Jump to content

aramike

Members
  • Posts

    1,388
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by aramike

  1. If so, you'll love this: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/beforeaftermarriage.html
  2. quote: Such as?Are you winging it or are you actually learning what is going on? Such as subpeonas being required prior to any action taken against any suspect. This is public knowledge and widely available. Please don't make me do research for you. quote: The article implies that NSL do not have such a requirement.
  3. quote: Originally posted by $iLk: There was a study released recently where released sexual offenders have the lowest repeat crime rates of any other class of convicts. The emotional response exhibited by those of us abhorred by their behavior is precisely the reason why the same laws apply to them that apply to everyone else. Nice try distorting the facts. Your "point": quote: Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense ÔÇôÔÇô 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.Whoop-dee-do. So a sex offender goes on to rob a store or steal a car. Or get into a bar brawl. Here's the study: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rsorp94pr.htm My point: quote: But sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison ÔÇôÔÇô 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders. Let's just say, as a parent, I'd rather take my chances on those who DON'T commit sex crimes. [ 07-02-2006, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: aramike ]
  4. quote: Sure, but sometimes that requires the government to protect its citizens from itself, to prevent less responsible people from abusing the power they receive.And, how is this not being done? quote: Isn't the act in question dealing with the NSL... which doesnÔÇÖt have the normal checks and balances.It has alternative checks and balances. It isn't a free-reign system. Furthermore, information developed can only be used for the purpose for which they attempted to develop it in the first place, and after a subpeona concurs with it. quote: Hardly, someone in the government will eventually abuse the power they have. Therefore, laws are made in part to help reduce this abuse by adding checks and balances; the NSL has no such safety measures.So... forget about "innocent until proven guilty" (a cornerstone of our nation). Maybe we should put freedom itself in check, because some people will certainly abuse it. WAIT a second, we ARE doing that! Except, the government has found a way to do that WITHOUT eroding your rights! Hey, you made a great point, except I'm not sure its the point you were trying to make. Again, when you (or anyone) can show an American citizen who's rights are taken away, I'll think that SOMEONE abused their power and want them held accountable. But I won't act against someone who hasn't yet abused anything. Innocent until proven guilty, I would hope. Heck, what you're saying is even worse than violating that cornerstone of freedom: guilty BEFORE committing the crime. Minority Report anyone? Now THAT would be a case of lost freedom...
  5. I know this is long, but you should read all of it because I think I've gotten to the root of the issue. quote: You are correct about that. It was huge, and the guys who were in charge still have thier jobs. Tell me that ain't FUBAR. It isn't FUBAR, because it is the very nature of the democratic republic you and I both seem to believe in. The guys who were in charge just recently moved into those positions because the guys previously in charge ran into a problem called "term limits". The EXTREMELY new administration can't be held accountable for the bureaucratic holes left by an old administration, and you can't fire the old one because it's already gone. I know that we, as Americans, sometimes have a "gotta blame someone" mentality, but here's a genuine case of there's really no good in blaming anyone. So what can we do? Learn from the mistake, take steps to prevent a future mistake, and fill in holes in the system that allowed the mistake to occur in the first place. I think the Bush administration's record stands strong on that account. quote: So now I'm supposed to accept all this super secret court BS and spying on the American people and detaining people without the due process of public courts and the demand for whatever records they want, without court subpoena?I'm going to try to take this one really slowly ... what super-secret court BS? What spying on American people? What detention of American CITIZENS without due process? Finally, what RIGHTS of YOURS are being VIOLATED? I hope you finally see my point. In any case, I find it humorous how people in your camp always pull this "right-to-know" crap, but then when someone checks out a LIBRARY BOOK, from a PUBLIC LIBRARY the PUBLIC does NOT have a "right-to-know"? It, then, would only make sense that the public DOES have a right-to-know, because said book is public property. So, instead of making everyone's public check-out data available to EVERYONE, we take a more modest step of letting the government simply TRACK such records (which is ALREADY DOES because it IS a PUBLIC LIBRARY) that it deems appropriate. Simply put, one part of government oversight is now talking to another part, and only in cases the second part deems appropriate. Even THEN, although someone can LOOK at the data, they CANNOT USE said data without a subpeona. But would it make sense to PUBLICALLY announce a subpeona in an investigation, when that information ITSELF can COMPROMISE said investigation? Of COURSE not. So what happens are investigations that can continue with the information kept secret until the information is conclusive or it is discarded as irrelevent. In fact, if you REALLY think about it, this PROTECTS YOUR PRIVACY! Let's say YOU found yourself on a terrorist watch list because someone who just doesn't like you put you there. Now, the government can investigate it the current way, with you never knowing and with NONE of the information developed able to be used against you except when relevent to the initial investigation and AFTER the subpeona is gained proving that information relevent. Of course, they wouldn't find anything and know one would ever know about said investigation, and your name would not be dragged through the mud for no real purpose. Or, we could go YOUR route and PUBLICALLY investigate EVERYTHING about you (once probable cause is determined in public court EVERYTHING that is found can be used against you) and who KNOWS WHAT would happen. So, by keeping these investigations secret the government is, as a side-effect, protecting the privacy of the innocent while helping to protect us by not tipping the hand of those who seek to harm us. quote: The government doesn't have a clue as to who the thirty million undocumented foreigners are that slipped within our borders and I'm supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy because they learned from a huge mistake?Two completely separate issues. If you want to discuss how awful illegal immigration is (or should I say, Mexico's export of poverty), you'll find that I agree with you. But I can't say that, because one thing is bad, EVERYTHING else sucks. quote: The Librarians seem to be the only true patriots we have left. Maybe because they tend to be very intelligent people and not blind lemmings.Patriots? No. Exercising a legal appelate right doesn't make someone a patriot. Besides, they work for publically funded institutions. Again, you have a right-to-know. But you don't. But you do. But... See, that's why this issue is FAR more gray than you probably think. Wolfrez, I'll give you some love though ... I think you're more pissed about other things than this and your mixing the issues a bit. I would agree with you that the nanny government shouldn't be telling us to wear bike helmets, for instance. I'd even agree that the administration has been WAY too lacking with regards to illegal immigration. But, I can't agree that their manner of investigating terrorism is violated our rights because it simply isn't. [ 07-01-2006, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: aramike ]
  6. quote: 09/11/01 Four commercial jets are turned into flying bombs. What did the government do to insure our safety that day? Nada damn thing. I won't waste my thoughts on the hithertos and the whyfors. Thier track record speaks for itself. Umm, so you're saying that, because of a failure, we should simply say the system is broken and not worry about these things occuring, despite the numerous successes we've had? Riddle me THIS: how many terrorist attacks on the scale of 9.11 or worse would/could occur without the government interceding? Let's just say it's interesting how the UK and Spain has been hit since but our government has managed to keep us (the prime target) safe. quote: So, you think I'm ungrateful for your service to this nation. You couldn't be more wrong. I served this country too in case you didn't know. Therefore, I am probably better equipped to face a situation than the average citizen. I only think what YOUR comments lead me to think. As for your service, why did you bother? Like you implied, we don't need the government to keep us safe (the military belongs to the government), so why serve? Because, you know is well as I do that the whole FUNCTION of a government is the safety of it's citizens. Though you may be perfect, I know I am not and therefore the government of the people is not, and therefore failures are to be expected. That doesn't mean you don't try to improve. Sure, the failure on 9.11 was HUGE. But, we're learning from it. What is wrong with that? quote: I was sworn to uphold the constitution the same as you, the same as the president, the same as every other elected or appointed official. That's why it grieves me when I see them trampling the constitution and the Bill of rights with thier super secret crap.The Constitution does NOT provide the public with unlimited access to information. YOUR right to know does NOT supercede the GOVERNMENT'S ability to do it's job. It would be IRRESPONSIBLE to deny a government of the people the ability to employ tools to protect people. If you want to know, get elected. quote: I am way past eighteen and that feeling of invincibility left me a long time ago. Since my secondary MOS was NBC, I know that a nuke going off in my back yard won't concern me in the least due the obliteration effect of the flash. Then comes the shockwave which is going to level my home. At that point I won't be caring about anything. I have a wife and children and therefore my first thought is to assure that doesn't happen in the first place. quote: Now, if the government has become so paranoid that they feel the overwhelming urge to go against the constitution and turn our country into a Nazi prison camp, so be it. I'll be over here on the sidelines waiting to say "I told you so!" Show me some evidence of this happening ANYWHERE. Oh, if you're a democrat ... your favorite president, FDR, interned thousands of Japanese AMERICANS. That's right: citizens. Bush has interned NONE. Sure, we've interned suspected terrorists in Cuba, but they don't have the same rights as Americans. quote: I've got to agree with Wolferz on this case. Saftey can be achieved with keeping the police in check through courts. Its required to keep a free democratic society. The U.S. is becoming a police state, and thats by far the scariest thing that America has seen yet.Why do people keep saying that? *I* haven't lost any of MY freedoms. YOU haven't lost any of YOUR freedoms. Show me an example of an American citizen losing his freedoms due to out-of-control government. All you people out there who keep crying about government powers out of check seriously needs to look into the facts a little more. Why? Because those powers are IN CHECK, and STILL subject to law. Also, they are under government oversight. This is NOTHING different than what we've been doing for the last 60 years. It's a flaw to assert that, just because the government HAS power, it is going to ABUSE it. Why? Because that argument can apply to almost ANYTHING. So, in the end, all of you alarmists who still, ironically, have your freedoms can stop worrying. No one's rights have been trampled on. I'll start listening to you when you have an examples of American citizens being denied their rights and the system of checks and balances fails them. Yes, that's right: even if they are denied rights our system has levels to protect that. The "it could happen" argument is dead, as far as I'm concerned. Living in fear of everything that can go wrong is no way to live, and, like I said, my freedoms are doing just fine, thank you. Rather than fighting what "could happen", I'll focus on what WILL happen if we don't take steps.
  7. quote: How the hell do you people DEAL with these kids, I've NEVER encountered THIS many problems before! =You have him removed from your home.
  8. quote: Originally posted by Wolferz: The government can say that they are keeping us safe all they want but, it's a blatant lie. Way too many bad things can happen to every one of us. Things the government has no control over, now or ever. Anyone who confesses to think otherwise, is deluding themselves. Safety begins within your own personal space and depends greatly upon your awareness of your surroundings. That's Not something the government can help you with, other than the never ending Yellow threat level. That is the most out-of-context post I've ever read, and I have a feeling that it's an intentional attempt to make a play-on-words and change the subject. Here, let me spell it out for you. When I say "keep us safe" I mean prevent a nuclear bomb from going off in mine or your backyard. I'm fairly certain that the government is far better equipped to do this than the average, even astute, man. Also, I've fairly certain that you knew I wasn't refering to everyday dangers. Furthermore, I'm quite positive that you're smart enough to know that there are dangers far worse than ANYTHING you, as an individual, are equipped to face. So, you can continue to go about your day feeling invincible, and people like me will continue the thankless job of allowing ungrateful people like you to think you're invincible. People will continue to risk their lives simply so you can say that they really don't need to. Or, you can stop the word games and either debate the issue or step to the sidelines.
  9. quote: Meanwhile they give 15 year sentences to people who steal booze. Something is desperately broken with this system of ours.That is EXACTLY where I was planning to go with that thread when I got around to it. Prez, you're completely right. What kind of society have we become when we regularly show BLATANT disregard for justice for no other reason than procedural slip-ups? Have we become so attached to our systematic procuduralism that we've forgotten the meaning of it all? At what point did our judiciary stop serving justice and start merely serving itself? Think about it this way: We've all, probably at some point, praised the forefathers of this nation for their foresight in creating the world's most effective system of government (co-equal branches, checks and balances, etc.). Back then, however, no one would have been able to commit such a sick crime and be able to get off on a technicality. Why? Because, then, they understood that the purpose of such technicalities is to facilitate the service of justice. It's ironic that such technicalities that were once in service of justice are now merely in the service of themselves. If we really want to fix this system, we need to go back to a mentality that says that the spirit and purpose of the law is what matters; not just the pen-and-paper dictation of it. And, we need to find a judiciary that understands that technicalities exist in service to the greater good. When they fail to serve their purpose, they need to be summarily ignored. Those who are convicted have plenty of chances to prove their innocence at appeal. Let's not use are own laws to give the guilty a cloak of innocence any longer.
  10. quote: Originally posted by Wolferz: Back to that "safe" arguement again? I don't know ... YOU may find it silly to keep people safe but *I* tend to think that the primary role of government. Besides, with all the complaining the left does about the government's ability to violate civil rights, they have yet to show any examples of it.
  11. Clearly an op-ed. In any case, is it really a good thing that librarians stymied attempts to retrieve information that may help us remain safe? I check books out from the library all the time, and, quite frankly, I don't give a crap who knows what I am reading. Why? Because I'm not doing anything wrong. Here's the problem with the essential argument: just because a power CAN be abused, doesn't mean the power WILL be and therefore said power shouldn't exist. If that were the case, no one could do ANYTHING because that one could argue that almost anything can go bad.
  12. I HAVE to respond to this separately, though (sorry) quote: Knock yourself out Mike, be as harsh as you like, but exactly how is being harsh making your point any more valid?By being "harsh" I meant pointing out more contradictory flaws in your arguments than I already have, and moreso showing that your "understanding" of the NY Times story seemed to change AFTER you stated that you already understood it. Seriously, if I go point-by-point, it ain't gonna be pretty because a lot of things you previously said were at odds at things you said in your most recent post. I've pointed out SOME of the contradictions in my last post, but I assure you there are more. I was simply hoping that you would FINALLY seemy point as to the harm of the NY Times story and not continue to defend it using false logic and suppositions. In other words, what I meant by "harsh" was, please fill all the holes in your argument and THEN tell me what you think. You seem to be a fairly smart guy; no reason to let a premature judgement blind your sensibilities and make you say things that don't demonstrate the brains you so clearly have (not sarcasm, by the way). I know people sometimes get too invested in their ideologies to think anything else, but sometimes you have to get past that. Heck, in another thread, someone implied that smoking was safe! (To be TOTALLY fair he later clarified what he meant.) In any case, you don't need to argue to me that press freedom is integral to our way of life. But I think I CAN successfully argue to you that there needs to be SOME restrictions on the freedom of press. But, dude, by "harsh" I don't mean flaming you or anything. This is 3000ad.com, man. I've been here for years and while I go as far as one can possibly go in being unpleasant, I don't cross the line. Hell, I've BANNED people for crossing the line (which, by the way, you're doing a good job of remaining VERY civil). So, again, don't take it so personally.
  13. quote: Originally posted by Grizzle: Knock yourself out Mike, be as harsh as you like, but exactly how is being harsh making your point any more valid? Nothing you can say will change the basic premise that regardless of the content of the issue, this is about free speech and freedom of the press which can only be resolved in a court of law. I've said my piece and likely won't respond, so you'll be talking to a wall. If however, you feel the need to vindicate yourself and prove how clueless I am, be my guest. LOL! OK, dude, I'm seriously full of sarcasm. Please don't take my rhetoric so seriously... That aside, I think I've CLEARLY illustrated the implications of the NY Times story and why it's so controversial. And I've pointed out that those "compulsory subpeonas" are nothing more than what could be called a "stern" request. I can go into why financial clearinghouses are not legally obligated to do ANYTHING, but I think we BOTH know that you were somewhat trying to cover for certain errors. To whit: quote: "Besides, who didn't already know the government was tracking financial transactions in an effort to hunt down terrorists?"You made this statement implying that there was no real damage because, heck, everyone already KNEW! Then you started arguing how, although no one knew the specifics, it doesn't really hurt that they are now publically available. So, by first indicating that, essentially the story was OK to publish because it is nothing new and then following up with DEFENDING the NEW information released, you default the first argument, therefore falling into the category of "winging it". I have a pretty long memory - as a result of that I don't let people easily change the scope of their arguement lest I be distracted from mine. If you want to make the debate about the press and freedom thereof, feel free to start another thread. I'll GLADLY engage in that, considering that you've implied that any restrictions on our press would make us into a state such as North Korea or China. I DID, however, point out that the UK has some restrictions on their press and that they are HARDLY considered repressionist states such as NK or China. That was an argument which you summarily IGNORED. Frankly, you've IGNORED EVERYTHING which doesn't support your assertions, and I usually find that to be an indication of how weak said assertions are. In fact, about ALL you've said that I agree with is this: quote: I'm not saying people don't have reason to be angry at the NYT and I'm not saying their decision was necessarily the right one....and "agreement" is a term I'm using fairly loosely. This is another example of an argument defaulting: you've defending the NY Times story as doing no harm than you try to say that maybe people are right to be upset over it. If it does no harm, than why would anyone to be correct in being angry? Here's the bottom line: You KNOW as well as *I* do that the NY Times screwed up. You SHOULD know (after I explained it to you) that financial clearinghouses aren't as simple as you first attempted to make them out to be. I agree with you that press freedom is ESSENTIAL to our republic. The difference between you and I is simple: YOU are cynical regarding the government's motivations and *I* am cynical regarding the motivations of the press. I don't give the press a free pass simply because they are exercising first ammendment rights. Heck, so are the KKK, Neo-Nazis, NAMBLA, and plenty of other undesirable organizations. Furthermore, as YOU pointed out ... the GOVERNMENT is by the PEOPLE. The press are private and NOT elected or accountable to the people. Please think about that. As for the other thing: seriously, take my rhetoric with a grain-of-salt. I've been debating on here for YEARS and that's my style. You may find me a difficult opponent and I pride myself on NOT taking a side of an issue until I have THOROUGHLY researched and understand it. But, when I'm not in this forum, I don't think about said rivalries nor do I discuss them. The opinions and assertions stand their own merits and I let THEM, not the person, speak. Meaning: when I'm a smart-ass, don't take it personally. Just think of it as an opportunity to either learn something or further your research and knowledge of something. Remember, I try not to say much without looking it up first. Word.
  14. Dude, you're grasping at straws. I'll respond point-by-point later today, and in doing so, repeat many points YET AGAIN because you have apparently found something that Republicans AND Democrats have apparently missed. You DO NOT know the story, hands down. I will illustrate that again in a VERY harsh way, but I'll start with this, just as a teaser: You said... quote: "Besides, who didn't already know the government was tracking financial transactions in an effort to hunt down terrorists?"Because that is NOT the reason there is a problem with the story, and because that is NOT the STORY in question, you ILLUSTRATE that you did NOT know the story when you wrote that. Most of what you wrote subsequent to that is irrelevent, although I only skimmed it due to the fact that: (a) You didn't know what you were talking about to begin with, as I've illustrated... ( Most of it is double-talk. Example: "Hardly worthless. LetÔÇÖs check back in a few months and see if itÔÇÖs still being used." If it's classified, that won't be possible. OK, so you can either continue to illustrate your ignorance on this subject or I'm going to have to keep doing it for you, and laugh all the way to the bank. Funny thing is, even DEMOCRATS have problems with this thing (Murtha). PS: By the way, I LOVE how you HIGHLIGHTED the word "compulsory". You should have looked up what a "compulsory" subpeona is. Again, you need to do research. You said: quote: which by the way they cannot do because the subpoenas required to gather the information are legally bindingA "compulsory" subpeona is NOT LEGALLY BINDING. That's why it's called a COMPULSORY SUBPEONA and not simply a "subpeona". Guess what - if we could simply subpeona all the info we need, than this wouldn't be a problem. Get it yet? I'm not even sure if I should go point-by-point because you STILL demonstrate that you're unwilling to research and understand the topic. I'll still do it, though, because it's fun. [ 06-30-2006, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: aramike ]
  15. http://www.wgal.com/news/9444847/detail.html
  16. quote: Originally posted by LostInSpace: quote:Originally posted by aramike: I don't get it, then. I mean, the data on smoking is VERY conclusive. I agree that second-hand smoke is still not proven one way or the other (although, practically-speaking I know its not GOOD for you...), but I don't know HOW someone could think that smoking does NOT cause illnesses such as cancer. I think I've made such research clear in my earlier post. As for leaving the city, good thing you don't. Perhaps you can talk some sense into the politicians there. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it isn't dangerous. What I'm arguing is that it isn't dangerous to everyone. The government is going around saying and or insinuating that anyone who smokes is going to get cancer. Well, the public adverts here in NY are doing that. Poppycock! It's their wording and insinuations I'm fighting. Let me give you an example on another issue: Like fatty foods. I eat a lot of junk as well as good meals. My cholesterol is fine, my heart is in excellent medical condition and so is my blood pressure and I still weigh between 165 and 175 since it fluctuates. Now, the lovely fries I like to eat are being downsized and given different oil (changing the flavor) because some people get fat. Why should I be made to suffer because of these other people. As for the politicians. I've tried believe me but it's a losing cause. These politicians are brain dead literally. Smoking IS dangerous to everyone. The word "danger" doesn't mean that harm will necessarily come from it; it just means that harm is more likely. I've done dangerous things and have come away fine. Just because I came away alright didn't mean those activities weren't dangerous. That's besides the point, though. The fact is that no one is saying that EVERYONE will die if they smoke. Maybe you think some entities are insinuating that, and maybe that's true, but that's where the BS-o-meter is supposed to kick in.
  17. quote: Originally posted by LostInSpace: quote:Originally posted by aramike: [ Do me a favor: spend an hour or two researching the data developed about smoking and second-hand smoke, and do it wiht a completely neutral and open mind. You may find a different "truth". Even if you do, though, don't back down from the basis of what you believe, because you're right: let the people decide. Trust me I do. I'm not just attacking this because I'm a smoker. I do this with everything I argue. I try to take the middle road from all the extremists. BTW: About NYC. Tell me about it. But I refuse to let anyone chase me from the city I grew up in and love no matter how tempted I am to pack it in and move to some back water canadian tundra where no one will bother me. I don't get it, then. I mean, the data on smoking is VERY conclusive. I agree that second-hand smoke is still not proven one way or the other (although, practically-speaking I know its not GOOD for you...), but I don't know HOW someone could think that smoking does NOT cause illnesses such as cancer. I think I've made such research clear in my earlier post. As for leaving the city, good thing you don't. Perhaps you can talk some sense into the politicians there.
  18. quote: Originally posted by LostInSpace: quote:Originally posted by aramike: Actually, I don't mind at all being around smoke. I spend a lot of time in casinos playing poker, and it's never gotten to me. My position is based upon facts and my belief in small government. I've only been smoking five years now. Long story. Before that, same thing, I've never had a problem with smokers or smoke being around me. I miss the smoke filled bar days now. It's to antiseptic. I also don't smoke just anywhere. Not because the goverment said so but because I find it socially respectful to do so and don't need the government telling me what to do in my private life. I live alone but I only smoke in my bathroom (not it's not a reliving some high school days I didn't smoke then either ) and whenever I'm was out at a restaurant or someones house, I always went outside long before NYC passed their complete and total no smoking in restaurants crap. Heck, I didn't even notice you were in New York until now... That sucks. AT least you're polite about it. I always was pretty good about it, but I had my moments. The thing is, everyone kept telling me how much of a pain I would become when I quit ... but I haven't, at all. See, we both think the same thing: let people choose what they want. The only difference is, I have to use what I know to be true to argue it. I have faith in that logic and it usually wins (Republican government, right?). Do me a favor: spend an hour or two researching the data developed about smoking and second-hand smoke, and do it wiht a completely neutral and open mind. You may find a different "truth". Even if you do, though, don't back down from the basis of what you believe, because you're right: let the people decide.
  19. quote: Originally posted by Jaguar: This is nothing more then Kim Jong Il, trying to suck money out of the 1st world countries that he is trying to scare. Every time he pulls this garbage, we pay him off, until he's broke again, because his economy is unsustainable. So we give him money, he plays little dictator, then when he runs out of money, he raises hell, then we give him money, and when it runs out, he raises hell, and so on and so forth. It is extortion pure and simple, and we need to quit playing and let the little pissant country collapse, and watch the citizens kill the little tinpot midget, then we go in and help them. I agree. Kim Jong Il is playing a game of squeaky wheel, and the squeemish UN and the US always seems to play along. The problem is (at least from my point-of-view), the liberals are the one with the right solution to this: blow that missile the hell up.
  20. quote: Originally posted by LostInSpace: quote:Originally posted by aramike: I can't find ANYTHING that happened to another celebrity that quite resembles what's happened to Rush. That's because he's attacked the media too. It's called payback. And proves Rush's point was factual all along: the "objective" media isn't really so objective after all.
  21. quote: Originally posted by LostInSpace: quote:Originally posted by Prez: The funny thing is, I'm an ex-smoker, and my sensitivity to 2nd hand smoke is 50 times greater now than it ever was before I smoked. It stinks, but it can't hurt you. I have stated that ex smokers are the worse. Probably seeing people smoking when they use to as well and not to mention the aroma of it. The temptation to break down and light one up must be great. I've seem a few ex smokers get crazed when another smoker gets near them. I say those are the ones behind all this. Actually, I don't mind at all being around smoke. I spend a lot of time in casinos playing poker, and it's never gotten to me. My position is based upon facts and my belief in small government.
  22. quote: Originally posted by Prez: Dude! How many times did you hit "Add Reply" anyway? Holy crap. Fixed. You know how sometimes your net connection just doesn't seem to be responding? That was one of those times. Except this board is supposed to have flood protection (I know this for a fact; I helped configure this forum) and it apparently didn't work. Heh, what I was saying was so important that it needed to be repeated. Again. And again.
  23. quote: Pure semantics. Im not arguing that the report is false, just that what has been reported is not new information nor a vindication of the WMD story. Im still waiting for the administration to support Santorums and Hoekstras claims that this is the smoking gun, but Im not going to hold my breath. I suggest you dont either.Umm, no. You said the story was "debunked". I asserted that it was not "debunked". If you want to change the scope of the story in order to debate it, go ahead ... but start another thread. The story was that declassified documents showed that WMDs were found in Iraq. That story is true, and that story (about the 500 pieces) was new. And, that story was NOT debunked. Semantics don't come into this. quote: Um yeah, I am familiar with the story. I read the article.Doubt it. Either you weren't familiar, or you didn't understand it because you said "Besides, who didn't already know the government was tracking financial transactions in an effort to hunt down terrorists?", and that wasn't at ALL the center-point to the problem over the story. So either you, like a typical liberal, IGNORED what wouldn't support your argument or you simply didn't care. quote: Rather than tussle over the details, lets take it down a notch and talk about how money moves. The only way for terrorists to avoid being traced through financial transactions is to stop using financial institutions. Thats not going to happen. At most they will reduce their usage or find other banks whose transactions circumvent the infrastructure used to transfer international funds. Guess what, there are no banks that circumvent the infrastructure, they cant because all banking transactions are regulated and will eventually pass through the gates of these clearing houses. So now all they can do is carry tons of cash around in suitcases and even at that, at some point theyll need to visit a bank to get more. You have NO IDEA how it works! There are SEVERAL clearinghouses that handles transactions. We caught the terrorists using one (S.W.I.F.T.) and were able to monitor them. Now, all they have to do is find banks not associated with SWIFT and we can't monitor said transactions. You're operating under two FALSE assumptions. 1: All banks use all clearinghouses (not even remotely true). 2: All financial clearinghouses cooperates with the US government (also not true). Seriously, why do you think that so many people are PISSED over the NY Times lack of discretion? Again, you CLEARLY either didn't read the article or you didn't understand it's implications. As far as carrying around cash in suitcases, I am trying hard not to laugh. You see, most countries have a thing called "customs" which would make "carrying suitcases" infeesible. Sure, MAYBE some would get through, but do you think terrorists with limited funds would RISK losing them? Now, however, terrorists can simply avoid banks that use SWIFT and transfer funds the practical way. Hell, the NY Times even did some of the terrorists legwork for them and told them some of the major banks that use SWIFT (which is public knowledge). quote: This is why the administration, while in talks with the NYT about the story, explained that running the story might cause these clearing house to retract their cooperation (which by the way they cannot do because the subpoenas required to gather the information are legally binding). The administration is not concerned that this information will make it harder to track the transactionsRight, that's why they're this pissed... As for these "subpoenas" which you're making up... they are NOT (or should I say, "would not" be) binding because SWIFT is based in BELGIUM, not the US. Belgium's banking laws are nearly as strict as Switzerland's, and there is no treaty governing cooperation between the US and Belgium with regards to banking and subpoenas issued by US courts. quote: ... because long before this story ran, the terrorists had already been made aware of the tracking and had begun using couriers to move some money but have not stopped using banks.Thanks for making my point. They didn't stop using banks because, practically speaking, they CAN'T (as I've illustrated). But now, they can stop using banks that use the SWIFT clearinghouse. Are you FINALLY seeing the problem here? Dude, I'm going to say this again so you can get it: NOT ALL BANKS USE THE SAME CLEARINGHOUSES AND NOT ALL TRANSACTIONS ARE REPORTED TO ALL CLEARINGHOUSES. ONLY BANKS AFFILIATED WITH A SPECIFIC CLEARINGHOUSE REPORTS TRANSACTIONS TO IT. Seriously, did you think everyone was this upset over NOTHING? Bush himself SAID that we would be monitoring financial moves of known terrorists, so that was NOT news. The news was the EXACT MANNER of which we were doing it. Now, that program is WORTHLESS. And, evidently, you're OK with that. quote: Kind of reminds me of another recent administration who coincidentally had many unflattering articles about them printed in the NYT. Only that time it was the Republicans who felt they could do nothing right. Why are we even talking about this?They didn't get HALF the bad press Bush is getting. Furthermore, they DEFENDED Clinton (that's on RECORD). Do some research, please. quote: If we continue to allow the administration to do whatever the hell they want without oversight or accountability, then well all have reasons to hide in dark placesOK, but we're NOT letting them do things without oversight. Congress was made aware of the financial program. They do need to get SOME measure of trust from us, however. The fact that a CLASSIFIED program was just leaked to the NY Times proves that perhaps LESS people should know about these things. Unless, of course, we could trust our press to not report these things. But, we can't. quote: Not a darn thingas long as they follow the policies and procedures set forth to facilitate the efforts they want to implement.We ELECT the government. The GOVERNMENT makes the rules that you want them to follow. The GOVERNMENT is also empowered to CHANGE those rules. If you don't like how the GOVERNMENT executes aforementioned responsibilities, protest at the ballot box. But don't be angry if not everyone agrees with you, either. quote: Yes it is a double edged sword. Jefferson once said of the press a government that could not stand up under criticism deserved to fall. even though he himself was the subject of such scrutiny. Clearly he understood the importance of a free press.I'll bet Jefferson didn't think that the press would have access to classified information. Furthermore, the information leaked and reported stands perfectly up to scrunity because it indicates NO wrongdoing whatsoever ... it only indicates what the administration was doing to protect us, and makes that tool useless. That's called irresponsible reporting. quote: I dont know about you, but I would much rather live in a country with freedom of the press, even if that very freedom has the potential to cause harm, than a country that has little or none like North Korea, China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and Iran.I agree with this. But restricting SOME things (such as this financial leak) would not make us into North Korea or China. Implying as much is absurd. quote: So for anyone that doesnt like a free press, there are places where you might feel right at homeAgain, absurd. The British have restrictions on the press, and they're not quite North Korea. quote: Rail on the NYT all you want, but let's not forget for every story they publish that casts the government in a bad light, there's one they didn't.Please research this and show where you get this statistic, because it's FALSE. quote: In the meantime well continue to monitor phone calls and track banking transactions in an effort to catch terrorists. Hopefully we'll catch a few doing money transfers over the phone.Unfortunately, although I know you WANT it to work like this, it doesn't. Again, come equipped with facts next time please. [ 06-29-2006, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: aramike ]
×
×
  • Create New...