posted 01-22-2002 21:36            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaldGhoti:
A tip: no one takes people without thought for grammar or spelling seriously. That sort of attitude towards the basic rules of text-based communication basically says "I'm too stupid to figure out where to put my commas and too dumb to spell 'grammar' the right way on the first go-round.

In other words, your "excuse" only made you look dumber.

---

when you are with a group of friends and are talking ,do you make sure that everything you say is in proper english form?

posted 01-23-2002 04:55            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jumper42:
when you are with a group of friends and are talking ,do you make sure that everything you say is in proper english form?

---

Yes. But even then, improper grammar would be acceptable--you can't exactly proofread the spoken word. You can stop to think about what you're saying, though, which IS a good idea.

quote:

---

this is much of the same thing, so what if shit is misspelled and grammar is all fubared. you are getting the basic jist of what i say. i am not anal enough to sit here and proof read and edit what i write in a forum. when it comes to writing reports for work or school then i do these things but i pretty much refuse to do that here, i have better things to do with my time.

---

It takes five seconds to look back at what you've written. When you don't use grammar and proper spelling, you make it more difficult for those who are reading your argument. And you basically come off as a slack-jawed, drooling cretin (see xclusive for details).

Have you ever had an in-depth discussion with a peer about some topic, and then been interrupted by a redneck or child? I could understand it if, say, Spanish were your native language. But it makes you look like a total asshole when Dave communicates in English (his second language) flawlessly, while you communicate in English (your first language) like an inbred child from rural Arkansas. So are you stupid, or just lazy?

My only point is this: If you don't want to be dismissed so readily as a waste of bits, I suggest you clean up your posts so that those reading them don't develop migraines.

The only reason I don't go after xclusive is because he isn't even TRYING to debate, he's just a troll. I sense that you want to be considered more than a troll, but in my opinion, ANY post written with disregard for grammar and spelling is a troll post. Am I alone here?

posted 01-23-2002 07:00         

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenomas:
What I'm asking is, is even the appearance of eroding civil rights necessary for the sake of security measures based on theoretical threats that have never occurred?

---

I'm confused by your use of the word "theoretical" in this context. Would you define the U.S. barracks bombings, Consulate bombings as Sept 11th as conjectural or speculative? Explain to the surviving family members of Sept 11th that the attack was "theoretical". The terrorists have it quite clear they will continue terrorist’s attacks with any and all means at their disposal. Therefore, it would to seem to some that a defensive posture is requited to prevent future attacks.

Thus far, we should be on the same page.
As for the convoluted and ineffective concluding statement:

quote:

---

if none of the proposed measures would have prevented past acts of terrorism, then could that be a TEENSY sign that lawmakers are on the wrong track with their homeland defense policies?

---

Are you suggesting that IF proposed defense measures HAD been implemented before Sept 11th and had NOT prevented the attack?
then this would prove that lawmakers had implemented ineffective defense policies?

Sheesh. I don't know, do you?

Even a reasonable idealistic liberal would agree that the United States must collect, analyize and use in it's defense information pertaining to these terrorist groups.

Our point of contention comes down to weather or not it is acceptable to "pose a threat to civil liberties" while collecting intelligence information for the purpose of homeland defense. Under the current world conditions I can accept that the law enforcement community may require greater latitude to collect information from terrorist factions within the population. In so doing will there be cases where they over step their bounds? Absolutely. Anytime authority is granted abuse will occur. Is the tradeoff of the threat to civil liberties worth the additional intelligence. I say yes as do most Americans.

posted 01-23-2002 21:38            

quote:

---

Originally posted by marcel:
Would you define the U.S. barracks bombings, Consulate bombings [and] Sept 11th as conjectural or speculative? Explain to the surviving family members of Sept 11th that the attack was "theoretical".

---

Beg pardon, but don't be an idiot. Nobody would say such a thing. Even if my post wasn't clear, you know perfectly well I wasn't saying that, so why posture about it? It's not like the people reading this thread are going to vote when we reach 50 posts or something.

I thought it was clear, but.. Suppose we're considering a proposed law-- let say, no hats on airplanes. My point was, in talking about such a law, we should first ask ourselves, "was there ever a terrorist act that would have been prevented if hats weren't allowed on airplanes?"

If the answer is yes, we should weigh the gain in terrorist prevention vs. the loss of headwear freedom.

If the answer is no, then one must ask: Is it worth a loss of freedom (no more hats on airplanes) to protect against a theoretical attack that has never occurred (i.e. an airline attack that required a hat)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by marcel:
Our point of contention comes down to weather [whether] or not it is acceptable to "pose a threat to civil liberties" while collecting intelligence information for the purpose of homeland defense.

---

posted 01-23-2002 21:53         

And then there's the fact that these guys didn't crash planes into buildings with cryptography. They did it with box cutters. (Which are legal, in case you missed that meeting.)

To tie together the whole immigrant and terrorist thing together: these guys were in the U.S. legally. Getting every single illegal Mexican and South American and Haitian and putting them on slow boats to SomewhereElse-land would not have prevented this in any way.

To my eyes, this patriotism and fear campaign is solely for the purpose of gaining more control of people.

posted 01-23-2002 21:54            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaldGhoti:

The only reason I don't go after xclusive is because he isn't even TRYING to debate, he's just a troll. I sense that you want to be considered more than a troll, but in my opinion, ANY post written with disregard for grammar and spelling is a troll post. Am I alone here?

---

You're exactly right, but don't try to convince them otherwise.

posted 01-24-2002 04:40         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clme:
Thank you fen.

---

Atta boy Clme, 'ole fen will say it for you. kisses.

posted 01-24-2002 05:17         

quote:

---

Even if my post wasn't clear, you know perfectly well I wasn't saying that

---

quote:

---

I thought it was clear, but.. Suppose we're considering a proposed law-- let say, no hats on airplanes.......

---

Get a grip fen.

The U.S. government has been forced into a situation whereby it must rapidly collect information on terrorist factions who use ANY means at their disposal to perform their covert and violent acts. The U.S. does NOT know if ANY of the purposed techniques will be effective with respect to intelligence collecting, there is currently no standard. These techniques are a first “best guest”, if they prove effective, the better for us. If they prove ineffective they will be discontinued, the homeland defense budget will be “weeded out” after is initial build leaving only the most effective techniques employed.

quote:

---

Your answer seems to be, "Questions like that are unpatriotic. What are you saying, that we should all turn Muslim and grow beards?"

---

Where within this thread did I speak of patriotism?
My point was quite clear, you chose to ignore it.
I stated; “Under the current world conditions I can accept that the law enforcement community may require greater latitude to collect information from terrorist factions within the population.”
As for the Muslim comment, all I can say is that you are more effective when you stay on the subject. That said, aren’t you a bit overdue for some name-calling?

[This message has been edited by marcel (edited 01-24-2002).]

posted 01-24-2002 05:24         

quote:

---

Originally posted by upload:
wow, 33 comments...
I wonder what a libertarian (sp?) would say.
back to Govt homework.

---

To pull Joshy in, you need only speak of goats.

posted 01-24-2002 06:31            

First) If the government requires more leeway in order to collect information, then issuing blank search warrants and making it easier to aquire wire taps isn't going to make a whole hell of a lot of difference. Allowing circumstantial evidence wont keep grandma from getting blowed up in a building. Tapping internet connections is not only unfeasable, but I fail to see how they'll diferentiate between a 50 year old man who may not love all thats american and a suicidal man here with intent to kill.

I dont think terrorists are going into their small midwestern homes and saying to friends on AIM "Hey. I'm gonna go and steal a jet plane today and blow up a building today. Dont tell anyone!!!".

Usually they also tend to shy away from any contact with their home country, since most forms of communication leaving or entering the states are already tapped.

Second) The percieved point I get out of any of your posts is "Look at my unpopular opinion, that I'm going to support by saying the same thing over and over until the people honestly trying to debate give up and I win by default". I dont think I've once saw you actually defend a point without bringing in the idea that if we dont see the beautifulness of your point than we're just morons. For christs sake, try to persuade us or something.

Third) Regarding the following comment:

quote:

---

Atta boy Clme, 'ole fen will say it for you. kisses.

---

You seem to specialize in calling people stupid in original ways. While there is nothing wrong with this, it does grow tired when thats the only thing (besides confusion and anger) that your posts are good for.

fourth) If we cant defend against terrorism without the loss of our civil liberties, then I am truly worried about this country. However, I do believe its possible. I just dont agree with a blanket "uncle sam is right when he wants to know what pr0n I'm surfing" view. Down that road trouble lies.

posted 01-24-2002 09:41         

quote:

---

First) If the government requires more leeway in order to collect information, then issuing blank search warrants and making it easier to aquire wire taps isn't going to make a whole hell of a lot of difference. Allowing circumstantial evidence wont keep grandma from getting blowed up in a building. Tapping internet connections is not only unfeasable, but I fail to see how they'll diferentiate between a 50 year old man who may not love all thats american and a suicidal man here with intent to kill.
I dont think terrorists are going into their small midwestern homes and saying to friends on AIM "Hey. I'm gonna go and steal a jet plane today and blow up a building today. Dont tell anyone!!!".
Usually they also tend to shy away from any contact with their home country, since most forms of communication leaving or entering the states are already tapped.

---

All pure speculation at this point. No one knows for sure. Can we afford to over look any of these areas? I think not.

quote:

---

Second) The percieved point I get out of any of your posts is "Look at my unpopular opinion, that I'm going to support by saying the same thing over and over until the people honestly trying to debate give up and I win by default". I dont think I've once saw you actually defend a point without bringing in the idea that if we dont see the beautifulness of your point than we're just morons. For christs sake, try to persuade us or something.

---

quote:

---

You seem to specialize in calling people stupid in original ways. While there is nothing wrong with this, it does grow tired when thats the only thing (besides confusion and anger) that your posts are good for.

---

quote:

---

fourth) If we cant defend against terrorism without the loss of our civil liberties, then I am truly worried about this country. However, I do believe its possible. I just dont agree with a blanket "uncle sam is right when he wants to know what pr0n I'm surfing" view. Down that road trouble lies.

---

posted 01-24-2002 19:09            

Also, I don't want to get bogged down in "argument theory", but let me return a second to you shaking your head about my "you know perfectly well" comment. Because of the wording of a previous post, you asked I if was saying that the 9/11 attacks were a "theoretical attack that never happened" and suggested I explain that to the victim's families.

I wasn't name calling when I said "don't be an idiot." I stand by what I said, and I claim that you did, in fact, know perfectly well that I wasn't saying that. Why would anyone say the 9/11 attacks never happened? Even if my wording wasn't clear, its obvious that I wasn't saying that. So I can only assume that you took a sentence out of context in order to reply with something unassailable like "try telling a 9-11 survivor that the attack was theoretical!" Insofar as we're here to debate ideas and not to "win", I don't see how comments like that mean anything at all.

posted 01-25-2002 04:54         

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenomas:
Marcel, I know what your point is. I might be in favor of loosening the reins as well, if I thought it would make a difference regarding terrorism. My biggest disagreement with your last two posts is that it is just naive to think that we can take away civil liberties and privacy rights now, and that some time in the future, the ones that weren't really necessary to prevent terrorism will somehow return. Eroding rights is a slippery slope, and the upward journey is a hard one, because once a law is passed, the only way to overturn it is for someone to break it, be prosecuted, and challenge it when they get their day in court. Take the DMCA- no-one likes it except the MPAA and the RIAA. But I haven't heard about the bits that abolish fair use rights getting overturned yet. They may be eventually, but it will take years, and a couple of people will go to jail and/or spend half a lifetime in court to make it happen. In the meantime, a few heavy political contributors will get richer. I just haven't seen any evidence since 9/11 that the proper course of action is to pass any law that someone comes up with, just in case it helps, and then worry later about "weeding out" the ones that never should have been passed after all.

Also, I don't want to get bogged down in "argument theory", but let me return a second to you shaking your head about my "you know perfectly well" comment. Because of the wording of a previous post, you asked I if was saying that the 9/11 attacks were a "theoretical attack that never happened" and suggested I explain that to the victim's families.

I wasn't name calling when I said "don't be an idiot." I stand by what I said, and I claim that you did, in fact, know perfectly well that I wasn't saying that. Why would anyone say the 9/11 attacks never happened? Even if my wording wasn't clear, its obvious that I wasn't saying that. So I can only assume that you took a sentence out of context in order to reply with something unassailable like "try telling a 9-11 survivor that the attack was theoretical!" Insofar as we're here to debate ideas and not to "win", I don't see how comments like that mean anything at all.
fen

---

Fair enough,

I took issue with the termonology "theoretical threats". My perception is that (subsequent) threat is decidedly NOT theoretical as shown by the shoe bomber, U.S. consulet shooting in India.

Desperate times require desperate measures.
On the other hand I also agree it is dangerous to infringe upon civil liberities. I guess we are all concerned as to what the correct balance should be.

In any event, you provided food for thought.
Thanks.

posted 01-25-2002 09:17            

quote:

---

Originally posted by marcel:
To pull Joshy in, you need only speak of goats.

---

Huh? Somebody call my name? Sorry, I seem to have picked up some sort of goat STD, and was out sick yesterday with a 102* fever. It's creeping back up there again today, so I'll just say that...

1) Marcel even admits this is all a reactionary shot in the dark.

The trick is, if they were knowingly experimenting, why did they reject proposals to place time limits on these powers, with mandatory review periods? Because Ashcroft and others in LE have wanted these things forever, and they're using 9/11 as an excuse. They are waving the corpses of firefighters at us to scare us into giving them a carte blanc, so long as they make us feel "safe" again.

When the Republicans get done creating a police state, they will move on to outlawing abortion again, stepping up drug enforcement, and upping taxes to pay for the revitalized military industrial complex, we will elect Democrats, who will eventually finsh taking away our guns. Then we will have an oppressive government, no means to defend ourselves against it, and nowhere to hide from it.

We have the right to overthrow any government that would put its own existance before that of its citizens- that is the diference between being citizens, and being subjects. Be very afraid of any government that systematically takes away the ability of its citizens to rise up against it.

2) Goats rock.

posted 01-25-2002 09:48         

quote:

---

Originally posted by joshy:
Huh? Somebody call my name? Sorry, I seem to have picked up some sort of goat STD, and was out sick yesterday with a 102* fever. It's creeping back up there again today, so I'll just say that...

1) Marcel even admits this is all a reactionary shot in the dark.

The trick is, if they were knowingly experimenting, why did they reject proposals to place time limits on these powers, with mandatory review periods? Because Ashcroft and others in LE have wanted these things forever, and they're using 9/11 as an excuse. They are waving the corpses of firefighters at us to scare us into giving them a carte blanc, so long as they make us feel "safe" again.

When the Republicans get done creating a police state, they will move on to outlawing abortion again, stepping up drug enforcement, and upping taxes to pay for the revitalized military industrial complex, we will elect Democrats, who will eventually finsh taking away our guns. Then we will have an oppressive government, no means to defend ourselves against it, and nowhere to hide from it.

We have the right to overthrow any government that would put its own existance before that of its citizens- that is the diference between being citizens, and being subjects. Be very afraid of any government that systematically takes away the ability of its citizens to rise up against it.

---

Least we forget the green house effect and
the thousands of asteroids streaking towards earth.....closer and closer every minute.....

posted 01-25-2002 10:08         

quote:

---

Originally posted by joshy:

When the Republicans get done creating a police state, they will move on to outlawing abortion again, stepping up drug enforcement, and upping taxes to pay for the revitalized military industrial complex, we will elect Democrats, who will eventually finsh taking away our guns. Then we will have an oppressive government, no means to defend ourselves against it, and nowhere to hide from it.

---

posted 01-25-2002 16:19            

Although I will not waste your time explaining these three major entangling alliances, each with a different political or social backing, I will point out that they are three outstanding and major examples of foreign politics bullshit with personal interest or political paranoia behind each incident. Now, we act surprised that anyone could possibly hate the U.S., that anyone could go to such lengths as to fly two airliners into a high-rise. Their crimes are sickening, but it was our political actions that have prompted this reaction which, while not genteel or subtle, was a strongly political reaction. We can only protect ourselves, and getting involved with Middle Eastern politics was a huge fuckup with only ourselves to blame.

Now, after the fact, the government rushes to allay the publics fears with pitiful attempts at local security. This does not solve the problem. You could give up every right you have, and could still be vaporized when some agitated warlord drops a nuclear warhead on your house. Fuck ID badges, an ID badge can't protect you from determined, war-hardened, professional killers who have a grudge against the U.S., a grudge because a tank, made-by and payed-for by Americans, crushed their entire family beneath its treads.

posted 01-25-2002 17:06            

However, prior to World War II the U.S. had a policy of isolationism. Isolationism can be a mistake too:

The thought that "Let the rest of the world handle its own affairs and we'll sit here by ourselves" led to a few major mistakes and problems. World War II wasn't entered until two years after its start because of this. If it had been entered earlier, perhaps a lot of damage could have been prevented.

Even before that... After World War One, The "League of Nations" was set up to prevent that sort of thing from ever happening again. In fact, it was masterminded by an American President (Woodrow Wilson, if I'm not mistaken) and it was a parallel to the current U.N.

But: There were several mistakes made. The U.S. preferred to keep out of international affairs, and the League failed. When people started fighting, and Germany (who was severely punished/taxed/driven-into-destitution by all of Europe after WWI) started invading other countries, the league was powerless.

After the end of that war, 5 years after its beginning, and 3 years after the US joined it, the U.S. vowed never to let somethign like that happen again. With support of all of Europe, and Russia (then our friends) they created an international police force to keep world wars and unwarranted death from happening.

Whats been the problem since that time is deciding WHAT conflicts are worthy of intervening, and WHO to back with funding and weaponry.

There has always been a history of picking one set of people, and funding them in favor of another. This has been where the majority problems and hatred has come from. The U.S. and Europe gave the Israelites land at the end of WWII with little thought of the people that lived there. This was not ONLY the U.S. doing this. But, after doing that, the U.S. has continued to assist and fund Israel despite the things they have done. They have not given any assistance to Palestinians, or other peoples in that area.

When it comes to conflicts, when there isn't a clear "right" peoples in the eyes of the U.S. government, it tends to pick the peoples that stand the best chance of winning and assist them in hopes they can influence them later.

This may not be the correct course of action... but where do we draw the line? We've already established (by getting our asses spanked) that Isolationism isnt' the best answer. We joined up with the U.N. in order to help prevent global tradgedies, and normally end up being the U.N's strongarm.

Perhaps we should really just take closer looks at who we back before giving them ammo and money. For damn sure we have to start holding the people we assist accountable, rather than just finding the expedient way to end a conflict.

Was the U.S. wrong in some of its actions in the Middle East? Definitely.

Has it made mistakes with its trade and military relationships with other countries too? Probably.

Does that excuse terrorism? No. Fucking. Way.

Missiles, Armed forces, etc are war. Crashing a plane full of citizens of many countries, religious beliefs and colors into a building full of citizens of many countries is just plain terrorism. How many Germans, Canadians, and Japanese died in that building?

posted 01-25-2002 19:08         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clme:
The U.S., for the last 60 years, has had a history of involving itself in numerous wars and conflicts. Saying that they've ALWAYS been right in doing this is probably a mistake.

However, prior to World War II the U.S. had a policy of isolationism. Isolationism can be a mistake too:

[snip lots of other stuff]

---

posted 01-27-2002 22:08            

But yeah, that's the crux of it, Fen - trusting government with large amounts of power, or not trusting government with large amounts of power.

When I was growing up I was somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun, because the governmental bodies I was familiar with were good ol' boys with tons and tons of power, but - and this is important - who really tried to be GOOD ol' boys, and do the job right.