Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 611 To 620 Of 657 Comments
CONSERVATIVES TO BUSH: "KEEP YOUR GRUBBY PAWS OUT OF OUR PRIVATE SPACES!"
@ Mike:
"WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE?"
You're missing the point entierly. The privacy rights implied by the Constitution (1st, 4th, 5th Amendments) aren't to help you hide something from the government, but to keep the government from abusing you.
If you didn't commit a crime, why not talk to the police without an attorney? What is the Defendant hiding? Nothing, usually, but the Judiciary recognizes that Government can abuse citizens unless they are protected. If you're not hiding anything, why not allow cops to walk into your house whenever they want and rifle through your property? Hell, why not have a microchip GPS implanted, so they know where you are? You're not going anywhere suspicios, are you?
The last example is over-the-top, but I use it to make a point. The "let us do what we want or you're suspicious" argument assumes that the Government can be trusted to only act from the purest of motives. Our Founding Fathers didn't believe that -- they made a point to keeep too much power out of any branch of the Government specifically because power corrupts.
Whats to fear? Let me speculate. W and crew would try to use the data to help their party win elections -- don't vote for Democrat X, because he got piss drunk at his backyard barbeque last week. You don't want a drunk in charge, do you? Far fetched? To some, but let me note that the "political landscape briefings" Rove loved were in the same vein.
Nothing more purely Conservative than giving up your rights to the government -- thats what Reagan would want.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.08.2007 @ 09:19
@Rick:
"'Smacks of Fascism' is quite a bit different than say it is fascism."
And "on the road to Dictatorship" is different than "Dictatorship". I'm confused by the difference between "smacks of Facism" and "on the road to Dicataorship." In a pure literal discussion, there are differences, but it seems to me that you and the Lefties are using the phrases as metaphors for an unacceptably powerful unitary government. You aren't alleging that the military is attempting to formulate a coup. W isn't in the military, so more power to him and his doesn't lead to Facism in the dictionary sense.
"And the slippery slope argument doesn’t mean that anything bad will happen. It’s just easier for it to happen – a nuance that seems to escape most on the left."
. . . thats a thin hair to split, sir. The fact that I'm intoxicated and driving my car the wrong way on the highweay doesn't mean a bad result, just a more-likely bad result, so its not as concerning?
Would it be better to wait until "smacks of Facism" becomes "Facism," then express your concerns? I assumed from your post the whole point of the concern was to halt the slipping towards Facism before it happens.
I understand us Lefties aren't as open to ideas as Conservatives, since we can't go 5 minutes without hitting the bong and all, but it really sounds like you came to the same paranoid conclusion, but reject your intellectual neighbors because you don't like the color of their lapel pin. Tough head-of-a-pin to balance on.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.08.2007 @ 09:05
@Rick:
"But make no mistake, gentle readers. We are in true slippery slope territory here."
"Militarizing law enforcement, however well intentioned, smacks of fascism."
"And I also want to make it clear that I do not believe in the “one more step on the road to dictatorship†meme being advanced by the left. Their paranoia regarding the Bush Administration disqualifies them from engaging in any kind of rational debate on the subject."
??? You think this action is a slippery slope that smacks of facism, but scoff at those that believe this Administration is one more step (like a slippery slope) closer to Uncinstitutional governance?
Are you drawing a distinction betwseen Facism and Dictatorship, in that it IS looking more and more like Facism, but doesn't meet the textbook definition of Dictatorship? If that's your position, then I respectfully disagree. Facism would be military rule, and we're not approaching that with this rule -- the military is not assuming power, but sharing its resources with the civilian government. It IS, however, looking alot like a Dictatorship, wherein the single/central entity runs the power and control of the government.
If the hangup is literally on the word "Dictatorship" as opposed to "Facism", let me suggest that people who throw those words around often assume that they are interchangeable. Would that change your "Lefties are nuts" position?
While I agree with your position, the obligatory spitting on Lefties seems out of place.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.08.2007 @ 08:38
TIGHTENING THE GORDIAN KNOT OF WAR
@Steve Sturm:
#3)"Sanctions did nothing to force Hussein (who was much more pragmatic than the Mad Mullahs) to comply with what we wanted, why should much weaker sanctions get us what we want with Iran?"
Depends on what you thought the sanctions were supposed to do. If you were expecting Saddam to renounce his dictatorship and give all Iraqis a free Hersheys Bar, then no, they didn't work. If they were to keep him from developing WMDs and/or nukes and/or re-invading his neighbors, then they worked perfectly.
5 – "Although you don’t come out and say it straightaway, your belief that our troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan somehow prevent us from taking on Iran. If we were to list the three (Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan) in order of the threat to America, how can you (or anyone) not put keeping Iran from getting nukes at the top of the list? "
Kinda why us hippies were wondering why they hell we invaded Iraq. Afganistan made sense -- Bin Laden was(is) there, and we want his head on a stick in Times Square. Saddam was a contained threat (we were still flying fighter jets in his airspace and bombing him at will).
You suggest abandoning Afganistan. Putting aside the moral consequnces of creating a giantic turd pile then leaving someone else to deal with the smell, what makes you think the small force we have in Afganistsan would be enough to invade Iran (and not get slaughtered?). We'd have to bail on Iraq as well to even come close to an effective force. You willing to walk away from there? Remeber, if you do, the terrorists win.
7) ". . . but if they’re [the Mad Mullahs] not rational, to the point of engaging in suicide, then why think they’d back off their pursuit of nukes because the likes of Russia and China ask them nicely to do so?"
Because the Mullahs aren't the ones commiting suicide -- their followers are. The MM are power hungry sociopaths, and they tend not to risk their own lives. Now if your argument is "once they provoke us to invade, we'll line up the MMs and execute them." Then you may have a point. I don't think murdering relegious clerics will have the desired effect, but thats just my opinion.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.08.2007 @ 09:59
Why are we even discussing it?
Because they want to overthrow the Iranian regeime. Its that simple.
Sure the consequesces will be Biblical in their horrors, but so what? When have these maniacs demonstrated a concern for the consequences of their actions.
They get to say they took out the regeime, and they get to blame the next Prez for the Holocaust to follow (because, if W and Cheney were still in charge, all the bad results would never have happened. Prove them wrong).
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.08.2007 @ 16:05
@Thomas Jackson:
" Family friendly films make far more than the filth Hollywood vomits forth but how many family films do we get for each Brokeback Mountain?"
Ever heard of Pixar? Disney Studios?
Lets see . . . For each major Hollywood release with predominant homosexual theme (There's Brokeback Mountain and, well . . . any others?) we have Cars, Shreck (I, II, III) High School Musical (I and II), Ratatouille, Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Shark Tale, The Nanny Diaries, 13 Going on 30, The Incredible, Herbie the Love Bug, Prarie Home Companion, March of the Penguins, Surf's Up, Shaggy D.A., Christmas with the Cranks, the Santa Clause. These I just pulled off the top of my head.
No, you're right. The one gay movie (which was hugely controversial BECAUSE it was a gay movie) clearly is overwhelming the family friendly movie industry. It was so powerful, in fact, that there has not been a sequel, and there hasn't been another major release that focuses on homosexual relationships primarily. Clearly an infection of hippie ideals designed to undermine American Values. After all, in Herbie the Love Bug, nobody sang God Bless America -- Communists.
Why did everybody flip at Brokeback Mountain? Its a friggin' movie!! I don't like date flicks, but I'm not threatened when they come out -- I just don't watch them.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.08.2007 @ 10:11
@r4d20:
Very well said!! This site has some great threads.
@manning:
No doubt there is at least one CIA employee who has access, the ear of discreet reporters (or could get them), and the motive to harm the Administration. Probably at least two -- there's lots of employees.
"Faction" is one of those loaded words, and that's the problem. It implies that there is an organized, cooperative, multi-party group. There's absolutely no evidence for that, and that's the part that seems far-fetched, at least to me. Labeling people in the CIA who discredit the Administration as a "faction" (or cabal, cell, etc.) implies that they are following orders. That implies that the motive for their action is loyalty to the faction, not loyalty to the truth (as in leaking because crimes are being covered up). Now, you can just discredit the information, because the source is an operative, instead of a whistleblower. Its a rethorical trick to undermine an opponents' position, and its a dirty trick. THATS the objection I think d20 has.
Its the reverse of the "Theory of Intelligent Design" game. Whatever your stance on Intelligent Design, it clearly isn't the science class definition of "theory." It isn't even "hopythesis." Calling it a "theory" implies a weighty, tested-and-verified credibility that even its proponents concede is lacking. Or calling everybody who shoots at us in Iraq AQ -- it makes them much more evil, and avoids having to consider whether or not we should consider their motivation (if they are AQ then the motive is to eat American babies, so we have to keep shooting until we run out of bullets).
Using loaded words like that is a trick to subconciously sends a message. In a frank discussion, its something that should be avoided at all costs.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.08.2007 @ 10:01
@ Jim Rockford:
"Shareholders care about making money. But they have little leverage. Execs are canned and have such short spans (and significantly, don’t share in profits) so they need to find their next job by greenlighting anti-American projects that will lose money or not make much so they can be recommended by Steven or George when they get fired next year. Short-term focus makes network-building by catering to the hard-left and aristo pretensions of the Hollywood elite a slam-dunk."
Damn! Now THATS a paranoid rant! You go, boy!
"should we hire Bob? He made the studio 200 million."
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.08.2007 @ 11:38
"yeah, he made the studio money, but he hasn't pissed on the flag in weeks."
"oh well, then he's off the list. "
If it sells, they'll make it.
An interesting extension of your argument, Rick -- if these movies are what Americans (on the whole) want, then the America that Mr. O'Rilley is trying to protect doesn't exist, at least not anymore.
As for finding it hard to believe that a "ghost agency" exists, it would sure be hard to hide the cash trail, but that the Government would try it is no stretch -- hell, they denied the existence on Area 51 for decades, even though the damn buildings are clearly visible.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 13.08.2007 @ 16:13
MAKING THE CASE FOR A LONG TERM COMMITMENT TO IRAQ
@ Rick:
"The Republican right is not going to be able to stay indefinitely, endlessly engaged in a struggle against ghosts."
IMO, the problem is that the Administration isn't looking to stay indefinitely -- just until January 2009. Then, they can blame all failures after that on the next Admin.
Granted, the original plan was to make Iraq a permanent base in the Mideast (despite the Admin assuring us they would never do such a thing, then building permanent bases). I think they know thats impossible, so the new stragety is to stall and pass the buck.
Unfortunately, the Dems don't want the turd pile, so they're gonna (try to, if they would grow a damn spine) force a withdrawl before then. You are exactly right -- our race out will be a disaster.
If there is a Hell, I hope there's a special seat reserved for these people.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.08.2007 @ 09:53
