Jimmy Buffett discussion
https://www.buffettnews.com/forum/
which seems fine to some as long as they are not listening in on their call to Domino'sbumper wrote:Say what you will about Bush and Iraq and Iran or Clinton and his actions....terrorists are here to stay with the simple goal of making your (an American) life, a short lived one.
if this is illegal and outside the purview of executorial powers "pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."flyboy55 wrote:Thanks for the link. I read it. I'm already familiar with Echelon. I've actually read Mike Frost's book. Yes we have been spied on by NSA for years - illegally as was outlined in your link. Various allied intelligence services have been using Echelon to circumvent domestic surveillance laws by doing each other's dirty work.
The current expansion of NSA's activities into building a surveillance database with the collusion of telephone and internet service providers is a new and also illegal activity. The telephone companies who cooperated with NSA by giving them access have arguably broken the law.
I'm not alone in worrying about this. Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican head of the Senate Judiciary Committee is also concerned at the administration's lack of accountability and has threatened to cut NSA funding if they don't submit to Congressional oversight. Guess he must be one of those Dems on a witch hunt.
http://news.com.com/NSA+spying+comes+un ... 66123.html
While you might wish to maintain that Bush is just doing what Clinton did, your argument wouldn't be supported by the facts. However, I didn't start this thread to bash Bush or defend Clinton. I started this thread to bash NSA. If Bush happens to support the illegal activities of NSA and gets bashed, well I'd just call it collateral damage.
Furthermore, it isn't a question of whether or not your brother respects people in positions of authority, or obeys the instructions of police officers. The question is, should your brother (or anyone's brother or sister for that matter) submit to having his privacy regularly and routinely invaded by the government?
There is a convenient label for people who think that the needs and priviledges of the State should come before the needs and priviledges of the citizens, or that the citizens' first duty is towards the State. Back when I studied history we called these people Stalinists or Nazis. Take your pick.
Their job was to protect the citizens of London, using escalating means if necessary. Have you ever taken someone to the ground? They still have use of their hands and could conceivably detonate a device if wearing one. The London trains had just been bombed. This guy was acting strange, when requested to stop for questioning he ran, jumped over the trunstiles to get to the trains. what were they supposed to do. Oh, he's not going to do anything let him go.RinglingRingling wrote:their job was not to be judge, jury, and executioner. their job was to prevent him from exploding what they thought (incorrectly) to be a bomb. Having subdued him on the floor of the subway car, shooting him in the head was NOT part of the job.
And this is the part of it that scares me the most in your whole line of reasoning: "They did their jobs, and I am glad to say their bosses saw it the same way". Evidently as long as you have a belief that someone is doing something wrong, which was reached by subjective means, it's ok to execute them when taken to a ridiculous conclusion. You're almost saying, "What the heck, he was innocent, but what's one innocent life really worth?"
You are assuming that I mean protection of the poplace to be only from physical harm. I did not day that. Maybe it woul dhave been more accurate of me to say protect and nuture the populace because I believe that you must do those other things you listed. However in time of war it comes down to physical survival. you must be alive to enjoy the national parks.Quiet and Shy wrote:If you define our government's purpose as solely one of protecting the citizenry, then yes, you are indeed defining things much more narrowly. What about Medicare, Social Security, Education, Economic and Monetary Policy, Trade, National Parks, etc.?
Operations in Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden (a specific target based on data)? Yep, no question. The war in Iraq (based on the data the US had at the time and no Bin Laden link)? No. It's a horrible mistake that has served to alienate and pour more fuel on the terrorists' fire, upset the balance of power in a strategically volatile yet important region, and cost significant diplomatic power and leverage with allies and other more neutral countries around the world. And, because it's been so poorly planned and managed, it's a US-made mess...and we have a responsibility to try and clean it up...so I completely support our troops through this effort.
In my voting life I've always leaned Republican, but George Bush has proven to be an arrogant and inept imperialist who continues to demonstrate poor judgement that just puts us at further risk. This is why I have a problem with Bush's selective obedience to and enforcement of existing law -- he's a loose and very dangerous cannon that someone needs to reign in and keep an eye on.
The NSA thing...it's being discussed this week because it's in the news. Honestly, I really don't care too much about that particular point. It's just another piece of the big picture.
Both.green1 wrote:Quiet and Shy wrote:If you define our government's purpose as solely one of protecting the citizenry, then yes, you are indeed defining things much more narrowly. What about Medicare, Social Security, Education, Economic and Monetary Policy, Trade, National Parks, etc.?
Operations in Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden (a specific target based on data)? Yep, no question. The war in Iraq (based on the data the US had at the time and no Bin Laden link)? No. It's a horrible mistake that has served to alienate and pour more fuel on the terrorists' fire, upset the balance of power in a strategically volatile yet important region, and cost significant diplomatic power and leverage with allies and other more neutral countries around the world. And, because it's been so poorly planned and managed, it's a US-made mess...and we have a responsibility to try and clean it up...so I completely support our troops through this effort.
In my voting life I've always leaned Republican, but George Bush has proven to be an arrogant and inept imperialist who continues to demonstrate poor judgement that just puts us at further risk. This is why I have a problem with Bush's selective obedience to and enforcement of existing law -- he's a loose and very dangerous cannon that someone needs to reign in and keep an eye on.
The NSA thing...it's being discussed this week because it's in the news. Honestly, I really don't care too much about that particular point. It's just another piece of the big picture.
It is interesting that you say the war in Iraq is not linked to the hunt for Bin Laden, but then you say that our presence there feeds the terrorists. Which is it?
Like I said, Iraq pourd fuel on the fire. It gives the terrorists more propaganda and reasons to recruit followers and attack the US because the US is seen as an aggressor...we've definately flamed the fires on this one.... It's just not smart (aside from all the other rationale around the Iraq war).green1 wrote:You are assuming that I mean protection of the poplace to be only from physical harm. I did not day that. Maybe it woul dhave been more accurate of me to say protect and nuture the populace because I believe that you must do those other things you listed. However in time of war it comes down to physical survival. you must be alive to enjoy the national parks.Quiet and Shy wrote:If you define our government's purpose as solely one of protecting the citizenry, then yes, you are indeed defining things much more narrowly. What about Medicare, Social Security, Education, Economic and Monetary Policy, Trade, National Parks, etc.?
Operations in Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden (a specific target based on data)? Yep, no question. The war in Iraq (based on the data the US had at the time and no Bin Laden link)? No. It's a horrible mistake that has served to alienate and pour more fuel on the terrorists' fire, upset the balance of power in a strategically volatile yet important region, and cost significant diplomatic power and leverage with allies and other more neutral countries around the world. And, because it's been so poorly planned and managed, it's a US-made mess...and we have a responsibility to try and clean it up...so I completely support our troops through this effort.
In my voting life I've always leaned Republican, but George Bush has proven to be an arrogant and inept imperialist who continues to demonstrate poor judgement that just puts us at further risk. This is why I have a problem with Bush's selective obedience to and enforcement of existing law -- he's a loose and very dangerous cannon that someone needs to reign in and keep an eye on.
The NSA thing...it's being discussed this week because it's in the news. Honestly, I really don't care too much about that particular point. It's just another piece of the big picture.
It is interesting that you say the war in Iraq is not linked to the hunt for Bin Laden, but then you say that our presence there feeds the terrorists. Which is it? Have you read anything on the resontruction of Germany after WWII. The same things being said here and now were said then and there. From not having a plan for the peace to it's about the money. The only difference is that I don't think Haliburton was around then. Accroding to the media Reagan was a loose and dangerous cannon as well. yet now he is lauded as having a kep role in winning the cold war.
I don't care about the NSA thing either. Let them use the tools at their disposal to hunt down and kill those that want to kill us.
And we just gave them all more reason to hate the US. And messed up the region's balance of power...and the result is an Iraq that will likely be friendly to Iran, an Iran that has more reason to resist the US, and a Palestine run by a strongly anti-American, anti-Israeli party...a chain reaction that we initiated.jonesbeach10 wrote:Both.green1 wrote:Quiet and Shy wrote:If you define our government's purpose as solely one of protecting the citizenry, then yes, you are indeed defining things much more narrowly. What about Medicare, Social Security, Education, Economic and Monetary Policy, Trade, National Parks, etc.?
Operations in Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden (a specific target based on data)? Yep, no question. The war in Iraq (based on the data the US had at the time and no Bin Laden link)? No. It's a horrible mistake that has served to alienate and pour more fuel on the terrorists' fire, upset the balance of power in a strategically volatile yet important region, and cost significant diplomatic power and leverage with allies and other more neutral countries around the world. And, because it's been so poorly planned and managed, it's a US-made mess...and we have a responsibility to try and clean it up...so I completely support our troops through this effort.
In my voting life I've always leaned Republican, but George Bush has proven to be an arrogant and inept imperialist who continues to demonstrate poor judgement that just puts us at further risk. This is why I have a problem with Bush's selective obedience to and enforcement of existing law -- he's a loose and very dangerous cannon that someone needs to reign in and keep an eye on.
The NSA thing...it's being discussed this week because it's in the news. Honestly, I really don't care too much about that particular point. It's just another piece of the big picture.
It is interesting that you say the war in Iraq is not linked to the hunt for Bin Laden, but then you say that our presence there feeds the terrorists. Which is it?
I think that prior to invading Iraq, the government was totalitarian, but stable and relatively free of terrorists. We went in because Saddam was not US-friendly in the least bit, and because we thought he was creating a program for building WMD's that he would use against America, Israel, and our allies. However, now because of the insurgency that filled the vaccuum created by the toppling of Saddam's regime, terrorist recruits are coming from all over the Middle East who are outraged at the American presence in Iraq.
I, for one, am completely ok with terrorists going to Iraq. Said it before and I'll say it again... terrorists going to Iraq are headed to the one place in the world that we are on the lookout and have enough firepower to deal effectively with them. Being over there makes it easier for us to make them dead.jonesbeach10 wrote:Both.green1 wrote:Quiet and Shy wrote:If you define our government's purpose as solely one of protecting the citizenry, then yes, you are indeed defining things much more narrowly. What about Medicare, Social Security, Education, Economic and Monetary Policy, Trade, National Parks, etc.?
Operations in Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden (a specific target based on data)? Yep, no question. The war in Iraq (based on the data the US had at the time and no Bin Laden link)? No. It's a horrible mistake that has served to alienate and pour more fuel on the terrorists' fire, upset the balance of power in a strategically volatile yet important region, and cost significant diplomatic power and leverage with allies and other more neutral countries around the world. And, because it's been so poorly planned and managed, it's a US-made mess...and we have a responsibility to try and clean it up...so I completely support our troops through this effort.
In my voting life I've always leaned Republican, but George Bush has proven to be an arrogant and inept imperialist who continues to demonstrate poor judgement that just puts us at further risk. This is why I have a problem with Bush's selective obedience to and enforcement of existing law -- he's a loose and very dangerous cannon that someone needs to reign in and keep an eye on.
The NSA thing...it's being discussed this week because it's in the news. Honestly, I really don't care too much about that particular point. It's just another piece of the big picture.
It is interesting that you say the war in Iraq is not linked to the hunt for Bin Laden, but then you say that our presence there feeds the terrorists. Which is it?
snip
However, now because of the insurgency that filled the vaccuum created by the toppling of Saddam's regime, terrorist recruits are coming from all over the Middle East who are outraged at the American presence in Iraq.
You people don't get it. We did not "flame the fire" prior to September 11, 2001. In fact, we downplayed everything they did. Blow up a navy ship... bomb the WTC ('93, I believe), etc. etc. Our response was muted at best.Quiet and Shy wrote:Like I said, Iraq pourd fuel on the fire. It gives the terrorists more propaganda and reasons to recruit followers and attack the US because the US is seen as an aggressor...we've definately flamed the fires on this one.... It's just not smart (aside from all the other rationale around the Iraq war).green1 wrote:You are assuming that I mean protection of the poplace to be only from physical harm. I did not day that. Maybe it woul dhave been more accurate of me to say protect and nuture the populace because I believe that you must do those other things you listed. However in time of war it comes down to physical survival. you must be alive to enjoy the national parks.Quiet and Shy wrote:If you define our government's purpose as solely one of protecting the citizenry, then yes, you are indeed defining things much more narrowly. What about Medicare, Social Security, Education, Economic and Monetary Policy, Trade, National Parks, etc.?
Operations in Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden (a specific target based on data)? Yep, no question. The war in Iraq (based on the data the US had at the time and no Bin Laden link)? No. It's a horrible mistake that has served to alienate and pour more fuel on the terrorists' fire, upset the balance of power in a strategically volatile yet important region, and cost significant diplomatic power and leverage with allies and other more neutral countries around the world. And, because it's been so poorly planned and managed, it's a US-made mess...and we have a responsibility to try and clean it up...so I completely support our troops through this effort.
In my voting life I've always leaned Republican, but George Bush has proven to be an arrogant and inept imperialist who continues to demonstrate poor judgement that just puts us at further risk. This is why I have a problem with Bush's selective obedience to and enforcement of existing law -- he's a loose and very dangerous cannon that someone needs to reign in and keep an eye on.
The NSA thing...it's being discussed this week because it's in the news. Honestly, I really don't care too much about that particular point. It's just another piece of the big picture.
It is interesting that you say the war in Iraq is not linked to the hunt for Bin Laden, but then you say that our presence there feeds the terrorists. Which is it? Have you read anything on the resontruction of Germany after WWII. The same things being said here and now were said then and there. From not having a plan for the peace to it's about the money. The only difference is that I don't think Haliburton was around then. Accroding to the media Reagan was a loose and dangerous cannon as well. yet now he is lauded as having a kep role in winning the cold war.
I don't care about the NSA thing either. Let them use the tools at their disposal to hunt down and kill those that want to kill us.
what part of the portion of the story as reported, "the officers had him subdued, and then they put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger" do you see as protection? Certainly, he resisted an order to stop; by plain-clothed police officers in a language he understood second-best at best. After being chased, and then held down by multiple strangers, they put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger.green1 wrote:Their job was to protect the citizens of London, using escalating means if necessary. Have you ever taken someone to the ground? They still have use of their hands and could conceivably detonate a device if wearing one. The London trains had just been bombed. This guy was acting strange, when requested to stop for questioning he ran, jumped over the trunstiles to get to the trains. what were they supposed to do. Oh, he's not going to do anything let him go.RinglingRingling wrote:their job was not to be judge, jury, and executioner. their job was to prevent him from exploding what they thought (incorrectly) to be a bomb. Having subdued him on the floor of the subway car, shooting him in the head was NOT part of the job.
And this is the part of it that scares me the most in your whole line of reasoning: "They did their jobs, and I am glad to say their bosses saw it the same way". Evidently as long as you have a belief that someone is doing something wrong, which was reached by subjective means, it's ok to execute them when taken to a ridiculous conclusion. You're almost saying, "What the heck, he was innocent, but what's one innocent life really worth?"
If you have a belief that someone is doing something you do everything in your power to stop them. This is like the situation on the plane after 9/11. Some guy got up out of hi seat and headed for the cockpit and tried to get in. The passengers restrained him, and as a result of a choke hold he died.
Exact same situation. While both are bad because and innocent life was lost, neither situation was handled inocrrectly.
ragtopW wrote:do any of you realize that the DEA has been doing this for well over 20 years as part of the "war on drugs"
Elrod wrote:ragtopW wrote:do any of you realize that the DEA has been doing this for well over 20 years as part of the "war on drugs"
"Dave's not here, man."
without the sophistication, but certainly with the intent to "track down the bad people, and we get to define the 'suspicious' profile that leads us to 'bad people'."ragtopW wrote:Pholks Without even reading this whole thread I just have one question?
do any of you realize that the DEA has been doing this for well over 20 years as part of the "war on drugs"
I'm very familiar with that profile. It was developed and is being refined by prosecutors and law enforcement officers....and we get to define the 'suspicious' profile that leads us to 'bad people'.
and that is what worries me. Subjective judgement without accountability based upon a vague belief that "we know best" that should not get an askance glance.Elrod wrote:I'm very familiar with that profile. It was developed and is being refined by prosecutors and law enforcement officers....and we get to define the 'suspicious' profile that leads us to 'bad people'.
The average citizen does not get any input on criteria for the profile.
If a recently divorced (or married) woman books a one-way ticket in her "new" last name on the day she intends to travel, and pays for the ticket in cash, she should allow some extra time for screening at either the origin or destination airport.
The nice officers probably will not help her re-pack after they dismantle her luggage.
Yeah, I get it. I'm referring to our decision to go into Iraq post-9/11 and subsequent bumblings. We can't continue to relive the past (no matter whose watch they came under)...but the current trajectory is a mess that keeps getting worse....krusin1 wrote:You people don't get it. We did not "flame the fire" prior to September 11, 2001. In fact, we downplayed everything they did. Blow up a navy ship... bomb the WTC ('93, I believe), etc. etc. Our response was muted at best.Quiet and Shy wrote:Like I said, Iraq pourd fuel on the fire. It gives the terrorists more propaganda and reasons to recruit followers and attack the US because the US is seen as an aggressor...we've definately flamed the fires on this one.... It's just not smart (aside from all the other rationale around the Iraq war).green1 wrote:You are assuming that I mean protection of the poplace to be only from physical harm. I did not day that. Maybe it woul dhave been more accurate of me to say protect and nuture the populace because I believe that you must do those other things you listed. However in time of war it comes down to physical survival. you must be alive to enjoy the national parks.Quiet and Shy wrote:If you define our government's purpose as solely one of protecting the citizenry, then yes, you are indeed defining things much more narrowly. What about Medicare, Social Security, Education, Economic and Monetary Policy, Trade, National Parks, etc.?
Operations in Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden (a specific target based on data)? Yep, no question. The war in Iraq (based on the data the US had at the time and no Bin Laden link)? No. It's a horrible mistake that has served to alienate and pour more fuel on the terrorists' fire, upset the balance of power in a strategically volatile yet important region, and cost significant diplomatic power and leverage with allies and other more neutral countries around the world. And, because it's been so poorly planned and managed, it's a US-made mess...and we have a responsibility to try and clean it up...so I completely support our troops through this effort.
In my voting life I've always leaned Republican, but George Bush has proven to be an arrogant and inept imperialist who continues to demonstrate poor judgement that just puts us at further risk. This is why I have a problem with Bush's selective obedience to and enforcement of existing law -- he's a loose and very dangerous cannon that someone needs to reign in and keep an eye on.
The NSA thing...it's being discussed this week because it's in the news. Honestly, I really don't care too much about that particular point. It's just another piece of the big picture.
It is interesting that you say the war in Iraq is not linked to the hunt for Bin Laden, but then you say that our presence there feeds the terrorists. Which is it? Have you read anything on the resontruction of Germany after WWII. The same things being said here and now were said then and there. From not having a plan for the peace to it's about the money. The only difference is that I don't think Haliburton was around then. Accroding to the media Reagan was a loose and dangerous cannon as well. yet now he is lauded as having a kep role in winning the cold war.
I don't care about the NSA thing either. Let them use the tools at their disposal to hunt down and kill those that want to kill us.
Trying to be nice to terrorists does NOT work. Making them dead DOES work. It's a very simple concept.
The war on terror is going to be hard, long and difficult, but it is also NECESSARY. Get a spine and start being part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
Well Wayne was really thinking of the time Waynes Phone got BuggedRinglingRingling wrote:and that is what worries me. Subjective judgement without accountability based upon a vague belief that "we know best" that should not get an askance glance.Elrod wrote:I'm very familiar with that profile. It was developed and is being refined by prosecutors and law enforcement officers....and we get to define the 'suspicious' profile that leads us to 'bad people'.
The average citizen does not get any input on criteria for the profile.
If a recently divorced (or married) woman books a one-way ticket in her "new" last name on the day she intends to travel, and pays for the ticket in cash, she should allow some extra time for screening at either the origin or destination airport.
The nice officers probably will not help her re-pack after they dismantle her luggage.
And on Wayne's mention, the gentleman from Memphis who booked a flight to Houston and back with an hour between flights the same day he was travelling, used cash, and flew down with something like $10k for nursery stock. A tip to the DEA had him detained, the money seized as possible criminal proceeds, and after losing his business and racking up monster legal fees, he finally got his money back. No accountability, no apology, no restitution for the damage caused by a "profile".
Let's not even get into the whole secret process behind the creation of the no-fly list with no means to appeal placement upon said list.
ragtopW wrote:Well Wayne was really thinking of the time Waynes Phone got BuggedRinglingRingling wrote:and that is what worries me. Subjective judgement without accountability based upon a vague belief that "we know best" that should not get an askance glance.Elrod wrote:I'm very familiar with that profile. It was developed and is being refined by prosecutors and law enforcement officers....and we get to define the 'suspicious' profile that leads us to 'bad people'.
The average citizen does not get any input on criteria for the profile.
If a recently divorced (or married) woman books a one-way ticket in her "new" last name on the day she intends to travel, and pays for the ticket in cash, she should allow some extra time for screening at either the origin or destination airport.
The nice officers probably will not help her re-pack after they dismantle her luggage.
And on Wayne's mention, the gentleman from Memphis who booked a flight to Houston and back with an hour between flights the same day he was travelling, used cash, and flew down with something like $10k for nursery stock. A tip to the DEA had him detained, the money seized as possible criminal proceeds, and after losing his business and racking up monster legal fees, he finally got his money back. No accountability, no apology, no restitution for the damage caused by a "profile".
Let's not even get into the whole secret process behind the creation of the no-fly list with no means to appeal placement upon said list.
I had a Nephew living with me at the time
and all of a sudden my home phone started calling pagers..
this tripped a flag...
