Done under the guise of thinking they might be giving some thought aid to terrists or other perceived enemies of the US, out of BushCo, continued by Obama, and blessed by the Roberts Court.
Let me ask ya’all something..
If you have two opposing forces who are diametrically opposite on practically every conceivable issue, if these two forces do agree on one course of action……
What are the odds that such an action is the WRONG action to take???
Seriously….
Michale32086
Siiiiiigggghhhhhh. Democrats and Republicans agree, so we don’t need privacy. The troll says so.
mparker,
Two questions.
Do you even know what the definition of a “troll” is?? I mean, you might as well call me a cucumber for all the accuracy your name-calling has..
So, I am sincerely curious.. Do you even know what a “troll” is??
Secondly..
In any civilized society, public safety ALWAYS trumps privacy or any other liberty. The US Constitution is not a suicide pact. Which is why there are always limits and caveats that trumps those liberties that are afforded to us by the Constitution.
But it is pretty ironic..
You seem to want maximum privacy for yourself, regardless of consequences… Yet, you want maximum transparency in your government, again regardless of the consequences.
Seems to me that stance is a little bit hypocritical, no??
Regardless, my initial point was that the Bush and Obama Administrations were and are in a much better position to know the threat that we face…
This being the case, if they BOTH believe that these actions are in the best interests of the country and, since they don’t agree on practically anything else, that makes a pretty strong case that these actions are the correct actions.
Does it take a “constitutional scholar” to abrogate the Constitution?
I put that at the end of a post I put up this morning about the FBI raids on antiwar activists in several differenct cities this past Friday morining –7AM.
Done under the guise of thinking they might be giving some thought aid to terrists or other perceived enemies of the US, out of BushCo, continued by Obama, and blessed by the Roberts Court.
Let me ask ya’all something..
If you have two opposing forces who are diametrically opposite on practically every conceivable issue, if these two forces do agree on one course of action……
What are the odds that such an action is the WRONG action to take???
Seriously….
Michale32086
Siiiiiigggghhhhhh. Democrats and Republicans agree, so we don’t need privacy. The troll says so.
mparker,
Two questions.
Do you even know what the definition of a “troll” is?? I mean, you might as well call me a cucumber for all the accuracy your name-calling has..
So, I am sincerely curious.. Do you even know what a “troll” is??
Secondly..
In any civilized society, public safety ALWAYS trumps privacy or any other liberty. The US Constitution is not a suicide pact. Which is why there are always limits and caveats that trumps those liberties that are afforded to us by the Constitution.
But it is pretty ironic..
You seem to want maximum privacy for yourself, regardless of consequences… Yet, you want maximum transparency in your government, again regardless of the consequences.
Seems to me that stance is a little bit hypocritical, no??
Regardless, my initial point was that the Bush and Obama Administrations were and are in a much better position to know the threat that we face…
This being the case, if they BOTH believe that these actions are in the best interests of the country and, since they don’t agree on practically anything else, that makes a pretty strong case that these actions are the correct actions.
Simple logic.
Michale32086