OMG!!! Enough is enough

[fishyfun2]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2966257
Has anyone bothered to look at the economy under President Carter??? We're heading that way again with this crazy tax and spend nonsense we're about to try.
Maybe there's a silver lining. We did get Reagan after Carter, and didn't Carter leave office with horribly low approval ratings? Could we be so lucky in 2012?

 

[turningtim]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2966428
Right or not, historically, there is legal precident for a suspension of civil liberties in times of war. That have been supported in the courts when people have challenged their rulings. There is a very legitimate argument. I agree it is a SLIPPERY slope, on one side if you don't, your country may not survive, other the other hand if it does survive, and these rules are not repealed. Then you've lost what you're fighting for.
However, I really feel that our treatment of terrorists captured on a battle field, vs interning the Japanese, is a complete apples or oranges argument. There is more of an argument when it comes to wiretapping a conversation between a terrorist overseas and him calling an American on US soil, but not really much better of an argument. Nor do I think that the libs opposition to the disputed measures, lie on the basis of defense of our civil liberties, but in their quest for power.
I don't dispute that.
But here is the problem. How many civilian Americans are killed each year by the import of foreign illegal drugs? (Murders, OD's and healthcare etc) We know they're (cartels) out there. We know where the drugs are coming from (as much as we know about the location of terrorists). Are we to spend a billion a month for this cause? Are we to put off our constitutional rights for this also? What about all the cash flowing out of the country to these folks that aren't supported by any legitimate government, organized armies...... blah blah....
Or we could just gather out all the felons and imprison them b/c they will more than likely do it again?
Yes I know this is a bit absurd but....

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2966716
I don't dispute that.
But here is the problem. How many civilian Americans are killed each year by the import of foreign illegal drugs? (Murders, OD's and healthcare etc) We know they're (cartels) out there. We know where the drugs are coming from (as much as we know about the location of terrorists). Are we to spend a billion a month for this cause? Are we to put off our constitutional rights for this also? What about all the cash flowing out of the country to these folks that aren't supported by any legitimate government, organized armies...... blah blah....
Or we could just gather out all the felons and imprison them b/c they will more than likely do it again?
Yes I know this is a bit absurd but....

The difference in my opinion is two fold, one, drug dealers just want to make $$. The terrorists have a religious ideology that in their mind dictates the destruction of the USA. The reason I think this is important, is I don't think that drug cartels want to destroy the USA, if they did that there would go their market. While the terrorists, believe victory is the destruction of the west.
I also think that with the terrorist attacks on 9/11 it showed that they really could reach us. If you think about it, we haven't really been attacked by a foreign organization on US soil since the Spanish-American war. And even most of that was fought on territories no actual US soil. It showed that we were vulnerable, and that elicited a strong response. (Hawaii wasn't a state till 1959)

 

[turningtim]

Be careful on that slope you're standing on. I hear its pretty slippery. I wouldn't want you to get hurt........

And who would split that hair? Even if we say just during wartime or whatever do we really want the next guy to have that power? Never know who is coming down the pike. I think if anything that is what this past election has proven to us.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2966716
I don't dispute that.
But here is the problem. How many civilian Americans are killed each year by the import of foreign illegal drugs? (Murders, OD's and healthcare etc) We know they're (cartels) out there. We know where the drugs are coming from (as much as we know about the location of terrorists). Are we to spend a billion a month for this cause? Are we to put off our constitutional rights for this also? What about all the cash flowing out of the country to these folks that aren't supported by any legitimate government, organized armies...... blah blah....
Or we could just gather out all the felons and imprison them b/c they will more than likely do it again?
Yes I know this is a bit absurd but....

Actually there is legislature to legalize certain drugs. To free up money and assetts for other things. The drugs would be taxed as well. This would also free up space in the jails where we have drug felons incarcerated and allow us to imprison truly violent felons longer and repeat felons.
To me, drugs breed violence, but only because we treat drugs as we treated alcohol during prohibition. Once alcohol became legal again the bootleggers and the violence surrounding that criminal element disappeared. Those that were career criminals anyway went to something else illegal (drug trafficing)
If drugs were treated in the same manner as alcohol you wouldn't have the crime surrounding it. Now many here would point to amsterdam and point out how their burglary and theft rates have increased. But amsterdam citizens are not armed...

 

[jimmy 4]

Round and round
With love we'll find a way just give it time
Round and round
What comes around goes around
I'll tell you why
Dig
Lookin' at you, lookin' at me
The way you move, you know it's easy to see
The neon light's on me tonight
I've got a way, we're gonna prove it tonight
Like Romeo to Juliet
Time and time, I'm gonna make you mine
I've had enough, we've had enough
It's all the same, she said
ty ratt

 

[darthtang aw]

Only someone that lives in Blaine would post lyrics to a RATT song in a political thread...............Could be worse I suppose, you could be in Anoka.

 

[turningtim]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2966908
Actually there is legislature to legalize certain drugs. To free up money and assetts for other things. The drugs would be taxed as well. This would also free up space in the jails where we have drug felons incarcerated and allow us to imprison truly violent felons longer and repeat felons.
To me, drugs breed violence, but only because we treat drugs as we treated alcohol during prohibition. Once alcohol became legal again the bootleggers and the violence surrounding that criminal element disappeared. Those that were career criminals anyway went to something else illegal (drug trafficing)
If drugs were treated in the same manner as alcohol you wouldn't have the crime surrounding it. Now many here would point to amsterdam and point out how their burglary and theft rates have increased. But amsterdam citizens are not armed...

I don't dispute that either. thats why I said "import". Drugs that are not produced here and can't be. Specifically Cocaine and opiates.
Um and Pres Carter inherited a perfect country when he was elected. Just another example of a GOP pres (Nixon) who thinks he is above the document he swore to uphold.

 

[1journeyman]

You do realize Carter didn't take over from Nixon, right?

 

[turningtim]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2967600
You do realize Carter didn't take over from Nixon, right?
So Ford is to blame? 6 years of Pres Nixon and 2 years of Pres Ford. I think Pres Nixon had a bit more of an impact than did Pres Ford......
Oh I forgot it was all LBJ's fault that's right! Isn't that how the conservative thought process works?
But thanks for the correction

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2965090
Really and I have no grasp of with I'm talking about? I'm a fool?
The so called ones (that count) that enacted this piece of legislation are not the ones who are charged with determining its constitutionality. That would be the Judicial branch of the Government.
And so by that thought process you should notify all the Pro-life movement folks and tell them to please be quite b/c its law and well thats the end. Right? I would also argue that Roe v. Wade has been put to the highest scrutiny by the highest court in the land. So thats it live with it! Right?
Also I hear over and over "the Fore Fathers would roll over blah blah.. to see so much spending" Really? You think they would have been OK with the Pat act and all the others? Really?
Here we have spent what 1 Billion a month for the war. The currant admin has inherited the worst economic crisis since the depression and is trying to get our economy going again in this/OUR COUNTRY. 30 days in office and you're so ready to dump him.
Oh and BTW the people have spoken and he is the President. Actually beat Reagen as far as winning numbers. So please be quite. No sense in talking about it. Its a done deal and nothing you or anybody else is going to change that. Right?
WOW, this is what this country is about? Really?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Ben Franklin.
ever heard of him?
Missed this the other day. Your opinion of what is constitutional doesn't matter squat. The Supreme court had the chance to throw it out and didn't. That is the only opinion that counts.

 

[turningtim]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2968140
Missed this the other day. Your opinion of what is constitutional doesn't matter squat. The Supreme court had the chance to throw it out and didn't. That is the only opinion that counts.
Really? When was this heard? Where is the published opinion? Where is the dissenting opinion? Who wrote it? The whole court on the whole act right?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2968625
Really? When was this heard? Where is the published opinion? Where is the dissenting opinion? Who wrote it? The whole court on the whole act right?

Everything the supreme has looked at regarding unconstitutionality of the patriot act....only thing the over turned was regarding Gitmo detainees from what I can see.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...ct&btnG=Search
Take the time and read it all for yourself.

 

[turningtim]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2968646
Everything the supreme has looked at regarding unconstitutionality of the patriot act....only thing the over turned was regarding Gitmo detainees from what I can see.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...ct&btnG=Search
Take the time and read it all for yourself.
Please define everything? Sorry for the drive by. I can't find anything else that was heard by them? I found a Supreme court order (to FBI) for documents obtained and ordered unsealed.
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offi...librarians.cfm
Can't happen to an American citizen, Or can it?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/26...act/index.html

 

[reifermadness]

Originally Posted by mgatdog
http:///forum/post/2966146
1. Nobody forced them, but they made the guide lines to the banks that loaned the money easier. G.B said it on the news one day last summer that" more Americans owning homes than ever before in his term of office." 2. Maybe it was the highest it has been in the last 26 years .
Be careful about this one. Although I am a die hard Bush hater (don't even get me started about his policies and "yee-haw" leadership) However, the truth about softened lending practices was brought on by the Clinton Administration.
There was a push to increase home ownership during his tenure and there was pressure coming from up high to soften or relax lending guidelines. Now, that's not bad in the grand scheme of things. However, what DID happen was that we started to see flourishing people and families and our property values started increasing.
WHERE BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS WERE WRONG!!! was in taking their eye off the store and letting exotic loans take over without regulation. Don't have any money? NO PROBLEM! Want to tell us what you 'really' make? SURE!
Both sides are to blame for the housing meltdown. Again, HATE Bush and all of his grandstanding, lies, and taking his Daddy issues out on the country but his administration didn't start the housing bubble.
</rant>

 

[reefraff]

Bush also tried to make reforms to Freddie and Fanny but didn't push nearly hard enough. There are several congressional members that should be out on their arses over that.

 

[ironeagle2006]

You mean Barbey Frank aka the Man that was having the relartionship with the Cheif Finacianl Officer at Fannie Mae when that PERSON was COOKING THE BOOKS so that he could get his bounus. Then we have Christopher Dodd topp Idiot in the Senate that thinks a Minimum wage job is enough to own a home in the NE were Proprty Taxes run about 1 grand a month plus your Mortage Payment. BTW they are BOTH DEMOCRATS and were #3 and #1 in CASH RECEVIED from FREDDIE AND FANNIE in campign contributions. Guess who was #2 in less than 2 years give you a hint his new address is now 1600 Penslyvannia AVE Washington DC answer Barack Obama.