All:

I'm not sure if you have heard, but tomorrow, Friday, July 22, NYC will become the "testing ground" for the first illegal "police state" action in the U.S.

Ostensibly in response to the two London bombings, the NYPD will begin conduting "spot searches" of the bags and knapsacks of citizens getting on subways and buses.  If an officer asks to search a bag and the person refuses, the person will not be permitted to board the subway or bus.

This action is completely illegal under federal, state and city law.  Indeed, until tomorrow, had a police officer requested any citizen of NYC to show ID or to undergo a "spot search" of their belongings, and the person had refused, the office would have been obligated to allow that person to go about their business, including using public transportation.  The only circumstance under which an NYPD officer can detain a person is if that officer has "reasonable cause" to believe that the person has either just committed a crime or is about to commit a crime.  It is not enough that a person is simply carrying a bag onto public transportation.

Note that even the London authorities have not instituted - or even considered - this type of action, despite being hit twice.

I cannot tell you how outraged I am at this blatant move toward "police state" tactics.  I will tell you this.  If an NYPD officer asks to inspect my bag, I will refuse, simply out of principle.  [N.B.  The searches will be conducted at random, so I am as likely as not to be challenged.]  And if s/he orders me out of the subway or bus, I will refuse this as well, and challenge his/her authority to do so under the Constitution or the laws of NYC.

And if anyone thinks I am overreacting, consider the following words of Pastor Martin Niemoeller just after WWII: "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out.  Then they came for the Socialists and Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.  Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out.  And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

Peace.

Good Man. Unfortunately it won't work that well, methinks. I hope it does and you can but it appears bleak.  But, all the best to ya.

PS- I like the quote.

Constitutional Rights is an issue in which I will always agree with you Maani, especially for my formation in laws, but I believe emergency times need drastic measures.

According to International Constitutional Doctrine if two rights are in collision (The right to seccurity and life against the right to privacy in this case) the Government has to select which is more urgent to protect and sacrifice one of them, but only while the emergency or urgency is evident and persists.

In this case the right to life and seccurity is more urgent to protect, but this places us in another situation:

• What if the police finds drugs or stolen property (for example ) in a woman's purse.

According to Constitutional rights the emergency situation allows the police to search for weapons and/or explosives, so they should leave the drugs or stolen property of the woman in her purse as if the search would have never existed because they should not be searching for drugs, if not, this search would be illegal, because it would not be related to the emergency situation.

Are the authorities willing to accept this limits?

We had almost two decades of mad terrorism in Perú and it cost 50,000 lives, so the Government had to take drastic measures like this and people accepted this because it was worst to see people die every day.

But I understand your rage, it's always hard to sacrifice Constitutional Rights. 

Iván

I feel so sad for you, my friends. It seems that terrorists are winning a battle there...

nacho wrote: I feel so sad for you, my friends. It seems that terrorists are winning a battle there...

comprendre

NetsNJFan wrote: Maani planning an attack? Really you are comparing the NYPD, brave, underpaid citizens who keep our streets safe to the Nazis.  A bit much don't you think? Better they trample a few civil rights which in our society protect criminals more than common folk and try to prevent an attack. If you don't want to get searched, don't ride in the Subways, NYC property, where they have every right to keep things safe.

trying to protect a democracy by abandoning civil rights is not an approach that is going to work. a democracy will self-destroy that way, playing right into the hands of the terrorists. this does by no means mean we are helpless against terrorism though.

While we're on the topic of "combating terror" at the cost of our civil liberites:

Because of the terror attacks in London and with all the overblown media coverage of the Supreme Court nomination, little time was spent discussing the fact that today the House of Reps. voted to extend and cement the Patriot Act. 

For better or worse, we will just have to deal with all this sh*t as Americans, and if all this extremism keeps happening overseas, you Brits may find yourselves in our position as well.

Maani:

This brings you back to your post in the 4th of july, doesn't it?

The one that caused a few rattles among the security ladden compatriots.

I have refused to go on mission to the US lately , simply because I find the security measures to get in (and get on board) humiliating and demeaning - imprints , searches and everything.

And NNJFan, your point of view is much closer to 3rd Reich nostalgic than Maani's comparison of police means to arrest somebody who does not accept humiliation by being searched. However police is only doing what the orders are telling them what to do.

The real issue is simply being shunned here: US imperialism. Is it worthy for Americans to get searched twice a day going to work (the NYC subway/busses has no alternative if you have to go to work so the choice of not taking it is not an option) just so a few assholes can get even richer , buy their fifth yacht, have their third private golf course and have finally that solid gold pool filled with mare milk they promised their wives after they shot their mouthes up in the latest garden party in upstate Conneticut.

America , Land Of The Free!

America, I pity thee!

But I also grieve and ache for you.

"There's none so blind as those who will not look"

Anyone who agrees with the temporary cessation of a nation's civil rights (and we are not talking about scalping free tickets here) is blind.The quote that Maani provided is so apt.

 "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out.  Then they came for the Socialists and Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.  Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out.  And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

When you so easily talk away the rights of millions of people living in a distant country and whoop and cheer as the "smart bombs" hit their targets,shattering the bodies of innocent human beings-you'd better be certain that it's not your turn next.

are you suggesting that the Republican party is in any way trying to distract us....

HEY!!!

WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE!!!!!

**struggles with Republican assasssin**

stonebeard wrote: are you suggesting that the Republican party is in any way trying to distract us.... HEY!!! WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE!!!!! **struggles with Republican assasssin**

If the Democrats are republicans,

I am not so sure the Republicans are democrats !

Their will to control everything especially the civil liberties, just to protect a given few's personal interest is definitely very worrying.

The Doctor wrote: The problem I have with laws like these is that they will be completely ineffective and very inconvenient.  In the interests of maintaining political correctness and to avoid the appearance of racial profiling, the NYPD will almost never stop and search someone of arab descent.  Instead, they will pick on the teenaged blonde girls (this is something I saw happen at the airport after 9/11..they passed by the Muslim and went for the girl next door), and anyone else who happens to be of any race other than the race we should be watching out for.  Meanwhile the terrorists will be allowed to board the subway trains without any interference from law enforcement.  The only thing this will accomplish is to inconvenience those who would never even consider bombing a subway.

Would it not be simpler to pull out of Irak? As this would probably stop some killing (albeit not all) both in Irak and in the western world. It is clear now that Saddam Hussein , although a bloody tyrant , was a better option than the Bush-created mess. He was never Al-qaeda since his regime was socialist based and atheist also (#2 and #5 Baasists were christians). But Bush wants crude oil as an exchange and in return for US gov't money spent there, Guess in which pocket the crude oil falls , certainly not Clinton or Heinz Ketchup circles.....

Sean Trane wrote: The Doctor wrote: The problem I have with laws like these is that they will be completely ineffective and very inconvenient.  In the interests of maintaining political correctness and to avoid the appearance of racial profiling, the NYPD will almost never stop and search someone of arab descent.  Instead, they will pick on the teenaged blonde girls (this is something I saw happen at the airport after 9/11..they passed by the Muslim and went for the girl next door), and anyone else who happens to be of any race other than the race we should be watching out for.  Meanwhile the terrorists will be allowed to board the subway trains without any interference from law enforcement.  The only thing this will accomplish is to inconvenience those who would never even consider bombing a subway. Would it not be simpler to pull out of Irak? As this would probably stop some killing (albeit not all) both in Irak and in the western world. It is clear now that Saddam Hussein , although a bloody tyrant , was a better option than the Bush-created mess. He was never Al-qaeda since his regime was socialist based and atheist also (#2 and #5 Baasists were christians). But Bush wants crude oil as an exchange and in return for US gov't money spent there, Guess in which pocket the crude oil falls , certainly not Clinton or Heinz Ketchup circles.....

Actually, I agree with you.  We should not be in Iraq, although my reasons for saying so probably differ from yours.  However, remember that we were not in Iraq when they flew planes into the World Trade Center.  Pulling out of Iraq will not end the threat that the terrorists pose.  Only keeping them out of our country will do that. 

For people in USA where Civil Rights and Constitutional protection is the cornerstone of the legal system it’s hard to understand and accept a limitation of the above mentioned rights.

I also understand that for citizens who always felt save from war and terrorism (Since Pearl Harbor no attack has reached USA land until 9/11) it’s almost impossible to understand what the Government must do to protect the LIFE in the case of war on USA floor and you people aren’t willing to sacrifice anything.

Well, sadly (I sincerely feel bad for this) war has reached USA and the citizens must learn that one thing is the protection of liberties in peace time and other thing is when you’re under attack..

The prime responsibility of the Government is to protect the life and security even if this means you have to sacrifice some things.

Maybe the search without Judicial order will not stop the bombing, but it will help to prevent attacks, and if only one life is saved, the sacrifice is worthy.

We have more experience in this case because of almost 20 years with constant terrorists attacks and people protested when some liberties were limited, one of them is that the police without warrant could search any suspicious car.

Check Internet and google the phrase “Tarata Street” or “Calle Tarata”  and you’ll see pictures of destroyed buildings and many dead people because of a car full of TNT and Anfo (An agricultural additive that boosts TNT strength 3 or 4 times so that just a trunk of WV full of TNT with Anfo will produce the same effect as a truck loaded with TNT).

People say that the search of cars was not effective on that case, but it’s false, the terrorist attack was planned so 4 cars, one in each corner of the block will explode at the same time. Tarata is a not a crowded street in the center of a commercial zone, but the back street is called Avenida Larco (As the Frágil album) with hundred if not thousands of people buying things, in Larco two cars were searched without order and Police found TNT with Anfo, also in the northern corner of Tarata Street another bomb car was found, the last bomb was never found until it exploded.

Hundreds of lives were saved that night, because if only one car destroyed  half of a street imagine what 4 cars exploding at the same time (one on each corner) would have caused. It would have been a massacre.

Those saved lives justified the sacrifice of  the right of not to be searched without a court order, and I think it’s worth.

Then the Government controlled the selling of Anfo, farmers protested, but it was necessary so everybody accepted this. Hard times require of drastic measures. At the end the leader was captured and Terrorism is almost a thing of the past.

Many International Courts have justified this measures (at least most of them), so  USA citizens will have to choose between life and some civil rights.

And please don’t be so naïve to say that if USA soldiers abandon Iraq the war will end (This doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with Iraq occupation), because  there will be more excuses like the support to Israel or the status of some prisoners or anything else.

So I believe that  in emergency cases many unpleasant things must be done by the Government.

ivan_2068 wrote: For people in USA where Civil Rights and Constitutional protection is the cornerstone of the legal system it’s hard to understand and accept a limitation of the above mentioned rights.   I also understand that for citizens who always felt save from war and terrorism (Since Pearl Harbor no attack has reached USA land until 9/11) it’s almost impossible to understand what the Government must do to protect the LIFE in the case of war on USA floor and you people aren’t willing to sacrifice anything. Well, sadly (I sincerely feel bad for this) war has reached USA and the citizens must learn that one thing is the protection of liberties in peace time and other thing is when you’re under attack.. The prime responsibility of the Government is to protect the life and security even if this means you have to sacrifice some things. Maybe the search without Judicial order will not stop the bombing, but it will help to prevent attacks, and if only one life is saved, the sacrifice is worthy. We have more experience in this case because of almost 20 years with constant terrorists attacks and people protested when some liberties were limited, one of them is that the police without warrant could search any suspicious car. Check Internet and google the phrase “Tarata Street” or “Calle Tarata”  and you’ll see pictures of destroyed buildings and many dead people because of a car full of TNT and Anfo (An agricultural additive that boosts TNT strength 3 or 4 times so that just a trunk of WV full of TNT with Anfo will produce the same effect as a truck loaded with TNT). People say that the search of cars was not effective on that case, but it’s false, the terrorist attack was planned so 4 cars, one in each corner of the block will explode at the same time. Tarata is a not a crowded street in the center of a commercial zone, but the back street is called Avenida Larco (As the Frágil album) with hundred if not thousands of people buying things, in Larco two cars were searched without order and Police found TNT with Anfo, also in the northern corner of Tarata Street another bomb car was found, the last bomb was never found until it exploded. Hundreds of lives were saved that night, because if only one car destroyed  half of a street imagine what 4 cars exploding at the same time (one on each corner) would have caused. It would have been a massacre. Those saved lives justified the sacrifice of  the right of not to be searched without a court order, and I think it’s worth. Then the Government controlled the selling of Anfo, farmers protested, but it was necessary so everybody accepted this. Hard times require of drastic measures. At the end the leader was captured and Terrorism is almost a thing of the past. Many International Courts have justified this measures (at least most of them), so  USA citizens will have to choose between life and some civil rights. And please don’t be so naïve to say that if USA soldiers abandon Iraq the war will end (This doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with Iraq occupation), because  there will be more excuses like the support to Israel or the status of some prisoners or anything else. So I believe that  in emergency cases many unpleasant things must be done by the Government. Iván

Well said Ivan.  And actually, if our people stopped trying to be so politically correct, most of us would lose nothing in the way of rights.  I'm sorry, but whites, african-americans, and hispanics are not going around blowing up subways and flying planes into buildings.  Only those of arab descent are doing that.  To focus solely on those of arab descent, as one commentator put it, would not be racial profiling, it would be identifying the suspect.

The Doctor   I'm sorry, but whites, african-americans, and hispanics are not going around blowing up subways and flying planes into buildings.  Only those of arab descent are doing that.  To focus solely on those of arab descent, as one commentator put it, would not be racial profiling, it would be identifying the suspect. [/QUOTE wrote: come again please???????????

come again please???????????

stonebeard wrote: ^^^^ as of late that seems to be the case, but white people, and i'm saying this with deep remose for my "race" have most always seen anyone that isn't white as "shifty" or "suspect." I shouldn't be generalizing, but until the civil rights movement in America, we treated black people like sh*t. Even after that we stereotype Latinos and Blacks and Asians. I'm completely beyond that, but remember, there are still clan meetings going on to this day.

I completely understand where you are coming from.  And our race's history in race relations has not been exemplary.  However, when I'm boarding a plane soon after 9/11 and see security harrassing a very young blonde girl next door type, searching her bags and so on for quite a long time, looking for explosives, yet allowing the arab man with the long flowing beard and towel around his head to board without question, I had to ask myself why.  Not only did they allow someone to board the plane who actually looked like he would be capable of hijacking a plane, they harrassed someone who clearly had no such inclination.  Not only is that a dangerous precedent, it's just plain stupid.  I wish the p.c.ers in this country would start to use a little common sense.

But maybe I should be thankful that the p.c. movement is out there protecting us all from the young white girls.

tuxon wrote: The Doctor   I'm sorry, but whites, african-americans, and hispanics are not going around blowing up subways and flying planes into buildings.  Only those of arab descent are doing that.  To focus solely on those of arab descent, as one commentator put it, would not be racial profiling, it would be identifying the suspect. come again please??????????? [/QUOTE wrote: Hmmm...not sure what you are asking me here.  I thought what I said was pretty straight forward.

Hmmm...not sure what you are asking me here.  I thought what I said was pretty straight forward.

You are taking my words in a wrong context Doctor, I know the main concern of the authorities are the Arabs, but even if this sounds paradoxical if you want to respect the civil rights of everyone, you must suspend a determined civil right for everybody, if not this measures turn into illegal and discriminatory.

The Police should check the blond girl next door because she could be another Patty Hearst who felt in love with a terrorist, the black and white executive because they could be black or white fundamentalists, or the readneck because he could also be part of a local terrorist  group of White Supremacy.

Even the blue eyed blonde German tourist could be  a possible suspect because we know there could exist support groups to Al Qaeda in parts of Europe.

Do you believe the Fundamentalists are stupid? If you believe so, you’re even more stupid, they are planning this war for decades. They won’t send people with Moslem clothing and dark skin to blow a train, they will send someone who will generate no suspects, maybe a white guy from the Arian Iran frontier or a black guy that could pass as a rapper or even a person who could be confused with a Latino.

If you want to be fair, everybody must be searched and if not possible the checkouts must be random, but never directed to a certain community because this is xenophobic and highly discriminatory.

It’s sad to turn a Democracy into a Police system, but if Civil Rights are for everybody, the suspension of one or more of this rights must also apply to everybody.

But most important, police must respect the limits of this suspension, searches must be done to find explosives and/or weapons, NOTHING ELSE, this can’t be an excuse to fight criminality under the cover of National Security.

Nothing different to explosives or weapons can be used as evidence in a trial, and even worst, this search must be declared illegal because the object found doesn’t fit into the characteristics of items to search for.

Or for example use the Patriot Act to search for pirate musical Archives in personal computers, this is illegal. The suspension of civil rights is to search for weapons not for songs.

It’s a very complex situation, but I’m sure USA will survive and this war will end some day, until then, there are sacrifices to be made.

^^ Well, if it is discriminatory, so be it.  I have yet to hear of a young white girl blowing up a subway station or flying a plane into a building.  Only the Arabs are doing that.  So the young blonde girl should not have to pay the price of that.  Sorry, but the bad guys are Arabs, not young white girls or professional white or black men for that matter.  If that means we discriminate against Arabs, well that's too bad for them.  Maybe the innocent Arabs will start policing their own if they get tired of the discrimination.  And I don't really care about being fair.  I care about being protected.

I do however agree with you that the searches must be solely used for the purpose of locating weapons or terrorist activities, and not as a justification to search for drugs or pirated music on people's computers and so on. 

All:

First, thank you for the depth of your comments (even if I don't agree with all of them), and for the support many of you have offered.  A few quick responses.

Doctor:

Timothy McVeigh was white.  So was Terry Nichols.  So was the Unibomber.  Shall I go on?

NJNetsFan:

I was not comparing the NYPD (with whom I work closely) with the Nazis.  But, as at Nuremberg, the NYPD will only be able to say "We were just doing our jobs."  And that is exactly the problem: law enforcement is not permitted to question the orders they are given, no matter how questionable, lunatic or illegal.  This does not make the average cop a Nazi; it makes those in power (police commissioners, etc.) at best misguided, and at worst proto-totalitarian.

Ivan:

As usual, your legal thinking is faultless.  Except that there is no emergency.  As I noted, both London and Madrid have been hit in this manner, yet neither has instituted such a questionable, if not illegal, tactic.  Yet NYC has not only not been hit (in this manner), but Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly have gone out of their way to make it clear that NYC is not the target of any threat - specified or otherwise.  Thus, the implementation of this tactic is, in the most prima facie sense, illegal under the Fourth Amendment (as well as the NYC Penal Code).

James:

Your post should be required reading for every American citizen. 

Nacho:

The terrorists (assuming there were any...) "won" in the very first days after 9/11 when our government started down the road to the erosion of civil rights, civil liberties and freedom in the name of an illusory "security."  Indeed, the terrorists must be enjoying watching as the Bill of Rights gets shredded little by little - as we slowly come under a "regime" that will become increasingly oppressive and intrusive, just like the one they live under.  Assuming it was Arab terrorists who caused 9/11, their goal was never to Islamicize the U.S. (a virtual impossiblity), but simply to cause us to become increasingly like them: oppressive, proto-totalitarian, quasi-theocratical, etc.

stonebeard and James:

No, there is no coincidence in the second London bombings and the fact that that very day the U.S. Congress was discussing the permanent adoption of much of the Patriot Act.  If everyone would simply put two and two together and get four, it does not take a genius to know that the second bombings (if not the first) had nothing to do with "terrorists."

All:

A dictatorship works when those in power cause everyone to live in constant fear.  That is exactly what is occurring in the U.S.  And they "spin" that fear into more fear.  For example, even after the first London bombings, the average New Yorker rode the subway without so much as a second thought.  I know this because I ride them regularly, and watch and speak with people.  Yet most people, although saddened by the first London bombings, did not "translate" that into fear about the NYC subway system.

By instituting a "police state" action - bag inspection - the government (via its law enforcement agencies) creates a "self-fulfilling prophecy" of fear: there was little or no fear until the tactic was employed, so the tactic becomes an end in itself.  And keep in mind that Commissioner Kelly made it clear that there is no "cut-off" date: this practice will be open-ended.

Let me offer you a few choice quotes by everyone's favorite source of such quotes, George Orwell.  Read them carefully, and consider how they apply to current events, especially in the U.S.

Peace.

----------------

All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome.

All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them

Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.

One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.

Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

To a surprising extent the war-lords in shining armour, the apostles of martial virtues, tend not to die fighting when the time comes. History is full of ignominious getaways by the great and famous.

War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

Seems that I have to answer different posts, but that's OK:

The Doctor:

You say:

^^ Well, if it is discriminatory, so be it.  I have yet to hear of a young white girl blowing up a subway station or flying a plane into a building.  Only the Arabs are doing that.

Have you ever read history?

Baader-Meinhof: German Terrorist group formed April 2, 1968 by Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof (both white of course) attacked several USA and Israel targets, kidnapped planes in support to the Palestinian claims and against USA politics.

Patty Hearst, 19 years old  blonde daughter of Publishing Baron William Randolf Hearst, was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army, but this nice and rich girl was found robbing banks with the SLA and became an activist of the that group. In her case there's the possibility that  she suffered of Stockholm Syndrome and brainwashing, so she was pardoned by Bill Clinton.

On April 9, 1995 a group of USA Citizens bombed the FBI building of Oklahoma City.

So why discriminate if USA has a lot of potential enemies.

If that means we discriminate against Arabs, well that's too bad for them.  Maybe the innocent Arabs will start policing their own if they get tired of the discrimination.  And I don't really care about being fair.  I care about being protected.

Civil Rights are for everybody, and the supresion of any civil right must affect everybody, that's common doctrine in International Courts and USA Supreme Court.

Any law against any ethnic or Religious group is not only discriminatory but puts in movement the machinery that could lead to a genocide. The USA authorities do well in searching everybody and not only the Arab looking people.

Maani wrote:

Ivan: As usual, your legal thinking is faultless.  Except that there is no emergency.  As I noted, both London and Madrid have been hit in this manner, yet neither has instituted such a questionable, if not illegal, tactic.  Yet NYC has not only not been hit (in this manner), but Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly have gone out of their way to make it clear that NYC is not the target of any threat - specified or otherwise.  Thus, the implementation of this tactic is, in the most prima facie sense, illegal under the Fourth Amendment (as well as the NYC Penal Code).

Believe me my friend, I understand and share your concern, democracy is in danger when constitutional rights are broken, maybe not your democracy but part of your citizenship is already in danger.

Until today terrorists have given the first hit so the authorities are one step behind, there's a "de facto" emergency situation in USA when you can expect an attack anywhere at any moment.

The Supreme Court must give their opinion but I'm sure they will consider this as an Emergency situation.

Even though it sounds as a bad joke, nobody is forcing a citizen to be searched, if they don't want to be searched they can take a cab or walk, legally is an impeccable solution. Tell me you are not used to this things, but put both dangers in a scale, life and security are more important than the right to privacy IMO.

James Lee:

Can you assure me that the searching in airports has not worked dissuading terrorists to use more plains as missiles? Since the search started there has been another attack, and that's something IMO.

Ahh, that's because of the protections, you may respond. Okay, then how far would you be willing to go for your safety? How about a national ID card, with failure to carry it at all times and present it upon demand making you liable for indefinite detainment? How about endless intrusive checkpoints like the old USSR used to have- it sure kept their nation from falling, eh? Would you be happy to live in a country where citizens are encouraged to spy on each other and make anonymous calls to the police about your suspicious behavior (I've already been visited by the police due to one such civic-minded and completely unfounded telephone call, and I expect much worse to come).

Please James we're talking about USA not about the Democratic Campuchea. The Supreme Court and the public opinion would never allow this kind of abuse.

Children being scared of the boogeyman does not make them at war with the boogeyman. When was the last time there was a war in which there was only one attack, and then a series of state 'protections' that threaten freedom and democracy more than the unspecified enemy has? How exactly do you feel safer when no US citizen has been harmed as a result of terrorist activity in this country for almost four years now?

Again, you're making a reduction to absurd, the boogeyman is a fantasy, the war against other countries is not, 9/11 was real, and believe me, today is at least a bit more difficult to attack USA like 9/11 thanks to the preventive measures.

Just to end, I don't live in your country, I hate to be searched when I go to USA and wait for hours, but I understand it's necessary.

I don't support any party or Government in USA because I'm not a citizen of your country, but I believe some prevention won't harm you too mucch, there are lives at risk, value that.

Iván

Ivan:

"Please James we're talking about USA not about the Democratic Campuchea. The Supreme Court and the public opinion would never allow this kind of abuse."

Oh, Ivan!  If only this were true!  You are being either painfully naive or willfully ignorant here (no disrespect intended).  We are already well on our way toward a National ID Card here - and other countries are even further along that road.  London has over 250,000 c/c cameras, with another MILLION planned.  NYC has less than 10,000 - but we are now hearing about plans for tens of thousands more.  People spying on each other?  This is a daily occurrence in the U.S., though you may not hear about it much.  And it is increasing.  There is already widespread use of the Verichip (location device) in pets, and it is now being seriously considered for infants and children with respect to potential abduction.  The logical next step after that?

And you think that "the Supreme Court and public opinion" will have any effect?  It was the Supreme Court that "coronated" our commander-in-thief after the 2000 elections.  And if 69% of the otherwise fairly savvy populace of NYC supports this first quasi-police state action, what on God's earth makes you think they will not "allow" whatever comes next?  Indeed, as long as they are "convinced" by their government-by-fear and the complacent media that feeds them that fear, it is a slam-dunk foregone conclusion that they will accept anything.

James and I are not the only people who can put two and two together and get four.  There are many others, and that number is growing - though far more slowly than it should, and almost certainly not fast enough to overtake the present trend.

Fear.  That is the operative word.  Fear.  It is the ultimate control.  As long as the government continues to play on that fear, feed it, add to it, talk about it, use it as a cudgel and makes sure the media stays complacent, the rapidity with which this country goes down a proto-totalitarian, police state quasi-theocracy will soon make your head spin!!

Peace.

In first place, I must say I have no interest or preference towards any political party in USA because I don't live there, I have reservations respect the war, but still not 100% sure it was not necessary.

So I can talk from a neutral position, USA is far from being a military or dictatorial system, you have more liberties and civil rights than 90% of the countries in the world but want it or not, agree with it or not, you're in the middle of a war, and that's a fact you must accept.

You want to be safe (as possible), well that has a price, you have to resign some civil rights to go in a metro or a bus without being so afraid.

When an attack happens people blame the Government for not taking precautions, but when your Government takes some measures, you're not willing to sacrifice anything.

Don't blame the Government for the cameras or chip implants, if a boy is kidnapped it's better to know where the criminals are taking him, but it's a personal choice, if you don't want it, nobody can force you.

4 or 5 Stores are being robbed as I write this post and at least two persons are being killed, at least the camera leaves a testimony.

Criminality grows everywhere, cameras and chips will be used all around the world, because society needs to protect itself, today some civil rights protect the criminal more than the innocent and that’s ridiculous.

Iván

sacrifices should be made, but it would be better if the government had a clue of what needs to be done. we don't need to screen old ladies or young girls or mothers. as someone stated before, racial profiling, though unfair, is logical and will most likely prevent an attack if one were to be planted.

also, i propose that if any cleric or radical Islamic leader were to support terrorist activity in any country (i can only speak for my own, though) they should be jailed for the rest of the warr on terrorism, an effective life sentence.

http://Dutch nieuws AIV_verkent_grenzen_inperking_mensensrechten.html - Dutch nieuws AIV_verkent_grenzen_inperking_mensensrechten

Added a link to a dutch newspaper, which struck me this morning.

Excuse me, it's in dutch, so only readable for Dutch audience. I'm sorry my english is insufficient to provide a good synopsis of the story, so if any one can translate/summarise it, please do.

The Dutch government is doing research on the legal possibilities, on how far can human Rights legally be limited in order to secure safety. The fact that they are even considering researching it really frightens me. 

I think I'd prefer to be a free criminal than a safe 'subject'.

Hey James it's not new that every criminal wants to remain free

Now seriously, I always defend civil rights but there's a point in which an utopic seaech for the perfect civil society helps the criminal, I think USA is reaching that point.

Iván

Oh yes you will!

Biff! Bam! Pow! Maim! Hurt a lot!

Whoops -- wrong thread! Sorry!

Fight the good fight, Maani!

So much has been said already on this thread.

Holland is libralism incarnate, yet since 9/11 the police can, and do, hold "spot controls" of vehicles, and I can tell you, if they happen to find anything at all, you're busted. All in the name of Bush's T.W.A.T.! 

We are now legally obliged to carry some form of ID, although a driver's licence is sufficient. Should compulsory ID cards be introduced, with all the possibilities of global tracking, then I'm going underground. Yes, I will be a dissident. I refuse to be treated like a criminal, all in the name of Bush's T.W.A.T.!

All those controle freaks in power are rubbing their hands together with more than a little glee. Every bombing brings them one step closer to the totalitarian state they long for. This is a Prog site, so I'll give the last word to Hawkwind....

Computers are abused, school records are fed,

The police are checking on what you said.

The number of your car is fed into a box,

Your journey's being checked, it's a paradox.

Duplicate forms and ID cards are next in line to disregard.

Future generations are relying on us

It's a world we've made......Incubus.

Remember Luke Skywalker could have easily destroyed the Death Star by using the dark force. But only by choosing the good and right way could he save the universe!

Need I say more?

goose wrote: Remember Luke Skywalker could have easily destroyed the Death Star by using the dark force. But only by choosing the good and right way could he save the universe!   Need I say more?

Oh yes, the good and right way is tops.

Although one wouldn't mind an A-wing crashing into the bridge of a Super Star Destroyer, which would impale the Death Star.

Or a Millenium Falcon and a squadron of X-wings pounding laser blasts and photon torpedoes into the core of the Death Star.

And a touch of Darth Vader grabbing the Emperor and throwing him into the generators.

So Maani, you've got my best wishes and support, but I'm neither a repentant dark Jedi, nor a 11+ mile starship one could hurl at things, nor the Rebellion star fleet. If you get the chance to trade my best wishes and support in for these things, don't hesitate to do so.

Now back to playing that Homeworld 2 mod I go...

America's government have achieved in four years what the terrorist couldn't accomplish in 50 years.

On behave of the terrorist, may I please thank George, Tony and Jan Peter, and other leaders of the formerly free western world, you all have been good ally's, and a heartfelt thank you is in place.

signed

Your friend Osama B.

This debate has boiled down to two factions:

One one side are those who know their history,can back up their statements with fact and aren't just formalising a personal viewpoint key-stroke by keystroke (or "winging it" as we call it in the Uk)

2.On the other side isThe Doctor & Marktheshark.

That might seem very insulting,but guys you are insulting our intelligence with this ill-thought out,fascist,racist bull!

Exhibit one: (MTS)

"The civil liberties you're referring to didn't even exist in 1941 when we were hording off every Japanese-American on the west coast to intern camps. "

What on earth inspired you to come out with that ridiculous statement?

Let's discuss the truth of that whopper:

"civil-liberties"-yes they exist,so no problem there.
"1941"-well we know that existed.
"Japanese Americans being bussed off to intern camps":correctomundo! you are on a roll!
"West Coast" wow,that too exists and was also where the unfortunateJapanese- Americans were sent!!

So with all those factually correct statements,what led you to creating a sentence that was so egregiously incorrect?

Exhibit Two:(The Doctor)

"Sorry, but the bad guys are Arabs, not young white girls or professional white or black men for that matter.  If that means we discriminate against Arabs, well that's too bad for them.  Maybe the innocent Arabs will start policing their own if they get tired of the discrimination.  And I don't really care about being fair.  I care about being protected. "

So,Doctor when do we start persecuting white people so they will adequately police members of the KKK,White Supremacists and other vigilante "liberty-threatening" redneck racists? Why not persecute Irish people for not "policing" the Provos and the UDA? Or so-called American Irish for donating money to the IRA? The Germans for not policing the Bader-Meinhof group or The Doctor himself (yourself) for not making any effort to police Timothy Mcveigh?

You havent really thought that disgraceful piece of rhetoric out have you?

So,I wish to make a proposal:

Before entering into Philosophical Debate in future,dont just write the first bit of rubbish that comes into your head,dont present suppositions or wishful-thinking as fact (someone here will very quickly catch you out) and above all else,analyse your words so you can excise the horrifically racist comments before disgracing yourself in front of your peers.

The big myth of course, is that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have one agenda, that being to undermine our so called democracy. This is what Bush would have us all believe. He (or rather "they" [neocons]) drone on about animals whose only desire is to make our lives hell out of pure spite. The Idealogues of which he speaks live not to impose islamic law on western countries, nor to kill infidels for sport. The truth is, they have a far clearer agenda than that.

If you think the internal destruction of our civil rights is high on their list of objectives you are misguided. Rather, it is high on the lists of our own powermad leaders, and is nothing more than the byproduct of the bombings.

No, only one thing causes a young idealistic and religious person to murder innocent civilians: revenge! Bush won't tell you that, because then he'd have to tell us just why these people feel so hard done by in the first place.

I in no way condone any act of murder, but let's stop pretending they're acting out of some sort of psychopathic bloodlust, and that western states are pure as the driven snow. The USA and co have actively supported Isreal in its terrorist acts against Palestinian people. Face it, "our" hands are certainly not clean in this so called war.

Oh, and DOCTOR, one more thing on racial profiling; one of the four London bombers was Jamaican.

Tony R wrote: This debate has boiled down to two factions: One one side are those who know their history,can back up their statements with fact and aren't just formalising a personal viewpoint key-stroke by keystroke (or "winging it" as we call it in the Uk) 2.On the other side isThe Doctor & Marktheshark. That might seem very insulting,but guys you are insulting our intelligence with this ill-thought out,fascist,racist bull! Exhibit one: (MTS) "The civil liberties you're referring to didn't even exist in 1941 when we were hording off every Japanese-American on the west coast to intern camps. " What on earth inspired you to come out with that ridiculous statement? Let's discuss the truth of that whopper: "civil-liberties"-yes they exist,so no problem there. "1941"-well we know that existed. "Japanese Americans being bussed off to intern camps":correctomundo! you are on a roll! "West Coast" wow,that too exists and was also where the unfortunateJapanese- Americans were sent!! So with all those factually correct statements,what led you to creating a sentence that was so egregiously incorrect? Exhibit Two:(The Doctor) "Sorry, but the bad guys are Arabs, not young white girls or professional white or black men for that matter.  If that means we discriminate against Arabs, well that's too bad for them.  Maybe the innocent Arabs will start policing their own if they get tired of the discrimination.  And I don't really care about being fair.  I care about being protected. " So,Doctor when do we start persecuting white people so they will adequately police members of the KKK,White Supremacists and other vigilante "liberty-threatening" redneck racists? Why not persecute Irish people for not "policing" the Provos and the UDA? Or so-called American Irish for donating money to the IRA? The Germans for not policing the Bader-Meinhof group or The Doctor himself (yourself) for not making any effort to police Timothy Mcveigh? You havent really thought that disgraceful piece of rhetoric out have you? So,I wish to make a proposal: Before entering into Philosophical Debate in future,dont just write the first bit of rubbish that comes into your head,dont present suppositions or wishful-thinking as fact (someone here will very quickly catch you out) and above all else,analyse your words so you can excise the horrifically racist comments before disgracing yourself in front of your peers.

i must be somewhere in between the factions then, cause i have some idea of what's going on, and yet again, i cannot formulate my ideas as well as maani or ivan or yourself. i'm just like Bush () except a Libertarian who thinks abortion is for irresponsible fools who want to get knocked up without any consequences.

i'm not trying to make this an abortion debate. we all know that wouldn't end with good feelings on both sides.

No,I dont and no I'm not!

Sorry to tar you with the same brush,in terms of "racial" comments as "The Doctor"

Government is elected to serve the people,yet somehow they forget this.

What I find most irksome is that reducing civil liberties is probably seen as a quick fix to show the public that something is being done.

Thought this would interest everyone.  It is just out of London via CBS News.  Maybe they'll shoot someone dead in NYC now, too...And Ivan - note the willingness of citizens to "help" the police by spying on neighbors and reporting them...It is happening here as well...

Peace.

BRAZILIAN SHOT BY U.K. POLICE NOT CONNECTED TO BOMB ATTACKS
WebPosted Sat Jul 23 08:45:48 2005

---British police say a man they killed on a London subway train wasn't
connected to Thursday's attempted bombings in the city's transit system.

The man, identified by police as 27-year-old Brazilian citizen Jean
Charles de Menezes, was shot in the head five times in front of dozens of
passengers on a train at the Stockwell subway station on Friday.

Police initially said the man was "directly linked" with the failed
attempts to bomb three subway trains and a bus on Thursday – two
weeks after 56 people were killed in four suicide bombings in the city's
transit system.

However, Scotland Yard issued a statement late Saturday clearing the man,
later identified as de Menezes, of involvement in the attacks.

"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of
Thursday 21st July 2005," said the statement.

"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and
one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

The police force said officers saw the man emerge from a house that they
had been staking out as part of the hunt for the bombers. They said
suspicions were aroused because he was wearing an unseasonably bulky
jacket and acting oddly, so they followed him and eventually chased him
into the station.

Officials said there will be an independent inquiry into the shooting.

Error fuels fears among Muslims

The admission of error further fueled controversy over the shooting,
which was the first public application of a policy to stop suicide
bombers devised after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.

It gives police the authority to shoot suspected suicide bombers first
and ask questions later.

Police authorities said officers have to aim for the heads of suspected
bombers because they could have explosives strapped to their bodies.

Critics accused the police of having a "shoot-to-kill" policy.

The shooting further increased anxiety among the country's Muslim
population. A number of Muslim leaders expressed concerns about the
possibility of racial profiling by the police, especially given the
climate of fear in London.

The shooting may undermine confidence in the police, said Azzam Tamimi,
spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain.

Three of the four suspects identified by police in connection with the
July 7 bombings were British-born Muslims of Pakistani origin. (The
fourth suspect was a Jamaican-born British citizen.)

Police arrest 2nd man

Also on Saturday, police arrested a second man in London in connection
with Thursday's attacks.

The suspect, who has not been publicly identified, was arrested in the
south London neighbourhood of Stockwell.

It's the same neighbourhood where police detained another suspect on
Friday and where they shot and killed the man at the subway station.

Subway station evacuated

London remained in a state of constant alert throughout the day.

In one of a number of security scares, British police briefly evacuated a
subway station in east London on Saturday after a passenger reported
smelling something burning.

The Metropolitan Police investigated, but dismissed it as a false alarm.

Authorities are reported to have cancelled all vacations for police
officers, in order to boost their numbers on the streets and carry out a
massive manhunt for suspects.

Police officials said tips from the public have poured in after they
released photos of the four suspects, which were taken from closed-
circuit surveillance cameras in the British capital's subways and buses.

Investigators are continuing to examine the remains of the knapsack bombs
left on three subway cars and on the top deck of a double-decker bus
Thursday. They're looking for fingerprints or DNA from the would-be
bombers, who escaped in the panic that followed, and trying to determine
whether the explosives were connected to the July 7 suicide bombs.

Police are also sifting through a large number of witness accounts and
photos from the Oval, Shepherd's Bush and Warren Street subway stations,
as well as the Hackney Road site of the bus incident.

A statement posted on an Islamic website in the name of an al-Qaeda-
linked group claimed responsibility for Thursday's attacks. The group,
which is calling itself Abu Hafs al Masri Brigade, also claimed
responsibility for the July 7 bombings. The claims can't be verified.

Tony R wrote: This debate has boiled down to two factions: One one side are those who know their history,can back up their statements with fact and aren't just formalising a personal viewpoint key-stroke by keystroke (or "winging it" as we call it in the Uk) 2.On the other side isThe Doctor & Marktheshark. That might seem very insulting,but guys you are insulting our intelligence with this ill-thought out,fascist,racist bull! Exhibit one: (MTS) "The civil liberties you're referring to didn't even exist in 1941 when we were hording off every Japanese-American on the west coast to intern camps. " What on earth inspired you to come out with that ridiculous statement? Let's discuss the truth of that whopper: "civil-liberties"-yes they exist,so no problem there. "1941"-well we know that existed. "Japanese Americans being bussed off to intern camps":correctomundo! you are on a roll! "West Coast" wow,that too exists and was also where the unfortunateJapanese- Americans were sent!! So with all those factually correct statements,what led you to creating a sentence that was so egregiously incorrect? Exhibit Two:(The Doctor) "Sorry, but the bad guys are Arabs, not young white girls or professional white or black men for that matter.  If that means we discriminate against Arabs, well that's too bad for them.  Maybe the innocent Arabs will start policing their own if they get tired of the discrimination.  And I don't really care about being fair.  I care about being protected. " So,Doctor when do we start persecuting white people so they will adequately police members of the KKK,White Supremacists and other vigilante "liberty-threatening" redneck racists? Why not persecute Irish people for not "policing" the Provos and the UDA? Or so-called American Irish for donating money to the IRA? The Germans for not policing the Bader-Meinhof group or The Doctor himself (yourself) for not making any effort to police Timothy Mcveigh? You havent really thought that disgraceful piece of rhetoric out have you? So,I wish to make a proposal: Before entering into Philosophical Debate in future,dont just write the first bit of rubbish that comes into your head,dont present suppositions or wishful-thinking as fact (someone here will very quickly catch you out) and above all else,analyse your words so you can excise the horrifically racist comments before disgracing yourself in front of your peers.

Tony.  Debating you would be a pointless endeavor, as, like myself, your mind has already been made up on the matter, and nothing anyone says could possibly change your viewpoint.  And actually, I did think out that "disgraceful piece of rhetoric" as you called it.  I find it amusing that from the liberal point of view, it is only those of the caucasian race who are capable of being racist (but that's a topic for another day and another time).  Yes, my statement was racist, and intentionally so.  Those people who are incapable of living as a part of the civilized world have basically no right to breathe the same air as I, much less rights to board trains and set off bombs, or other "civil" rights as you call them.  And yes there was Timothy McVeigh.  However, unlike the Arab world, when McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma, very few people were celebrating the attack in the streets.  And those who were deserve to be taken out and hung up by their private parts.  As far as me presenting wishful thinking as fact, I never present that as fact.  Although, there is a lot of wishful thinking on my part.  Such as the wish that those who constantly propound a politically correct viewpoint would wake up and join the rest of us in the real world, before it is too late.  But I know that will most likely never become fact. 

And for me to be worried about disgracing myself in front of my peers would take a rather doubtful change of opinion on my part that I am in fact among peers.  Good day to you sir.

stonebeard:

So you're saying that it's perfectly fine that a completely innocent man was shot in the back?  Please tell me that you are not rationalizing that way...

MTS:

I guess you haven't heard that, by every single counting method done after the Supreme Court's decision in Gore v. Florida - by nine different newspapers (of different political stripes), and dozens of independent firms and agencies - it was clear that, had the recount been permitted to proceed, Gore would have won Florida without question.  That is fact.  So I repeat my correct claim that the Supreme Court "coronated" (or, perhaps more appropriate to current events, "anointed") Bush as president.

And there was chicanery in the 2004 elections as well.  In that case, it was Ohio that was stolen by Bush via a number of outrageous, illegal tactics.  (See Mark Crispin Miller's article in the current issue of Harper's.)

Bush campaigned as a "uniter, not a divider," yet became a divider almost immediately upon taking office, and has become without question the most divisive president since Nixon.  He campaigned as a "compassionate conservative," but has fulfilled only the second part of that phrase.  He campaigned as a "listener," but listens to no one except his neocon cronies.  He didn't even listen to over30 million people in over 30 cities in 12 countries who protested simultaneously just prior to the invasion of Iraq: the largest protest against a single person in the history of the world!  As an aside, so divisive had he become by then that the protests included over 20,000 Jews and Palestinians marching arm in arm in Jerusalem to protest the planned invasion.

And here at home Bush and his neocon cronies, supported by the so-called "Christian Right" (which, like the Moral Majority before it, is neither), are slowly but surely shredding the Constitution, evoking "executive powers" above and beyond anything Nixon ever even dreamed of, and sending this country on the path toward a proto-totalitarian quasi-theocracy.

Yes, the "terrorists" have already won.  Except the terrorists were never Arab: they were right here under our noses.

Peace.

emdiar wrote: The big myth of course, is that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have one agenda, that being to undermine our so called democracy. This is what Bush would have us all believe. He (or rather "they" [neocons]) drone on about animals whose only desire is to make our lives hell out of pure spite. The Idealogues of which he speaks live not to impose islamic law on western countries, nor to kill infidels for sport. The truth is, they have a far clearer agenda than that. If you think the internal destruction of our civil rights is high on their list of objectives you are misguided. Rather, it is high on the lists of our own powermad leaders, and is nothing more than the byproduct of the bombings. No, only one thing causes a young idealistic and religious person to murder innocent civilians: revenge! Bush won't tell you that, because then he'd have to tell us just why these people feel so hard done by in the first place. I in no way condone any act of murder, but let's stop pretending they're acting out of some sort of psychopathic bloodlust, and that western states are pure as the driven snow. The USA and co have actively supported Isreal in its terrorist acts against Palestinian people. Face it, "our" hands are certainly not clean in this so called war. Oh, and DOCTOR, one more thing on racial profiling; one of the four London bombers was Jamaican.

I'd love to know what terrorist acts committed by the Israelis you are referring to.  Would it be the shooting into a car of a mother and her children, killing all occupants in the car?  No wait, the Israelis were the victims in that case and the Arabs the terrorists.  Could it be the bombing of synagogues that you refer to?  No again, that would be the Israelis as victims, the Arabs as the terrorists.  Hmmmmm.  What terrorist acts by Israelis could you possibly mean?

Let's just face it folks.  I have absolutely zero respect for these so-called people and even less concern for any "plight" which may have been inflicted upon them by the big bad whites and jews.  If I had my way, they would be excluded from the civilized parts of the world, and left to kill each other instead of us.  My opinion on this will not change.  I don't care about them, I don't want them breathing my air, boarding my plane, boarding my subway car, or in my country at all for that matter.  If they all killed each other off, it would be no great loss to the world as far as I'm concerned.  For some reason, Anakin Skywalker's line in Attack of the Clones seems appropriate here "They're animals, so I slaughtered them like animals."

James Lee wrote: marktheshark wrote: C'mon James! You know damn well Bush, Blair and Putin were fed bad intell on the WMDs. That's an enstablished fact. I don't know any such thing- to what fact are you referring? Bush said he had hard evidence of WMDs and an Iraqi plan against the US when all he had were rumors and inference. No court would convict someone on the evidence he had, even if all of it had been authentic. What we're doing now is continuing the execution even after the guilty verdict has been overturned. marktheshark wrote: My old man, a 30 yr CIA official, told me after the first WTC bombing before he passed away that if we had the intelligence capabilities we had during the Cuban missile crisis, the terrorists couldn't take a dump without us knowing about it. But unfortunately over the years the intelligence community has had their hands more and more tied. I've always envied people who consistently have a direct personal connection to whatever matter was being discussed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not actually calling shenanigans on you...but I hope if we're talking about the space program next, you won't happen to mention that your next-door neighbor is an astronaut... marktheshark wrote: And what do you want anyway? 365 elections a year?! You put to much stock in polls, my friend. It's the votes that count. Yeah, I know what you're going to say, "Like they were counted in Fla, huh?" and I'm not going to go into that! maani pretty much covered that. I don't personally care- I don't really trust the will of the people any more than I trust election machines owned by a candidate's family or business partner. But the political structure of the country was intended to serve the will of the people, not dictate it. Our soldiers will all tell you that they are fighting for Democracy...I really hope they win, because we ain't got it yet. BTW: is The Doctor a physician, a PhD, or just a fan of British sci-fi? He writes well enough to be a PhD- very few typos or grammatical errors in his posts. So how does an educated man come to the conclusion that practicality dictates genocide? Perhaps the liberals really ARE all namby-pamby escapists, Doc...but your real world sounds like one any reasonable person would want to escape. I'm reminded of another PhD from Heidelberg...articulate, vocally opposed to bourgeois intellectualism, and supportive of genocide. Do you also happen to be crippled in one foot and a frustrated poet? Perhaps you could substitute a quick overview of Israeli atrocities for another viewing of Episode II...the moral narrative of the trilogy seems to have escaped you anyway.

The Doctor is a fan of British sci-fi.  I have a JD though, the only doctorate for which you are not called Doctor.  And no, the moral narrative of the trilogy has not escaped me in any way, although I do understand many of the choices that Skywalker made and would have made some, not all, of the same choices.  No, no crippled foot here.  And I've never tried my hand at poetry.

The Doctor wrote: ^ First, let me say, that I do believe that most in the Arab world either are terrorists, potential terrorists, or support the terrorists.  Believing is not the same as knowing  I do not actually advocate genocide fine, especially the actually provides a great nuance , I only advocate exclusion.   However, I have wearied of some of the nonsensical "namby-pamby," as you put it, posts, sticking up for these people.  So, I went the opposite extreme.  to take an argument to the extreme, is fine with me, but the underlined word in bold caught my attention  However, I do stand by my opinion that they should be excluded from civilized society All arabs should be excluded, you are so right (winged that is)  and if they did actually manage to wipe themselves out, I can't imagine I would shed too many a tear for them.  I do not actually advocate active genocide on our part however. Inactive would be preferable I suppose?   And if the Arabs wanted to exclude caucasians from Arab lands, what do I care?  I don't want to be excluded from oil, I'll lose my job Have at it I say.  But they actually would like to wipe us from the face of the Earth, why would they want that? and who are they, the terrorist or the arabs, oh I forgot your first sentence, all arabs are terrorist, supprting terrorism or are potential terrorist. and so to continue to allow them in our society is not only stupid, it is morally reprehensible in my opinion. To allow you free speech is not only stupid, but moraly reprehensible in my opinion

summarising your post, All Arabs are terrorists, active genocide is not preferable, but an option, and you are a complete ignorant idiot

tuxon wrote: The Doctor wrote: ^ First, let me say, that I do believe that most in the Arab world either are terrorists, potential terrorists, or support the terrorists.  Believing is not the same as knowing  I do not actually advocate genocide fine, especially the actually provides a great nuance , I only advocate exclusion.   However, I have wearied of some of the nonsensical "namby-pamby," as you put it, posts, sticking up for these people.  So, I went the opposite extreme.  to take an argument to the extreme, is fine with me, but the underlined word in bold caught my attention  However, I do stand by my opinion that they should be excluded from civilized society All arabs should be excluded, you are so right (winged that is)  and if they did actually manage to wipe themselves out, I can't imagine I would shed too many a tear for them.  I do not actually advocate active genocide on our part however. Inactive would be preferable I suppose?   And if the Arabs wanted to exclude caucasians from Arab lands, what do I care?  I don't want to be excluded from oil, I'll lose my job Have at it I say.  But they actually would like to wipe us from the face of the Earth, why would they want that? and who are they, the terrorist or the arabs, oh I forgot your first sentence, all arabs are terrorist, supprting terrorism or are potential terrorist. and so to continue to allow them in our society is not only stupid, it is morally reprehensible in my opinion. To allow you free speech is not only stupid, but moraly reprehensible in my opinion   summarising your post, All Arabs are terrorists, active genocide is not preferable, but an option, and you are a complete ignorant idiot

Tuxon...I refuse to argue with someone who is going to engage in personal attacks just because someone does not agree with your Pollyanna view of the world.  I will no longer read any of your posts.  You are almost as bad as gleam, except you didn't threaten to kick my ass.  Buh bye now.

goose wrote: Remember Luke Skywalker could have easily destroyed the Death Star by using the dark force. But only by choosing the good and right way could he save the universe!   Need I say more?

Please excuse my moment of Star Wars geekiness:

Luke could never have wielded that kind of power that early in his training even if he did turn to the dark side.In the books that continue the story from the end of Return of the Jedi he is able to wield power like that about 25 years later.He ripped the engines out of a Star Destroyer and closed a mini black hole by using the force.But he never could have done it back then.

It funny I consider myself a fairly moderate democrat, especially on religious and environmental issues, but this board makes me want to register as a Republican in a week (my 18th birthday) more and more........

People in my class consider me very liberal, but you Europeans make me look like a Neo-Con.

I hate President Bush and hate the war in Iraq, but not once have I thought that the 18 year olds in the U.S. Army are on the wrong side, fighting against terrorists in Iraq who are willing to kill their own children to get at our soldiers.

And as for the searches on the subways, I'd be very very happy to be searched, to know that the NYPD is doing it's job and working to help keep the city safe.  The only way I would protest is if I was carrying an illegal substance, in which case I should be arrested anyway.  People on this board speak of totalitarian police states, and if the CIA was conducting the searches, I might be somewhat nervous, but it is the NYPD, normal, honest people, who are just doing their job, who aren't looking to impede anyone rights, they are just looking for anything suspicious.  Better someone gets illegally searched than people die in my opinion. 

barbs wrote: maani wrote:   Yes, the "terrorists" have already won.  Except the terrorists were never Arab: they were right here under our noses. Peace. Maani, I am not sure why, maybe the thread is getting under your skin, but you went all the way through this post and presented a reasonable arguement and then said 'Except the terrorists were never Arab: they were right here under our noses.' Is not the reality that, there is good and bad in all people groups and that in your country, in my country, in Africa, in China or in the Arab world, there are people who choose, for whatever reason - power, money, religion, political ideologies - to further their cause by commiting acts which at their most extreme, are terrorist acts. The fact is that even the Islamic states admit they have a problem with fanatics and have started to look into their Islamic school systems to see who is teaching radical fundamentalism that exhorts violence. You will get alot further with your line of thinking, IMO, if you are willing to accept that there are terrorist groups outside of the USA and that some of these can be of Arab origin. Otherwise you are starting to sound like an old Mujahadeen friend of mine who kept telling me that 'America is Great Satan' and that ALL the problems of the world start and end there. Paradoxically, that is as egocentric as Neo-conservatism (IMO). Peace to you to.

America indeed has many problems, satrting with the Evangelical Republicans who seek to integrate Christianity with Government.

Despite America's problems, Maani's ceaseless and irrational America bashing wears very thin. 

maani wrote: stonebeard: So you're saying that it's perfectly fine that a completely innocent man was shot in the back?  Please tell me that you are not rationalizing that way...

i don't want  to say that it was fine that an innocent man was shot in the head 5 times (i was watching an in-depth update on cnn just a minute ago where more was revealed), but i believe that if the London police thought he was a ligitimate threat, that he could indeed set off a bomb underneath his clothing and kill innocent civilians, then they acted appropriately. it is indeed horrible that it turned out that the man was innocent, but when the police told him to stop, and he did not follow their terms, they did what they had to do. that man should have followed orders of the police, especially now that there is an investigation in to bombings in the damn Underground.

i would never advocate the killing of innocent people. innocence, however is hard to define and is a subjective term. i'm not saying victims of the bombings are in any way guilty (only an asshole would say that) and i certainly don't believe that. i'm just making a statement.

NetsNJFan wrote: It funny I consider myself a fairly moderate democrat, especially on religious and environmental issues, but this board makes me want to register as a Republican in a week (my 18th birthday) more and more........ People in my class consider me very liberal, but you Europeans make me look like a Neo-Con. I hate President Bush and hate the war in Iraq, but not once have I thought that the 18 year olds in the U.S. Army are on the wrong side, fighting against terrorists in Iraq who are willing to kill their own children to get at our soldiers. And as for the searches on the subways, I'd be very very happy to be searched, to know that the NYPD is doing it's job and working to help keep the city safe.  The only way I would protest is if I was carrying an illegal substance, in which case I should be arrested anyway.  People on this board speak of totalitarian police states, and if the CIA was conducting the searches, I might be somewhat nervous, but it is the NYPD, normal, honest people, who are just doing their job, who aren't looking to impede anyone rights, they are just looking for anything suspicious.  Better someone gets illegally searched than people die in my opinion.

Actually, very few people consider me a liberal anymore (as you can probably imagine), but there was a time once long ago when I wore that mantle proudly.  As I matured (something some of the people on these boards could really afford to do), I realized the world was not all that rose-colored and that the liberal point of view had more flaws than positives.  One of the major problems with the liberal agenda that I see has to do with the fact that liberals are extremely interested in equality, which may not at first seem like such a bad thing.  However, instead of bringing about equality by bringing those at the bottom rungs of society up, they try to push the higher rungs of society down.  One only need to look at the feminist agenda and the likes of the racial activists for proof of that.  Yet, by default I am still a democrat and really dislike Bush myself (I'm a democrat only because there is no real libertarian presence in the U.S., my dislike of Bush goes a bit further). 

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.  One of the problems I have with most of these posters (or is that poseurs?) is that to them American lives are apparently very cheap when contrasted with the much more important rights of the Arab community.  How dare we as Americans value our lives over the "rights" of a particular group, most of which are not even citizens of this country.  We are somehow supposed to value their rights to be free from hassle over our right to live.  But I guess in Europe, American lives aren't worth much.  Great to know who your friends are.  Of course, there are some in our very own country who care less about the rights of Americans to live than of the rights of Arabs to be hassle free (can you say ACLU...those people really irritate the sh** out of me).

I tell you, pretty much in line with what you said, the more I read the posts on this board the further to the right I shift.  I used to think that the U.S. should be concerned with the opinions of the international community.  Now I say, screw the international community before they screw us.  Apparently, I was born in the wrong culture.  I'd love to kill at will (you'd know this if you were ever in a car with me on the jersey turnpike) and be applauded for my efforts and have the international community stand behind me.  Damnit all to hell, I was born white and American.

James Lee wrote: stonebeard wrote: ^^^^ well i don't see why this is much of a problem. i can see though why Muslims would be upset by this, for they are probably the most likely to be shot. but think about it, if you're following a suspected suicide bomber, the head is the only body part to aim at. the body, if an explosive is be worn, may explode on contact, and if the legs are shot to immobilize thesuspect, he may still be able to detonate the bomb, if there were one. in this terrorist climate, i agree that it is all about fear and what fear can make us do. we have to take precautions, no matter how ugly they may be. they should not, however, infring upon the people so much that they fear for their lives well, your stand covers plenty of ground...looks like you'll be okay no matter how it turns out. Polish ancestry, perhaps?

 not quite. but if you care: German, English, Irish is descending order of prevalence.

The Doctor wrote: NetsNJFan wrote: It funny I consider myself a fairly moderate democrat, especially on religious and environmental issues, but this board makes me want to register as a Republican in a week (my 18th birthday) more and more........ People in my class consider me very liberal, but you Europeans make me look like a Neo-Con. I hate President Bush and hate the war in Iraq, but not once have I thought that the 18 year olds in the U.S. Army are on the wrong side, fighting against terrorists in Iraq who are willing to kill their own children to get at our soldiers. And as for the searches on the subways, I'd be very very happy to be searched, to know that the NYPD is doing it's job and working to help keep the city safe.  The only way I would protest is if I was carrying an illegal substance, in which case I should be arrested anyway.  People on this board speak of totalitarian police states, and if the CIA was conducting the searches, I might be somewhat nervous, but it is the NYPD, normal, honest people, who are just doing their job, who aren't looking to impede anyone rights, they are just looking for anything suspicious.  Better someone gets illegally searched than people die in my opinion.  Actually, very few people consider me a liberal anymore (as you can probably imagine), but there was a time once long ago when I wore that mantle proudly.  As I matured (something some of the people on these boards could really afford to do), I realized the world was not all that rose-colored and that the liberal point of view had more flaws than positives.  One of the major problems with the liberal agenda that I see has to do with the fact that liberals are extremely interested in equality, which may not at first seem like such a bad thing.  However, instead of bringing about equality by bringing those at the bottom rungs of society up, they try to push the higher rungs of society down.  One only need to look at the feminist agenda and the likes of the racial activists for proof of that.  Yet, by default I am still a democrat and really dislike Bush myself (I'm a democrat only because there is no real libertarian presence in the U.S., my dislike of Bush goes a bit further).  Anyway, back to the topic at hand.  One of the problems I have with most of these posters (or is that poseurs?) is that to them American lives are apparently very cheap when contrasted with the much more important rights of the Arab community.  How dare we as Americans value our lives over the "rights" of a particular group, most of which are not even citizens of this country.  We are somehow supposed to value their rights to be free from hassle over our right to live.  But I guess in Europe, American lives aren't worth much.  Great to know who your friends are.  Of course, there are some in our very own country who care less about the rights of Americans to live than of the rights of Arabs to be hassle free (can you say ACLU...those people really irritate the sh** out of me). I tell you, pretty much in line with what you said, the more I read the posts on this board the further to the right I shift.  I used to think that the U.S. should be concerned with the opinions of the international community.  Now I say, screw the international community before they screw us.  Apparently, I was born in the wrong culture.  I'd love to kill at will (you'd know this if you were ever in a car with me on the jersey turnpike) and be applauded for my efforts and have the international community stand behind me.  Damnit all to hell, I was born white and American.

I think you are making gross generalizations of the Arab community that I find a bit offensive even though I'm not Arabic.

I agree, the ACLU goes far too far in some cases and needs to settle down.

It's an understatement to say that I don't agree with your forign policy. It stinks of stereotypical American indiscretion and abliviance (two big words, spelling?). We are one world and if we don't respect other countries, we may find ourselve on the other end of a war with our former allies.

Hooray for Libertarianism!!

stonebeard wrote: The Doctor wrote: NetsNJFan wrote: It funny I consider myself a fairly moderate democrat, especially on religious and environmental issues, but this board makes me want to register as a Republican in a week (my 18th birthday) more and more........ People in my class consider me very liberal, but you Europeans make me look like a Neo-Con. I hate President Bush and hate the war in Iraq, but not once have I thought that the 18 year olds in the U.S. Army are on the wrong side, fighting against terrorists in Iraq who are willing to kill their own children to get at our soldiers. And as for the searches on the subways, I'd be very very happy to be searched, to know that the NYPD is doing it's job and working to help keep the city safe.  The only way I would protest is if I was carrying an illegal substance, in which case I should be arrested anyway.  People on this board speak of totalitarian police states, and if the CIA was conducting the searches, I might be somewhat nervous, but it is the NYPD, normal, honest people, who are just doing their job, who aren't looking to impede anyone rights, they are just looking for anything suspicious.  Better someone gets illegally searched than people die in my opinion.  Actually, very few people consider me a liberal anymore (as you can probably imagine), but there was a time once long ago when I wore that mantle proudly.  As I matured (something some of the people on these boards could really afford to do), I realized the world was not all that rose-colored and that the liberal point of view had more flaws than positives.  One of the major problems with the liberal agenda that I see has to do with the fact that liberals are extremely interested in equality, which may not at first seem like such a bad thing.  However, instead of bringing about equality by bringing those at the bottom rungs of society up, they try to push the higher rungs of society down.  One only need to look at the feminist agenda and the likes of the racial activists for proof of that.  Yet, by default I am still a democrat and really dislike Bush myself (I'm a democrat only because there is no real libertarian presence in the U.S., my dislike of Bush goes a bit further).  Anyway, back to the topic at hand.  One of the problems I have with most of these posters (or is that poseurs?) is that to them American lives are apparently very cheap when contrasted with the much more important rights of the Arab community.  How dare we as Americans value our lives over the "rights" of a particular group, most of which are not even citizens of this country.  We are somehow supposed to value their rights to be free from hassle over our right to live.  But I guess in Europe, American lives aren't worth much.  Great to know who your friends are.  Of course, there are some in our very own country who care less about the rights of Americans to live than of the rights of Arabs to be hassle free (can you say ACLU...those people really irritate the sh** out of me). I tell you, pretty much in line with what you said, the more I read the posts on this board the further to the right I shift.  I used to think that the U.S. should be concerned with the opinions of the international community.  Now I say, screw the international community before they screw us.  Apparently, I was born in the wrong culture.  I'd love to kill at will (you'd know this if you were ever in a car with me on the jersey turnpike) and be applauded for my efforts and have the international community stand behind me.  Damnit all to hell, I was born white and American.   I think you are making gross generalizations of the Arab community that I find a bit offensive even though I'm not Arabic. I agree, the ACLU goes far too far in some cases and needs to settle down. It's an understatement to say that I don't agree with your forign policy. It stinks of stereotypical American indiscretion and abliviance (two big words, spelling?). We are one world and if we don't respect other countries, we may find ourselve on the other end of a war with our former allies. Hooray for Libertarianism!!

Well I agree with your hooray for libertarianism.  However, as for the rest of your statement, tell me that when you're on the receiving end of an airplane in your building while your innocently at work, or when you're on the receiving end of a bomb when you're innocently on your way to work.  Protect them enough and it's very possible you will be.  My life is worth more than the rights of those scumbags.

Oh and these so-called allies I'm beginning to wonder about.  If they were truly allies they would be supporting us and not these ... (this has been bleeped out for the sake of the children)... arabs. 

Oh, by the way, you nailed indiscretion.  For the life of me I can't remember how to spell the other word.  Could be a result of the alcohol coursing through my veins right now.

Edit: if you count Pearl Harbor, that's about 60 years w/o a war. but however bad P.H. was, it was nothing like waht most of Europe suffered during WW2.

BTW: looked it up in the dictionary: ambivalence (was close, but too far off not to be called a dumbass)

TheProgtologist wrote: Please excuse my moment of Star Wars geekiness: Luke could never have wielded that kind of power that early in his training even if he did turn to the dark side.In the books that continue the story from the end of Return of the Jedi he is able to wield power like that about 25 years later.He ripped the engines out of a Star Destroyer and closed a mini black hole by using the force.But he never could have done it back then.

Nice to see someone else reads the books following Jedi!

The Doctor wrote: ^^^ Yes, but if you've seen my above posts you would know that I place little faith in those searches, as they will be searching the cute blonde girl next door, and the first time that they search an arab, the ACLU will be right there to pounce on the cops and the city.  It won't even matter if they actually find a bomb on the arab, the ACLU will still sue for a violation of his "rights."

I know.

While the ACLU has admirable aims, there is somethign they have never heard of, it is called "COMMON SENSE"

I remember one case where one Arab woman in Florida couldn't get a driver's license cause she woudn't take off her face scarf for the license photo.  So she had the ACLU sue Florida, I think they won. 

Disgusting.

this does seem to be a "moderate democrat/libertarian" sort of party 'eh.

I got me them 'ol Red State blues.

NetsNJFan wrote: ^ I think THE DOCTOR and I are on the same page. I am definitely in the Democratic party camp, as oppose to my earlier statements.  The Republicans are way to Christian, way to tricky, and show way to much disregard for nature and ecology for that to be my party.  However on some Issues I am starting to agree with them.  I'm sure THE Doctor agrees with me it is time we said F.U. to international approval, no matter what we do they just get pissed off, and booted the UN out of NY.  All they do is pass resolutions against the US and Israel, I really despise them.  After all, this is the organization with Sudan on the humanitarian council.

I agree.  The republicans are far too christian for me (my god, this is the 21st century, the blue laws should be gone for christ's sake, and don't get me started on abortion rights - of which i am fully in favor, or prayer in school).  They have a self-righteousness about them that I truly despise.  And yes, they have much more regard for big business than they do for the ecology.  However, while fairly liberal on a lot of domestic issues (minus feminism, affirmative action, the welfare state, etc. - basically i think the government should stay out of the lives of individuals, but not necessarily corporations), I'm becoming more and more conservative regarding international policy.  And I'm beginning to think maybe it is time we kicked the U.N. out of New York.  Tis a blight on my home, it is.  There is no reason the U.S. should continue to house what is starting to amount to an enemy of the U.S., at least not in my home city.

Cygnus X-2 wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Please excuse my moment of Star Wars geekiness: Luke could never have wielded that kind of power that early in his training even if he did turn to the dark side.In the books that continue the story from the end of Return of the Jedi he is able to wield power like that about 25 years later.He ripped the engines out of a Star Destroyer and closed a mini black hole by using the force.But he never could have done it back then. Nice to see someone else reads the books following Jedi!

took my advice, eh Cygnus?

stonebeard wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Please excuse my moment of Star Wars geekiness: Luke could never have wielded that kind of power that early in his training even if he did turn to the dark side.In the books that continue the story from the end of Return of the Jedi he is able to wield power like that about 25 years later.He ripped the engines out of a Star Destroyer and closed a mini black hole by using the force.But he never could have done it back then. Nice to see someone else reads the books following Jedi! took my advice, eh Cygnus?

It was a minor influence.

The Doctor wrote: NetsNJFan wrote: ^ I think THE DOCTOR and I are on the same page. I am definitely in the Democratic party camp, as oppose to my earlier statements.  The Republicans are way to Christian, way to tricky, and show way to much disregard for nature and ecology for that to be my party.  However on some Issues I am starting to agree with them.  I'm sure THE Doctor agrees with me it is time we said F.U. to international approval, no matter what we do they just get pissed off, and booted the UN out of NY.  All they do is pass resolutions against the US and Israel, I really despise them.  After all, this is the organization with Sudan on the humanitarian council.    I agree.  The republicans are far too christian for me (my god, this is the 21st century, the blue laws should be gone for christ's sake, and don't get me started on abortion rights - of which i am fully in favor, or prayer in school).  They have a self-righteousness about them that I truly despise.  And yes, they have much more regard for big business than they do for the ecology.  However, while fairly liberal on a lot of domestic issues (minus feminism, affirmative action, the welfare state, etc. - basically i think the government should stay out of the lives of individuals, but not necessarily corporations), I'm becoming more and more conservative regarding international policy.  And I'm beginning to think maybe it is time we kicked the U.N. out of New York.  Tis a blight on my home, it is.  There is no reason the U.S. should continue to house what is starting to amount to an enemy of the U.S., at least not in my home city.

I agree with (limited) Affirmative action based primarily on economics, not race.  I go to a very affluent school, and we are much more advantaged than poorer kids when it comes to college entrance.

But I think welfare is a mainly a failure.  I'm a New Dealer, but now we have these families in the slums that have been on welfare that have been on assistance for three generations etc, that is so wrong, however I do agree with unemployment, medicare, social security.

And I am really conservative on foreign policy.

stonebeard wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Please excuse my moment of Star Wars geekiness: Luke could never have wielded that kind of power that early in his training even if he did turn to the dark side.In the books that continue the story from the end of Return of the Jedi he is able to wield power like that about 25 years later.He ripped the engines out of a Star Destroyer and closed a mini black hole by using the force.But he never could have done it back then. Nice to see someone else reads the books following Jedi! took my advice, eh Cygnus?

I believe I have read every star wars novel published.  Hell, I think I've even read all the comic books.  I must say though that I prefer the prequel era to the original era, both in terms of novels and movies.  

Yeah, I'm a nerd.  What's it to you? 

Cygnus X-2 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Please excuse my moment of Star Wars geekiness: Luke could never have wielded that kind of power that early in his training even if he did turn to the dark side.In the books that continue the story from the end of Return of the Jedi he is able to wield power like that about 25 years later.He ripped the engines out of a Star Destroyer and closed a mini black hole by using the force.But he never could have done it back then. Nice to see someone else reads the books following Jedi! took my advice, eh Cygnus? It was a minor influence.

well, then

The Doctor wrote: stonebeard wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Please excuse my moment of Star Wars geekiness: Luke could never have wielded that kind of power that early in his training even if he did turn to the dark side.In the books that continue the story from the end of Return of the Jedi he is able to wield power like that about 25 years later.He ripped the engines out of a Star Destroyer and closed a mini black hole by using the force.But he never could have done it back then. Nice to see someone else reads the books following Jedi! took my advice, eh Cygnus? I believe I have read every star wars novel published.  Hell, I think I've even read all the comic books.  I must say though that I prefer the prequel era to the original era, both in terms of novels and movies.   Yeah, I'm a nerd.  What's it to you?

I haven't read to that extent, but I've read a plenty amount of the novels. My favorites are Dark Saber and the fan favorite Shadows of the Empire. What are yours? (Sorry to get off topic)

NetsNJFan wrote: The Doctor wrote: NetsNJFan wrote: ^ I think THE DOCTOR and I are on the same page. I am definitely in the Democratic party camp, as oppose to my earlier statements.  The Republicans are way to Christian, way to tricky, and show way to much disregard for nature and ecology for that to be my party.  However on some Issues I am starting to agree with them.  I'm sure THE Doctor agrees with me it is time we said F.U. to international approval, no matter what we do they just get pissed off, and booted the UN out of NY.  All they do is pass resolutions against the US and Israel, I really despise them.  After all, this is the organization with Sudan on the humanitarian council.    I agree.  The republicans are far too christian for me (my god, this is the 21st century, the blue laws should be gone for christ's sake, and don't get me started on abortion rights - of which i am fully in favor, or prayer in school).  They have a self-righteousness about them that I truly despise.  And yes, they have much more regard for big business than they do for the ecology.  However, while fairly liberal on a lot of domestic issues (minus feminism, affirmative action, the welfare state, etc. - basically i think the government should stay out of the lives of individuals, but not necessarily corporations), I'm becoming more and more conservative regarding international policy.  And I'm beginning to think maybe it is time we kicked the U.N. out of New York.  Tis a blight on my home, it is.  There is no reason the U.S. should continue to house what is starting to amount to an enemy of the U.S., at least not in my home city. I agree with (limited) Affirmative action based primarily on economics, not race.  I go to a very affluent school, and we are much more advantaged than poorer kids when it comes to college entrance. But I think welfare is a mainly a failure.  I'm a New Dealer, but now we have these families in the slums that have been on welfare that have been on assistance for three generations etc, that is so wrong, however I do agree with unemployment, medicare, social security. And I am really conservative on foreign policy.

I'm also a New Dealer.  My parents grew up in the time of FDR, and I still think that Roosevelt did a lot for this country.  I also believe that we as a society have an obligation to take care of those who are unable to care for themselves (therefore, I believe in SSI, disability and unemployment), but I do not believe that we have a responsibility to those who are unwilling to take care of themselves.  That's one of my problems with the two party system in this country, the democrats (at least as they are now) think we should take care of everybody, and the republicans don't think we should help anyone.

A limited affirmative action based on income may not be so bad (hell, we sort of have that now with the college financial aid system), but it should not be based on race.

The Doctor wrote: NetsNJFan wrote: The Doctor wrote: NetsNJFan wrote: ^ I think THE DOCTOR and I are on the same page. I am definitely in the Democratic party camp, as oppose to my earlier statements.  The Republicans are way to Christian, way to tricky, and show way to much disregard for nature and ecology for that to be my party.  However on some Issues I am starting to agree with them.  I'm sure THE Doctor agrees with me it is time we said F.U. to international approval, no matter what we do they just get pissed off, and booted the UN out of NY.  All they do is pass resolutions against the US and Israel, I really despise them.  After all, this is the organization with Sudan on the humanitarian council.    I agree.  The republicans are far too christian for me (my god, this is the 21st century, the blue laws should be gone for christ's sake, and don't get me started on abortion rights - of which i am fully in favor, or prayer in school).  They have a self-righteousness about them that I truly despise.  And yes, they have much more regard for big business than they do for the ecology.  However, while fairly liberal on a lot of domestic issues (minus feminism, affirmative action, the welfare state, etc. - basically i think the government should stay out of the lives of individuals, but not necessarily corporations), I'm becoming more and more conservative regarding international policy.  And I'm beginning to think maybe it is time we kicked the U.N. out of New York.  Tis a blight on my home, it is.  There is no reason the U.S. should continue to house what is starting to amount to an enemy of the U.S., at least not in my home city. I agree with (limited) Affirmative action based primarily on economics, not race.  I go to a very affluent school, and we are much more advantaged than poorer kids when it comes to college entrance. But I think welfare is a mainly a failure.  I'm a New Dealer, but now we have these families in the slums that have been on welfare that have been on assistance for three generations etc, that is so wrong, however I do agree with unemployment, medicare, social security. And I am really conservative on foreign policy. I'm also a New Dealer.  My parents grew up in the time of FDR, and I still think that Roosevelt did a lot for this country.  I also believe that we as a society have an obligation to take care of those who are unable to care for themselves (therefore, I believe in SSI, disability and unemployment), but I do not believe that we have a responsibility to those who are unwilling to take care of themselves.  That's one of my problems with the two party system in this country, the democrats (at least as they are now) think we should take care of everybody, and the republicans don't think we should help anyone. A limited affirmative action based on income may not be so bad (hell, we sort of have that now with the college financial aid system), but it should not be based on race.

agreed.  saying blacks need help getting into college is admitting they are inferior.  who does that help?

Cygnus X-2 wrote: The Doctor wrote: stonebeard wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Please excuse my moment of Star Wars geekiness: Luke could never have wielded that kind of power that early in his training even if he did turn to the dark side.In the books that continue the story from the end of Return of the Jedi he is able to wield power like that about 25 years later.He ripped the engines out of a Star Destroyer and closed a mini black hole by using the force.But he never could have done it back then. Nice to see someone else reads the books following Jedi! took my advice, eh Cygnus? I believe I have read every star wars novel published.  Hell, I think I've even read all the comic books.  I must say though that I prefer the prequel era to the original era, both in terms of novels and movies.   Yeah, I'm a nerd.  What's it to you?  I haven't read to that extent, but I've read a plenty amount of the novels. My favorites are Dark Saber and the fan favorite Shadows of the Empire. What are yours? (Sorry to get off topic)

My favorites would have to be Cloak of Deception (it's more political, but really gives an insight into the genius of Palpatine in setting up his rise to power), Darth Maul (even though this one has a rather tragic ending - but so did RoTS and that was my favorite movie), and Jedi Trial (about Anakin becoming a Jedi).

I guess for the original trilogy timeline novels I would have to say I, Jedi (although it got some things wrong about how Anakin became Vader and the background of the Old Republic) and Shadows of the Empire. 

I'm really looking forward to Dark Lord - The Rise of Darth Vader coming out in October. 

It's not really all that off topic if you think about it.  Some are accusing Bush of being this great mastermind who has plotted to make himself emperor by starting a war.  Holy sh** batman, Bush is Darth Sidious.