Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-03-05 at 13:33:35
Opinion Poll Rules
1. Statements of opinion must be thorough and thought out. Blatant exclamations of "IDIOT!!", for example, will not be tolerated.
2. No flaming people while stating your opinion.
3. A new opinion poll will be posted in one week.
Last Week: By a two to one vote, abortion should not be outlawed.
This Week: We've had the Guantanamo Bay debate, among other things. During his presidency, Bush has done many things "for our security". So I ask you this, how far has Bush gone in trying to protect the American people?
My Response: Too far. The Patriot Act and NSA spying are ridiculous infringements on our civil rights. I don't feel any safer from terrorists now than five years ago.
List of all previous polls
1.Do you approve of the way President Bush is doing his job?
2.Is Communism a good idea?
3.References to God should be removed (i.e. "under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" on money)
4.Is I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby Guilty?
5.What are your thoughts over the current evidence of corruption in the government?
6.Are you disturbed by in overwhelming Mexican/Hispanic influence on the US?
7.Are love and lust essentially the same thing, varying in intensity?
8.Do you approve of the way President Bush is doing his job?
9.Is the excecutive order to the NSA to spy on American citizens making overseas telephone calls grounds for impeachment?
10.Should the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay be closed?
11.Should abortion be made illegal?
1. Statements of opinion must be thorough and thought out. Blatant exclamations of "IDIOT!!", for example, will not be tolerated.
2. No flaming people while stating your opinion.
3. A new opinion poll will be posted in one week.
Last Week: By a two to one vote, abortion should not be outlawed.
This Week: We've had the Guantanamo Bay debate, among other things. During his presidency, Bush has done many things "for our security". So I ask you this, how far has Bush gone in trying to protect the American people?
My Response: Too far. The Patriot Act and NSA spying are ridiculous infringements on our civil rights. I don't feel any safer from terrorists now than five years ago.
List of all previous polls
1.Do you approve of the way President Bush is doing his job?
2.Is Communism a good idea?
3.References to God should be removed (i.e. "under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" on money)
4.Is I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby Guilty?
5.What are your thoughts over the current evidence of corruption in the government?
6.Are you disturbed by in overwhelming Mexican/Hispanic influence on the US?
7.Are love and lust essentially the same thing, varying in intensity?
8.Do you approve of the way President Bush is doing his job?
9.Is the excecutive order to the NSA to spy on American citizens making overseas telephone calls grounds for impeachment?
10.Should the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay be closed?
11.Should abortion be made illegal?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-03-05 at 13:37:33
I'm going to have to agree. Althought the Patriot act will probably never apply to me, I still think that's an infringment of rights. So I guess he's going too far.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-03-05 at 13:41:35
None of your civil rights will ever be violated, only known terrorists that are from other countries living here.
DT, I think yo should have voted not enough becuase you seem to not feel any safer, and if you don't feel safe then obviously hes not doing enough.
I don't think Bush has done enough, our ports are not monitered enough and we pretty much have an open border with Mexico that really any smart person could cross. Whos knows what they could cross with.
DT, I think yo should have voted not enough becuase you seem to not feel any safer, and if you don't feel safe then obviously hes not doing enough.
I don't think Bush has done enough, our ports are not monitered enough and we pretty much have an open border with Mexico that really any smart person could cross. Whos knows what they could cross with.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kashmir on 2006-03-05 at 13:45:21
one word Chris:
Blind
No further questions.
Blind
No further questions.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Centreri on 2006-03-05 at 13:52:13
Too far and too stupidly.
I even heard he made a law to make annoying people online illegal.
I even heard he made a law to make annoying people online illegal.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-03-05 at 14:04:19
He went too far with the patriot act... I was depressed how government can be so pathetic... It is violation of the Constitution. How can we let him fiddle with our own Constitution? Obviously, he went too far expecting something good will come out of it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Doodan on 2006-03-05 at 14:18:34
Not far enough. You can say a lot of the things he's done are overkill, but as I've said in the past, he only does these things because the people behind him have him do it.
Really, if he went too far, he'd be babying us. I don't get that impression from him.
Really, if he went too far, he'd be babying us. I don't get that impression from him.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Arbitrary on 2006-03-05 at 14:22:30
QUOTE(TheDaddy0420 @ Mar 5 2006, 01:41 PM)
None of your civil rights will ever be violated, only known terrorists that are from other countries living here.
DT, I think yo should have voted not enough becuase you seem to not feel any safer, and if you don't feel safe then obviously hes not doing enough.
I don't think Bush has done enough, our ports are not monitered enough and we pretty much have an open border with Mexico that really any smart person could cross. Whos knows what they could cross with.
[right][snapback]439806[/snapback][/right]
DT, I think yo should have voted not enough becuase you seem to not feel any safer, and if you don't feel safe then obviously hes not doing enough.
I don't think Bush has done enough, our ports are not monitered enough and we pretty much have an open border with Mexico that really any smart person could cross. Whos knows what they could cross with.
[right][snapback]439806[/snapback][/right]
Do you ever get tired of contorting logic? "Not feeling any safer than 5 years ago" implies that Bush hasn't done a damn thing right.
And you always go on about substantiating claims. Well, where is the proof that they have stopped any "terrorist attacks"? They've claimed to do so, but can't provide any evidence to support it, because they've put themselves in a catch-22; releasing information about how they "catch terrorists" would expose their methods, but at the same time, not releasing information about it leaves the public without knowledge of what they're really doing. So instead, they stonewall.
That's not public servitude, that's building a fortress without doors.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kame on 2006-03-05 at 14:57:27
He hasn't gone far enough. The spying stuff doesn't effect me, and it shouldn't effect you unless you've done something wrong. And that whole signing off ports thing? That isn't protecting us at all. If he really cared about our well being, he wouldn't've signed them off in the first place.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-03-05 at 15:16:29
QUOTE(Arbitrary @ Mar 5 2006, 11:22 AM)
Do you ever get tired of contorting logic? "Not feeling any safer than 5 years ago" implies that Bush hasn't done a damn thing right.
And you always go on about substantiating claims. Well, where is the proof that they have stopped any "terrorist attacks"? They've claimed to do so, but can't provide any evidence to support it, because they've put themselves in a catch-22; releasing information about how they "catch terrorists" would expose their methods, but at the same time, not releasing information about it leaves the public without knowledge of what they're really doing. So instead, they stonewall.
That's not public servitude, that's building a fortress without doors.
[right][snapback]439836[/snapback][/right]
And you always go on about substantiating claims. Well, where is the proof that they have stopped any "terrorist attacks"? They've claimed to do so, but can't provide any evidence to support it, because they've put themselves in a catch-22; releasing information about how they "catch terrorists" would expose their methods, but at the same time, not releasing information about it leaves the public without knowledge of what they're really doing. So instead, they stonewall.
That's not public servitude, that's building a fortress without doors.
[right][snapback]439836[/snapback][/right]
And some how Gitmo is still filled year after year.
@Euro, If I were blind I would say we are safe
I wouldn't want you protecting my family.Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2006-03-05 at 15:27:16
The Patriot Act ruined any faith I had in the U.S., along with the NSA wiretaps. These actions seem less of protection and more of civil rights violations.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-03-05 at 16:47:27
My point about not feeling safer is that we never were at any great threat to terrorists. They got us once. Does that mean they're going to try once a year for the next century? No. We were at no greater risk to terrorists after 9/11 than before.
You say the Patriot Act only applies to "known terrorsists", but who decides if I'm a known terrorist? A bunch of beaurecrats in some smoke-filled room. I might have just beat them at a game of chess so they hate my and delcare me a terrorist.
You say the Patriot Act only applies to "known terrorsists", but who decides if I'm a known terrorist? A bunch of beaurecrats in some smoke-filled room. I might have just beat them at a game of chess so they hate my and delcare me a terrorist.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2006-03-05 at 17:13:45
Not far enough IMO.
Only thing I'm not quite comfortable is is the Patriot Act.
Only thing I'm not quite comfortable is is the Patriot Act.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by olaboy- on 2006-03-05 at 17:17:31
I think he's doing enough, he ended Sadam's dictorial reign over Iraq (Which he broke 40 UN laws over 10 years and Bush has finally stopped him.)
He didn't go overboard with the Patriot Act because it protects us.
He didn't go overboard with the Patriot Act because it protects us.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2006-03-05 at 17:19:53
Actually I changed my vote to The Proper Distance
*edits poll*
*edits poll*
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-03-05 at 18:30:04
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Mar 5 2006, 01:47 PM)
My point about not feeling safer is that we never were at any great threat to terrorists. They got us once. Does that mean they're going to try once a year for the next century? No. We were at no greater risk to terrorists after 9/11 than before.
You say the Patriot Act only applies to "known terrorsists", but who decides if I'm a known terrorist? A bunch of beaurecrats in some smoke-filled room. I might have just beat them at a game of chess so they hate my and delcare me a terrorist.
[right][snapback]439930[/snapback][/right]
You say the Patriot Act only applies to "known terrorsists", but who decides if I'm a known terrorist? A bunch of beaurecrats in some smoke-filled room. I might have just beat them at a game of chess so they hate my and delcare me a terrorist.
[right][snapback]439930[/snapback][/right]
DT, I THINK I HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS TO YOU IN ANOTHER TOPIC ARG.
ok so we have forces in other countries. We find the known terrorist/terrorist funder (we see them in the act of terrorism, making bombs, blowing people up etc..) We wire tap their communications, which they often communicate to other members of their party in other countries, such as Iran.
Those members in Iran we then wire tap. We watch them and their chatter. We trace their calls to individuals in the US. and we Wire tap those individuals in the USA. Now tell me where its wrong that we do that?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2006-03-05 at 18:30:35
I don't think I've ever felt like I was going to die. And bush hasn't really affected how I live my life in the least bit. Other people are just worry warts.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by guardien on 2006-03-05 at 22:48:42
He's gone over the line of protection and putting us in even more danger. That's Bush for ya.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Doodan on 2006-03-06 at 00:53:50
[attachmentid=17709]
I saw this in the newspaper today and it made me die laughing.
@Rantent: You mean the rising gas prices have not affected you?
I saw this in the newspaper today and it made me die laughing.
@Rantent: You mean the rising gas prices have not affected you?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-03-06 at 01:41:47
QUOTE(TheDaddy0420 @ Mar 5 2006, 03:30 PM)
DT, I THINK I HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS TO YOU IN ANOTHER TOPIC ARG.
ok so we have forces in other countries. We find the known terrorist/terrorist funder (we see them in the act of terrorism, making bombs, blowing people up etc..) We wire tap their communications, which they often communicate to other members of their party in other countries, such as Iran.
Those members in Iran we then wire tap. We watch them and their chatter. We trace their calls to individuals in the US. and we Wire tap those individuals in the USA. Now tell me where its wrong that we do that?
[right][snapback]440016[/snapback][/right]
ok so we have forces in other countries. We find the known terrorist/terrorist funder (we see them in the act of terrorism, making bombs, blowing people up etc..) We wire tap their communications, which they often communicate to other members of their party in other countries, such as Iran.
Those members in Iran we then wire tap. We watch them and their chatter. We trace their calls to individuals in the US. and we Wire tap those individuals in the USA. Now tell me where its wrong that we do that?
[right][snapback]440016[/snapback][/right]
What's wrong is the government has the legal authority to say "I think you are a terrorist", present me no reasons, look into my personal records, and jail me without charges indefinitely without me getting a say in anything or a chance to protest.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cloud on 2006-03-06 at 21:26:51
Theres a fine line from protect and conqour. He crossed it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Atreyu) on 2006-03-06 at 22:12:45
My personal opinion is that bush has not successed what hes suppose to do as president.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-03-07 at 01:45:10
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Mar 5 2006, 10:41 PM)
What's wrong is the government has the legal authority to say "I think you are a terrorist", present me no reasons, look into my personal records, and jail me without charges indefinitely without me getting a say in anything or a chance to protest.
[right][snapback]440361[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]440361[/snapback][/right]
Its not really the main people in our government. Its more like high class Generals and extreme intelligence agency unknowns who do this kind of stuff. If you think bush and his cabinet did all this personally, then you must be on crack.
They have always had that power, legal or not, known or unknown, mmm hello Abe.
QUOTE(Mp)Cloud @ Mar 6 2006, 06:26 PM)
Theres a fine line from protect and conqour. He crossed it.
[right][snapback]440840[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]440840[/snapback][/right]
What have we conquered?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-03-07 at 02:33:56
QUOTE
They have always had that power, legal or not, known or unknown, mmm hello Abe.
It's not Bush or his cabinet that would be putting me in prison, it's him and his cabinet saying that it is legal and authorizing it.
It's a moot point that they intelligence agencies always had such a power; now the president is supporting it and claiming it is legal. In different times, if word of something like this leaked out, the president would have to condemn it or the people would hate him.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2006-03-07 at 13:33:11
Almost everything that bush has done was to serve him or his posse, the people were always second.