Terrorists dont use credit to buy WMD!?!?

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Part of my perspective comes from lack of cynicism on this issue and my belief that I have seen nothing to indicate that the government is looking at things like credit histories for anything other than the stated purpose - to get the bad guys.

Man I love this logic: "If I haven't seen bad things happen, then they must not be happening".


I'm assumming you don't get daily personal briefings from the intelligence committee, NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland security, KenP, etc.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

But the point is - that's YOUR position. Because you don't have a problem with it - neither should anyone else, right? Hello, socialist! Just get 51% of the people to agree with you and make it so!

Yes. But you can't conversely say that, because a few people dislike what most (including the S. Ct.) consider appropriate measures to stop terrorism, that they should not be implemented.

Another thinng that increases my comfort here is that there are numerous people from the opposition party in the DHS (a fairly high-level one lives across the street from me). These people tend to leak everything that even remotely casts a shadow on the Bush administration. If they were implementing anti-terror measures as a pretext to go after your Armenian porn (deny it if you will ), Pelosi would be making a prime-time speech about it tonight. Hopefully, they would conceal your identity to protect the innocent. We really do have pretty good checks against that type of thing IMO.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

Man I love this logic: "If I haven't seen bad things happen, then they must not be happening".
I'm assumming you don't get daily personal briefings from the intelligence committee, NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland security, KenP, etc.

This is a clear example of opposing perspectives. I think we would say the flawed logic is that "If I haven't seen bad things happen, then they must ... be happening." With no trace of any evidence of abuse, I can't get worried.

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

This is a clear example of opposing perspectives. I think we would say the flawed logic is that "If I haven't seen bad things happen, then they must ... be happening." With no trace of any evidence of abuse, I can't get worried.

OK, help me out on this. You are a Marine, right? Isn't one of the fundamentals that you be prepared for the possibility of "bad things" happening even if you hadn't seen them happen?

That's EXACTLY what the founding fathers did when they created safeguards.

For you to say "With no trace of any evidence of abuse, I can't get worried." is unexpected.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

OK, help me out on this. You are a Marine, right? Isn't one of the fundamentals that you be prepared for the possibility of "bad things" happening even if you hadn't seen them happen?

That's EXACTLY what the founding fathers did when they created safeguards.

For you to say "With no trace of any evidence of abuse, I can't get worried." is unexpected.

I think a lot of this boils down to our beliefs on (1) certain presumptions and (2) the impact in context of the questioned policies.

(1) You seem to believe that, if the government is in a position to do harm, harm is done. I can't say that you are wrong; only that I disagree. I think that the government will invariiably be in a position to do harm to us all. I only have a problem when they actually do harm. For example, I do not think they should disband the National Guard just because, if an improper order is issued, they might destroy my house and kill my family with a dozen 155 mm artillery rounds. Yet, if they start employing artillery barages against our citizenry's households, I'd express some serious concerns.

(2) I just don't think the Founding Fathers issued safeguards against the government scrutinizing information like our credit histories, which are I think fairly public anyway, especially in wartime. It's just not like quartering soldiers in time of peace in violation of Amendment III to me.

I seriously would be very displeased if the government went over the line. I just haven't seen it, and I'm not going to assume that they are without any single fact (which, see above, I think would come to light if true) in support of this. On the contrary, to me, the gov't seems to be doing a remarkably difficult job of protecting us against attacks.

[KenP]

HEY!! I don't share all my info with everyone. Outline of todays' briefing:

Tuesday's Homeland Security Briefing
Press Briefing by Director of the Office of Homeland Security, Governor Tom Ridge; Director of Emergency Environmental Health Service, CDC, Dr. Pat Meehan; Deputy Postmaster General John Nolan; National Institution of Health, Dr. Anthony Fauci; Director of all Things Great, KenP
The James S. Brady Briefing Room


View the Briefing View the Briefing
Listen to the Briefing

• Alert announced by the FBI
  • Credible information received from multiple sources
  • Type of information received, credible vs. non-credible
  • Credibility of most recent threat compared to first threat
  • Info. provided to law enforcement agencies, 18,000 entities
  • One war, two battlefields
  • War to continue for indefinite period of time
• Homeland Security Council meeting review
  • Terrorist tracking task force
  • Meeting with Canadian, Mexican officials
• Anthrax situation, update
  • New York
    • Source of anthrax
    • Morgan facility in New York to remain open
  • New Jersey
  • Washington, D.C.
    • Brentwood postal workers on antibiotics
    • Environmental testing, Friendship, Dulles
    • Environmental testing, Cohen Building
• Alleged disconnect in issuance of warning, urge for normality
• Investigation status, cross-contamination, other theories
  • Risk to general public of contaminated mail
  • Testing of private residences
• Criteria for anthrax "outbreak"

10:40 A.M. EST
Director KenP: Good morning again. Welcome to what I think is becoming a daily briefing of the Office of Homeland Security. It's good to be with you again this morning. Obviously, there are a few items on the radar that we'll be discussing this morning, some you're already aware of, others you might not be. First, I'd like to talk a little bit about the alert the FBI announced last evening....

[DennisAJC]

OMG!!!! There's blood in my booger!

[bparker]

roflmfao see I told ya...

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

OMG!!!! There's blood in my booger!

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

You are a Marine, right?

FWIW, against the cliche, I do consider myself a former Marine - partly because I don't think it's fair to imply that I am still in the same class with the active duty heroes doing the difficult stuff now.

[KenP]

The basis of a democratic state is liberty; which, according to the common opinion of men, can only be enjoyed in such a state; this they affirm to be the great end of every democracy. One principle of liberty is for all to rule and be ruled in turn, and indeed democratic justice is the application of numerical not proportionate equality; whence it follows that the majority must be supreme, and that whatever the majority approve must be the end and the just. Every citizen, it is said, must have equality, and therefore in a democracy the poor have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. This, then, is one note of liberty which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their state. Another is that a man should live as he likes. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, since, on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave. This is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, to rule and be ruled in turns; and so it contributes to the freedom based upon equality.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by KenP

The basis of a democratic state is liberty; which, according to the common opinion of men, can only be enjoyed in such a state; this they affirm to be the great end of every democracy. One principle of liberty is for all to rule and be ruled in turn, and indeed democratic justice is the application of numerical not proportionate equality; whence it follows that the majority must be supreme, and that whatever the majority approve must be the end and the just. Every citizen, it is said, must have equality, and therefore in a democracy the poor have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. This, then, is one note of liberty which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their state. Another is that a man should live as he likes. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, since, on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave. This is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, to rule and be ruled in turns; and so it contributes to the freedom based upon equality.

You sound very Greek today.

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by KenP

whence

Kenny, I'm impressed at the expansion of your vocabulary. Or... did you mean to type "whelp".

[KenP]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

You sound very Greek today.

Well, I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. OH, oh, I also had a Greek salad the other day.

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by KenP

The basis of a democratic state is liberty; which, according to the common opinion of men, can only be enjoyed in such a state; this they affirm to be the great end of every democracy. One principle of liberty is for all to rule and be ruled in turn, and indeed democratic justice is the application of numerical not proportionate equality; whence it follows that the majority must be supreme, and that whatever the majority approve must be the end and the just. Every citizen, it is said, must have equality, and therefore in a democracy the poor have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. This, then, is one note of liberty which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their state. Another is that a man should live as he likes. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, since, on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave. This is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, to rule and be ruled in turns; and so it contributes to the freedom based upon equality.

I remember Steve-SanJose saying the same thing.

[KenP]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

Kenny, I'm impressed at the expansion of your vocabulary. Or... did you mean to type "whelp".

Shhhh, you make me wince.

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by KenP

Shhhh, you make me wince.

Sorry about that. I don't mean to be rude, whenceforth I should offend you.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by KenP

Well, I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. OH, oh, I also had a Greek salad the other day.

Θεωρούμε ότι το Πανεπιστήμιο δεν είναι αγωγός που οδηγεί αυτόματα στην απόκτηση του πτυχίου, με την απομνημόνευση ετοιμοπαράδοτων γνώσεων, και ότι δεν πρέπει να ανέχεται την πνευματική τυποποίηση!!!!!!!!!!

Είναι χώρος ελεύθερης διακίνησης ιδεών, που καλλιεργεί την επιστημονική πολυφωνία, και την ανάπτυξη κριτικής και αναλυτικής σκέψης, μέσα από συνεχή σχεδιασμό και δυναμική προσπάθεια. Η γνώση κατακτάται με πληρότητα όταν την αναζητεί κανείς, και όχι όταν του την επιβάλλουν.
Οι αρχές αυτές προσδιορίζουν και την έννοια του Ακαδημαϊκού ασύλου, το οποίο έχει υποστεί στην πράξη πάμπολλες στρεβλώσεις, μία από τις οποίες είναι η ταύτισή του με την άσκηση βίας. Ακαδημαϊκό άσυλο και βία είναι εξ ορισμού έννοιες αντιφατικές. Αλίμονο εάν σε μια δημοκρατία απαιτείται βία για να βιωθεί το ακαδημαϊκό άσυλο. Το άσυλο βρίσκεται στο πνεύμα μας, στην κριτική προσέγγιση, στην ελευθερία του σκέπτεσθαι, στην αναθεώρηση των γνώσεών μας, στην υπεράσπιση των δικαιωμάτων μας, αλλά εξίσου στο σεβασμό του δικαιώματος των άλλων, στη συνθετική επίλυση προβλημάτων, στην αμφισβήτηση. Με έναν λόγο: στην αγάπη για το μυαλό του άλλου. Το άσυλο είναι το πνεύμα μας και η ελευθερία του, η οποία όμως πρέπει να υποκλίνεται πρώτα στο πνεύμα και στην ελευθερία του άλλου.

[h2co-pilot]

Gawd, you guys are serious dorks sometimes.

Yes, we should ask questions. As we did when this subject came in debate 5 or 6 years ago. When something like this passes, I think about it and if I have questions- look further into it. I really put myself in the position of someone working for the sake of our saftey, think of what tools they may need and giving them them those tools. I try to look at the system as a friend and what we our doing together as a country not what the government is doing to or taking away from me.

Our founding fathers put the fundamentals of our government structures down as well as laws and our liberties. I am confident that when something like this has passed it has been thoroughly thought through. (say that 3 times fast.) It's hard to imagine that there is some conspiracy among the many elected with so many different viewpoints just passing something with the intention to fuk us over. But yes, as some of you said it's good to question- just don't be a paranoid retard.

[NewHummerGuy]

Originally Posted by KenP

Well, I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. OH, oh, I also had a Greek guy toss my salad the other day.

Better

[xburbman]

Originally Posted by KenP

The basis of a democratic state is liberty; which, according to the common opinion of men, can only be enjoyed in such a state; this they affirm to be the great end of every democracy. One principle of liberty is for all to rule and be ruled in turn, and indeed democratic justice is the application of numerical not proportionate equality; whence it follows that the majority must be supreme, and that whatever the majority approve must be the end and the just. Every citizen, it is said, must have equality, and therefore in a democracy the poor have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. This, then, is one note of liberty which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their state. Another is that a man should live as he likes. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, since, on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave. This is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, to rule and be ruled in turns; and so it contributes to the freedom based upon equality.

Indubitably! Indubitably! Hip Hip Hooray! Jolly Good Show Ole Chap!

BTW: Are those bouncing boooobs that B your avatar on an Italian chick?