I’d rather be informed and free than ignorant, scared and “secure”. Thank you NYT.
Oh lookie who has finally reasoned out what it means to post to a message board.
hands you a cookie
I specifically stated that I would prefer if the banks reported what they deemed “suspicious purchases” and that the government could take over from there. I just don’t want the government to have free reign to decide whether I’m a suspected terrorist or not based on something as small as disagreeing with their policies and calling them out for being lousy leaders who lie to the American people and thrive on fear.
Jesus, I pay my taxes, I register my vehicle, I wouldn’t kill anything bigger than a spider if my life depended on it and I still don’t feel safe from being labeled a terrorist. And I’m far from alone in my anxiety. That, my dear, is a serious problem.
When does this administration intend to hold itself accountable for its actions? If the past tells us anything, the answer to that is Never. That being the case, whose responsibility is it to hold them accountable? That would be ours, Bob.
How do we hold them accountable if we don’t know wtf they are doing? You work that one out, sweetie… I’ll wait.
If only those were the only choices. How does dead fit into your preferences? Like the 3,000 who died on 9/11. It really happened, you know.
Evil One, your shameful, immoral and mentally retarded position here already has been thoroughly and devastatingly exposed, debunked and discredited in GD. Isn’t this Pit thread kind of redundant?
To tell you the truth, it would make no difference to my thinking even if it did.
Personally, i think that if everyone in Congress wants to keep the American people in the dark about something, that is possibly an even better reason for exposing it. This is not a party political issue for me; to my mind, the Democrats have been far too willing, over the past five years or so, to lets Bush and the Republicans have pretty much whatever they want.
While there are undoubtedly issues here that fall along party lines, there are also, in my opinion, issues than transcend the Democrat/Republican divide and go directly to the relationship between the people and their government. People always talk about how there’s too much partisanship on Capitol Hill; personally, i think that there’s often not enough, and that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle cooperate far too willingly, generally at the expense of their constituents.
The problem is that the Bush administration, with its lying and its incompetence and its obfuscation, long ago gave up any claim to be taken at face value by its own supporters, let alone by people on the opposite side of the political fence. The fact that you structure your whole debate around the assumption that the administration is being honest speaks volumes about you, none of it very flattering.
Do you realize what a hypocrite your appear when you say that?
I do know that. It doesn’t fill me with terror or make me willing to live in a police state. I’m willing to take some risks to live in a free country. I’m willing to risk my life to live free. Why aren’t you?
Let me clarify my position, because you made some good points. If ranking Democrats in Congress are convinced that the program is legal and that it’s necessary to keep it secret in order to be effective, then I hope that would change the calculus used by the NYT in deciding wether or not to publish.
Surely you’re not suggesting, as you seem to be in paragraph #2, that no program should be kept secret if someone is willing to leak info about it. Are you?
Shhhh. Let them sleep.
Hmmm… Live free or die. Someone should put that on a license plate or something. 
Personally, if the choice is between “dead” and “citizen of a police state” … I choose “dead”.
When you say “We are not at war”, that indicates either an astonishing level of naivete or a deliberate refusal to let reality taint your ideological comfort zone. In either case, I have neither the time or the will to attempt to change your way of thinking. That’s why I was sarcastic and dismissive.
Nice job on the seventh grade level insults though. I’m devastated.
Well, I do where a helmet when I ride a motorcylce, or even when I go mountain biking. It kind of makes sense to me to take steps to protect yourself from know dangers. And no one is talkiing about a police state. The governement was taking sensible steps to stop terrorists before they blow people up. The program was working. It was legal. Now, why would you want to stop a program that was preventing terrorists from carrying our their plans? What is the upside? Other than workiing against Bush?
Are you of the opinion that the governement should do nothing? I mean, the odds would still be in your favor, right?
ReallY? You’d think that folks would, like know about that.
invoking the memory of those who died tragically to prevent anyone even knowing about, let alone questioning this fucking administrations is the one-trick pony souless fucks like you always fall back on.
Careful. That would be living in a “police state”, wouldn’t it?
Come now, BG. As we have seen, free speech trumps all.
Was the publication of the Pentagon Papers the proper thing to do?
Since it’s an analogy that “requires very little thought or justification”, I’m sure you will answer quickly, with a simple “yes” or “no” and certainly no attempt at sophistry or evasion.
Are these the only 3000 deaths that have EVER happened in your world? I don’t mean to sound harsh, but really.
How many people die from automobile accidents per year? You don’t see our government chomping at the bit to ban automobiles though, do you? No. Our government creates rules (i.e. don’t be drunk, obtain a license, etc) while protecting our right to operate vehicles despite the fact that innocent people will continue to die every year as a direct result of automobiles.
It’s a calculated risk and I am fully aware that one day I might be the innocent person killed in an automobile accident or by a plane smashing into a building. It will be sad, but it will be less sad than a whole life lived in a padded cell where no one can hurt me because Big Brother won’t let them, I would think.
No. Please explain.
Eh, I’m kind of leaning to the story that the Bush administration leaked the story on purpose. It’s a twofer. It seems to be legal, effective, and common sense, makes them look like they’re doing something worthwhile for a change. And then they can bash the press for printing the story.
In a lot of ways, it’s equally effective to be able to track these money flows as it is to dry them up completely. We WANT the terrorists to stop using phones completely. We WANT the terrorists to stop using banks. We WANT them hiding in a cave in Pakistan, afraid to use any device invented after 1842.