Unlike Dafydd, I can't think of any of the gay people I've met who might make damned fine soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen

You've probably met plenty, but don't know they're gay.

I suspect that is Hillary feigning right to garner the "moderate" vote. After election look for a swift veer to the far left. She is a Marxist to the core. I can't bring myself to take anything she does at face value.

I am sorry, but I do not condone deviant sexual behavior. I do not want these people hurt or ridiculed but do not ask for my support via laws and tax dollars for their behavior. My rights are just as important.

On the code pink thing, I think she did the right thing. ww

I can understand how some could be attracted to Hillary as a presidential candidate. If I saw her as serious about wanting to lead the most powerful nation in the free world, I might even consider supporting her. However, I suffer from the suspicion that she sees another stay in the White House as an opportunity to fill out her silver service.

Out of the two, I have to believe Bill is the pragmatic moderate while Hillary is the philosophical marxist.

I make a point of never reading anything in the NY Slimes. However, this morning Real Clear Politics linked to a Maureen Dowd piece about Hillary's experience. It was quite good.

My problem w/ Hillary is that she is running on Bill's record. She was not a co-president as she'd like to think, she was just first lady. And the things she'd like to take credit for don't fall under the aegis of first lady. She's trying to take credit for things that probably fall more under the description of pillow talk rather than presidential adviser.

What has come out of her mouth lately is just downright frightening and absolutely socialist. What is particularly alarming about the race for the WH this time around is the role of dems in congress. At least Bill was "contained" by the GOP, but Hills could be unfettered if she wins and if we don't reclaim the House (don't think Senate is a possibility). Therefore, I would NEVER vote for her.

abuses" of President Bush while simultaneously arguing for the expansion of government powers into place where the government has no business whatsoever.

This statement right here JayTea is why I have so many problems with the Republican party. You are worried about the expansion of government when sombody is going to make you pay for some social service, but you just are just fine when goverment increases it's police powers which has tradiontally been a far greater threat to liberty.

So the government can have a program where they are free to spy on american citizens with NO safeguards in place (other than the word of the president.)And that doesn't bother you?

I'm not real keen on health care either, but from your worldview where President Bush is trustworthy and would never abuse his powers, are you not a little worried that President Clinton might use these powers to spy on say... Republicans? No court order needed.

But damn, it's good to hear a leading Democratic presidential candidate at least say these things.

Eh. It depends.
If you thought the Dem really believed what they said or were at least willing to honestly look at both sides, then sure.

But if you thought she just says those things to get elected, then no, it's not good to hear. It would be better if she said nothing at all or best of all, if she would speak her true feelings on the matter.

She has not impressed me so far during this campaign. I would probably never vote for her or most any other Dem, but I thought she was supposed to be the 'smartest woman in America' and all that. She hasn't come close to living up to her hype.

Dems should be nervous.

Cartman, ever hear of the Clipper chip?

"Cartman, ever hear of the Clipper chip?"

es, I find it some scary. Scary in that the definition of whatis charecterized as legal authorization is rather vague.

You are worried about the expansion of government when sombody is going to make you pay for some social service, but you just are just fine when goverment increases it's police powers which has tradiontally been a far greater threat to liberty.
See, that's just it, Cartman, expansion of police powers is now less of a threat to liberty merely because of the awareness of the potential harm it can have.
But no one (on the left, anyway) predicted the encroachments on personal liberty having, f'rinstance, strong Child Services departments, and yet such abuses have been racking up. Lots of examples out there of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

John,

"See, that's just it, Cartman, expansion of police powers is now less of a threat to liberty merely because of the awareness of the potential harm it can have."

You are saying that because we are aware of the dangers, that the expansion of police powers present it is OK to not worry about it and give goverment all the police power it wants? With no oversite?

That seems very dangerous to me. If we are all aware of the danger of expanded goverment powers then we should work to make sure that danger is minimized by requiring warrents. Not b saing everone is aware of the danger therefore it is ok to not worr and do nothing.

I agree with you on how unintended consequences pop up with laws though I just think it swings both ways.

But no one (on the left, anyway) predicted the encroachments on personal liberty having, f'rinstance, strong Child Services departments, and yet such abuses have been racking up. Lots of examples out there of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

You are saying that because we are aware of the dangers, that the expansion of police powers present it is OK to not worry about it and give goverment all the police power it wants? With no oversite?
------------------------------------
These are perfectly good reasons not to vote for the dems. The liberal democrats tried to use the gov power to shut down conservative talk radio. Radical leftists tried to quelch free speech on campus. The liberal dems in congress were willing to lie/smear a private citizen.

The tyrannical nature of the left coupled with their fascist dishonesty should scare all honest and informed Americans.

Civilian policies and ideals have no place in a sucessful military. The military thrives on standards and regulations. Certain jobs require meeting a certain standard, others different standards. The regulations apply to all and should not be unique amongst pay grades, different services, etc. But, duty stations are different, job demands are different, and people are different. The MOS classification should recognize this.

Currently, standards are lower for females even though there are weaker men and stronger women. The system provides only a biased means for individuals to advance their career, and needs a serious overhaul.

To afford women, gays, radical political or religious affiliates- or whatever, opportunities based on their identity group is and would be a huge mistake.

If you can do your job to equal standard, and work within the Rgeulation (i.e. Don't ask, Don't tell) no one would know what your "preference" is - only that you are a good soldier and do your job. I agree with this whole-heartedly. Even heterosexual "mis-conduct" does not belong on duty in uniform (although there seems to be issues all-too-often). STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS!

Cartman,

I assume you are referring to the Patriot Act. List all the abuses against American citizens you can find. Waiting...

"The tyrannical nature of the left coupled with their fascist dishonesty should scare all honest and informed Americans."

But you are not scared when the right does it? Scary.

"I assume you are referring to the Patriot Act. List all the abuses against American citizens you can find. Waiting..."

I'm not going to waste time covering ground I have already covered. Here it Read it it again.

I'm not real keen on health care either, but from your worldview where President Bush is trustworthy and would never abuse his powers, are you not a little worried that President Clinton might use these powers to spy on say... Republicans? No court order needed.

My point which you seemed to have missed is that It is dumb to remove safeguards from goverment abuse of power becase eventually it will be abused.

I see. So you are not angry about abuses that have occurred but abuses that allegedly might occur (but only on the Rights' watch). Meanwhile you ignore the abuses of power that have actually happened or try to justify your puny little world view in a desperate search for moral equivalence that just isn't there. All you have are empty accusations and innuendo. My guess is that you have no real knowledge of the Patriot Act and its purpose - you are simply here to drivel inane leftist talking points. To quote a famous polemicist, if you had any brains you would be a Republican.

"The tyrannical nature of the left coupled with their fascist dishonesty should scare all honest and informed Americans."

But you are not scared when the right does it? Scary.
-------------------------------------
Sorry that I didn't see Republican senators willing to lie/smear a private citizen and tried to pass law to quelch free speech.

We see blatant dishonest and tyrannical practice of the left right now.

Sounds like you agree that your concerns are valid reasons not to vote for the dems at this point in history.

Does everyone notice all the leftist handwriting over what might happen (global warming religion) while they are completely lackadaisical towards the danger(s) which are happening presently (Islamofascist aggression)? Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. Sheesh.

"I assume you are referring to the Patriot Act. List all the abuses against American citizens you can find. Waiting"

Oh what the hell, even though you missed the point by a longshot I am bored enough to list a few abuses against americans. ALthough even if there wasn't a one it still makes removing contraints on goverment authority no less stupid. Which Loves America immigrant agrees with because he fears Democratic abuse of power so Obviously if he had any brains he would be scared of What Predident Clinton would do with Warrentless wire tapping. Oh well. On to your stupidity Jeff ( I am that bored)

1. Warrantless Wiretapping -- accrding to the New York Times the National Security Agency was tapping into phone calls of Americans without a warrant, in violation of federal statutes and the Constitution. The program was confirmed by President Bush and other officials. This also includes data mining of calls.

2) Patriot Act: The Justice Department's Inspector General found that the FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of national security letters, a majority against U.S. persons, and many without any connection to terrorism at all.

3 No Fly Lists -- Since 9/11 the number of similar watch lists has mushroomed to about 720,000 names, all with mysterious or ill-defined criteria for how names are placed on the lists, and with little recourse for innocent travelers seeking to be taken off them. These lists name an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 people. The lists are so erroneous several members of Congress, have been flagged.

3. Political Spying -- Government agencies -- including the FBI and the Department of Defense -- have conducted their own spying on innocent and law-abiding Americans. Through the Freedom of Information Act, the ACLU learned the FBI had been consistently monitoring peaceful groups such Quakers, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Greenpeace, the Arab American Anti-Defamation Committee and, indeed, the ACLU itself.

4. Abuse of Material Witness Statute The government has apologized for wrongfully detaining 13 people as material witnesses. Some were imprisoned for more than six months and one actually spent more than a year behind bars. Learn More >>

Now Jeff I am done with you. People as stupid as you, are not worth my time. I would prefer to speak to the inteligent conservatives on this blog--The ones that actually understand the arguments being made. If I wanted to be involved in a moronic conversation i would have written you directly.

Which Loves America immigrant agrees with because he fears Democratic abuse of power so Obviously if he had any brains he would be scared of What Predident Clinton would do with Warrentless wire tapping.
------------------------------------
Cartman,
Looks like you run out of arg and has to resort to the typical ad-hominen attack. Looks like you have no concern about terrorist attacks at all. Using the same argument, if you have any brain or intellectual honesty, you would admit that any well-informed and honest Americans would not support the liberal democrats at this point given their tyricannical practice and blatant dishonesty. The rest of your posts are typical talking points that have been proven wrong numerous times already so it is not worth my time to debunk them anymore.

Anyway, you are resorting the typical liberal tactic of name-calling when running out of arguments. In your entire post, you seem to express no concern about the dishonesty and even anti-American "treachorous" activities of the ACLU, Greenpeace, MoveOn, Media Matters the rest of the radical left. I don't know why any honest American would want to associate with these organizations in the first place.

Thread Hijack! [Cartman et al]

Jay:
There are plenty of homosexual folks in the military, and I'd guess by the quality of character I've seen, what it takes to survive in the military with such orientation self-selects quality folks who know how to keep a secret. Sure there's always a negative example, but I they're not representative of majority of that minority.
Now Hillary, gay or not, would be the type to fight towards the top, but likely to reach a ceiling based on her beliefs and politics - I doubt she'd make over O-6 no matter how hard she tried.

Immigrant guy, you scare the hell out of me. Are you an actual immigrant? If so to get your citizenship you do realize you will need to demonstrate and understanding of the constitution do you not?

OK here you go the so called "Radical left you name are reall radical" I mean the ACLu was created to defend the bill of rights. I can see wh you would be against that given how much ou seem to love goverment police power. A pretty unamerican postition but you will cover that when you get to our contituion. Move on, Yeah a organization that places ads and (Gasp!) uses puns on a general. real real radical. Almost blowing shit up. isn't it. Thre challenge Jef oput forth was to name instance of an american getting their rights abuse. Those craz wacko peace loving quakers getting spied on was enough. You should go back to where you came from it is obvious you hate everything america stands for.

Go back the topic of the thread, I would rather see Hillary defeated as soon as possible. She is a perfect example of dishonesty and brutal tyrannical control.

Jay and others, I have a post on Wizbangblue now, about what some leading democrats are saying about Hillary, just as Jay and some wizbang classic commenters are qualifying their normal virulent anti-Clinton attacks (It is the phony war period, after all). I'm sure normal programming on behalf of both sides, will resume when the nominations are sewn up on Super Tuesday February 5, and the real 'mudslinging' season begins.

"Thread Hijack! [Cartman et al"

What a bunch of bullshit. I made a comment in response to something written by Jaytea and The immigrant guy and Jeff decided that it was their business and responded to it. I then responded to them. so don't give me that idiototic crap that I hijacked anything. I even made a point of putting what Jatea wrote in bold letters.

Cartman,
Using your own logic/argument, you seem to want to give maximum enablement/protection to the terrorists and their sympathizers to blow up America. On the other hand, you don't seem a bit concerned about the dishonesty and blatant abuse of power by the liberal democrats. Otherwise, you would have run away from Hillaray, the dems, and other known dishonest/anti-American organizations like Greenpeace, ACLU et...Are you actually an American? At least we have an agreement that your concerns are perfect examples to vote against the Dems.

Thanks to Cartman who provides another example of the liberal Sew*ge. When running out of arg, then resort to name calling.

"Go back the topic of the thread, I would rather see Hillary defeated as soon as possible. She is a perfect example of dishonesty and brutal tyrannical control."

Then you would agree that her being able to spy on Americans without a warrent is a bad idea which means if you had any sense you would not want those abuses of power to ever happen because eventually there will be a democrat president and then the hsow would be on the other foot. Luckily for those democrats they don't have to worr about that because you are too short sited to notice.

But you are right this discussion is a waste of time. I mean it is one thing to disagree with the points being made, it is quite another when you don't even understand them.

But you are right this discussion is a waste of time. I mean it is one thing to disagree with the points being made, it is quite another when you don't even understand them.
-------------------------------------
Thanks for admitting that you don't even understand the points being made. You simply spout the talking points from the left. When challenged, you acted like a code pink protester by shouting insults.

Again, using your same argument now, are you for giving the terrorists the maximum protection/enablement to blow up Americans? Do you have any concern about that?

Immigrant guy,

"Using your own logic/argument, you seem to want to give maximum enablement/protection to the terrorists and their sympathizers to blow up America."

Wow you are right! We should put a camera in everyones home we don't want a silly thing like privacy to protect terrorism. I think if Clinton becomes president she should get the right to bug the phones of anyone she suspects of being a terroist. and if that happens to be Rudy Guliani then so be it. Spying protects america and we don't Rudy to blow up anything do we? Wow your line of reasoning is fun. Police state here we come!

Cartman in #21 you said

1. Warrantless Wiretapping -- accrding to the New York Times the National Security Agency was tapping into phone calls of Americans without a warrant, in violation of federal statutes and the Constitution. The program was confirmed by President Bush and other officials. This also includes data mining of calls.

The "warrantless" program is forbidden to be used when picking up phone calls between American citizens. The dispute is about phone calls between foreign terrorists that happen to cross American equipment or when a foreign terrorist calls someone in the US for terrorist purposes.

It has nothing to do with you (for example) calling Aunt Tillie for her pizza recipe, but does deal with a phone call from Gazastan to a supporter instructing him to set off a bomb.

Actually, according to published accounts, the NSA is reqired to get off the line and wipe the records as soon as they determine that the conversion involves American citizens and is not terrorist related.

Even if they wanted to get the recipe, they couldn't. Who has the time to monitor all the phone calls even if they wanted to.

Immigrant guy,

"Using your own logic/argument, you seem to want to give maximum enablement/protection to the terrorists and their sympathizers to blow up America."

Wow you are right! We should put a camera in everyones home we don't want a silly thing like privacy to protect terrorism. I think if Clinton becomes president she should get the right to bug the phones of anyone she suspects of being a terroist. and if that happens to be Rudy Guliani then so be it. Spying protects america and we don't Rudy to blow up anything do we? Wow your line of reasoning is fun. Police state here we come!
-------------------------------------
Thanks for confirming that you are on the side of the terrorists. 9/11 happened and you would rather see more of them on American soil. Are you really an American, Cartman?

Sumerary of the debate:

This is great.

me: So if you remove restrictions on goverment the can abuse the power.

Immigrant guy: Why do you want freedom to do you love terrorist?

What year did out drop out of high school Immigrant guy?

Sabba,
Don't bother Cartman with facts. He only wants "talking points" for his propaganda on behalf of the terrorists.

Sumerary of the debate:

This is great.

me: So if you remove restrictions on goverment the can abuse the power.

Immigrant guy: Why do you want freedom to do you love terrorist?

What year did out drop out of high school Immigrant guy?
------------------------------------
Run out of args, so has to resort to the liberal sew*ge of ad-hominen attack again?

How would you do to protect us from the terrorists who are trying to blow us up taking advantage of our free and open society? What are you doing with the dem party who are stifling freedom and attacking private citizens using gov power? How about people like Carter, Kucinich, Hillary, Clinton going around the world embracing the worst tyrants in the world? You are so concerned about the abuse of gov power that you are supporting the fascist left (like ACLU, Greenpeace, MoveOn, MediaMatters etc...)?

Come on Immigrant guy why didn't you go to college? Tell us your sad story. It's ok. the world needs ditch diggers too.

"which is total garbage. Just because the Times got it wrong does not mean that we have to accept their mistake."

Excuse me first off, by what line of reasoning are using that their was a mistake? you presented no evidence that anthing in their reporting was inaccurate. ou didn't even mention any evidence that I could look up myself.

Next your point seems to be that the NSA is required to get off the phone if they discover the call has nothing to do with terroism. What's next, the FBI has to stop looking through your laundry as soon as they find no evidnece of wrong doing? in this country you need evidence of wrong doing before yoiu invade a person's privacy not the other wa around.

Secondly I am curious about those published reports you mentioned. Since this is a program that the goverment is determined to keep secret and free from any supervision I'd be curious to see who puts those safe guards in place and more importantl who is making sure those safe guards are being kept in place.

Come on Immigrant guy why didn't you go to college? Tell us your sad story. It's ok. the world needs ditch diggers too.
-------------------------------------
Thanks for providing another example of another leftist who is full of the liberal sew*ge that couldn't help but spout it out.

Still didn't answer my question. Try to cut and run like a typical liberal!

How would you do to protect us from the terrorists who are trying to blow us up taking advantage of our free and open society? What are you doing with the dem party who are stifling freedom and attacking private citizens using gov power? How about people like Carter, Kucinich, Hillary, Clinton going around the world embracing the worst tyrants in the world? You are so concerned about the abuse of gov power that you are supporting the fascist left (like ACLU, Greenpeace, MoveOn, MediaMatters etc...)?

"Still didn't answer my question. Try to cut and run like a typical liberal!"

You didn't answer mine. Why didn't you go to college? It's not too late you know. with your brains you'd be out of junior college in 5 or 6 years, tops.

No Deferments here; answer the question. Then I will answer yours.

You didn't answer mine. Why didn't you go to college? It's not too late you know. with your brains you'd be out of junior college in 5 or 6 years, tops.
-------------------------------------
Run out of arg again. So have to spill the liberal sewage from within. Again, thanks for confirming that you are on the side of the terrorists. Your antics are called and you have to resort to the typical liberal tactic of name calling.

I bet you didn't even graduate from high school. Otherwise, you would have known better. Why didn't you try to finish high school, Cartman?

"Run out of arg again."

Not at all, just trying to understand why our crtical thinking skills are so poor. I'm not insulting you I am really interested. why didn't you go to college? Am I wrong? did you actually go? Quit being a coward and answer me.

Btw, I have a Masters Degree. Kansas State University.

Now ANswer the question. don't be afraid I won't ridicule you.

Masters Degree is what?

*in

Glad you asked. I am a master of the arts, literature specifically. I make my living as a UNIX system administrator. So if ou would like to discuss TCP/IP networking or Shakespeare, I'd be happy to talk to you about it. Thouggh I must admit the IT stuff is more boring but alas, it pas the bills.

Why are you interested might I ask? I am having a discussion with the Immigrant guy, and I'm curious where he went to school.

Glad you asked. I am a master of the arts, literature specifically. I make my living as a UNIX system administrator. So if ou would like to discuss TCP/IP networking or Shakespeare, I'd be happy to talk to you about it. Thouggh I must admit the IT stuff is more boring but alas, it pays the bills.

Why are you interested might I ask? I am having a discussion with the Immigrant guy, and I'm curious where he went to school.

Civility
A definition:

civility

Main Entry:
ci·vil·i·ty Listen to the pronunciation of civility
Pronunciation:
\sə-ˈvi-lə-tē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural ci·vil·i·ties
Date:
1533

1 archaic : training in the humanities 2 a: civilized conduct; especially : courtesy, politeness b: a polite act or expression

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/civility

The above is enlightenment. It can be implemented through the use of clue bats™, or disemvowelment if necessary.
Thank you

So, unable to make a decent living with a MA in lit, Cartman goes into to the IT field. And what value is that masters to the matter at hand?
None. Unless you want to compare the contributions of Jones and Shakespeare to Hillary and Obama.

Some people like knowledge for it's own sake. Some are hostile to learning and will only bother with it when they are forced. In between TV time of course. Are you in the latter group?

Cartman
The right to privacy, the encroachment on civil liberties and the illegal possession and use of information about private and public citizens are seriouds concerns among Republicans and conservatives.

Your points 1-4 in comment 21 pale in comparison to the operation run by Hillary Clinton and Craig Livingstone during WJC administration when thousands of FBI files were discovered in Livingstone's White House basement office. These files contained raw FBI data on citizens of this country.

If Hillary wins the nomination, she will get absoutely no traction on the "privacy" issue when Republicans remind voters of this egregious violation of citizen rights. We can argue all day about what the Bush administration did or did not do: the FBI files scandal will preclude Clinton from exploiting any perceived Bush administration mistakes.

Cartman,
IF you really have a master, then you should ask for a refund from Kansas State. You don't seem to have a comprehension beyond high school yet. Still try to cut and run from my question.
Given the terrorists endorsement of Hillary and the dems in general, no wonder a terrorist sympathizer like you would come here and spin for them. You don't seem to even graduate from high school yet. Otherwise, you wouldn't have beed fooled so easily by the cheap liberal talking points.

Let me know how you want to defend America from the terrorists. Otherwise, you don't have much too say except the liberal junk again.

Go back to the topic of the thread, I would rather see Hillary confront the code pink democrats in Congress like Murtha, Reid, and Pelosi etc...

So What degree do you have Immigrant guy...? Never gonna answer that are you? I ask because though you have accused me of a comprehension problem you are the one that has not demonstrated an understanding of the points made. It reflects badly on you makes you look rather slow.

HughS:

I don't know much about the Clinton's abuses of power while in office. if what you say is true then it scares the hell out of me and frankly I would think that would provide a reason for you personally to be against warrentless wiretapping. I'm against it because I don't trust any politician with too much power and no oversite. I assume you wouldn't want to trust the clinton's with it. This is my problem with the immigrant guy he fails to graps this logic. It is not that he disagrees with it. He doesn't understnad it.

Cartman

To be clear: I am opposed to warrantless wiretapping of communications between two(or more) parties that reside and are in fact in the United States. I am not opposed to warrantless wiretapping between two paries when one party is outside the United States and one party is in the United States.

As to Clinton abuses of power during the WJC administration, you might want to research that subject because it will be a major issue in the election if Hillary wins the nomination. As Jay said:

If I could believe for one instant that Hillary could be trusted to exert as much common sense and reasonableness and clarity of thought and principle as she shows in these two cases, I'd consider voting for her

Hillary will win or lose based on voter perception and judgment as to whether she has any character or integrity.

Carman,
I don't need a junk degree in social sciences. I have a real college degree in more useful discipline. I didn't quite believe the report that social science/literature departments in American universities are full of propagandists like Ward Churchill and they give out junk degrees. If you really have a master as you insisted, then this is true after all. And these social science departments are the worst in terms of respect for freedom of speech. They are full of leftists who don't want any opposing views.

Carman, you don't know the basic facts about Clinton. Now you keep talking about a liberal talking point of "warrentless wiretaping", then how would you want to defend America against the terrorists? Not sure you understand the basic facts about FISA etc... given that you don't even know about the Clinton corruption and disregard for privacy.

Sorry still have to conclude that you don't pass high school yet. I simply told you that your concerns are valid reasons to vote against Hillary and the dems in general. Then you went off on an "ad hominen" track. You really didn't understand the issue. Wonder why you didn't try to graduate from high school or try to get a real college degree.

Sorry to disappoint, Cartman. I went to school for a lit degree. Decided teaching wasn't for me. Got out of that, and went into computers, then politics, then back to computers. After a decade of computers went to get a BS in comp sci to supplement my arts degree.
Someday, when the house is paid off and the kids' education is 'self propelled', I may go back and teach either Lit or computers.
Odd, though, someone with an MA in Lit who brags on Shakespeare... should have taken the reference to Indigo Jones to mean a fellow traveler was in the house.
Maybe you do need a refund from KSU. That or they need to round up someone giving their sheepskin a sharp drop in value.

Re: Cartman's large cut and paste.

Apparently they do not teach the necessity of attribution at KSU. What to expect from these Ward Churchill types, eh?

"Idon't need a junk degree in social sciences. I have a real college degree in more useful discipline"

They offer degrees in waste management or gargaage collection? I'm sure you excelled.

"Odd, though, someone with an MA in Lit who brags on Shakespeare... should have taken the reference to Indigo Jones to mean a fellow traveler was in the house.
Maybe you do need a refund from KSU. That or they need to round up someone giving their sheepskin a sharp drop in value"

Nah, it is a pretty good program actually. I did miss the reference though. I brought it up because I have decided due to his propensity to miss the point, the immigrant guy probably didn't make it to college. You can't spew logical fallacies that frequently if you have read a little.

Cartman, your copying of some ACLU website without attribution is just cheap plagiarism.

But more importantly your cut and paste is in fact a list of misrepresentations. Rather typical of the ACLU. And in the case of the claims about wiretapping, rather obviously deliberate misrepresentations of the NSA programs that have been discussed in the news.

National Security Letters are the equivalent of subpoenas and cover material that is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Nonetheless, you provide breathy rhetoric and little substance in whining about their use.

Frankly I'm thrilled that the FBI is monitoring PETA, as they are associated with some dangerous people - or did you not notice the bomb attempts against medical researchers recently?

Nah, it is a pretty good program actually. I did miss the reference though. I brought it up because I have decided due to his propensity to miss the point, the immigrant guy probably didn't make it to college. You can't spew logical fallacies that frequently if you have read a little.
-------------------------------------
No substance but cheap ad-hominen attacks again. Some high school kids I know can make better argument than this.

"No substance but cheap ad-hominen attacks again. Some high school kids I know can make better argument than this."

You haven't demonstrated you understand my first tpost yet. Instead you have spewed red herring after red herring. when you can actuall demonstrate you understnad anything i wll argue with you.

Until then you are a waste of time. Now run along.

Hugh S.

First: thanks for being interested in a real debate.

"To be clear: I am opposed to warrantless wiretapping of communications between two(or more) parties that reside and are in fact in the United States. I am not opposed to warrantless wiretapping between two paries when one party is outside the United States and one party is in the United States."

This is a fair point and we are largely down to philosophical differences here. But I have never heard an argument that has convicned me of the neccesity of the program. The Fisa courts have only not granted warrents in something like two cases. There is provision in an emrgency that allows sing for 48 hours before the goverment makes it cases of the need for a warrent (to make sure no time is lost.) With these provisions of what need is there for wiretaping without the warrent it seems a reasonable suspion would winout in virtually every case and there is far less of a chance for abuse. I apporeciate that you might trust clinton with this program for instance but hypothetically pick your least favorite liberal the one you feel is the most dangerous and give them those powers. The powers themselves are dangerous in my opiion. I don't trust this adminsitration with them. I also don't think I would trust Clinton with them.

"As to Clinton abuses of power during the WJC administration, you might want to research that subject because it will be a major issue in the election if Hillary wins the nomination. As Jay said:"

Agreed, However I found that dirt is not hard to find on a lot of the candiates. One perspective is being pushed here. Rudy for instance has alot of questionalbe things folowing him around. I am not trying to put forth the You are one two fallacy. I'm just saying that there is plenty of dirt to go around. In the end two canidates will be left and I will pick the one with the least dirt and the values closest to my own. As I am sure will you.

Cartman,
You are still trying to resort to cheap distraction/ad-hominen attacks to cut and run like a typical liberal. Honestly, some high school kids can make better argument than you do.
What would you do to protect America from the terrorists? Simple question and you run like a typical liberal who runs out of arg.

"Agreed, However I found that dirt is not hard to find on all the candiate's"

So Your into eating dirty candy ehh? that explain's a lot!

So, Cartman, your vast education in literature never covered plagiarism?
Grammar and spelling (at least typing) also seem to have been neglected.
I have to agree with LAI. When pressed, you fall back on cheap attacks. When caught out, you change the subject. Intellectual dishonesty, lack of integrity and borderline maturity... I think KSU is owed an apology.