|
Post by cymbalsteve on May 5, 2006 10:40:34 GMT -5
My opinion is that if EVERY person working in this country right now that doesn't have ALL the proper paperwork left tomorrow, there would be a #### load of work that isn't done.
So bring it on W!
|
|
|
Post by John Warner on May 5, 2006 12:35:23 GMT -5
the immigrant population serves as a huge economical base for our society, bottom line is our policies need to be upgraded to help meet the demands of our society, thus far I think Bush has the best plan yet to help alievate the problems we are facing
|
|
|
Post by cymbalsteve on May 8, 2006 6:08:09 GMT -5
What's your man W doing about gas prices....HUH?
|
|
|
Post by John Warner on May 8, 2006 9:53:38 GMT -5
What do you expect the president to do about gas prices, or even congress? If you want gas prices to be lower then stop driving, and lobby for lower taxes. Politicans don't have much control over these things; that is unless you want the government to micromanage the economy, which is typical of socialist countries-and historically their economies suck.
|
|
|
Post by cymbalsteve on May 8, 2006 11:36:48 GMT -5
I want your boy W to find us some other oil/energy sources. Think he's worried about that.......no, he's too busy getting our boys killed in Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by John Warner on May 8, 2006 22:04:29 GMT -5
By other enery sources do you mean drilling in ANWAR and funding research to find other sources, like he stated in his state of the union address? Also, society didn't care about better energy sources when gas was cheap, but now that it is expensive again like during the oil embargo, low and behold we want a better source of energy and want an immediate remedy. Do you really think there is an immediate fix to the problem outside the supply and demand forces at work, this time to our disadvantage? Getting our boys killed in Iraq...I guess freedom isn't worth fighting for. "Freedom is something the protected will never fully appreciate" -MOH recipient
|
|
|
Post by cymbalsteve on May 9, 2006 9:28:28 GMT -5
Don't start the freedom BS, they could have pulled out of there a year ago if they wanted to. Why does W have a super low approval rating, cause of his war, his "speech", what's causing it W?
|
|
|
Post by John Warner on May 9, 2006 12:07:40 GMT -5
Abraham Lincoln wasn't popular during the Civil War until the end was near, George Washington wasn't popular during his first few years as commander of the Army, FDR was loosing popularity during the first year we entered WWII as the war was going badly for us, Wilson wasn't popular after WWI- he couldn't get enough support from the public to support his plans for peace, Truman was about as popular as Bush has been for much of his presidency from the Korean War and the McAuthor debate. Americans only like to hear good news, no great news; when things get tough we want out. Are you saying that when life gets tough we should quit, are you saying that the majority is always right? Do you forget that only 3 years ago Bush was hugely popular? Why does Bush have an overall high popularity with the military? Do you seriously think that it would be a good idea to pull out now and leave a world with broken promises and unfinished work leaving these people all to their own with no support? Do you realize that you and I can sleep soundly at night is because we have people protecting us? Every time I'm asleep at night there's another person half way around the world who is awake keeping guard on a ship, at an embassy, or on a base keeping watch from those that want to kill you and me. I forgot Sadaam was out to make the world a better place, as is Bin laden, and the terrorists in Iraq that are killing the Iraqies who are trying to form a government and want to live in peace and even prosperiety.
|
|
|
Post by cymbalsteve on May 11, 2006 6:10:34 GMT -5
I didn't know Rush had access to these boards........
|
|
|
Post by John Warner on May 11, 2006 12:57:40 GMT -5
Is that how you debate, you run out of arguments and then insult the person you are debating with? I don't listen nor do I care a whole lot about about what Rush Limbaugh has to say. You asked me about what I though on these issues; if you are debating then you should answer these questions just as I have tried to answer the questions posted at me. And what does it matter if I share many of the same views as Mr. Limbaugh; does that then somehow mean they are worthless, that my views are less worthy then someone else who thinks differently?
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on May 11, 2006 13:45:41 GMT -5
Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop - without warrants - on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.
In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."
As a result, domestic call records - those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders - were believed to be private.
Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.
Whatever happened to the 4th amendment? What happened to the laws against unreasonable search and seisure? What about that George W. Warner?
|
|
|
Post by mikeneedsmoney on May 11, 2006 15:02:40 GMT -5
Hey, this is Mike Windish, and this is my first post...and probably my only one for a while. I just wanted to clear a few things up about J-Dub's post.
I'm not saying you're wrong, and in some cases you're right. Now, you are right in that America does only want good news and a lot of times wants to run away when things get tough. However, first and foremost, American's don't like being lied to by their president...as is clear by Clinton's approval rating during his scandal. When Bush says we know where the weapons of mass destruction are, and Donald Rumsfeld says, and this is a real quote, "We know where the weapons are. They're there around Baghdad, Tikrit, North, West, South, and all around there." Then we get over there and can't find them, the administration changes their tune. Americans feel lied to and betrayed. It becomes a fight for freedom.
Now, this is where I feel most strongly. My freedom isn't in Iraq. The last time somebody threatened my freedom, by attacking the United States, was in WWII with the Japanese. I know, you say Sept. 11 was an attack on the United States. But the best way for Bush to defend our freedom is to fix OUR country. Stay out of other people's business until it threatens us. Sept. 11 happened because that whole region is just pissed off because of what happened with the Soviets in 1980, that's the underlying theme throughout all the modern day fighting. It was inevitable. Iraq was not a threat, and they knew that, because there never were any "WMD's". Now, our soldiers are over there fighting for the Iraqis (Operation IRAQI Freedom, not American freedom).
Think of it this way. This is what we did to them, put yourself in their shoes. Say another country, Spain for example, comes over and says to America, "Hey, we think you guys have been ruled unjustly through your past couple presidents, so we're here to free you." That's what we're doing over there. We didn't want Saddam to rule anymore, but now it's cool to have an Islamic extremist in power. Great idea.
And you're right, we can't just pull out now, we have to finish what we started over there, but it shouldn't have ever been started.
Oh, and one more thing, the military doesn't like Bush for any other reason then giving them something to do. My best friend is in the Marines and he always talks to me about how much the Marines talk about not wanting to be in there...they would rather be fighting for America. And if you want numbers, his approval rating among military personnel fell 9 percent this past year from 62 percent to 53.
This was not meant to offend anyone, and quite frankly, I'm pretty damn impressed with your knowledge J-Dub. I guess I haven't talked to you enough to find that out.
Anyway, that's my post, I don't know if you'll ever see one again.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by John Warner on May 11, 2006 15:29:36 GMT -5
What about the fourth admendment? It is very debatable whether this is being violated or not, not to mention the clause says unreasonable searches and seisure not merely search and seisure. What your definition of unreasonable may not be someone else's, therefore its not an open and shut case. Now I'm not exaclty a fan of government watching over everything we do like the Soviet Union did to its citizens during the Cold War, mostly when Stalin was in power. However, bringing the question up is a very good question, we need to be questioning the practices our government takes. I don't see your irrefutable evidence that our civil liberities have been violated, I see that what you are presenting is more of a personal opinion. I gather that you and I share the same belief that our government is too big and needs to get off its citizens backs, fearing a big brother epidemic.
Debating whether this is a violation of civil liberities is in the same boat as debating whether the draft is a violation, or In God We Trust on our coins, government seizure of private property for private land development, and the abortion issue. Even FDR violated our civil liberities with the implimentation of many of his public works programs, and one could even argue he did also with consumer rationing during WWII. I think what is important for us to realize is that certain times require certain measures. If the government had done the same thing 5 years ago and foiled the 9/11 plot and saved 3,000 lives would it have been worth it? What if it means saving 100 people, would it have been worth it? What if it were only 1 life? I think the question should be more of what are we willing to give so that we can live the way we do, or what are we willing to give so that future generations may have a better life then we. During times of peace and prosperiety when there aren't shadows lurking in the dark I think we can expand what we believe are our rights, like we had during much of the 1990's and 1920's, but at other times I think we need to be willing to give up a little so that we can still be free. I personally would put safety over comfort, the two don't always go hand in hand unfortunately. I am willing to shave off or narrow the scope of my "rights" so that I can be safe and free, you are arguging over one of those gray areas in life of defining what our rights are. These issues are nothing new but have come to the forefront because of the times we live in. Do I think our rights are being violated-no, do I think that the govenment should have whatever power it wants to do what it deems as protecting us-certainly not, but we have to be realistic about things.
A good example in my mind would be the war between the Athenians and Spartans, the Athenians didn't want to give up many of their ways of life so the state could win and crush the Spartans, and you what know what happened? The Spartans destroyed Athens and the State which was a beacon on democracy, intellect, and wealth. They were destroyed by a totaliarian like State and never returned to those glory days. I think the lesson we could get from that is for us to find the balance between our rights and our responsibilities; our founders knew this very well and did their best to set up such a place. We would be wise to pick and choose what are our rights and responsibilities, and what the best course of actions are, especially in times like this
|
|
|
Post by John Warner on May 11, 2006 16:36:54 GMT -5
Great post Mike. I guess I should have been checking up more on the military's approval rating of Bush, last I knew it was a lot higher but I accept that I was wrong. Even so, you have to admidt that its a lot higher then the general public, not that 53% I believe is impressive. I too have talked with people in the military and I have gotten different reactions, but that is beside the point.
I myself am constently questioning Bush and others in the administration. Are they blantanly lying to us? Should he be impeached? Are the democrats better or are they hypocrites? I do remember those quotes just as well, and oh the value of hidesight. How foolish of us to have thought we would have been treated as liberators and only the initial invaion was going to be hard and aftermath easy. There is so much to this picture it will be a long time before we can completely asses it well. Remember that Bush didn't even need Congress to go to war, Sadaam violated the rules set down by the first war and we had every right to invade years before. Our intellengce problem is nothing new, I remember years ago that we had problems getting truly reliable evidence because we relied too much of technology and not people on the ground which was a huge mistake.
Also, Sadaam was trying to play two sides of the coin where he didn't want Iran to think he had nothing in terms of WMD's, but also tried to downplay it with the West because he didn't think we would do much, because during the Clinton administration he grossly violated the rules and we did little to nothing. Sadaam I believe is a very calculating man, just look at his trial, he knows he will be in prision or killed, he is using the same tatic as Milosovic by making the court look like a mockery. Anyway, is it not possible that if he did have weapons that he had them destroyed so we looked like fools? Is it still possible that he had stuff buried in the sand, afterall it seems like every week there are more mass graves found (granted alot from terrorism, but all?). Somewhat more logically is that we invaded to get Sadaam out, you have to admit that he was a danger, he only needed something to strike Israel with and before you know it we could have been involved in a nuclear war. Sadaam also gave money to families where relatives supported terrorism (terrorism, not necessarilary Al Queda). Seems like we went to war to rid of the very serious threat and avoid such situations- a pre-emptitive stike which is nothing new but not often used. Years ago Israel bomded Iraq because Sadaam was building a nuclear reactor, do I have to say anything about how dangerous that would have been.
Moving on, since we were ridding Sadaam what kind of government do you put in place? It seems most logical to try to set up is a democracy; Operation Iraqi Freedom, in political science that's good issue definition. So even though Bush didn't need our support he chose to try to get it anyway, afterall how do you sell a pre-empatitive war to the public? Now I don't like being lied to more then the next guy, but I'm probalby one of the few who isn't completely convinced that I have been truly lied to. I'm not foolish enough to think that politicans don't lie to us. But politically I see the democrats doing whatever they can to get the public to hate Bush, they use the problems in Iraq to get us to loose support of him. Remember that they voted for the bills too, so all the politicans are guilty if Bush is. Is it any wonder why liberal leaning politicans are viewed favorably in the liberal media (which it is unless you are talking about talk radio) compared to consevative leaning politicans. In addition, the administration has admitted that mistakes were made in Iraq.
I think we need to realize that we live in different times then our grandparents. We should have seen it during Vietnam, its not about political boundaries so much anymore and easily fought campaigns, its more about ideals and how certain people want power and crave to oppress others, meglomanics from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Sadaam and now the Iranian president. It's not americas style to get involved in others problems unless compelled to, and granted the link was not as clear as Al Queda to Afghanistan, but it was there. Unfortuanately non-involvement just is not the answear to our problems, look at WWI and WWII, we didn't get involved and let others fight out the problems and foolsihly thought we couldn't be touched only to have those problems bite us in the ###. If we were an isolationist country we could do it but we are not, we are involved in every corner of the world is one way or another (thanks to Teddy Roosevelt). Now I'm not leaving the possibility of the administration lying to us off the table, but I am not throughly convinced we were. We need to look at things as objecitively as possible and not be swept away by what others say, you all raise good points and I want to know the answers just as much as you.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on May 11, 2006 19:16:48 GMT -5
Good take Warner, that's what I like to see.
|
|