Safe In Our Cages

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Sep 2, 2008.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  2. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    May I recommend a 1998 film by the name of "Enemy of the State"....I see the Brits are feeling the pinch too.

    "Those who give up liberty for security, deserve niether" Ben Franklin
  3. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    I can only wonder if you are willing to apply this to those social programs that you love so dearly (SSA, medicare, welfare, and medicade).
  4. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Not sure what your trying to say....Maybe "Those who give up social programs, deserve niether" Author..Av8torntn???
    Not sure why your steering this thread towards social programs when after all this is about the right to privacy.

    Lets take for example GW's claim that the "Terrorist are fighting us because of our freedoms",(which IMO is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of) well guess what, with that warped logic, than the Terrorist are succeeding because no matter how you spin it, we have less freedom than pre 9/11.
  5. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    LOL what freedom have you given up? I know you think the boggyman is listening to you phone calls but you cannot provide any proof. I've asked you multiple times. It is very funny how you cry about this myth of a loss of freedoms because you think someone has listened to your phone calls. Why if you are so concerned about your freedom do you support these social programs? Simple question. You cannot come up with any freedom that you have given up since 911. I can come up with plenty of liberties that you trade so easily for the security of your social programs. I do not think that you care at all about liberty. You once posted that we should stop spending money on defense so we could spend more money on social programs. :happy-very: At the same time you cry quite often about the amount of money the Government is spending. This same thing was said often during Vietnam. Of course history now has proven which side was right. Compare the amount now spent on SSA with the amount now spent on the Vietnam war. Both started around the same time. No sir you are very funny with your liberty quotes. I don't blame you though for only wanting to apply that to one very narrow mythical thing. I know you or Wkmac or Jones don't get it when I question you on these things.
  6. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Geez, AV8 who's cry'in?...reread your own post. You must of used half a box of tissues with that rant...
    Like I said, you can put any SPIN :nonono: you want on FISA but it's not a myth, it's legislation on record. If thats not proof enough it's evidence that you will succomb to any prop and whim this RT wing administration commands of you, and then some. Your denial borders on senility and again your inate defense mechanism somehow attacks me on socialism. I still don't see the relation.

    Let me correct your bogus accusation....

    I've recently posted stop borrowing billions for Iraq's infrastructure and start investing in America's infrastructure.
    You really like to stretch the truth AV8, how about you lose the box of tissue's and stay on topic.
  7. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    That is my point exactly. You are unwilling to trade the liberty of a known terrorist for security but you are very willing to trade the liberty of how I spend my money for your security. When the Democrats amended FISA to allow the recording of phone conversations from know terrorists overseas to people in the US you guys have gone nuts. You cannot point to one phone call that anyone has listened to yet you would have me to believe that this is the loss of some mythical right to privacy. You are very willing to trade liberty for security and the above post proves such. I suppose the real question is since you are so willing to trade my liberty for your security why are you so unwilling to trade the liberty of say Zarawahi for your security. Is it because he belongs to a tiny group and you feel as B. Hussein does that a tiny group is no threat?

    "Your denial borders on senility and again your inate defense mechanism somehow attacks me on socialism. I still don't see the relation. "

    When you post this there really is not much one can say. With the support of all your Government social programs you are very willing to give up many liberties. You can deny it all you want buy you really do not have a problem giving up liberty the problem you have who you imagine is taking your liberty. I posted some time ago just show me one time when the government is listening to my phone calls and I would be on your side here and I will expand that just show me one time when they are listening to your phone calls and I will be on your side. I feel like with all the attention this thing has gotten it probably is not true that the government is listening to your phone calls. Just think of the story the NY Times would have is they could say Bush is listening to some crazy UPS drivers phone calls.:happy2:
  8. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Obviously AV8, your not a Ben Franklin fan for you to get all up in arms over one of his quotes:

    Originally Posted by diesel96
    "Those who give up liberty for security, deserve niether" Ben Franklin

    I don't think Old Ben was neccessarliy focusing on financial security, social security nor healthcare security.
    Most common folk would interpet "Liberty as "freedom" and "security" as "safety", "on guard", "freedom from worry"

    We've dicussed this issue already, and I gave you and example of abuse of power such as Watergate, and now the gov't has the high tech ability to pry into anybodies privacy without your knowing.

    God forbid someone puts up a quote of Thomas Jefferson encouraging "we the people" question our gov't. But I'm begining to see a pattern here.....It's un-American to question a Republican administration but to question a Democratic administration is fair game. Questioning any gov't local, state, federal should be fair game at any level no matter what party. You know, I don't blame Independents and third party indivduals for opting out of the major parties. Maybe they see something we don't, like returning our gov't back to "we the people" instead of making us "safe in our cages" (as Wkmac makes his point without giving his 2 cents).....:peaceful:
  9. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    I don't have a problem with Franklin. I think you obviously do. I do not want to give up liberty. You however want me to give up lots of liberty. I do have a problem with that. I have a big problem with people like you who have to fabricate some mythical loss of liberty to complain about while you cheer on the loss of large amounts of our freedom in the name of some kind of Government "safety" net(your words not mine). I asked you a simple question which is what started all your crying. You have avoided it by calling me senile, saying I have a problem with Franklin or Jefferson. I will ask it again but I think I already know the answer. Are you willing to give up your liberty(medical choice, choice of how to invest in your retirement, freedom to opt out of Medicare) for security ( government health care, social security, all these Government mandates in the market)? I think your answer is Yes you are. You are however opposed to the government listening to phones calls from terrorists in a foreign land to numbers in the US. It is no wonder you love the idea of a B. Hussein presidency with all these double standards you have.

    Here is a peace sign back at you. :yawn2: Sorry it is just that you are beginning to bore me with all you partisan junk.
  10. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    I started cryin?.... Spewing Doomsday social, health and retirement scenarios? Are you suffering from memory lapse AV8, aren't you the one who pitched a fit simply from a Ben Franklin quote and you spun it to attack me over social issue's that was irrelavant to the thread. Your boring me as well and your love for failed republican policies is sad.
  11. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member
  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  13. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Sweetheart you cry like a baby if the Government spends a mere 200 million dollars on a war. This is a power granted to the Government in the Constitution. Not a word if from you if the Government spends 200 trillion dollars on social security. No mention of this in the Constitution. You cry, cry, cry if I ask you a question about your post. All you had to do is simply admit that you want to harm the poor, and take freedom away from citizens. It's all good I already knew it, I just wanted to see if you would admit it. Your love of these failed socialist positions is worse than sad. I still do not understand why you feel that you must fabricate some loss of freedom just to justify your position. I suppose that is what you must do when facts are not on your side. I think now that you must interpert the Franklin quote to mean we are willing to trade your liberty for my security. Pitiful.
  14. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  15. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Sugar britches, we spend more like 200 million dollars a week in Iraq and from what oriface did you pull those SS #'s from? Medicare and uncontrolable soaring healthcare costs is a bigger issue. Me, an advocate of rolling back Bush's tax cuts and having the rich pay their fair share of taxes and you accuse me of harming the poor? While you for some inept reason, you want to protect the wealthy from having to pay their fair share ratio extending Social services, and not a peep out of you over tackling ridiculously rising healthcare and RX costs soaring of the charts compounding the issue.

    BTW Barbie Doll, while your obsessive compulsion is directed at me and social issues, but why are you ignoring Wkmac's post's and links? They are right to the point. That should be the focus of this thread, not the two of us having a b!tch fight. Direct some of that hot air towards responding to Wkmac's links. I'm curious what you actually have to say about it, besides the boogyman is listening in on us.:blahblah:
  16. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    I was thinking it was not long ago on these message boards some were calling for the Government to regulate what is said on talk radio. I believe they were saying that they thought the government should ensure that all sides of political issues be given equal time on these radio shows. They justify this by saying that the airwaves are public property much like the government owns all the telephone numbers. Our government already regulates speech on these airwaves along with the television airwaves. All this is done under the guise of security. After all some parent less child might overhear something offensive if the government were not listening and providing oversight. We have allowed our government to ignore the constitution and now you claim the government is listening to your phone call and want to fake some sort come apart about it. You willingly give the government large amounts of power to regulate the phone companies. You probably cheered on the government ordered break up of ATT. I imagine you standing on a street corner somewhere holding up a sign saying something like evil big phone or something.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Just because I know you do not know but that is from our Constitution.

    You cheered on the loss of liberty on one hand when your party tells you it is for your security. On the other hand your party tells you that the government is listening to your phone calls on the phone numbers you want the government to own and you really want me to believe that you somehow think this is wrong. If you somehow had a come to Jesus moment and decided the Government should get out of the phone, TV, and radio business then maybe you would have some credibility here. You have begged the government for security at the cost of liberty for years. You have openly stated that you wish the government had a larger role in your day to day life. No sir your only regret is that your party is not the one that passed the law allowing the government to listen to your phone calls. Oh wait a minute it was your party that passed those laws. Even though those phone calls seem to have to originate overseas and I know you do not want to start expanding our constitutional rights to foreigners even though you and WKmac have claimed you do.

    The saddest part of all this is if you guys wanted to follow the constitution on all issues we would not have these problems. For those of you who want a large government presence in your life why in the world are you complaining when you get it?

    I understand what Rep. Paul was saying in that article and I can agree with his position and he has been consistent. I think T. Woods misses the issue by a fairly large margin.
  17. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    First of all my point is war costs while authorized by the constitution eventually end and your social programs while not authorized by the constitution go on forever and the costs are indefinite. In fifteen years the government expects a 100 billion dollar a year deficit. That means they will be spending 100 billion dollars a year more than they take in. How much are they taking in on the payroll tax you ask. No I think you would rather ignore that.

    Yes you must hate the poor. You want a higher minimum wage to price more people out of the labor market. You want higher corporate taxes to increase the costs of goods and services. This of course impacts the poor more than the rich. You want higher payroll taxes. Harm the rich? Nope you guessed it harm the poor.

    You really do not want to talk about health care. You really do want to harm the poor by bringing in more security from the federal government to the health care market. Just look at how the prices have risen almost in direct proportion to the increase of government regulation in the health care market. Yep you do not want the poor to have access to quality health care. You want more regulation so in effect you want higher health care costs which in turn harms who? Oh thats right the poor.

    Yes I want to protect the rich from the evils of social security but unlike you I also want to protect the poor from this goofy social experiment. What is the cost of social security? LOL you have no idea and neither does anyone else because it is a never ending nightmare.

    Oh by the way how do you figure the founders wanted our government to provide for the medical care, retirement, or mandate a minimum wage for citizens? I know how we ended up here but why do you hate poor people so much that you wish to continue these programs?

    While we are at it lets get rid of Federal student loans. They drive up the cost of tuition. This in turn does not harm the rich.

    While you love Medicare, with the federal government pumping all this money into the market, you are essentially driving up the costs of medical care. You must not want the poor to have health care.

    Just a little something for you so you know how much liberty you are giving up for your security.
  18. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Woodrow Wilson, Columbia University Lectures, April 1907'

    Woodrow Wilson, Speech before Congress, April 2, 1917'



  19. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Who wishes they would've bought some halliburton stock in 01 or 02? Not really a great investment unless you compare it to UPS stock. :happy-very: Oh wait am I supposed to call halliburton evil big logistics? What is UPS evil big truck? What about the poor guy that bought HAL in 98? Ten years for the company to double and we are supposed to believe that Cheney is in the White House to make this company rich. XOM is doing half as good as HAL. :happy2: What is this the central states portfolio?:happy-very:
  20. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    As an independent I would like to offer my opinion in the differences of the left and right. He started with war so that is where I will begin.

    The nation feels a need to go to war. This decision is debated by congress which has the authority to send us to war. The majority of both sides feel it necessary to send the country off to war. Off we go.

    War drags on. People tire of the war. The left sees an opportunity to increase their power. They tell everyone they must have been misled by the stupid people on the right. They say even though chemical weapons were used against our troops it really did not exist. The masses rally. People who cannot think for themselves forget why they wanted to send our nation to war in the first place. The left looks for an easy way out. They vote to take away they beans and bullets from the troops while in a combat zone. This afterall is the easy way to finish it.

    We have the right. They may have now been forced to take a position to support the war. They do not look for the easy way out. They seek an escalation of force to finish the war in victory they sent our young men and women to fight. In go more troops. The left mock this by saying this will escalate violence, our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war, the war is lost, well we've all heard it now. All citizens knew these things were false but as a nation we are reluctant to fight long wars.

    In a nut shell the left always look for an easy feel good way out. The right while sometimes wrong seem to act more on principal. Here is another issue not war related. A teenager makes a mistake. B. Hussein says he does not want his daughter punished with a child and believe she should be able to kill it. On the right we have Palin who believes that her daughter made a mistake and should face it and raise her child and get married. After all this is where she stands in principal. Left easy way out, right principal stand.

    Moral Issues are a little more tricky but from where I sit it seems the right wants to legislate my morality and the left wants to legislate immorality. The main issue that comes to mind is the right wants a federal law that says marriage is between a man and a woman and the left wants to make it a civil rights issue and pass a federal law that says states must honor any marriage. As an independent I say it is none of the federal governments business.