[quote=“jwbrunken”]
I would hope the police are suspicious of anyone carrying a gun around in public.[/quote]
So ‘anyone’ could include levis wearers. That is almost everyone under suspcion.
So you are saying people aren’t allowed to defend themselves then?
Would those people the police are suspicious about include the military? They carry guns in public.
I wonder if you support the banning of guns in the US?
It doesn’t matter to me, what you read, you should have the right to read whatever you want that’s in a library without the government looking over your shoulder.
But for the F.B.I it matters. One person was even ‘snitched on’, on an airplane for reading “Jihad: The Rise Of Militant Islam In Central Asia”.
You should address the F.B.I and ask why are they so interested in what people read. Maybe they have a list somewhere of the books they don’t deem a threat to the country.
It’s yet another small move to erode freedoms.
Luckily some librarians aren’t bowing down to this fascist madness.
My guess is the original film doesn’t contain any ‘conspiracy theories’ in the sense you talk about.
Maybe it will mention some of the government conspiracies that the likes of you can never bring yourself to believe.
You really sound like a clinton fan. He was as bad as bush.
Never mind, they are grooming Hilary for the presidency. She’s been having meetings with Murdoch for years. A neo-con is sheeps clothing.
Continue being mouth fed the news. Open, swallow, that’s it, it’s all for your benefit.
Absolutely! Pondering what’s going on in your mind based on the crap you post here, it scares me shittless to think you could wander into any old store and pick yourself up a shotgun or twenty!
The Bush Administration was glad to create “enemies lists” to keep 40+ American citizens out of publicly funded Town Hall meetings on social security in North Dakota and to toss out one group in Denver just because one owned a car with a “No Blood for Oil” bumpersticker.
Frankly, the Bush administration and their knee-jerk defenders are about as un-American as I can imagine in this regard.
[quote]The Bush Administration was glad to create “enemies lists” to keep 40+ American citizens out of publicly funded Town Hall meetings on social security in North Dakota and to toss out one group in Denver just because one owned a car with a “No Blood for Oil” bumpersticker.
Frankly, the Bush administration and their knee-jerk defenders are about as un-American as I can imagine in this regard.[/quote]
Yawn… still on this one… what next Bush’s national guard service? the corruption scandal that never came to anything at Halliburton? Cheney’s grand designs to control Iraq’s oil? zzzzzzzzz
I did experience a frisson of interest however when you used the word un-American. haha Thanks for that!
Absolutely! Pondering what’s going on in your mind based on the crap you post here, it scares me shittless to think you could wander into any old store and pick yourself up a shotgun or twenty!
Ease up, cake, I’m tugging your chain.
HG[/quote]
Are you a commie?
If there was a threat to my life I would gladly use a gun. There are too many jellyfish around.
You obvioulsy want the goons with black ski masks to protect you. Which they won’t do.
I was totally against the banning of guns in the UK after the governments ‘knee-jerk’ reaction.
Any fool knew that the real threat was illegal guns. Just look at the UK now.
I used to enjoy the days going down to the gun club, I was a member of. Great bunch of people there from all walks of life.
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]The Bush Administration was glad to create “enemies lists” to keep 40+ American citizens out of publicly funded Town Hall meetings on social security in North Dakota and to toss out one group in Denver just because one owned a car with a “No Blood for Oil” bumpersticker.
Frankly, the Bush administration and their knee-jerk defenders are about as un-American as I can imagine in this regard.[/quote]
I did experience a frisson of interest however when you used the word un-American. haha Thanks for that![/quote]
So, you don’t actually have anything of substance to say about the American citizens barred and/or tossed from taxpayer-funded events because they might disagree with the president? You think that’s somehow in line with what our Founding Fathers thought when they fought the Brits for independence?
Hell yes it’s un-American. Un-American as the rest of the shit sandwiches served up at every turn by the Republicans. No wonder 2/3 of Americans want the Democrats to take the Congress back from the Republicans. The Republicans had to figure there will eventually be a political pricetag to be paid for putting short-term political convenience above the needs of the nation…
Hurray! new MFGRism. Two points for you!!! Thanks!!! I mean it!!!
Well, if you can deliver the fiscal responsibility, repair the “frayed” alliances, get some reform of the school system, then hell even I may vote for the Democrats.
haha. This after the Clinton years… Well, you never know… Anyway, you come up with the goods and I will be happy to consider voting Democrat this year, not because of all the supposed foreign policy disasters, etc. but to get someone in who will really be fiscally conservative. I am willing to give an honest Democrat that chance but past experience leaves me somewhat unconvinced. Prove me wrong. Show me where Democrats are taking the bull by the horns to cut excess and you may have a Democrat in me at least for the domestic side of things. International relations can wait until the 2008 election.
[url=http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9559707/detail.html]Marshals: Innocent People [b]Placed On ‘Watch List’ To Meet Quota
Marshals Say They Must File One Surveillance Detection Report, Or SDR, Per Month[/b]
DENVER – You could be on a secret government database or watch list for simply taking a picture on an airplane. Some federal air marshals say they’re reporting your actions to meet a quota, even though some top officials deny it.
The air marshals, whose identities are being concealed, told 7NEWS that they’re required to submit at least one report a month. If they don’t, there’s no raise, no bonus, no awards and no special assignments.
“Innocent passengers are being entered into an international intelligence database as suspicious persons, acting in a suspicious manner on an aircraft … and they did nothing wrong,” said one federal air marshal.
“When you see a decision like this, for these reports, who loses here?” Kovaleski asked.
“The people we’re supposed to protect – the American public,” an air marshal said.[/url]
I and others I know get stopped all the time heading to English speaking countries like Canada, Australia, NZ and even the US, not to mention countries like Argentina and elsewhere since there are quotas. Guess what, whitey most likely speaks English while the rest of the planeload of mostly Taiwanese, Hong Kong, Indian, Filipino and Chinese passengers may not because it would be too difficult to communitcate with them, so geee, what a surprise. Do I like it, no. I think they should be spending much more time questioning Mohammad and Ahmad and anyone else with such a name aged 15 to 40, but there you are. Given that we cannot by any means pretend that so named individuals are more likely to commit terrorist acts, people like me need to be stopped in greater numbers to even out the percentages lest there be a pattern of racial or ethnic profiling. That means your grandma needs to be stopped as well. Oh dear.
[quote] It wasn’t until the second anniversary of the attacks that US Magistrate H. Kenneth Schroeder Jr, in a bluntly worded ruling, found that Benatta’s detainment for a deportation hearing was “a charade.”
Though terrible, the Sept. 11 attacks “do not constitute an acceptable basis for abandoning our constitutional principles and rule of law by adopting an `end justifies the means’ philosophy,” Schroeder wrote.[/quote]
can’t somebody put cake into the “free speech zone”?
can you imagine how your life would change if you were on the “do not fly list”? people get put on that for no apparent reason and have no recourse (unless you’re named teddy kennedy).
DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.[/quote]
I’m just curious as to how the Democrats, who hold that the fight against terrorism should be more a police matter than a military matter, propose to deal with terrorism and the threat it poses.
I mean, what policing will be acceptable in fighting terrorism?
Note: This is not a rhetorical question. Really, what measures will be appropriate in dealing with the threat of terrorism? Profiling is bad… Wiretapping is a violation… what measures will be acceptable?
I think their plan is to just let the terrorists do whatever they want. They believe that eventually they will get bored and stop, seeing that they get no reaction from us.
DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.[/quote]
I’m just curious as to how the Democrats, who hold that the fight against terrorism should be more a police matter than a military matter, propose to deal with terrorism and the threat it poses.
I mean, what policing will be acceptable in fighting terrorism?
Note: This is not a rhetorical question. Really, what measures will be appropriate in dealing with the threat of terrorism? Profiling is bad… Wiretapping is a violation… what measures will be acceptable?[/quote]
I’m not a Democrat, so I can’t answer that. But no one ever said that the govt can’t wiretap. This is an accepted tool used by law enforcement; the distinction is that it must be warranted and have some sort of judicial oversight. The govt already has a secret court handing out these warrants, so what’s the big deal in getting a warrant. We already know, that in exigent circumstances and other limited instances, warrantless surveillance is already constitutional. What’s wrong with the level of scrutiny that is in place now? Why go all the way to giving a blank check? Because we all know that once you open a door, you can’t go back. Are you okay with this creeping intrusion of what are police state powers? Who’s to say that it won’t end once the enemy is dealt with?
I never said don’t wiretap at all. Profiling is inevitable. Old people and children aren’t going to be scrutinized as much as a Sikh (even if for the wrong reason) or that the government should be hobbled, but by the same token, the people’s rights and powers should not be thrown out the window so nonchalantly. I don’t like the long airport waits, but I understand that is the price of safety of flying, and I accept it. But that doesn’t mean the powers used to fight terrorism should be or has to be unlimited.
