing. Whaaa? How come no one in the Government informed us about the Normandy Invasion? :rolleyes:

Tear Down This Wall
6/28/2006, 01:04 PM
http://img435.imageshack.us/img435/4944/algore2003nov9pb0945397uk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

;)

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. This clause in parentheses has been modified by Amendments XX and XXV.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 12
Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

NormanPride
6/28/2006, 01:07 PM
I don't understand why so many people don't care when certain rights are taken away from us. I don't advise going into a screaming rage like some people like to do, but just sitting there and smiling is just as stupid. We should always know why, even if it's just something small like "We're going to sit in on your bake sale planning meetings".

NormanPride
6/28/2006, 01:14 PM
I can’t imagine the self-serving ****s of today having to live during WWII and rationing. Whaaa? How come no one in the Government informed us about the Normandy Invasion? :rolleyes:

Bad example. Better example would be the Japanese Internment camps, or all the airwave and phone monitoring that went on. But really, WWII and the current "war" we're in now are vastly different in the type of enemies we face. WWII we knew where everyone was and there were very few in America that sympathized with the enemy. Now, we have enemies that hide until the last second, when it's too late to act. Add to that that there is a lot of division in the nation about how we want things handled. Sure there are idiots, and with the internet, they get a bigger voice. But this is also a much more complex conflict than WWII.

Tear Down This Wall
6/28/2006, 01:14 PM
I don't understand why so many people don't care when certain rights are taken away from us. I don't advise going into a screaming rage like some people like to do, but just sitting there and smiling is just as stupid. We should always know why, even if it's just something small like "We're going to sit in on your bake sale planning meetings".

No right has been taken away, that's why.

NormanPride
6/28/2006, 01:16 PM
No right has been taken away, that's why.

I thought the whole point of this was that the US was monitoring where usually it doesn't have the right to? Of course, I didn't RTFA... ;) Regardless of whether it applies to this instance or not, my point stands in general.

Tear Down This Wall
6/28/2006, 01:27 PM
You've only had a right taken away if you're talking on the phone to Al-Qaeda operatives and/or you've been wiring them money. If not, you've lost no right. Lucky me, I'm in the clear!

NormanPride
6/28/2006, 01:51 PM
See, I'm with you. I don't think this is that big of a deal, but I still want to know what's going on. I don't trust politicians enough to let them handle stuff like this without being informed. :D

Scott D
6/28/2006, 01:52 PM
Sooner 24, you just need to realize that Scott D takes sides against the Bush administration on EVERY issue. I sometimes wonder whose side he is on. Unless you have huge amounts of cash in foreign bank accounts and have been suspected to be associated with Al Queda, there was no intrusion on your freakin "Liberties". What some people don't understand is that we are at war, and the government could care less, and in no way has the manpower to monitor the average joe's activites.

I'm glad to be informed that I take sides against the current administration on every issue...I wasn't aware that I had, especially on issues that I've supported. Thank you for making my point however in that the article isn't anywhere near as damaging to efforts as it's being made out to be.

Scott D
6/28/2006, 01:53 PM
Oh, and wasn't it decided earlier this week that the NYT wasn't liberal..I mean we got william favor's word on that.

NormanPride
6/28/2006, 01:57 PM
Oh, and wasn't it decided earlier this week that the NYT wasn't liberal..I mean we got william favor's word on that.

I think that was struck from the record because Rush didn't tell him to say it. ;)

TUSooner
6/28/2006, 02:08 PM
Word.
:eek:
Let me explain something really simple. I'm all for taking every reasonable step to catch, kill, destroy, confuse, or frustrate terrorists. I will gladly give up some mere "convenience" while people young enough to be my kids are making the ultimate sacrifice in places I never want to go.

But no terrorist organization can EVER enslave us. Sure, they can kill some of us, break some of our stuff, make things inconvenient, and, if we let them, they can scare us. But they can never govern us. No f---ing way. They just will never be able to do it. We're too big and ornery and stubborn and independent, and if we have to be, we're way too mean. Can you see some mullah trying to impose sharia in New Orleans?

The only government that can ever enslave us is the one in Washington, D.C. And "conservatives" - of all people - should know that. Ironically, it's because we trust our government, and we have to trust it to some degree. But the Founders knew that the governent would always be run by mortal, fallible, people who would be subject to the temptations of power, like all people are. So the Founders feared to make the government too strong.

The terrorist threat will someday be history, but the powers we give to our own central government, however well intentioned the gift, will not necessarily return to us. And folks who happily allow the government to do whatever it wants, and who make all the government's critics out to be the Nation's enemies, are not behaving all that differently than the ordinary Germans of the 1920s and 30s. If we give up trying to keep our own goverment in check, it will deprive us of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness more throughly than any terrorist could ever dream of doing.

EDIT - And I read the article and don't see anything to get mad about with regards to the requirement or the reporting of it.

Condescending Sooner
6/28/2006, 02:29 PM
I'm glad to be informed that I take sides against the current administration on every issue...I wasn't aware that I had, especially on issues that I've supported. Thank you for making my point however in that the article isn't anywhere near as damaging to efforts as it's being made out to be.

Address the rest of my point please. The article could be damaging and the times knew it. I have to chuckle at the people who are freaked out because losing their "Liberties", when they are tracking foreign accounts of Al Queda associates. Apparently, that is why the Times felt the absolute need to report it even when asked not to. I have worked for the government, and can assure you they don't care about your phone calls or wire transfers unless absolutely necessary. Also, please remind me of when you agreed with this administration.

Sooner24
6/28/2006, 03:22 PM
I'm glad to be informed that I take sides against the current administration on every issue...I wasn't aware that I had, especially on issues that I've supported.


Name two or three.

jeremy885
6/28/2006, 03:30 PM
http://img435.imageshack.us/img435/4944/algore2003nov9pb0945397uk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

;)


I voted for Gore in 00, was bitter for a month or two, but decided that if you can't win your home state, you shouldn't be president.

soonerscuba
6/28/2006, 03:40 PM
:eek:
Let me explain something really simple. I'm all for taking every reasonable step to catch, kill, destroy, confuse, or frustrate terrorists. I will gladly give up some mere "convenience" while people young enough to be my kids are making the ultimate sacrifice in places I never want to go.

But no terrorist organization can EVER enslave us. Sure, they can kill some of us, break some of our stuff, make things inconvenient, and, if we let them, they can scare us. But they can never govern us. No f---ing way. They just will never be able to do it. We're too big and ornery and stubborn and independent, and if we have to be, we're way too mean. Can you see some mullah trying to impose sharia in New Orleans?

The only government that can ever enslave us is the one in Washington, D.C. And "conservatives" - of all people - should know that. Ironically, it's because we trust our government, and we have to trust it to some degree. But the Founders knew that the governent would always be run by mortal, fallible, people who would be subject to the temptations of power, like all people are. So the Founders feared to make the government too strong.

The terrorist threat will someday be history, but the powers we give to our own central government, however well intentioned the gift, will not necessarily return to us. And folks who happily allow the government to do whatever it wants, and who make all the government's critics out to be the Nation's enemies, are not behaving all that differently than the ordinary Germans of the 1920s and 30s. If we give up trying to keep our own goverment in check, it will deprive us of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness more throughly than any terrorist could ever dream of doing.

EDIT - And I read the article and don't see anything to get mad about with regards to the requirement or the reporting of it.

BURN HIM AT THE STAKE FOR TREASON!!!!!!!!

Scott D
6/28/2006, 05:53 PM
Name two or three.

1. War on Terror
2. War in Afghanistan
3. War in Iraq
4. Initial Tax Breaks post 9/11.

There now you have four.

Scott D
6/28/2006, 06:01 PM
oh and a fifth one, I support the Administrations concerns about the 'Minutemen'.

NormanPride
6/28/2006, 06:01 PM
1. War on Terror
2. War in Afghanistan
3. War in Iraq
4. Initial Tax Breaks post 9/11.

There now you have four.

:les: W lover!

Scott D
6/28/2006, 06:05 PM
Address the rest of my point please. The article could be damaging and the times knew it. I have to chuckle at the people who are freaked out because losing their "Liberties", when they are tracking foreign accounts of Al Queda associates. Apparently, that is why the Times felt the absolute need to report it even when asked not to. I have worked for the government, and can assure you they don't care about your phone calls or wire transfers unless absolutely necessary. Also, please remind me of when you agreed with this administration.

And where in this thread have I said that people should be paranoid over phone calls? As a matter of fact, amusingly I'm not the one being paranoid in this thread. Unless a belief that keeping the populace ignorant of the actions of it's own elected government is wrong is paranoia.

For the Administration in this case to appear so outraged is pretty silly since in Washington, nearly everyone can be bought for a price. So any enterprising terrorist could have bought themselves the information on how we were attempting to track their financial network.

Scott D
6/28/2006, 06:06 PM
:eek:
Let me explain something really simple. I'm all for taking every reasonable step to catch, kill, destroy, confuse, or frustrate terrorists. I will gladly give up some mere "convenience" while people young enough to be my kids are making the ultimate sacrifice in places I never want to go.

But no terrorist organization can EVER enslave us. Sure, they can kill some of us, break some of our stuff, make things inconvenient, and, if we let them, they can scare us. But they can never govern us. No f---ing way. They just will never be able to do it. We're too big and ornery and stubborn and independent, and if we have to be, we're way too mean. Can you see some mullah trying to impose sharia in New Orleans?

The only government that can ever enslave us is the one in Washington, D.C. And "conservatives" - of all people - should know that. Ironically, it's because we trust our government, and we have to trust it to some degree. But the Founders knew that the governent would always be run by mortal, fallible, people who would be subject to the temptations of power, like all people are. So the Founders feared to make the government too strong.

The terrorist threat will someday be history, but the powers we give to our own central government, however well intentioned the gift, will not necessarily return to us. And folks who happily allow the government to do whatever it wants, and who make all the government's critics out to be the Nation's enemies, are not behaving all that differently than the ordinary Germans of the 1920s and 30s. If we give up trying to keep our own goverment in check, it will deprive us of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness more throughly than any terrorist could ever dream of doing.

EDIT - And I read the article and don't see anything to get mad about with regards to the requirement or the reporting of it.


Eh, people don't want the voice of reason, they want the voice of Big Brother saying "Everything is fine, go about your lives, and we'll control the rest."

Scott D
6/28/2006, 06:07 PM
:les: W lover!

yeah, I better get a 24/7 feed straight from the 'E.I.B. Golden Microphone'...I guess I'll have to overlook the consistent abuse of public speaking by someone who should have been corrected 20 years ago.

Jerk
6/28/2006, 06:51 PM
Supposedly this WAS a successful program at monitering the financial activities of terrorists (NOT YOUR PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT, DUMMIES. Some of the so called "libertarians" here on the board are trying to imply this.) TUSooner - the government is getting too intrusive because it is watching what terrorists do with their money? Give me a friggin' break, man. If the U.S. takes a major hit soon, like another 9/11, democrats are going to take it up the arse on election day. The person inside the government who leaked this should be fired and prosecuted for treason. I hope the NYT loses all their press credentials at the White House and they are also charged. It makes me want to vomit seeing all of these self-proclaimed "freedom lovers" defending an action that compromised the security of the United States. Furthermore, it was an operation that was both legal and funded by the United States Congress.

If they hit us hard, let's hope they wipe out a blue state. I'm d@mned serious. They're the ones who support and vote for the enablers. I'm sick of libtards. They're the same d@mned people who sent tanks into Waco, but did not send any to Mogodishu. They're the people who let the shah of Iran fall to a bunch of raghead nutjobs. Negspeck me you freaks. I don't care if I have the worst reputation here anymore. You s.ck. bye.

Sooner24
6/28/2006, 07:55 PM
1. War on Terror--- Just don't like the way he handles it
2. War in Afghanistan--- Just don't like the way he handles it
3. War in Iraq--- Just don't like the way he handles it
4. Initial Tax Breaks post 9/11.

There now you have four.

Fixed

Scott D
6/28/2006, 07:58 PM
Fixed

gee you forgot to edit the tax breaks with some nonsense about the revisions to those tax breaks :D

swardboy
6/28/2006, 08:27 PM
Supposedly this WAS a successful program at monitering the financial activities of terrorists (NOT YOUR PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT, DUMMIES. Some of the so called "libertarians" here on the board are trying to imply this.) TUSooner - the government is getting too intrusive because it is watching what terrorists do with their money? Give me a friggin' break, man. If the U.S. takes a major hit soon, like another 9/11, democrats are going to take it up the arse on election day. The person inside the government who leaked this should be fired and prosecuted for treason. I hope the NYT loses all their press credentials at the White House and they are also charged. It makes me want to vomit seeing all of these self-proclaimed "freedom lovers" defending an action that compromised the security of the United States. Furthermore, it was an operation that was both legal and funded by the United States Congress.

If they hit us hard, let's hope they wipe out a blue state. I'm d@mned serious. They're the ones who support and vote for the enablers. I'm sick of libtards. They're the same d@mned people who sent tanks into Waco, but did not send any to Mogodishu. They're the people who let the shah of Iran fall to a bunch of raghead nutjobs. Negspeck me you freaks. I don't care if I have the worst reputation here anymore. You s.ck. bye.

I'm in the same nut-house with ya, Jerk!

SoonerProphet
6/28/2006, 08:45 PM
:eek:
Let me explain something really simple. I'm all for taking every reasonable step to catch, kill, destroy, confuse, or frustrate terrorists. I will gladly give up some mere "convenience" while people young enough to be my kids are making the ultimate sacrifice in places I never want to go.

But no terrorist organization can EVER enslave us. Sure, they can kill some of us, break some of our stuff, make things inconvenient, and, if we let them, they can scare us. But they can never govern us. No f---ing way. They just will never be able to do it. We're too big and ornery and stubborn and independent, and if we have to be, we're way too mean. Can you see some mullah trying to impose sharia in New Orleans?

The only government that can ever enslave us is the one in Washington, D.C. And "conservatives" - of all people - should know that. Ironically, it's because we trust our government, and we have to trust it to some degree. But the Founders knew that the governent would always be run by mortal, fallible, people who would be subject to the temptations of power, like all people are. So the Founders feared to make the government too strong.

The terrorist threat will someday be history, but the powers we give to our own central government, however well intentioned the gift, will not necessarily return to us. And folks who happily allow the government to do whatever it wants, and who make all the government's critics out to be the Nation's enemies, are not behaving all that differently than the ordinary Germans of the 1920s and 30s. If we give up trying to keep our own goverment in check, it will deprive us of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness more throughly than any terrorist could ever dream of doing.

EDIT - And I read the article and don't see anything to get mad about with regards to the requirement or the reporting of it.

word

Jerk
6/28/2006, 08:51 PM
word

Brilliant!

Using hip-hop street lingo to show your approval of a successful anti-terrorist program getting sank by the NYT.

Word!! I hope them homie terrorists drop some biological weapons on us now! Word to your motha! Terrorists can now move money thanks to the NYT! WORD BROTHER, CAN I GET AN AMEN?!

Sup bro dem terrorist gonna drop tha shinzat on da N Y C, WORD BRO! WOOOORD!!!

Now you can buy your sh*t at Wal-Mart and not worry about .gov looking over you and what you're purchasing, as if they give a flying f***.

Where are the libtards when the IRS audits someone at random? "ohh...well that's perfectly legal there!" CAN WE STOP AUDITING? It's the same d@mned thing isn't it? Except the NYT was "concerned" because it was TERRORISTS getting audited, not joe schmoe.

It's okay to f*** joe schmoe, but by God don't look at what Amhad Ikbar is doing with his mysterious wires from Pakistan!

Sooner24
6/28/2006, 08:53 PM
If The present administration had known that terrorist were going to use jet airliners as weapons and implemented security at all the airports like we have now, and not informed all of these "need to know everything" people they would be screaming when their bags were gone through because nothing had happened to warrant it and their "freedoms" were being stepped on. :rolleyes:

If the previous administration had not been so busy with interns stopping in and had taken care of some of this after they tried to blow up the World Trade Center. Then again after they blew up a couple of our embassies killing our people. After they blew a hole in the Cole killing even more of our people, maybe we wouldn't even be talking about this today.

Octavian
6/28/2006, 09:38 PM
...let's hope they wipe out a blue state. I'm d@mned serious.

should be :stunned:

I'm not.

There's a lot of un-American Americans in them thar blue states.

KABOOKIE
6/28/2006, 09:50 PM
Supposedly this WAS a successful program at monitering the financial activities of terrorists (NOT YOUR PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT, DUMMIES. Some of the so called "libertarians" here on the board are trying to imply this.) TUSooner - the government is getting too intrusive because it is watching what terrorists do with their money? Give me a friggin' break, man. If the U.S. takes a major hit soon, like another 9/11, democrats are going to take it up the arse on election day. The person inside the government who leaked this should be fired and prosecuted for treason. I hope the NYT loses all their press credentials at the White House and they are also charged. It makes me want to vomit seeing all of these self-proclaimed "freedom lovers" defending an action that compromised the security of the United States. Furthermore, it was an operation that was both legal and funded by the United States Congress.

If they hit us hard, let's hope they wipe out a blue state. I'm d@mned serious. They're the ones who support and vote for the enablers. I'm sick of libtards. They're the same d@mned people who sent tanks into Waco, but did not send any to Mogodishu. They're the people who let the shah of Iran fall to a bunch of raghead nutjobs. Negspeck me you freaks. I don't care if I have the worst reputation here anymore. You s.ck. bye.




**** those blue state bitches! Yeeah!!!

Octavian
6/28/2006, 10:12 PM
If the previous administration had not been so busy with interns stopping in and had taken care of some of this after they tried to blow up the World Trade Center. Then again after they blew up a couple of our embassies killing our people. After they blew a hole in the Cole killing even more of our people, maybe we wouldn't even be talking about this today.

The Clinton White House got endlessly ridiculed by the Right for trying to police the world. One of Dubya's cornerstone campaign positions in 2000 was for America to have a more "humble" approach to foreign policy, saying our military could not "police the world." At the outset, he was not in the neo-con camp. He leaned more towards the Pat Buchannan ("A Republic, Not an Empire") conservative line of thought before 9/11.

The majority of the GOP leadership objected to the Balkans airstrikes and other '90s police actions. There were by no means massive outcries from GOP leaders prior to 9/11 to expand hunting missions across the globe for terrorist networks or binLaden.

Prior to 9/11, the GOP leadership became increasingly flirtacious w/ the notion of unilateral isolationism since the end of the Gulf War. Scholars began to openly worry that the young Bush Administration would actually pull back from the world scene too quickly, leaving vast power vacuums in which poverty and instability would thrive in the 3rd World, Eastern Europe, and the Asian subcontinent. Then...9/11.

The odd part about post-9/11 America is that the parties (on a foreign policy approach) have flip-flopped. Democrats are now calling for restraint and caution...Republicans aren't shy of any corner of the globe. Go figure.

So what were Republican leaders doing all that time in the late 90s?

They were obsessing over an intern.

TopDawg
6/28/2006, 10:27 PM
You people getting all bent out of shape over this article are the same people who laud jkm and other reliable posters for their online (read: available to our opponents) breakdowns and analysis of our gameplans.

EDIT: I need to put in a little ;) because I'm realizing that every day fewer and fewer of you are able to take/recognize some good-natured ribbing and will respond to an ornery comment (or picture) by posting large portions of government documents.

Jerk
6/29/2006, 05:46 AM
You people getting all bent out of shape over this article are the same people who laud jkm and other reliable posters for their online (read: available to our opponents) breakdowns and analysis of our gameplans.


I would bet my left testical that jkm never leaked anything benificial to the ROP, let alone anything classified.

Sooner24
6/29/2006, 08:09 AM
The Clinton White House got endlessly ridiculed by the Right for trying to police the world. One of Dubya's cornerstone campaign positions in 2000 was for America to have a more "humble" approach to foreign policy, saying our military could not "police the world." At the outset, he was not in the neo-con camp. He leaned more towards the Pat Buchannan ("A Republic, Not an Empire") conservative line of thought before 9/11.

The majority of the GOP leadership objected to the Balkans airstrikes and other '90s police actions. There were by no means massive outcries from GOP leaders prior to 9/11 to expand hunting missions across the globe for terrorist networks or binLaden.

Prior to 9/11, the GOP leadership became increasingly flirtacious w/ the notion of unilateral isolationism since the end of the Gulf War. Scholars began to openly worry that the young Bush Administration would actually pull back from the world scene too quickly, leaving vast power vacuums in which poverty and instability would thrive in the 3rd World, Eastern Europe, and the Asian subcontinent. Then...9/11.

The odd part about post-9/11 America is that the parties (on a foreign policy approach) have flip-flopped. Democrats are now calling for restraint and caution...Republicans aren't shy of any corner of the globe. Go figure.

So what were Republican leaders doing all that time in the late 90s?

They were obsessing over an intern.


They were ridiculed for a lot of things but trying to police the world that was low on the list.

I think people were more concerned about the perjury end of things and not what was going in Monicas mouth.

Condescending Sooner
6/29/2006, 08:32 AM
1. War on Terror
2. War in Afghanistan
3. War in Iraq
4. Initial Tax Breaks post 9/11.

There now you have four.


For someone who supports the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, you sure spend a lot of time criiticizing every aspect of them. Try something else.

Scott D
6/29/2006, 08:42 AM
For someone who supports the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, you sure spend a lot of time criiticizing every aspect of them. Try something else.

:rolleyes: yeah I've been criticizing every aspect of them.

SoonerProphet
6/29/2006, 10:41 AM
Brilliant!

Using hip-hop street lingo to show your approval of a successful anti-terrorist program getting sank by the NYT.

Word!! I hope them homie terrorists drop some biological weapons on us now! Word to your motha! Terrorists can now move money thanks to the NYT! WORD BROTHER, CAN I GET AN AMEN?!

Sup bro dem terrorist gonna drop tha shinzat on da N Y C, WORD BRO! WOOOORD!!!

Now you can buy your sh*t at Wal-Mart and not worry about .gov looking over you and what you're purchasing, as if they give a flying f***.

Where are the libtards when the IRS audits someone at random? "ohh...well that's perfectly legal there!" CAN WE STOP AUDITING? It's the same d@mned thing isn't it? Except the NYT was "concerned" because it was TERRORISTS getting audited, not joe schmoe.

It's okay to f*** joe schmoe, but by God don't look at what Amhad Ikbar is doing with his mysterious wires from Pakistan!

Oh I see, we can bitch about the nanny state intruding on some aspects of our lives but not others.

Your post is filled with emotional appeals and rhetoric aimed at fearmongering over some amorphous "war on terrorism". How contradictory, and ironic coming from you, it is that you feel your safety lies in an even less accountable government. Cause if we can trust governments not to abuse power why even have a constitution, right.

I find it humorous that some folks have blamed 9/11 on intelligence failures, yet try to convince me that mass surveillance is the solution. Brilliant application of logic and a blind faith in technocrats we have developed in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Scott D
6/29/2006, 10:45 AM
I would bet my left testical that jkm never leaked anything benificial to the ROP, let alone anything classified.

Jerk, let me ask you a question as a truck driver....I'd wager that you know where nearly every speed trap is along the stretch of highway that you travel the most regularly.

Now say the Oklahoman does an article on speed traps and happens to use the stretch of highway that you travel most regularly. They describe how a speed trap works, and what the purpose of the speed traps are. They even go as far as to mention a few locations where they seem to catch more speeders than others.

Obviously the State Police will be upset with an article like that. However as someone who could/might be affected by that regularly, you already knew where the traps were.

It's at it's basic core, the same thing.

Sooner24
6/29/2006, 07:31 PM
Jerk, let me ask you a question as a truck driver....I'd wager that you know where nearly every speed trap is along the stretch of highway that you travel the most regularly.

Now say the Oklahoman does an article on speed traps and happens to use the stretch of highway that you travel most regularly. They describe how a speed trap works, and what the purpose of the speed traps are. They even go as far as to mention a few locations where they seem to catch more speeders than others.

Obviously the State Police will be upset with an article like that. However as someone who could/might be affected by that regularly, you already knew where the traps were.

It's at it's basic core, the same thing.


I would liken it more too, a few years ago, when the OHP would put up the signs on the Interstate, DRUG CHECK POINT AHEAD. They caught lots of people trying to get off the Interstate to avoid going through the check point. Thing was there was no check point ahead but instead at the bottom of the hill, at the exit, where the drivers would get off to avoid the non-existent check point sat agents with drug sniffing dogs. Great idea, caught lots of people, until The Daily Oklahoman ran a story about what they were doing and where. Another great means to try and keep drugs off the street and arrest some people hauling dope thanks to the newspaper getting the information out to all those people that "NEED TO KNOW EVERYTHING".

Jerk
6/29/2006, 07:35 PM
Oh I see, we can bitch about the nanny state intruding on some aspects of our lives but not others.



I'd never bitch about the nanny state looking at the financial transactions of foriegn terrorists, unlike you, who seems to think it's unethical I guess in the liberal world view it is only fair that we give our enemies a heads up on what we're doing.

Jerk
6/29/2006, 07:39 PM
Jerk, let me ask you a question as a truck driver....I'd wager that you know where nearly every speed trap is along the stretch of highway that you travel the most regularly.

Now say the Oklahoman does an article on speed traps and happens to use the stretch of highway that you travel most regularly. They describe how a speed trap works, and what the purpose of the speed traps are. They even go as far as to mention a few locations where they seem to catch more speeders than others.

Obviously the State Police will be upset with an article like that. However as someone who could/might be affected by that regularly, you already knew where the traps were.

It's at it's basic core, the same thing.

So, if i'm a terrorist trying to access my European bank account to fund my next Jihad, I can now avoid the "speed trap" that was revealed by the new york times. Oooooookay.

lefty
6/29/2006, 08:12 PM
Apparently, the Swift program worked to push terrorists "underground" for their transfers of funds. The NY Times article may have been news in the US, but probably not so much for Bin Laden. I reserve opinion on whether or not the NY Times should have published the article. To the degree that it undermined anti-terroist activities is, I think, at least debatable.

http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/Archive/2004/Sep/22-862152.html

Sooner24
6/29/2006, 08:40 PM
Apparently, the Swift program worked to push terrorists "underground" for their transfers of funds. The NY Times article may have been news in the US, but probably not so much for Bin Laden. I reserve opinion on whether or not the NY Times should have published the article. To the degree that it undermined anti-terroist activities is, I think, at least debatable.

http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/Archive/2004/Sep/22-862152.html


Then if there is even a shed of doubt then it shouldn't have been done.

C&CDean
6/29/2006, 08:42 PM
For the life of me, I cannot understand anyone who would defend the NYT. A rag's rag. Unsuitable for wipage. Your parakeet will begin muttering Stalin quotes if you put it in the bottom of their cage. Waste. of. dead. trees.

Jerk
6/29/2006, 09:17 PM
For the life of me, I cannot understand anyone who would defend the NYT. A rag's rag. Unsuitable for wipage. Your parakeet will begin muttering Stalin quotes if you put it in the bottom of their cage. Waste. of. dead. trees.

I think some people's hatred of Bush is blinding them to normally obvious things: like, that it should be okay to monitor what terrorists are doing with their money. duhhh... At least we know who the tards are now.

Scott D
6/29/2006, 09:23 PM
I think some people's hatred of Bush is blinding them to normally obvious things: like, that it should be okay to monitor what terrorists are doing with their money. duhhh... At least we know who the tards are now.

duhhh....terrorists probably already knew that those avenues were being monitored, and had likely switched some of their forms of income into more 'liquid' means long before the article came out.

Jerk
6/29/2006, 09:37 PM
duhhh....terrorists probably already knew that those avenues were being monitored, and had likely switched some of their forms of income into more 'liquid' means long before the article came out.


Yeah, sure. Like you know what they know and what they're doing. I think you're either speculating, or you're trying to rationalise to yourself why it's okay to leak a major national secret to a bunch of jihadists who want to kill us.

Dean, Homie, can you imagine if some of these clowns would have been around in 1943? Remember the Japanese naval code we broke? It led to such things as knowing what the Japanese were doing at Midway, and also led to Admiral Yamamoto being intercepted and shot down by P-38's. I could see it now. NYT leaks the story. Scott and TUSooner claim it is only fair and we don't want our gov't being too intrusive. Oh, wait, there was a democrat President back then and they can do anything they want to.

You guys think Bush is bad, you should study the things that Lincoln did during the Civil War. Getting shot, jailed, or hanged for treason wasn't so uncommon.

Sooner24
6/29/2006, 10:29 PM
duhhh....terrorists probably already knew that those avenues were being monitored, and had likely switched some of their forms of income into more 'liquid' means long before the article came out.


And if they didn't?

Jerk
6/30/2006, 05:06 AM
And if they didn't?

hmm...no response yet.

Vaevictis
6/30/2006, 09:49 AM
duhhh....terrorists probably already knew that those avenues were being monitored, and had likely switched some of their forms of income into more 'liquid' means long before the article came out.

****, I already believed it was happening and I'm no terrorist.

All you had to do was pay attention to other things the government was doing and it was blatantly obvious that the government was doing this sort of thing.

NYT wasn't reporting anything that people wouldn't have already believed if they knew the first thing about how the banking system (wrt money transfers) in the US works. The US was already monitoring (legally) money transfers >=$10k to begin with, so they already had the infrastructure in place for smaller transfers. All the gov had to do was lower the threshold.

SoonerProphet
6/30/2006, 10:32 AM
I'd never bitch about the nanny state looking at the financial transactions of foriegn terrorists, unlike you, who seems to think it's unethical I guess in the liberal world view it is only fair that we give our enemies a heads up on what we're doing.

The issue isn't about detecting and thwarting terrorist financing, in fact it is quite silly to assume anyone would want to give them a "heads up". Instead, the issue is whether the government can invoke "terorrism" to exempt itself from statutory restraints. .

Scott D
6/30/2006, 01:03 PM
Yeah, sure. Like you know what they know and what they're doing. I think you're either speculating, or you're trying to rationalise to yourself why it's okay to leak a major national secret to a bunch of jihadists who want to kill us.

Oh and you think they didn't hear Bush say that we were going after their finances and bank accounts with assistance from other countries in his speech to the UN back in November of 2001?


Dean, Homie, can you imagine if some of these clowns would have been around in 1943? Remember the Japanese naval code we broke? It led to such things as knowing what the Japanese were doing at Midway, and also led to Admiral Yamamoto being intercepted and shot down by P-38's. I could see it now. NYT leaks the story. Scott and TUSooner claim it is only fair and we don't want our gov't being too intrusive. Oh, wait, there was a democrat President back then and they can do anything they want to.

You don't get it...the media broke that we had broken the Japanese code because someone in the government couldn't keep a secret. The equivalent of what you are trying to compare would have the NYT breaking this stunning news about the code in 1946.


You guys think Bush is bad, you should study the things that Lincoln did during the Civil War. Getting shot, jailed, or hanged for treason wasn't so uncommon.

I still think you should get shot for treason. I don't think Bush is bad, I think Bush has the propensity to hear something, attempt to do the right thing, but can be subsceptable to hearing little birdies with an agenda whispering in his ear. Clinton had them, Bush's father had them, at times even Reagan had them.

Sooner24
6/30/2006, 04:15 PM
Whoever sent me spek calling me an idiot I just want to let you know.............Sticks and stones and all that sorta thing. :D

85Sooner
6/30/2006, 04:29 PM
I'm in the same nut-house with ya, Jerk!


Agreed, I'm ready to separate this country into two sections, and once you make that choice you have got to stay there. Oh and you don't get anything from the other side. Lock and Load Boys.

soonerscuba
6/30/2006, 05:12 PM
Is no one seriously going to bring up the irony of wishing death upon an entire state as punishment for something written in a newspaper dealing with terrorism? At least it wasn't on the comics page.

And for those with the, for lack of a better word, retarded, idea of separating the country. I think that you are probably not smart enough to understand why that would be the worst idea ever.

Jerk
6/30/2006, 06:31 PM
I still think you should get shot for treason. I don't think Bush is bad, I think Bush has the propensity to hear something, attempt to do the right thing, but can be subsceptable to hearing little birdies with an agenda whispering in his ear. Clinton had them, Bush's father had them, at times even Reagan had them.

Bring it on a$$hole.

Oh nevermind, I thought you were saying that I, Jerk, should get shot for treason. My bad. It's time to drink a sixpack.

Vaevictis
6/30/2006, 06:37 PM
Wow, touchy. ;)

Jerk
6/30/2006, 06:49 PM
Is no one seriously going to bring up the irony of wishing death upon an entire state as punishment for something written in a newspaper dealing with terrorism? At least it wasn't on the comics page.
.

IF they hit us again, might as well be against the same people who want Al Quida to have their own Bill of Rights.




And for those with the, for lack of a better word, retarded, idea of separating the country. I think that you are probably not smart enough to understand why that would be the worst idea ever.

It's already seperate. This is why we need more states' rights. That way, blue staters can't push their agenda onto red staters and vise versa. Example: New Jersey's gun control laws should never apply to Wyoming.

Jerk
6/30/2006, 06:52 PM
oh come on, whoever negged me needs to have a little more creativity. "red-neck" and "narrow minded" have been in the Marxist book of "names to call your enemies" for 4 decades now.

85Sooner
6/30/2006, 06:58 PM
YOU MUST spread some spek around before giving to jerk again

Okla-homey
6/30/2006, 07:13 PM
NY Times = wannabe ex-"paper of record." Blew it. The "Grey Lady" is dead. Someone just needs to inform the patient.

Octavian
6/30/2006, 07:28 PM
Agreed, I'm ready to separate this country into two sections, and once you make that choice you have got to stay there. Oh and you don't get anything from the other side. Lock and Load Boys.

We're gonna need to find a way to get our corn. If not, how are we gonna eat popcorn while watching the movies that you won't be able to see?

And Vegas goes to the Blue Side...or no deal. Shouldn't be a big problem for the Red States to give up Sin City.

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/9330/mapjesuslandliberty4pa.gif (http://imageshack.us)

again, this is a stupid response (pic) to a dumb statement...as TopDawg noted, no fire-breathing retort is necessary, nor is posting half the files from the National Archives

Scott D
6/30/2006, 08:35 PM
Bring it on a$$hole.

Oh nevermind, I thought you were saying that I, Jerk, should get shot for treason. My bad. It's time to drink a sixpack.

nah, you should get shot for picking the wrong week to quit taking ludes ;)

Sooner24
6/30/2006, 09:22 PM
We're gonna need to find a way to get our corn. If not, how are we gonna eat popcorn while watching the movies that you won't be able to see?

And Vegas goes to the Blue Side...or no deal. Shouldn't be a big problem for the Red States to give up Sin City.

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/9330/mapjesuslandliberty4pa.gif (http://imageshack.us)

again, this is a stupid response (pic) to a dumb statement...as TopDawg noted, no fire-breathing retort is necessary, nor is posting half the files from the National Archives

Since movies aren't a natural resource I don't see why they couldn't be filmed somewhere else besides California. :rolleyes: Also with all the Indian casinos going up if a person wants to gamble why leave home. As for me I chose to live in "JesusLand". :D

85Sooner
7/1/2006, 08:43 AM
We're gonna need to find a way to get our corn. If not, how are we gonna eat popcorn while watching the movies that you won't be able to see?

And Vegas goes to the Blue Side...or no deal. Shouldn't be a big problem for the Red States to give up Sin City.

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/9330/mapjesuslandliberty4pa.gif (http://imageshack.us)

again, this is a stupid response (pic) to a dumb statement...as TopDawg noted, no fire-breathing retort is necessary, nor is posting half the files from the National Archives


Talk about ignorant and presumtive, You evidently decided that the libs could have Canada. I think the canadians might have something to say about that.
The united states of education ?????????? Surely you are joking.
Jesusland? Its not the religeon thing, its the common sense thing jeebs.

TopDawg
7/1/2006, 08:39 PM
I bet the terrorists never would've known about this story until all the people started raising a fuss over it.

Kinda like how certain controversial movies get more publicity and viewership when the people protesting against them raise awareness.

So for all the people pointing fingers at the NYT, remember, there are 3 fingers pointing back at you.




;)

TopDawg
7/1/2006, 08:40 PM
I would bet my left testical that jkm never leaked anything benificial to the ROP, let alone anything classified.

That's like me betting my tonsils. :rolleyes:



;)

PhilTLL
7/1/2006, 09:05 PM
Talk about ignorant and presumtive, You evidently decided that the libs could have Canada. I think the canadians might have something to say about that.
The united states of education ?????????? Surely you are joking.
Jesusland? Its not the religeon thing, its the common sense thing jeebs.


again, this is a stupid response (pic) to a dumb statement...as TopDawg noted, no fire-breathing retort is necessary, nor is posting half the files from the National Archives

Is comprehension easier if they're posted side by side? :P

Vaevictis
7/1/2006, 09:38 PM
Is comprehension easier if they're posted side by side? :P

SHH! If people throw a fit over the Jesusland graphic, this thread has at least 2-3 more pages in it.

Sooner24
7/1/2006, 10:48 PM
SHH! If people throw a fit over the Jesusland graphic, this thread has at least 2-3 more pages in it.



Why throw a fit? I took it as a compliment. :D

Vaevictis
7/1/2006, 11:01 PM
Based on my observations in this thread, a more appropriate response would be to, instead of splitting the country, how about we just go with:

1. Of the first ten amendments, only the 2nd and 10th apply to the Red States.
2. Of the first ten amendments, only the 2nd and 10th do not apply to the Blue States.

That seems to be what the more extreme elements of either side really want.

As an aside, I add the following, as I am a vindictive bastard:
3. No state may receive more money from the federal government than the federal government receives from it. Any money the Feds spend must be spent in compliance with the amendments of the state from which the funds are drawn.

Jerk
7/1/2006, 11:16 PM
I bet the terrorists never would've known about this story until all the people started raising a fuss over it.

Kinda like how certain controversial movies get more publicity and viewership when the people protesting against them raise awareness.

So for all the people pointing fingers at the NYT, remember, there are 3 fingers pointing back at you.




;)

That's kind of beside the point. I mean...whether or not the ROP already knew is not known to my knowledge, and assuming that they did know should not be an excuse to leak classified government secrets.

Sheesh...I don't know about some of you...

I guess I was raised differently than alot of people here. I just don't see how leaking national secrets can be justified, unless we we're actually doing something very bad like secret concentration camps.

The gov't employee with loose lips should be canned and jailed. It is evident that there are alot of employees in the bureacacy who want to sabatoge the current administration, and I'm sure there are a few people here thinking that is 'A OKAY' as long as it hurts Bush, even if it means compromising our security- but of course you don't think of it that way.

I also believe that alot of you are in deep denial about the conflict we're in. I don't think you want to believe that we're actually at war. I don't think you want to hear that there are well-organised and well-funded terror groups who want to kill as many Americans as possible. You want to think that 9-11 was an abboration, a fluke, and should be forgotten. When or if it happens again, I bet most Americans are going to remember what ideology justified leaking secrets, argued for opening up the federal courts to foriegn fighters without uniforms, constantly undermined the current effort in Iraq by saying it's unwinnable, saying we shouldn't be there, claiming that arabs can't have a democracy and that they would be better off under a mass murderer (Hussien).

There's alot more concrete evidence that the terror threat is more real than, say, global warming. It was tangible only 5 years ago. Bush may be his own worst enemy by keeping them from any successful domestic operations since then, cuz most of you are more concerned about the right's of detainees at GITMO now. After an NBC weapon is released in a major city and thousands are dead...maybe some of you will wake the f*** up.

Soonerwood called me the other day and talked some sense into me. No one is going to change anyone's mind here. It is a waisted effort. (so I just blew 10 minutes on this post)

Frozen Sooner
7/2/2006, 12:35 AM
I just don't see how leaking national secrets can be justified, unless we we're actually doing something very bad like secret concentration camps.

Hmmm. Are public ones OK?

Vaevictis
7/2/2006, 12:35 AM
I mean...whether or not the ROP already knew is not known to my knowledge, and assuming that they did know should not be an excuse to leak classified government secrets.

Well, I think the people who leak should have to face a jury. I also think the jury should be able to nullify (ie, return not guilty even if there legally had been a crime commited) if they think the leaker was justified.


I guess I was raised differently than alot of people here. I just don't see how leaking national secrets can be justified, unless we we're actually doing something very bad like secret concentration camps.

Well, what it really boils down to is -- where do you strike the balance between having an informed electorate and having a powerful enough government? Obviously, in this case, you lean towards a powerful enough government, and the newspaper leans (in part because it has financial incentives to do so) towards the informed electorate. Like you imply, it's just a value judgment.

In this specific case, my response to the article was, "Duh." Like I've said, anyone with any sense already suspected this was going on and would just work under that assumption. And as f*cked up as the terrorists are, operationally, they're reasonably savvy. Even though it's just my opinion, I have no doubt at all that they already knew or believed that this was going on, so I don't think the article gave them any kind of advantage or put us at any kind of disadvantage.



It is evident that there are alot of employees in the bureacacy who want to sabatoge the current administration

Not defending it, but are you really suprised by this? It's something every single President has had to deal with.


I also believe that alot of you are in deep denial about the conflict we're in. I don't think you want to believe that we're actually at war.

Just want to remind you that from a legal standpoint, we're not. De facto, we are, I agree, but just remember that Congress never issued a declaration of war, and a lot of the stuff Bush is getting flak for today would be a non-issue if they had or would. But, for some bizzarro world reason (to me at least) Bush and Congress would rather legally pretend we're not at war.


I don't think you want to hear that there are well-organised and well-funded terror groups who want to kill as many Americans as possible. You want to think that 9-11 was an abboration, a fluke, and should be forgotten.

Meh, maybe some of us just don't think the security trade-off is worth it.

I had been expecting something like 9/11 since I was a child; on the morning of 9/11 -- my memory is crystal clear on this -- someone pointed (on CNN.com) out that a single plane had hit the WTC. Okay, so it was an accident. I went back to work. That same someone pointed out that another plane hit it a little while later. My response was, literally, "Somebody's going to pay for that." And then I went back to work. The only thing about 9/11 that suprised me was that it took so long for it to happen.

I don't think that 9/11 was an abberation or a fluke, nor that it should be forgotten. It's just that I think some of the values we're cashing in in the name of security are worth more than stopping that next attack.


When or if it happens again, I bet most Americans are going to remember what ideology justified leaking secrets, argued for opening up the federal courts to foriegn fighters without uniforms, constantly undermined the current effort in Iraq by saying it's unwinnable, saying we shouldn't be there, claiming that arabs can't have a democracy and that they would be better off under a mass murderer (Hussien).

Historically, terrorists don't usually kill off stable democracies. Some people die, yeah, but long term, if the democracies remain true to themselves, the democracies outlast them. See IRA, ETA, PLO, etc. It's not a sure thing, but it is the usual thing.

To me the question is not whether or not we defeat the terrorists -- I think our eventual victory is already written -- but how we change in the process.

I laugh at people who say, "9/11 changed everything." The only thing 9/11 changed was us.

11 years ago, how many of you people who say that these guys at Gitmo shouldn't get basic trial rights would have said that all of McVeigh's suspected associates shouldn't get Constitutional protections? That we should track all financial transactions in the USA in case there are terrorists using the financial systems? That the newspapers shouldn't report programs that the Clinton administration unilaterally put in place to track these guys?

As far as Bush stopping all of the domestic attacks is concerned, I think it's nice that he's stopped some of the more elaborate ones, but it seems to me that Al-Qaeda is okay with no attacks having gone off recently. If they really were really desperate to get something off, they'd just send someone down to Home Depot for some ball bearings, rat poison and fertilizer.

Personally, I think it's you guys that are deluded. It's naive to think, IMO, that we can stop all terrorist attacks if we're just nasty enough about it. The Saudis are waaay nastier than us, and they still get hit. Same goes for the Jordinians.

This is a war of values, theirs against ours. In a war of values, if you forfeit your values, even if you win you still lose. I'd just like to see that we stick to our values; the rest will work itself out.

Frozen Sooner
7/2/2006, 12:39 AM
Hell, for that matter the Israelis are much more aggressive about curtailing civil rights and much nastier in response to terrorist activity than we are, yet get hit much more frequently.

Probably has something to do with proximity and all, though.

Jerk
7/2/2006, 07:51 AM
Vaev....this is what blows me away, and it's what I'm having a hard time comprehending:

How in the he1l is the government violating our rights by looking at the financial transactions of terrorists?

Again, why do you assume that the enemy already knew about this spy program?

Jerk
7/2/2006, 07:54 AM
Probably has something to do with proximity and all, though.

This reminds me of a quote from a historian talking about WW1 and WW2 things. Why is America so safe and therefore reluctant to go to war in Europe? Cuz' we have the biggest anti-tank ditches in teh world.

Sooner24
7/2/2006, 08:20 AM
I Googled the word Vaevictis and it said Vae Victis was Latin for "Woe to the conquered". VaeVictis is also the title of a French war gaming magazine. Boy whenever you put the words French and war in the same sentence it becomes an automatic oxymoron. Judging from the way our Vaevictis acts I would guess he really is French and we all know what kind of real men the French are. ;)

TopDawg
7/2/2006, 09:40 AM
I've basically just been chiming in for good natured ribbing of others in this thread, but it appears to me that some of you are claiming that the NYT published classified government secrets. If that's the case, I'd be more upset with our government than with the NYT.

The government has an obligation to keep classified secrets...secret. And if the NYT has an obligation to not post classified government secrets that the government can't keep secret (as some of you argue), it's certainly not as strong an obligation as the government's.

It's like when my wife got mad at me for telling BlindCajun something about my wife's friend that my wife wasn't supposed to tell anybody. Hey, if you wanted to keep it secret, you should have kept it secret.

Why is all the hub-bub about the NYT and not the government? Let's put the blame where it belongs.

Vaevictis
7/2/2006, 10:01 AM
How in the he1l is the government violating our rights by looking at the financial transactions of terrorists?

This particular program didn't sift through the records of just terrorists. It was sifting through the entire SWIFT database for some time, until SWIFT itself threatened to cut them off. If SWIFT backed down, do you not think that the government would have continued monitoring *all* transactions?

(Personally, I would be less leery of the situation if it hadn't taken a frigging corporation worried it was going to get sued to get the government to target individual terrorists instead of monitoring everyone's transactions.)


Again, why do you assume that the enemy already knew about this spy program?

Because if you were the enemy, you'd have to be functionally retarded not to assume the US would be doing this. The US has publically made big noise about how they were using the financial system to track down and cut off terrorist's money sources.

OTOH, they didn't even have to assume it. From a public report filed with the UN security council in 2002:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/725/72/PDF/N0272572.pdf?OpenElement


The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT ... The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions.

In other words, the fact that the US was monitoring transactions in the SWIFT database wrt terrorism financing was public domain as early as 2002.

yermom
7/2/2006, 10:02 AM
i may have missed some of this thread, but... this isn't about national secrets, right? if it was there would some big deal about a leak, etc...

this is more about PR

it's not like we didn't already know DHS was all up in our business

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63957