KirimaNagi wrote:
As usual, Marjin gets it completely wrong when it comes to issues of government and freedom.
So says the pot to the kettle. You couldn't even begin to imagine the lengths the American government has gone to keep us happily ignorant of the threats posed against us so we can go about our happy lives every day not living in debilitating fear. Our nation is a big, dumb, panicky herd of cattle and the only thing that keeps us from stampeding all over ourselves is control. You canter and caper, bitch and moan about trifles and claim them towers, you can cite outdated eyewash resolutions all damn day but that won't stop people from hating us. Do you really think our government abides by this garbage, the Patriot Act, FISA and and every other piece of shit before it? We can't fight our enemies with our hands tied to our back when they don't. This isn't new, it's been going on forever and it's not going to change any time soon. If you don't like it, leave, and if you're already gone, why do you care?
Nagi wrote:
First, I do not blame everything on Bush, nor am I a rabid Bush Hater/Michael Moore fan. In fact, I specifically said that all attacks on Bush so far have been partisan and without legal merit. This case is different because it is so black and white.
This one has little legal merit too, and is Partisan, if I'm not mistaken. The White House never lauched investigations into it's own itelligence gathering practices because it knows it doesn't need to, so how would we know about this? Maybe a certain
someone decided to release a certain
letter to boost his standing in a party that could really give a damn about America and only cares to slander a dimit president who is only maintaining the status quo that's lasted for generations, Republican and Democrat. If this were so black and white, then where are the impeachments issued for for every President since Coolige? The Dems are launching all of these fruitless attacks not becuause they disagree with them, but because the are still pissed that they lost twice to a moron. I would be too. Ever since W has been elected they have changed their mission statement to slandering the incumbent above all else. This is just the latest in a long line of attacks; attacks that might hurt us down the road if they weaken our resolve.
Nagi wrote:
Second, I am not arguing against surveillance/monitoring, and even said that if it was necessary, so be it. Just do it legally since the law is already more than generous in providing for it.
Not really. If you are truely under the delusion that the government has always faithfully followed the written word then I really feel sorry for you. If we played by the rules then we would have already lost by now. War isn't fair and neither is life. You want to make America into a social paridase where our gentlemanly government always plays fair and always keeps it's word. A nation of our size and stature that doesn't profile, tap, torture, interrogate, kidnap, kill, or God knows what won't last. The sad truth why we are standing here on this soil today is because of those reasons.
Nagi wrote:
Third, you mention the "fine American tradition of keeping the bad guys out and the good guys in." I read that and laughed my arse off, since the US is not even serious about protecting its borders against illegal immigration and smuggling. (sarcasm) But that's okay since illegally spying on US citizens takes care of it. (/sarcasm)
How cute, you use sarc tags, it's like debating on the MT forum! Put this all into perspective then, if you had limited resources, who would monitor: illiegal migrant farmers and drug smugglers, or men who shave their beards, educate themselves in our own country and then crash commercial jets into buildings, blow up busses, set fire to cars and the elderly? As an old African saying goes, you cant worry about the ants when a stampede is coming your way.
Kirima wrote:
Fourth, realistically speaking, impeachment will occur only if the economy tanks. All Presidential scandals over the last 50 years that happened while times were good (Reagan = Iran-Contra, Clinton = Crouching Intern, Hidden Cigar) did not result in a conviction and/or resignation. However, when times were bad (Nixon = 70s, Bush Sr. = 1990 recession), the Presidents lost popularity and either had to step down or lost reelection, even when there was not a scandal.
So like I said, while there is a clear case for impeachment, it all depends on the economy and public mood.
Untrue. For the most part our elected leaders have learned to ignore the economy when it comes to impeachment. It's nothing more than a cycle and a luck based coincidence to whoever is in office. More canidates always try to run on the upside. If your thesis were true, then wouldn't Andrew Johnson, successor to Lincoln, been impeched during Reconstruction, the lowest economic point in US history? Let's look at Nixon then, he saw the writing on the wall and knew he was going to be impeached, but what of the
economy when he left office? Not bad. Now let's look a
a year after he left office. Ouch. Clinton wasn't impeached simply because the cause was frivilous and his actions were negligible anyway. So what if your wet dream comes true and Bush is impeached, Dems reclaim the house in '06 and Hillary is elected in '08. But do you really think our methods will change? Sure, we may as well disband Gitmo kiss the Eurabians asses about nonsensical prisons, we may even ditch the Iraqis, but will that change our horrible ways of not keeping our word? Never. You call fallacy on me but your whole argument is a sham because you see American History though rose-tinted glasses. Read some of the recently declassified info on our methods during the Cold War and think about what lengths we are taking now. I'll be the first to tell you, we're not pretty and we don't play fair. I don't like this country, but it's the best civilization has to offer now, if you don't like it, change it or leave it.
Nagi wrote:
Yep, those journalists and civil rights activists back in the 70s had nothing to worry about and were completely out of line in protesting. And we all know that powers such as these -never- get abused for political or other purposes...
Okay, so you can cite a first time occasion. Has it happened since? If what you believe is true, would Cindy Sheehan still be contributing to hole in the ozone layer with her hot air? The government found out in the sixties that by killing it's detractors only weakens it's position, but by allowing them unadulterated free speech and press now strengthens it. Bush won in 2004 because of this very reason. Liberals were out making fools of themselves in the spotlight and the average Americans took notice. Just be happy that our government learns from its mistakes.