Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
Buddy Page
View Profile
« December 2005 »
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Johnny LaRue's Crane Shot
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Yes Or No?
Just one question and we can go back to robot monkeys. It's a yes or no question. I don't wanna hear any Bill Clinton this or Bill Clinton that. Just yes or no.

Do you feel comfortable with the President of the United States--any President--having the authority and ability to eavesdrop on your conversations, phone calls, e-mails, etc. just because he feels like it and without obtaining a warrant?

Posted by Marty at 6:05 PM CST
Post Comment | View Comments (23) | Permalink

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:55 PM CST

Name: Kool Mo P

YES. If the President of the United States wants to listen to me talk to my wife about what we should have for dinner then let him do it. I don't care. I'M NOT BREAKING THE LAW.

If you plan to commit a terrorist act that will cost the lives of Americans, then you shouldn't expect to have any rights - especially the right to privacy.

McKee, stop defending the terrorists.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:57 PM CST

Name: Kool Mo P

One more thing. Why the fuck would the POTUS want to listen in on everyday conversations? He has way more important things to do. Like stopping terrorism in the US. Which he's done. Much to the dismay of the liberals.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:38 PM CST

Name: Marty McKee

Really? We're safe? We no longer have to fear a terrorist attack? Whew, that's good to hear. Someone better tell Dick Cheney because he hasn't gotten your memo yet.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:30 PM CST

Name: Z-Man

If it means that my family and friends are safe from somebody who hates the way we live and wants to do us harm. Yes, I don't mind.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:29 PM CST

Name: Matt Farkas

As long as you are blithely willing to surrender your Fourth Amendment rights, I'm sure it doesn't matter to the President what rational makes you feel better about it. Will you be so obliging when Chimpy asks you to give up your Second Amendment rights too in order to "to keep 'Merkans safe"?

So having respect for our Nation's laws and Constitution is tantamount to "defending terrorists"? What the HELL were our Founding Fathers thinking?

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:35 PM CST

Name: Matt Farkas

Americans willing to surrender their civil liberties because they are sad.

This is exactly what Bin Laden hoped to achieve.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 8:58 AM CST

Name: Z-Man

No. bin Laden hopes to kill us.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 2:04 PM CST

Name: dj_jbrown

No, Bin Laden hopes to remove US involvement from the middle east and cut our ties with Saudi Arabia. At least, that's what he said.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 2:09 PM CST

Name: dj_jbrown

Dick Cheney is describing a kingdom, not a presidency.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 2:21 PM CST

Name: Tolemite

no. bin Laden wanted our soldiers out of his so-called Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. i wonder if North America were occupied by Chinese soldiers whether we'd think about it differently.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 2:24 PM CST

Name: Tolemite

damn, J Brown, you beat me. cursed refresh button.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 2:30 PM CST

Name: Tolemite

what you're doing now isn't breaking the law, but any time power like the example that's being described exists, it will be abused. it's just a matter of time. first it's only to find terrorists ... then it's people who are downloading movies because those support terrorism, then it's for people selling drugs because that's terrorism too. folks like the ones in power aren't interested in solving problems, they're interested in putting as many people in jail as possible.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 2:49 PM CST

Name: Kool Mo P

Please explain that to the families of the victims of 9/11. Maybe they'll understand and forgive him.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 3:04 PM CST

Name: Tolemite

Maybe Bush Sr., Rumsfeld and the other guys who've been arming the Afghans and meddling in the middle east since around the time i was born could explain it to the families, since they're the ones who thought it was a good idea to start the whole thing.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 3:27 PM CST

Name: Kool Mo P

The Afghans weren't complaining about the US when we helped them fend off the Russians.

We've been meddling in the Middle East since WWII. Why is it now Bush's fault?

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 3:47 PM CST

Name: Tolemite

Bush and co. made Bin Laden (and Saddam Hussein for that matter) who they are. as far as the afghans were concerned, caucasian folks on their land were caucasian folks on their land ... at least those who were stirred up enough by the Koran. it shouldn't be a surprise that they turned on us next.

the idea that America is righteous and can do no wrong is what got us where we are today, and that idea is ultimately what got those 3000 people killed.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 3:49 PM CST

Name: Z-Man

His actions do not support that statement. Now I am not saying he didn’t say that but if he wanted America out of the Middle East initiating an attack against America on American soil is not the way to go about it. With all the terrorist attacks against America in the 90’s and America’s response, or lack there of, he probably though he could carry it out without repercussions.

He has joined with radical Islamic groups to carry out his goals. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Radical Islamic groups wish to spread their perverted version of the Islamic religion around the world. See South East Asia, France, Spain, and Demark for examples. They would like to wipe America off the face of the earth as they find us to be the worst offender to their beliefs.

Bin Laden’s original goal was to remove the US from the Middle East. It has evolved from that.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 4:02 PM CST

Name: Tolemite

i'm not a supporter of Clinton's response to the attacks on the Tanzanian and Kenyan embassies, the first WTC attack, or the bombing of the USS Cole. it was weak at best and you're right, it sent the wrong message.

i do support the military action in Afghanistan, i always have.

Often, i go back and forth when trying to figure out the root of the idea we're fighting against now. it seems too easy to say that it's religion. i think that religion is just the lever that people like bin Laden use to get the weak-willed, unthinking masses on his side. deep down, it's about control of people, it's about resources, and it's about power.

the point i'm trying to make is the same one that my mom tried to make when i was in fourth grade: you can fight bullies to defend yourself, but don't become a bully in the process. there's a thin line, and i think we crossed it a long time ago, right about the time that we thought it would be a good idea to make a new Israel smack in the middle of someone else's land.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 4:04 PM CST

Name: Z-Man

Bush and Co. did not make bin Laden. As you remember the US went in with full support of the UN in 1991. We have stayed their at the request of the Saudi Government.

Saddam was getting help from the US in the 70's from the peanut farmer. Saddam was made long before Bush made the scene.

The idea that America was week and didn't have the guts to fight back, thanks Biil, is why those 3,000 people were murdered.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 4:10 PM CST

Name: Z-Man

Glad to hear it. He really did send the wrong message to the world when he did nothing.

Afghanistan is a better place now than it was 5 years ago.

Remember in 1947 there were 33 nations that voted yes to Israel.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 4:48 PM CST

Name: Tolemite

funny how it's the Peanut Farmer and Clinton, but Bush 1, Bush 2 and Reagan had nothing to do with the current situation.

if the "America, fuck yeah" attitude got us into this situation, it's party-line bullshit that keeps us from getting out. not one of these presidents or their administrations really had the long-term consequences in mind.

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 10:23 AM CST

Name: dj_jbrown

Bush Sr., Rumsfeld, and numerous other "behind the scenes" types made Bin Laden. And they Made Saddam. Years and years ago. These guys have been pulling the strings for longer than we know. Rummy and Saddam hanging out drinking tea on a Baghdad veranda. Bush Sr. Running the CIA, even when he wasn't running the CIA. These guys are more well connected than you can possibly imagine. And if they want something done, chances are they can make it happen. Is it Bush's fault that Bin Laden is crazy? Of course not. But it is their fault that he has any access to heavy artillery.

And if we have stayed in Saudi Arabia for any reason, it is because they have our economy by the scrotum. They have so much of their dirty oil money invested in the US that, if we piss them off and they decide to pull their funds out, we will have a massive economic collapse. The relationship has evolved from "you scratch my back..." into "We'll do you this favor, if you promise not to screw our economy."

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 7:02 PM CST

Name: Z-Man

Just making sure that people don't forget that everyone has blood on their hands. Since all you guys like to talk about is Bush 1, Bush 2, Rumsfeld, and Co.

I think Bush's current situation is taking of a mess made by past pres. and the UN

View Latest Entries