Phone tapping....Discuss!
ROzbeans
19 years ago
:teehee
Prosecution
19 years ago
See thats the level of a 1997 education. A 2005 education can't even spell ironing :)
Jinheim
Oh the ironing
See thats the level of a 1997 education. A 2005 education can't even spell ironing :)
Vebran
19 years ago
I just have to ask, where is the money to fund all these programs going to come from? I know of no one that is willing to pay more taxes to fund these programs and before anyone says cut military spending, as an example, let me show my little slice of pie. In a two year time frame the Air Force has/is going to cut approximately 65,000 positions from a force structure of approx. 275K, roughly a 23% cut in positions. In that same time the Air Force will have to spend billions of dollars to upgrade equipment and purchase upgraded weapons platforms, the only new one to be mass produced in the past 25 years being the C-17. So I ask, who is going is going to fund federal government programs, and local government programs?
In addition to blame the federal government for most of those problems is ridiculous. Yes, there is the no child left behind act, but schools are primarily funded through local taxes. As well as blaming the current administration for infrastructe problems, when those types of problems take years to sprout up.
As for wire-tapping, that is little more troublesome on my mind. I like my privacy and value it, but I have no illusions that I'm far from secure in any situation. Should it be done? I will have to say yes, just like racial profiling, they are necessary evils in world where we have to fight and defend ourselves against enemies that exist in the shadows and don't play by any rules. The public will not accept another 9/11 event, regardless of how well concealed, planned and executed it is and will crucify whoever is in power for the inability to prevent it.
Basically the way I see things is that the general public wants the government to protect them in every single situation, but aren't will to accept that times have changed and the day of terrorists running at you screaming, "Durka durka Mohammad jihad" is long gone. They collude and plan in secret with increasingly complicated plans using increasingly more diverse economic/national people (disaffected upper middle class British citizens anyone?)
Prosecution
Sorry about the long rank, just a bleak political landscape out there right now.
I just have to ask, where is the money to fund all these programs going to come from? I know of no one that is willing to pay more taxes to fund these programs and before anyone says cut military spending, as an example, let me show my little slice of pie. In a two year time frame the Air Force has/is going to cut approximately 65,000 positions from a force structure of approx. 275K, roughly a 23% cut in positions. In that same time the Air Force will have to spend billions of dollars to upgrade equipment and purchase upgraded weapons platforms, the only new one to be mass produced in the past 25 years being the C-17. So I ask, who is going is going to fund federal government programs, and local government programs?
In addition to blame the federal government for most of those problems is ridiculous. Yes, there is the no child left behind act, but schools are primarily funded through local taxes. As well as blaming the current administration for infrastructe problems, when those types of problems take years to sprout up.
As for wire-tapping, that is little more troublesome on my mind. I like my privacy and value it, but I have no illusions that I'm far from secure in any situation. Should it be done? I will have to say yes, just like racial profiling, they are necessary evils in world where we have to fight and defend ourselves against enemies that exist in the shadows and don't play by any rules. The public will not accept another 9/11 event, regardless of how well concealed, planned and executed it is and will crucify whoever is in power for the inability to prevent it.
Basically the way I see things is that the general public wants the government to protect them in every single situation, but aren't will to accept that times have changed and the day of terrorists running at you screaming, "Durka durka Mohammad jihad" is long gone. They collude and plan in secret with increasingly complicated plans using increasingly more diverse economic/national people (disaffected upper middle class British citizens anyone?)
blazyn
19 years ago
touche..that made me laugh
Vebran
..the day of terrorists running at you screaming, "Durka durka Mohammad jihad" is long gone.
touche..that made me laugh
Mylec
19 years ago
Funny I don't recall the government wanting to tap phone calls made by white boys in this country or any heightened security against white boys entering government buildings after Oklahoma City...
Odd, isn't it?
Odd, isn't it?
blazyn
19 years ago
A single act by a small group of country tools with fertalizer in comparison to a highly coordinated attack from a extremely powerful terrorist organization who's sole goal is bring down the US.
Prosecution
19 years ago
Actually there are a lot of places we could afford to cut to gain the money necessary to fund these programs.
1.) By not invading other countries. Invasions cost a TON of money. Equipment, troops, supplies, logistics. The whole nine.
2.) No Child Left behind was supposed to pump millions of dollars into school systems. However it was tied to new testing. Here's the problem, atleast in Maryland. The Baltimore public school system hasn't had a proper audit in decades. The state just forced them to do an internal audit and it turned into a legal battle. How can you ask school systems which are broken, and don't have accountability procedures in place to hold people accountable to tests. Baltimore public schools have found MILLIONS of dollars in fraud. Here is what we need. A real audit of school finances (wheres the money going?), and then build new schools, with new accredited teachers. Don't try to force schools to do testing, just take a look and find out where the money is.
3.) I am fairly certain that we could afford to put a 2c/gallon on gas for the sole purpose of updating our energy infastructure to handle ET85. I would pay an extra 2c/gallon for that. hell thanks to oil speculation and an unregulated energy industry I am paying over $3/gallon now.
In all, I think that a lot of our programs currently are misguided to benefit a few, while many see no change at all. Its time to get back to the basics in many of these programs, put the right people into place, and effect a change.
Vebran
I just have to ask, where is the money to fund all these programs going to come from?
Actually there are a lot of places we could afford to cut to gain the money necessary to fund these programs.
1.) By not invading other countries. Invasions cost a TON of money. Equipment, troops, supplies, logistics. The whole nine.
2.) No Child Left behind was supposed to pump millions of dollars into school systems. However it was tied to new testing. Here's the problem, atleast in Maryland. The Baltimore public school system hasn't had a proper audit in decades. The state just forced them to do an internal audit and it turned into a legal battle. How can you ask school systems which are broken, and don't have accountability procedures in place to hold people accountable to tests. Baltimore public schools have found MILLIONS of dollars in fraud. Here is what we need. A real audit of school finances (wheres the money going?), and then build new schools, with new accredited teachers. Don't try to force schools to do testing, just take a look and find out where the money is.
3.) I am fairly certain that we could afford to put a 2c/gallon on gas for the sole purpose of updating our energy infastructure to handle ET85. I would pay an extra 2c/gallon for that. hell thanks to oil speculation and an unregulated energy industry I am paying over $3/gallon now.
In all, I think that a lot of our programs currently are misguided to benefit a few, while many see no change at all. Its time to get back to the basics in many of these programs, put the right people into place, and effect a change.
Mylec
19 years ago
That "single act by a small group of country tools" was the biggest terrorist attack to ever occur on American soil prior to 9/11.
And I dont know that I consider sending a few people to pilot school, then having 4 groups of people all buy airline tickets for the same day a highly coordinated attack. Yes, its coordinated but not exactly very sophisticated. Its effectiveness lied within its simplicity (using the planes themselves as the explosives). And if they are an "extremely powerful terrorist organization", why haven't there been another attack inside the US since 9/11?
They are not as powerful as your fearless leader would like you to believe, but they are getting stronger, thanks to the Bush administration. Roz hit it on the head. Who's freedom do we take away tomorrow? I'm sorry, but I dont think someone making an international call to a Middle Eastern country automatically constitutes terrorist activity.
I just grow tired of George and his attitude of "Hey, I'm fighting a war on terror so I have to be able to do whatever I want without telling anyone what I'm doing. Just trust me!". No thanks.
blazyn
A single act by a small group of country tools with fertalizer in comparison to a highly coordinated attack from a extremely powerful terrorist organization who's sole goal is bring down the US.
That "single act by a small group of country tools" was the biggest terrorist attack to ever occur on American soil prior to 9/11.
And I dont know that I consider sending a few people to pilot school, then having 4 groups of people all buy airline tickets for the same day a highly coordinated attack. Yes, its coordinated but not exactly very sophisticated. Its effectiveness lied within its simplicity (using the planes themselves as the explosives). And if they are an "extremely powerful terrorist organization", why haven't there been another attack inside the US since 9/11?
They are not as powerful as your fearless leader would like you to believe, but they are getting stronger, thanks to the Bush administration. Roz hit it on the head. Who's freedom do we take away tomorrow? I'm sorry, but I dont think someone making an international call to a Middle Eastern country automatically constitutes terrorist activity.
I just grow tired of George and his attitude of "Hey, I'm fighting a war on terror so I have to be able to do whatever I want without telling anyone what I'm doing. Just trust me!". No thanks.
Starry
19 years ago
Weve seen education decline so vastly that its sad, my little brother goes through such trash at a (very, VERY good) high school that its like he wouldnt have lasted two days in 'my' AP classes.
And thats less of a decade difference in Senior years.
Whats it gonna be like 5 years from now?
I understand that terrorism is a horrible thing, k? I also truly, truly belive that you cant stop it all. There was almost no stopping Timothy McVey (spelling), and honestly, theres little stopping things like 9/11. If it hadnt been planes commercial, it woulda been private planes stuffed with bombs. If it couldnt be planes, itd be automobiles. Heck, biological warfar aint funny either - and all it takes is a small, almost non-watchable group of crazies and thats that.
They can spend all the money they want on defense and tracking and taking away liberties - but when you can look out and see whats its effecting: frankly our future, to me thats bullcock.
Sure, I dont want American lives to be lost anymore than anyone else - but when weve taken all the money outta Education, Energy costs (lol, Bush+Oil), Enviroment, and Medical - well...
Its no wonder folks are unhappy.
And thats less of a decade difference in Senior years.
Whats it gonna be like 5 years from now?
I understand that terrorism is a horrible thing, k? I also truly, truly belive that you cant stop it all. There was almost no stopping Timothy McVey (spelling), and honestly, theres little stopping things like 9/11. If it hadnt been planes commercial, it woulda been private planes stuffed with bombs. If it couldnt be planes, itd be automobiles. Heck, biological warfar aint funny either - and all it takes is a small, almost non-watchable group of crazies and thats that.
They can spend all the money they want on defense and tracking and taking away liberties - but when you can look out and see whats its effecting: frankly our future, to me thats bullcock.
Sure, I dont want American lives to be lost anymore than anyone else - but when weve taken all the money outta Education, Energy costs (lol, Bush+Oil), Enviroment, and Medical - well...
Its no wonder folks are unhappy.
Kelefane
19 years ago
The Cigerette smoking man can do basically what he wants!
=P
=P
Sergon
19 years ago
If you arent doing anything wrong or have anything to hide, why should you care?
S
S
ROzbeans
19 years ago
Because I'm afraid of what the definition of 'doing something wrong' will evolve into in the near future. I'm not comfortable letting my 'leaders' decide my level of freedom for me.
Sergon
19 years ago
Wonder why this never was discussed back in the clinton years the way it is today. Nose through these articles.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34164,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/29/clinton.terrorism/
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512210012
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-02-96.html
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34164,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/29/clinton.terrorism/
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512210012
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-02-96.html
Vulash
19 years ago
Charisma
Prosecution
19 years ago
Sergon,
The reason that a lot of these issues were not discussed back in Clinton era was a few reasons.
1.) Cheap energy. In part because of higher oil production world wide, in part because of his energy policies, in part because oil wasn't being marked up $20 a barrel by speculators over events in a non-oil producing reason (Gaza strip affects oil prices???), and finally in part because China wasn't on a 20% growth rampage.
2.) We weren't spending billions to invade another country. Clinton was a master at dealing with world politics. Bush has proven he clearly is not. Clinton dealt with North Korea quitely and with the support of China. BTW he did have plans drawn up to bomb N. Korea's missile and nuclear facilities if they didn't agree to the 1995 agreement to stop their bomb making. They violated it once Bush went to war in the middle east, and they figured we wouldn't start a war on 3rd front. Because Clinton kept these situations contained at a diplomatic level, there was more money to go else where.
3.) With that extra money the US economy did well. When the economy does well crime goes down, more money to put into education, things get fixed, and people don't have to tighten their belts.
4.) People could better afford houses. Because the prices of houses has jumped 50% from '00-'06, rent went up with it, so did property taxes. It costs that much more to live virtually everywhere. Cost of living jumps like that don't keep up with the average 3% increase of peoples pay.
Bush is not facing those happy circumstances. We have to tighten our belts collectively as a country because we have seen flat growth over the last 5 years, we have less money to go around, there for people are unhappy and a lot of these festering issues are coming to the surface. Crime is up, money is down, cost of energy is up, education is down, and the cost of living has gone up signifcantly, and the amount of jobs to go around is down.
So in short, we are in a recession/period of flat growth, and people are not seeing Bush react to that. Thats great that he is triumping American safety, but for most of us, we want to know about how he's going to fix our problems here. Not Iraqi freedom. Frankly I would love for us to get on the ET85 program like Brazil, so we as a country could collectively tell the whole middle east to shove off.
The reason that a lot of these issues were not discussed back in Clinton era was a few reasons.
1.) Cheap energy. In part because of higher oil production world wide, in part because of his energy policies, in part because oil wasn't being marked up $20 a barrel by speculators over events in a non-oil producing reason (Gaza strip affects oil prices???), and finally in part because China wasn't on a 20% growth rampage.
2.) We weren't spending billions to invade another country. Clinton was a master at dealing with world politics. Bush has proven he clearly is not. Clinton dealt with North Korea quitely and with the support of China. BTW he did have plans drawn up to bomb N. Korea's missile and nuclear facilities if they didn't agree to the 1995 agreement to stop their bomb making. They violated it once Bush went to war in the middle east, and they figured we wouldn't start a war on 3rd front. Because Clinton kept these situations contained at a diplomatic level, there was more money to go else where.
3.) With that extra money the US economy did well. When the economy does well crime goes down, more money to put into education, things get fixed, and people don't have to tighten their belts.
4.) People could better afford houses. Because the prices of houses has jumped 50% from '00-'06, rent went up with it, so did property taxes. It costs that much more to live virtually everywhere. Cost of living jumps like that don't keep up with the average 3% increase of peoples pay.
Bush is not facing those happy circumstances. We have to tighten our belts collectively as a country because we have seen flat growth over the last 5 years, we have less money to go around, there for people are unhappy and a lot of these festering issues are coming to the surface. Crime is up, money is down, cost of energy is up, education is down, and the cost of living has gone up signifcantly, and the amount of jobs to go around is down.
So in short, we are in a recession/period of flat growth, and people are not seeing Bush react to that. Thats great that he is triumping American safety, but for most of us, we want to know about how he's going to fix our problems here. Not Iraqi freedom. Frankly I would love for us to get on the ET85 program like Brazil, so we as a country could collectively tell the whole middle east to shove off.
Sergon
19 years ago
While I find the points interesting it still does not explain why people are bitching about something that the Liberal messiah did in his terms. Also the clinton years we experienced a paper economy with over valued tech stocks that as we know were not real.
S
S
Keriath
19 years ago
Really? there not that powerful? That coulda fooled me. Sorry Mylec but you don't know wtf your talking about here. Al qedea is one of the most powerful terrosist org's in the world.
So pros, what should we have done then with afghaistan? Since invading another country is bad. Should we have just said " Oh its ok let usama stay there. We will forget what happened its no big deal."
Clinton the greatest leader we can ever have... yeah right the dude was a FUCKING LIAR. He should be in a fucking prison right now rotting away.
And if giving up some of MY civil liberties that I WENT overseas twice to combat zones to defend for YOU as well is what it takes then i am all for it. Why you ask. Becuase its simple if by giving up a little bit keeps the whole of the country safe. Guess what that means NO troops will have to go to a hostile country. Guess you didn't consider that one thou did you?
And this is just my opnionin here but imma give it anyway. unless you have done something to defend those rights we all have. You have a very small pedestal to be standing on when you bitch about them being taken away.
Mylec;68447
They are not as powerful as your fearless leader would like you to believe, but they are getting stronger, thanks to the Bush administration.
Really? there not that powerful? That coulda fooled me. Sorry Mylec but you don't know wtf your talking about here. Al qedea is one of the most powerful terrosist org's in the world.
So pros, what should we have done then with afghaistan? Since invading another country is bad. Should we have just said " Oh its ok let usama stay there. We will forget what happened its no big deal."
Clinton the greatest leader we can ever have... yeah right the dude was a FUCKING LIAR. He should be in a fucking prison right now rotting away.
And if giving up some of MY civil liberties that I WENT overseas twice to combat zones to defend for YOU as well is what it takes then i am all for it. Why you ask. Becuase its simple if by giving up a little bit keeps the whole of the country safe. Guess what that means NO troops will have to go to a hostile country. Guess you didn't consider that one thou did you?
And this is just my opnionin here but imma give it anyway. unless you have done something to defend those rights we all have. You have a very small pedestal to be standing on when you bitch about them being taken away.
Den
19 years ago
Prosecution
19 years ago
That is not entirely true about the paper economy. Take the Dow Jones (not tech!) went from around 4k when Clinton took over to 10k when Clinton left office. Now a good portion of this growth is tied to low interest rates (can't last forever) and cheap energy to fuel this rapid growth. But the growth was unstainable. As for a lot of the questions we face regarding education, crime, etc. Its going to take a president along the lines of a Roosevlt, Lincon, or a Washington to make the changes that are necessary. We are talking about billions of dollars and effecting millions of lives. And some people who are very comfortable in their lives are going to get shooken up pretty hard. That makes for loud unhappy people who will fight these changes. Its going to take organized concerted leadership, with a vision, and a will to make this happen. And frankly I don't see a candidate out there who could or would try and pull it off. Instead the current politians seem to be focused heavily in "how does this benefit me". I hate to say it but if he wins this year, in 2012 I will seriously vote for Erlich (Gov. of MD) for president. He's shown more back bone in the last 4 years taking on Marylands problems, then the whole of Congress has in the last 4 years with any issue (including Iraq).
Pros
Sergon;68563
While I find the points interesting it still does not explain why people are bitching about something that the Liberal messiah did in his terms. Also the clinton years we experienced a paper economy with over valued tech stocks that as we know were not real.
S
That is not entirely true about the paper economy. Take the Dow Jones (not tech!) went from around 4k when Clinton took over to 10k when Clinton left office. Now a good portion of this growth is tied to low interest rates (can't last forever) and cheap energy to fuel this rapid growth. But the growth was unstainable. As for a lot of the questions we face regarding education, crime, etc. Its going to take a president along the lines of a Roosevlt, Lincon, or a Washington to make the changes that are necessary. We are talking about billions of dollars and effecting millions of lives. And some people who are very comfortable in their lives are going to get shooken up pretty hard. That makes for loud unhappy people who will fight these changes. Its going to take organized concerted leadership, with a vision, and a will to make this happen. And frankly I don't see a candidate out there who could or would try and pull it off. Instead the current politians seem to be focused heavily in "how does this benefit me". I hate to say it but if he wins this year, in 2012 I will seriously vote for Erlich (Gov. of MD) for president. He's shown more back bone in the last 4 years taking on Marylands problems, then the whole of Congress has in the last 4 years with any issue (including Iraq).
Pros
Vebran
19 years ago
It is interesting to think that you feel that events occuring in Israel/Lebanon have no effect on the stability of the rest of the Middle East and that we have that strong of an influence over the Chinese economy
No of course not, oh wait, Panama "Action", Haiti "Action", US troops in Kosovo, Somaila, Air Strikes on Iraq. Nope, those things didn't cost us a dime, no sir.
Extra money? Funny because I was under the impression that it was Clinton who was responsible for the increased spending for weapons platforms, F-22, JSF, C-17, etc(much needed as they are) and that it was during the Bush administration that massive personnel cuts are being brought forward (required by law) and the newest round of BRAC cuts.
Seriously WTF does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I mean that is like attributing the rate of birth during someone's administration as a reflection of their policies. "Oh no, teen pregnancy is up 3% because of the Bush adminstration". Investor speculation is more to blame for the rise of real estate prices.
So basically you are saying that it is quite alright for the president to skirt the law when people are fat, dumb, and happy? Once people are no longer placated and actually have to find something that gives them reason to be pissed off then it is an issue? You have just proven why some people should have their "civil rights" taken away. If you cannot take issue with something because someone has more charisma, seemingly provides you with more toys and creatures comforts, (basically keeping you fat, dumb, and happy) then you have no right whatsoever to complain about things when they go wrong.
Oh, and I'm sure that following the economic model of Brazil is a blueprint for success.
Prosecution;68562
Sergon,
The reason that a lot of these issues were not discussed back in Clinton era was a few reasons.
1.) Cheap energy. In part because of higher oil production world wide, in part because of his energy policies, in part because oil wasn't being marked up $20 a barrel by speculators over events in a non-oil producing reason (Gaza strip affects oil prices???), and finally in part because China wasn't on a 20% growth rampage.
It is interesting to think that you feel that events occuring in Israel/Lebanon have no effect on the stability of the rest of the Middle East and that we have that strong of an influence over the Chinese economy
Prosecution;68562
2.) We weren't spending billions to invade another country. Clinton was a master at dealing with world politics. Bush has proven he clearly is not. Clinton dealt with North Korea quitely and with the support of China. BTW he did have plans drawn up to bomb N. Korea's missile and nuclear facilities if they didn't agree to the 1995 agreement to stop their bomb making. They violated it once Bush went to war in the middle east, and they figured we wouldn't start a war on 3rd front. Because Clinton kept these situations contained at a diplomatic level, there was more money to go else where.
No of course not, oh wait, Panama "Action", Haiti "Action", US troops in Kosovo, Somaila, Air Strikes on Iraq. Nope, those things didn't cost us a dime, no sir.
Prosecution;68562
3.) With that extra money the US economy did well. When the economy does well crime goes down, more money to put into education, things get fixed, and people don't have to tighten their belts.
Extra money? Funny because I was under the impression that it was Clinton who was responsible for the increased spending for weapons platforms, F-22, JSF, C-17, etc(much needed as they are) and that it was during the Bush administration that massive personnel cuts are being brought forward (required by law) and the newest round of BRAC cuts.
Prosecution;68562
4.) People could better afford houses. Because the prices of houses has jumped 50% from '00-'06, rent went up with it, so did property taxes. It costs that much more to live virtually everywhere. Cost of living jumps like that don't keep up with the average 3% increase of peoples pay.
Seriously WTF does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I mean that is like attributing the rate of birth during someone's administration as a reflection of their policies. "Oh no, teen pregnancy is up 3% because of the Bush adminstration". Investor speculation is more to blame for the rise of real estate prices.
Prosecution;68562
Bush is not facing those happy circumstances. We have to tighten our belts collectively as a country because we have seen flat growth over the last 5 years, we have less money to go around, there for people are unhappy and a lot of these festering issues are coming to the surface. Crime is up, money is down, cost of energy is up, education is down, and the cost of living has gone up signifcantly, and the amount of jobs to go around is down.
So in short, we are in a recession/period of flat growth, and people are not seeing Bush react to that. Thats great that he is triumping American safety, but for most of us, we want to know about how he's going to fix our problems here. Not Iraqi freedom. Frankly I would love for us to get on the ET85 program like Brazil, so we as a country could collectively tell the whole middle east to shove off.
So basically you are saying that it is quite alright for the president to skirt the law when people are fat, dumb, and happy? Once people are no longer placated and actually have to find something that gives them reason to be pissed off then it is an issue? You have just proven why some people should have their "civil rights" taken away. If you cannot take issue with something because someone has more charisma, seemingly provides you with more toys and creatures comforts, (basically keeping you fat, dumb, and happy) then you have no right whatsoever to complain about things when they go wrong.
Oh, and I'm sure that following the economic model of Brazil is a blueprint for success.