Stop Unlawful Government Spying on U.S. Citizens

[10thzodiac]

We still have time to prevent this nightmare "Big Brother" bill from passing, and stop warrantless domestic spying on our phone calls and emails!

The legislation, crafted under Dick Cheney’s supervision, would authorize the U.S. government to spy on unknowing citizens, even if they have not committed a crime. A federal judge already ruled that the President's surveillance program violates the Constitution.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/295861101?z00m=5266198&z00m=5266198&ltl=1161780095 (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/295861101?z00m=5266198&z00m=5266198&ltl=1161780095)

[bootlace15]

AAAHHHHHHHHHH what a wonerful thing FREEDOM OF SPEECH?????????

bootlace15 out

[yellowwing]

No keep it! Then Hillary or Obama will have free reign in '08, and no bothersome checks and balances. (And ain't nobody going to find out what happened to Vince Foster!) :banana:

[OLE SARG]

I make ssssooooo many calls to Iraq and Iran, I REALLY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SOMEBODY MONITORING MY CALL!!!!!!!!!!!! SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GET A ****ING LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

[bootlace15]

YELLOWWING,

LOLOLO Vince Foster lolol I have'nt heard that name in a long time.lolol

bootlace15 out

[10thzodiac]

Vince is in the "Federal Witness Protection Program". They say he has been spotted in the Secret Army Underground Balloon Corps; they never did DNA on the body before cremation ? Lol.http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/29.gif

[rktect3j]

I believe in more oversight myself. We are too "free", if there is such a thing. Really those against more "big brother" are those with criminal intentions. I have nothing to be worried about so I can say we need more people watching us. People, in general, will try to get away with as much as they can.

[rktect3j]

Oversight and what I mean by it when I say we need more of it.

Example: Answer honestly. Have you ever received a speeding ticket? Or any other type of ticket by law enforcement professionals.

Most people will say yes. Now, answer honestly. Why did you receive the ticket?

Was it because you were:

a. Traveling at a rate of speed others were travelling
b. targeted by people because of race, religion, etc.
c. you thought you could get away with it.

The correct answer is of course (c) you thought that you would get away with it. It did not matter that the law states you should drive the posted speed limit. You broke the law anyways. You see as individuals we can not be trusted to do what is right. We need oversight. We need rules and laws to govern us. Some people think we should have more so called “freedom” and they frame their argument around “infringement of our civil liberties” to give more credibility to their argument. It is just simple nonsense that pays into people’s fears that “Big brother” will be watching your every move. But the truth is that we still need more people watching over us because we can not be trusted to always do what is right. We need that oversight to protect us from ourselves.

[Devildogg4ever]

The more BIG BROTHER gets in, the less freedoms we will have! Not hard to figure out!! I'm no criminal, either!!

[rktect3j]

"freedom" comes at a price. That price is the level of security you want to have. More freedom less security. More security less freedom. It is a simple equation. Being that I am not criminally motivated I can say I want more security and less freedom. That is not to say I want to have no freedoms.

[yellowwing]

But the truth is that we still need more people watching over us because we can not be trusted to always do what is right.
I understand you are talking about individuals. What about oversight on government agencies. The supposedly people's safeguard of Senate and Congressional Oversight Committees are being systematically circumvented. These agencies are no longer accountable to those who put them in power. Isn't that classic Big Brotherism?

[Devildogg4ever]

Lets put it this way, on one of my forums, someone asked a question about Hilgabeast becoming President! I made the reply that it would never happen as long as I and others still had a trigger finger! Then put alot of laughing smilies beside it!! The only ones that took it serious, was the secret service, when they come and searched my home and visited my work! Yet people in congress have said worse about the President, and nothing was said!! Thats a little bit too much of big brother!!!

[rktect3j]

Lets put it this way, on one of my forums, someone asked a question about Hilgabeast becoming President! I made the reply that it would never happen as long as I and others still had a trigger finger! Then put alot of laughing smilies beside it!! The only ones that took it serious, was the secret service, when they come and searched my home and visited my work! Yet people in congress have said worse about the President, and nothing was said!! Thats a little bit too much of big brother!!!
No it isn't. You should not be able to make any threats towards another. It is that simple. Why should we not take you seriously? BEcause you put a smilie face at the end to denote you are only kidding? That is rediculous. Do you think for one moment that a real threat wouldn't do the same? Go look at that case over in Canada where some nut went and shot up his college campus. He was on web sites all the time with him telling people he was going to do something like it. People probably thought he was just joking. Then one day he goes and does it. How can I tell you apart from him? The smilie face, right?

[Devildogg4ever]

Oh, pleeeeeeeeeese! You made your reply, I've made mine!!!

[rktect3j]

Oversight (laws) are in place because people either do not have/use common sense or just plain ignore it. Just my opinion.

[Devildogg4ever]

But the truth is that we still need more people watching over us because we can not be trusted to always do what is right.

Let me guess, you trust our govenment that much??

[rktect3j]

Let me guess, you trust our govenment that much??
Nope. I just mistrust you more.

[ggyoung]

If anybody wants to spy on me they can. I have nothing to hide. Maybe sombody will see how poor I am and give lots money. Then I can buy more guns.

[Devildogg4ever]

Actually, it's people like you that have the secret service waste time and money, checking out people like me! If they were so serious and thought I was any real danger, then why did it take them a month to show up, after they told me they were coming? Could have hid anything I wanted or come up with any story I wanted! Makes sense, huh?

[rktect3j]

Actually, it's people like you that have the secret service waste time and money, checking out people like me! If they were so serious and thought I was any real danger, then why did it take them a month to show up, after they told me they were coming? Could have hid anything I wanted or come up with any story I wanted! Makes sense, huh?
Really? You want to place the blame for your actions and then the reactions of the secret service on my plate? Rediculous. You made a choice. Provided a statment and then faced the consequences for those actions. In this country you can say anything you want from any point within our borders but you have to be ready to pay the piper. You played the game and lost. I'm not sorry about that. The system wouldn't be so overloaded if there weren't even more people the secret service had to go look at for no apparent reason. Why force them to waste more of our money?

[Devildogg4ever]

Nope. I just mistrust you more.

Looks like you put the blame on me first for need of more of BIG Brother! I get the feeling if there had been more people, putting alot of trust in big brother through the years, we would be speaking a different language!!

On a more serious note, where do you want to draw the line on what areas is to be private to big brother?? Cams in all homes?? See what food you buy? How far do you think they need to go? The more we give them, the more they will try to take. It's been getting worse through the years.

[rktect3j]

On a more serious note, where do you want to draw the line on what areas is to be private to big brother?? Cams in all homes?? See what food you buy? How far do you think they need to go? The more we give them, the more they will try to take. It's been getting worse through the years.
I don't know where to draw that line. I think it moves from day to day. Our needs change from day to day. Like I said to gain more security we have to give up freedoms. I don't want all my freedoms gone for absolute security. Maybe the system is just righting itself from the damage done in the 60's and 70's. Maybe it will go too far and there will be another course correction. Do I want a camera in my home? No. Do I want one at the corner of a busy street? yes.

[Devildogg4ever]

I can understand possibly keeping up with emails, but not phone calls!!! If I'm paying, as they say, for a private line and number, no one should access it! It should be between me and the other individual, no one else.

[rktect3j]

I can understand possibly keeping up with emails, but not phone calls!!! If I'm paying, as they say, for a private line and number, no one should access it! It should be between me and the other individual, no one else.
It is sad that we live in a time when that sort of action could be needed. I don't think I like the idea that people are listening to my private conversations. But at the most I will only be embarrased for the things I say. Nobody would be able to exploit me for the things I talk about on a phone or by email or by internet. Still, I can also see how monitoring could help catch criminals. Being who I am, I am willing to be embarrased for what I might say for that level of protection.

I think that if you are looking for a private conversation between yourself and another it is best to do it in person. That way you know exactly who knows what you said.

[10thzodiac]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Hume), he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here (http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605) includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Many variants derived from this phrase have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"

[rktect3j]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Hume), he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here (http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605) includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Many variants derived from this phrase have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"


Glad to see you posted the correct version as I have seen many countless rediculous variants of it. I agree with it completly. Essential liberties for little temporary safety is a complete waste. But non essential liberties for a more permanent safety would be a compromise most should be willing to make.

Good post zodiac.

[Camper51]

You made the serious mistake of threatening a public official then you cry and whine that the Secret Service came to your house and abused your rights!!!! Give me a freaking break. <br />
<br />
YOU...

[6yrforMar]

Oversight in place because people have no common sense or purposely break the law because they can get away with it.As far as the Fed. Gov. doing wiretaps or watching Emails they are not going to waste their time & energy on you or me unless you are communicating with Hamas,Hezzbalah,Al Queda and the like or Afaganistan,Iraq,Iran,Indonesia,Etc.

[ggyoung]

:thumbup: Camper51

[10thzodiac]

Glad to see you posted the correct version as I have seen many countless rediculous variants of it. I agree with it completly. Essential liberties for little temporary safety is a complete waste. But non essential liberties for a more permanent safety would be a compromise most should be willing to make.

Good post zodiac.


If you know who said this, I don't think that is a good idea !

"The foundation of [our government] is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. [We] conceive of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State....

[Our] State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to [our government] as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For, if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that [our government] has created a living faith...."

SF
10th

[10thzodiac]

http://www.marxists.org/slovenian/trocki/1940s/fasizem/hitler-mussolini.jpg

"The foundation of [our government] is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. [We] conceive of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State....

[Our] State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to [our government] as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For, if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that [our government] has created a living faith...."

[Devildogg4ever]

I know that you will poo poo this as all much ado about nothing, but that shows your true concern and mentality now, doesn't it??

I was trying to make a point that MOST of the time it was a waste of time and money, thats all. The secret service agree, and so did I. They said that 95% is bull and they know it. That 4% say it out of pure anger and the last 1% might be serious & mean what they say. They also said that most of the serious ones won't be found out til AFTER the crime! I don't blame anyone, but me!!!

[rktect3j]

If you know who said this, I don't think that is a good idea !


[Our] State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
I understand what you are saying but I think it borders on absolutism. When I said I was willing to give up a non-essential freedom I did not mean that I was willing to be stripped away of every non-essential freedom. That would be absurd. So you can see why I might not think that your quote applies to me or our situation. Although it is always good to have a watchdog group out there making sure this country does not go down that path I think that the concern for this happening may be a bit premature. Also, another thought would be that it can actually be used for one sides advantage by playing into the fears of the American people while leaving us less safe in the end.

[OLE SARG]

Some people cannot equate freedom and the security it takes to have those freedoms!!!
Somebody has been on one of those wacko leftist sites again!!!!!!
Next thing you know, we'll have the ****heads from the aclu banging away at even more of our freedoms - I am more afriad of those commies than anyone!!!!!! Perverts, murders, and traitors have rights too - MY ASS!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

[10thzodiac]

&quot;Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one...

[rktect3j]

that is very unfortunate for those suckered in by them.

Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension):
attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.

Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics):
saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, then bad things would ensue.

Special Pleading (Stacking The Deck):
using the arguments that support your position, but ignoring or somehow disallowing the arguments against.


Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more.

Fallacy Of The General Rule:
assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case.

Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification):
over-simplifying.

Argument From Age (Wisdom of the Ancients):
snobbery that very old (or very young) arguments are superior.

Argument From Authority:
the claim that the speaker is an expert, and so should be trusted.

[rktect3j]

"Give government the weapons to fight your enemy and it will use them against you."

Why and or how is this true 100% of the time. If it is not true 100% of the time then it is not true now is it? In order for the quote to have credibility we must prove it accurate and or true otherwise it is just words strung together to look pretty.

[OLE SARG]

Make a comment and get a ****ing book, with all the accessories, for a reply!!!!!!
"May the left die in its own spewing feces!" Ole Sarg - 2006

SEMPER FI,

[10thzodiac]

"Give government the weapons to fight your enemy and it will use them against you."

Why and or how is this true 100% of the time. If it is not true 100% of the time then it is not true now is it? In order for the quote to have credibility we must prove it accurate and or true otherwise it is just words strung together to look pretty.



"Give government the weapons (your liberties) to fight your enemy and it will use them against you."

"Government is not reason, and it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master: never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -- A popular Americanism of unknown origin, usually attributed to George Washington (http://www.randomterrain.com/quotes/government.html), although no one I know of has proven his authorship. Nomatter, it's true, it's popular, and I won't let it die. You may as well attribute it to yourself to avoid getting sidetracked into arguments about quotations instead of about rights. Using unverifiable quotations plays into the hands of the enemies of individual rights, as they can then focus only on the quotations, and not the concepts

"The truth is still the truth no matter what you want to believe."

SF

10th<O:p</O:p

[rktect3j]

"Give government the weapons (your liberties) to fight your enemy and it will use them against you."

SF

10th<O:p</O:p

Too overly pessimistic and narrow of a view. Your "liberties" that are used against you in this case may be used for your protection not for your detriment. If you did not give these "liberties" or portions of them then your government has no weapon to protect you. We can not do it with a smile. Our enemies don't fight that way.

Simply put there are no absolutes in which you are trying to work within.

[yellowwing]

that is very unfortunate for those suckered in by them.

Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension):
attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.

Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics):
saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, then bad things would ensue.

Special Pleading (Stacking The Deck):
using the arguments that support your position, but ignoring or somehow disallowing the arguments against.


Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more.

Fallacy Of The General Rule:
assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case.

Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification):
over-simplifying.

Argument From Age (Wisdom of the Ancients):
snobbery that very old (or very young) arguments are superior.

Argument From Authority:
the claim that the speaker is an expert, and so should be trusted.
Good find! This is all you hear from all political pundits and opinionists.

But folks are becoming better educated and these tactics are not as effective. So the solution seems to be to raise more money to shout them more often and even louder. :sick:

[OLE SARG]

Keep Listening, And Believing, The Left And Perish! Ole Sarg - 2006

Semper Fi,

[10thzodiac]

"When they took the 4th amendment away, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th amendment away, I was quiet because I had never been arrested. When they took the 2nd amendment away, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun. Now they've taken away the 1st amendment, and all I can do is be quiet." -- Fred Albury

[Camper51]

"When they took the 4th amendment away, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th amendment away, I was quiet because I had never been arrested. When they took the 2nd amendment away, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun. Now they've taken away the 1st amendment, and all I can do is be quiet." -- Fred Albury

You have just proven yourself wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!where and how can you absolutely prove to me and everyone else that this is a fact? Your proof must be that this is now the LAW OF THE LAND and not an isolated error.

All four of these amendments is fully in place and fully in effect.

Like you and I the constitution is a living document and is subject to some changes and modifications to serve what is current and relevant. It alwas has been and always will be...

Do you also state that what you felt and thought at age 10 is the same as you think and feel today and that you have NEVER changed a position on anything you ever had a position on???

[rktect3j]

You have just proven yourself wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!where and how can you absolutely prove to me and everyone else that this is a fact? Your proof must be that this is now the LAW OF THE LAND and not an isolated error.

All four of these amendments is fully in place and fully in effect.
Cuz we have checks and balances in place to protect us from this happening.

[drumcorpssnare]

10thzodiac- Quite a list of quotes! Looks like you did some homework. Too bad bad that quotes don't protect law abiding American citizens from terrorists. Or from criminals who's lawyers use every trick, and loophole in the book to set them free. So they can commit more crimes.

I notice you are very adept at using the words of others. I am interested in hearing YOUR words. Please tell us how YOU would solve the problem of global terrorism. Or let's make it a little easier. Just the terrorists who reside in this country. How would YOU deal with KNOWN CRIMINALS who constantly seem to slip through the cracks of justice, and end up back on the streets.
You seem to come across like the ONLY thing important in America is the rights of the individual. Freedom.
Have you ever commented on the fact that much of what we take for granted are not RIGHTS....but PRIVELAGES? Have you ever spoken of the RESPONSIBILITY that goes along with FREEDOM?

Do tell us how you would "provide for the domestic tranquility," and NEVER, EVER step on anyone's toes in the process. Can't wait to hear YOUR solutions to our country's problems.

P.S.- Remember, we can't hurt anybody's feelings now. Gotta be 100% politically correct too.

[OLE SARG]

drumcorpssnare,
I'm waiting for his response to this one - it ought to be good!!!!

SEMPER FI,

[Camper51]

I'm jumping in line..................

Betcha he can't do it without quoting someone else!!!!!!!!!!!!

[drumcorpssnare]

Betcha he can't do it......PERIOD!!!:banana:

[redneck13]

If the gov't would do more watchin' of itself, maybe we wouldn't have to have them watchin' us. I think it sucks.
You can get on this internet and for a price you can find out about anyone, so why do we need the gov't spending all the money to spy on us? Maybe they don't have to pay? There is a thing called the fourth amendment, and only the good will keep themselves out of harms way. We don't need anymore than what we already have with the stupid gov't watching us, or lil' ol' Ladie's at airport's. Makes me sick......they all suck!!!

[rktect3j]

Little old ladies are the number one people I don't trust. Watch em. It's their eyes. All shifty and shiat.

[Camper51]

Hey don't tell 10thzodiac about the 4th amendment. He thinks it doesn't exist anymore cuz it got taken away!!!!!!!!!

[10thzodiac]

Camper51: Betcha he can't do it without quoting someone else!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

10th: "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody". ~ Bill Cosby

drumcorpssnare:Betcha he can't do it......PERIOD!!!

10th: ". "

Irktect3j: I believe in more oversight myself. We are too "free", if there is such a thing. Really those against more "big brother" are those with criminal intentions. I have nothing to be worried about so I can say we need more people watching us. People, in general, will try to get away with as much as they can.

10th: "If you don't have the right to do something wrong, you don't have any rights at all." -- Gene Burnsat Faneuil Hall, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City><ST1:place>Boston</ST1:place></st1:City>, <st1:date Month="9" Day="29" Year="1996">9/29/1996</st1:date>
<st1:date Month="9" Day="29" Year="1996"></st1:date>
<st1:date Month="9" Day="29" Year="1996">OLD SARGE: Some people cannot equate freedom and the security it takes to have those freedoms!!!
Somebody has been on one of those wacko leftist sites again!!!!!!
Next thing you know, we'll have the ****heads from the aclu banging away at even more of our freedoms - I am more afriad of those commies than anyone!!!!!! Perverts, murders, and traitors have rights too - MY ASS!!!!!!</st1:date>
<st1:date Month="9" Day="29" Year="1996"></st1:date>
<st1:date Month="9" Day="29" Year="1996">Larry Flynt: "If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you."


</st1:date><?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p></O:p>

[yellowwing]

Go Scumbag Larry! :banana:

Seriously though, the ACLU are lawyers and they do their job, no matter the client.

Police unions have lawyers and they do their job. Folks don't rag on them saying they only encourage police brutality.

If a lawyer is representing me I don't want him telling me, "Listen, I golf with the other guy and he's pretty cool. I think I'm gonna take his side."

[OLE SARG]

Beling a lawyer is a dirty job, but some ****head has to do it. I put lawyers and politicians in the same category!!!!

aclu have lawyers and to say they do their job is an overstatement. When you have "lawyers" raving about rights for child molestors and cop killers - that puts these scum lawyers in another class of 'LOW'.

SEMPER FI,

[yellowwing]

A guy walks into a bar complaining loudly about, "Azzhole lawyers." At the end of the bar he hears, "Hey buddy, I take offense to that!"

The guy replies, "What? Are you a lawyer?"

"No, I'm an azzhole!" :banana:

[OLE SARG]

Good one Wing!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

[rktect3j]

"If you don't have the right to do something wrong, you don't have any rights at all." -- Gene Burnsat Faneuil Hall, Boston, 9/29/1996

Tell that to the victims. I am sure it will make them feel better.

[10thzodiac]

The surest defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized. Our job is to recognize that terrorism is just one of the risks we face, and not a particularly common one at that. And our job is to fight those politicians who use fear as an excuse to take away (http://www.schneier.com/essay-045.html) our liberties and promote security theater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater) that wastes money and doesn't make us any safer.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/what_the_terror.html

[rktect3j]

So fix it already. You seem to know exactly what is wrong. With that knowledge you should be able to fix it.

[drumcorpssnare]

rktect3j- Geez, didn't you read 10th's last post? He says we just need to "refuse to be terrorized." So, if I go out in public, cross my arms, lean back just a little, and proclaim in a loud voice, "I WILL NOT BE TERRORIZED!!!", I will not have anything to worry about. 10th says we need to 'recognize the risk.' And in fact, I do recognize that when some crazy terrorist flies a jet into the side of a skyscraper, there IS a risk to all involved.

(Pushed my 'Easy Button.') :banana:

How much simpler could it be???

P.S.- 10thzodiac should change his handle to 'section 8'

[OLE SARG]

I'll second the name change to "Section 8" for 10thzodiac!!!!

I too refuse to be terrorized!!!!

SEMPER FI,

[10thzodiac]

drumcorpssnare, you and rktect3j should be in charge of the FBI, I'm sure even with one whose drum is stretched a little to to tight that the two of you wouldn't ignore FBI field agents warnings,...

[drumcorpssnare]

10thzodiac- I'm quite comfortable with my identity, thank-you. Aside from earning 5 World Championship titles with a civilian drum corps....I'm a former U.S. Marine! A half dozen times or so in my life, I've had total strangers ask me if I was a Marine. I would answer in the affirmative. They would say, "I could tell by the way you carry yourself." Happily married, succesful career, avid military historian, good health...I'm doin' O.K. But really, thanks for your concern.

....And now...on with the show!:banana:

[10thzodiac]

Don't ask, don't tell !

[Camper51]

Well, it looks like we were all right................ Ha ha ha ha ha ha

[10thzodiac]

Is that passive or overt ?

[OLE SARG]

Sounds like name-calling to me!!!!!!!!!!!!! I got a "don't do that anymore" warning for a minor violation - questioning someone's sexual preference makes one wonder about the name-caller!!!!!!! I would question the leftist name-caller and his gender!!

SEMPER FI,

[10thzodiac]

Sounds like name-calling to me!!!!!!!!!!!!! I got a "don't do that anymore" warning for a minor violation - questioning someone's sexual preference makes one wonder about the name-caller!!!!!!! I would question the leftist name-caller and his gender!!

SEMPER FI,


I AGREE WITH YOU OLE SARGE BUT IT IS YOU AND YOUR BUDDY, THAT STARTED THIS HOMO CRAP, THE SECTION 8 NAME CALLING, ARE YOU HAVING A SENIORS MOMENT AND FORGOT ?

<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 200495" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>drumcorpssnare</TD><TD class=alt2>rktect3j- Geez, didn't you read 10th's last post? He says we just need to "refuse to be terrorized." So, if I go out in public, cross my arms, lean back just a little, and proclaim in a loud voice, "I WILL NOT BE TERRORIZED!!!", I will not have anything to worry about. 10th says we need to 'recognize the risk.' And in fact, I do recognize that when some crazy terrorist flies a jet into the side of a skyscraper, there IS a risk to all involved.

(Pushed my 'Easy Button.') :banana:

How much simpler could it be???

P.S.- 10thzodiac should change his handle to 'section 8'

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 200500" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>OLE SARG</TD><TD class=alt2>I'll second the name change to "Section 8" for 10thzodiac!!!!

I too refuse to be terrorized!!!!

SEMPER FI,

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[OLE SARG]

10thzodiac,
In a moment of weakness I sunk to your level.........I apologize!!!!!!!

You have to admit though that some of your quotes and far-left rhetoric bring on some of the comments you get.

SEMPER FI,

[sgt tony]

well they can listen in on all my phone calls and read all my e-mail i don't have a thing to hide big brother don't make me shake or cry

[10thzodiac]

10thzodiac,
In a moment of weakness I sunk to your level.........I apologize!!!!!!!

You have to admit though that some of your quotes and far-left rhetoric bring on some of the comments you get.

SEMPER FI,


OLD SARGE, THIS IS WHAT I ADMIT TO:

I am neither a "liberal Democrat" nor a "conservative Republican. In fact, I don't believe in labels. But I'm not indifferent to the quality of life in the United States. Accordingly, I believe that I should:

1. Advocate for the sovereignty and security of the nation while guarding our personal freedoms and restraining the growth and power of the federal government and its involvement in wars of folly.
2. Defend and work to strengthen the traditional values of American democracy, including active concern for the poor and disenfranchised.
3. Advocate for the rooting out of waste and corruption in government.
4. Demand federal policies that are responsive to the needs and interests of all communities, including access to adequate, affordable health care.
5. Demand such policies and practices as are committed to the conscientious use of natural resources such as protect ocean, wilderness and wildlife, fresh water, air, and otherwise ensure a clean, safe environment.
6. Work to ensure education policies that recognize the role of parents and local communities, encouraging constructive innovation, enhancement of school choice, and overall improvement of the quality of education.
7. Advocate for policies that stimulate a robust free and fair market economy as encourages economic development, strengthens American agriculture, and fosters job creation and entrepreneurship, especially in emerging technologies.
8. Advocate for increasing opportunities and incentives for citizen involvement in the political and legislative process as well as eliminating the influence of special interest lobbies.

Sworn by me in October, 1960 the Oath of Enlistment

I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

My service in the Marine Corps ended in 1966. But my commitment to the oath taken has not and will not.

Note (below): The oath of enlistment prior to May, 1960 did not use the terminology "against all enemies foreign and domestic".

The first oath under the United States Constitution was approved Sept. 29, 1789. It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read:

"I, ______, do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read: "I, _____, do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposer's whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." The next section of that chapter specified that "the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established."

Finally, a change on May 5, 1960, replaced the wording first adopted in 1789 and an amendment effective Oct. 5, 1962, further changed our oath of enlistment to its current reading.

SF

I'm proud that I like you, am among those who have solemnly sworn to support and defend...

10thzodiac :usmc:

[rktect3j]

You still have to pick a side. You can not hide behind the "no label fits me" mentality. One side or the other or just keep pretending.

[10thzodiac]

You still have to pick a side. You can not hide behind the "no label fits me" mentality. One side or the other or just keep pretending.


America isn't about taking sides like Iraq, we are all Americans here, we had our Civil War and the United States of America prevailed (Union). Come on board for America instead of dividing her with pick a side, your are either with us or against us mentality.

If this is just a 'last word thing' with you, you have my blessings !

SF

10th

[MIKECHRY]

Let A Judge Decide. Get A Warrant!!!

[MIKECHRY]

Congress Needs To Stay Out Of Our Personal Lives And Deal With The "important Stuff" Like Inflation And Terrorism.

[rktect3j]

America isn't about taking sides like Iraq, we are all Americans here, we had our Civil War and the United States of America prevailed (Union). Come on board for America instead of dividing her with pick a side, your are either with us or against us mentality.

If this is just a 'last word thing' with you, you have my blessings !

SF

10th
Sounds like you want me to pick the side of "come on board for America". Except that the sides have already been decided. They both believe they do what is right for America. Are you trying to make a new side? I haven't seen anything new on your platform that isn't already incorporated in the other two sides.

[rktect3j]

America isn't about taking sides like Iraq, we are all Americans here, we had our Civil War and the United States of America prevailed (Union). Come on board for America instead of dividing her with pick a side, your are either with us or against us mentality.

If this is just a 'last word thing' with you, you have my blessings !

SF

10th
Tell you what. I don't really know your side. Tell me who to vote for that is on board this bandwagon. Give me the names. I am sure you can provide me with a list. Seriously. Lets see the list already so I know what I am looking at.

[rktect3j]

It's been almost 24 hours. What, no list? I'd really like to know who is on board.

[drumcorpssnare]

10thzodiac- Our ideologies are really not THAT far apart. Consider your recent posting of 8 things you would like to see:

To the following degree, I agree with you....
1.) first 9 words.
2.) first 11 words.
3.) all
4.) first 14 words.
5.) middle of road approach to this issue.
6.) all
7.) all
8.) all

For me, my biting rhetoric toward you is based on my perception that the 'terrorists' deserve a break, in your view. I, like the majority of Americans, don't believe they deserve any slack at all. They are "un-uniformed" armed combatants. If they "fought by the rules," I would accord them the standard "rules of warfare," (i.e.- Geneva Conventions) It is "they" who are choosing the sneaky, nearly impossible to tell who's the bad guy, style of fighting.
From your posts, you SEEM to infer that this is okay.
Also, you talk a lot about govt. sponsored 'fear.' I don't think most Americans are afraid. A little inconvenienced maybe, (airport security, etc.) but definitely not afraid. We're a tough breed of people. When pushed hard enough by the bad guys...we will demand that our govt. push back.
Lastly, my alluding to a sect. 8 was in regards to strong left-wing opinions. I never made any comments regarding your gender preference, etc.

SEMPER FI
drumcorpssnare:usmc: