AURaptor I have a question...

POSTED BY: RiveR6213
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:09
VIEWED: 19104
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RIVER6213

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:12 AM

Yes, I am calling you out. I have a question, and I want to ask you this question in order to clear up something that has been bothering me about you; this is in regards to something you said a year ago.

My first questions is do you care about the United States of America? Meaning do you care about this country, this land, and its people, and its laws, and its many doctrines, and its many policies? Do you care at all about any of these things?

Also contained in this question regarding its people. Do you care, and understand that everyone who lives here, and is a lawful citizen has rights as put forth by the constitution and the bill of rights?

What DO you BELIEVE AuRaptor?

-River

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:13 PM

Yes.

Yes.

As for "what I believe", I've already stated my core beliefs in another thread. I'll post again here, so you don't have to go on a snipe hunt....

We all have the same basic rights.

My rights allow me to do what ever I want, so long as my actions don't infringe or hinder anyone else's rights through force of fraud. The same applies to each and every one of us, so far as your 'rights' don't hinder anyone elses. ( So, drugs and 'companioning' ought to be legal )

We belong to ourselves. No country, no political party, no religion, no company owns us. We might say we have no choice to stay w/ the crappy job, but we're kidding ourselves. There are 2 things we have no choice in, being born, and dying. All we do in between is basically up to us.

While the Cosmos is infinitly old, we are here only a finite amount of time. Jimmy Buffett puts it best, I think....

" And still twenty four hours
maybe sixty good years
It's really not that long a stay"

Mankind is new to this planet, and it's a very old planet. Older than most can comprehend.

Lots of life on this little rock, over its time. Lots.

There is, of course, much much more, but that should suffice enough to get the ball rolling.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
Meaning do you care about...its laws, and its many doctrines, and its many policies?

Only if they're Republican interpretations & ultra-Conservative policies.
Obviously.

Libruls are not true life forms. They interfere with the Creator.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
Meaning do you care about...its laws, and its many doctrines, and its many policies?
Only if they're Republican interpretations & ultra-Conservative policies.
Obviously.

Libruls are not true life forms. They interfere with the Creator.

The laughing Chrisisall

Chris, when I want your take on my views, I'll smack them out of you.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:05 PM

Quote:
My rights allow me to do what ever I want, so long as my actions don't infringe or hinder anyone else's rights through force of fraud. The same applies to each and every one of us, so far as your 'rights' don't hinder anyone elses.

Then can we call you out on each and every time you suggest or demand otherwise ?
Cause it seems to happen an awful lot.

I'm down with that particular belief, I just haven't never really seen you practice what you're preachin there, in all honesty.

Of course, nobody's perfect, but if you believe this why are you so bad at holding to it ?

And you might note that I happen to be asking that in as civil a tone as I am capable of.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:18 PM

When have I ever not held to that view? Of course, I'm speaking of how Gov't should work. I'd prefer you call me out, as I honestly don't know to what you're referring when you say I "suggest or demand otherwise.".

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:12 PM

Been over a day now. I guess the answer suffices.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I honestly don't know to what you're referring when you say I "suggest or demand otherwise.".

Aye, there's the rub.

The laughing Chrisisall

WHOZIT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:22 PM

I have a question for AURaptor: How do you get blood out of a carpet, it was an accident OK, police do'nt need to get involved right? IT WAS AN ACCIDENT!!

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
do'nt

A contraction of "do not" is don't.

DON'T do it again. Or I WILL call the police.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I honestly don't know to what you're referring when you say I "suggest or demand otherwise.".

Aye, there's the rub.

The laughing Chrisisall

Not even a hint of trying to explain, huh?

Huh.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 2, 2009 4:02 AM

Hello,

Either they don't have an example to hand you, or they are collating a frightening amount of data.

I'm not sure which.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 4:51 AM

All I require is 1 example.

Just one.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:24 AM

huh. Calling Out AuRaptor - provides a disappointingly brief exchange, nonexistent evasion or avoidance, diversion or tangent-chasing, how fun is that? Compared to the calling out of the comical opposite camp, this is downright unentertaining.
Kinda refreshing, but still not as engaging. And that liberal-who-claims-to-be-conservative could have served as such a foil.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:29 AM

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:37 PM

Hello,

I am somewhat dismayed.

AuRaptor has been summoned to this thread, titled after him, ostensibly to enter into honest discussion or debate. Then he is left unanswered.

People who speak favorably of him are insulted with this sock puppet thing, which is presumably to indicate that they are either directly or indirectly controlled automatons. (Direct automation being difficult to prove, and indirect meaning they are just independent souls who have the audacity to agree with your opponent.)

AuRaptor would seem to have responded in good faith only to be insulted without supporting evidence.

AuRaptor opponents may claim their silence on the facts is based on the preponderance of supporting evidence that need not be repeated here... but then why the creation of an entire thread to discuss it? This is just bad form- forwards, backwards, and sideways.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 2, 2009 5:10 PM

Quote:
My rights allow me to do what ever I want, so long as my actions don't infringe or hinder anyone else's rights through force of fraud. The same applies to each and every one of us, so far as your 'rights' don't hinder anyone elses. ( So, drugs and 'companioning' ought to be legal )

In invading Iraq. They weren't bothering us, were they?

Supporting Israel's disproportionate response to Palestinian provocation.

Warrantless wiretapping. Why snoop in on citizens who're doing nothing wrong?

Police brutality. Cops shouldn't be judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one.

Anti-regulation stance. If the right to swing your fist ends at my nose, so does the right to pollute. Right?

This is just off the top of my head.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
People who speak favorably of him are insulted with this sock puppet thing, which is presumably to indicate that they are either directly or indirectly controlled automatons. (Direct automation being difficult to prove, and indirect meaning they are just independent souls who have the audacity to agree with your opponent.)

JSF has one and only response to any thread here:
AURaptor is so great, he's always right, about everything, you're all wrong, he's beaten you down yet again, blah blah blah.

You don't get many more obvious sock puppets than that.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
AuRaptor opponents may claim their silence on the facts is based on the preponderance of supporting evidence that need not be repeated here... but then why the creation of an entire thread to discuss it? This is just bad form- forwards, backwards, and sideways.

Hmmm, wasn't I flamed by a bunch of people recently for showing where he was prepared to murder children for the motherfucking clothes their parent's put them in? Yes, yes I was, I remember it distinctly. Post more evidence where he's being an obvious authoritarian follower? What's the point, its been done so many times it's laughable anyone would need it reiterated. Shit, you quote him saying "towelheads" and you have to spend half a thread justifying how that's a racist comment (and being called racist yourself for daring to point it out).

Most people here know what Frem is talking about. We also know that wasting time dragging up examples is exactly that, because those that have seen this shit from him time and again already accept it, and he and his sock puppets aren't interested in reality, and will deny racism is racism, child murder is child murder or nonsense is nonsense as long its him spouting it.

This thread is entirely redundant though. We know cRapo is a full of shit troll, and the only people who don't accept that, wouldn't no matter what. At any rate the only person responsible for starting this thread, is the person who started it, but really cRapo has no right to complain about attack threads, since he loves starting them so much. DobsonAllianceFan up there loves participating in them when they're aimed at anyone 'he' disagrees with, but is woefully incapable of arguing against (much like his factless master).

Bollocks.

You want proof that Rush Limbaughs parrot is an Authoritarian follower, watch him in any thread. The global warming one's a good example.
First post:
You're wrong, that's an end to it.
Second post:
You're all stupid for not accepting my pronouncement on the subject.
Third Post:
{lies about the replies received, and calls people stupid based on his lies.}

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In invading Iraq. They weren't bothering us, were they?

Supporting Israel's disproportionate response to Palestinian provocation.

Warrantless wiretapping. Why snoop in on citizens who're doing nothing wrong?

Police brutality. Cops shouldn't be judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one.

Anti-regulation stance. If the right to swing your fist ends at my nose, so does the right to pollute. Right?

This is just off the top of my head.

He'll probably just lie and say he never said or supported anything like that, just like he claims he wasn't lock step in line with everything that popped out of the Bush Administration.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:10 PM

Sig

Sorry, but you're way off on all those 'examples'. I was referring to INDIVIDUALS, not nations. It's well documented why we went to war w/ Iraq. There are multiple actions by Saddam and or the state which absolutely called for some sort of action. He clearly was guilty of hindering the freedoms of others through force and or fraud. Let's not go down the road of abuses the Gov't has inflicted on individuals, even its own citizens, all in "legal" manner.

Israel's disproportionate response ? You have to be kidding! They didn't carpet bomb Gaza, did they ? Oh, that's right.... they LEFT Gaza and allowed the Pals to live in peace, to which the Pals responded by launching 1000's of rockets into Israeli towns and cities.

Warrantless wire tapping. I'm not convinced any of this actually happened. Try turning the question around.... why WOULD the Gov't waste its time w/ folks who aren't terrorist ? Doesn't make much sense, now does it ? Conversely, you have the State of New York, which has been auditing Rush Limbaugh, a private citizen, for 11 years now, trying to squeeze $$ out of him when he's not even been a resident of New York ( He left back in '97 ) Here, we do have a clear case of the Gov't over stepping the line, and in all likely hood, for purely spiteful, political reasons. Not the proper function of Government, to be sure.

Police Brutality. I agree. Cops should not be judge, jury all in one. I don't see that we differ here.

I'm not 'anti-regulation', but I'm for sensible, pragmatic regulation. Focus on the purpose for WHY there is regulation ,and don't do it to promote a political agenda.

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:15 PM

Seriously, you see what I'm talking about?

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:16 PM

citizen..

Again, you're a liar. ( You're so often a liar, I'm well beyond convinced you're now just a troll )

JSF doesn't so much praise me as simply agrees and points out the errors of others on here ( such as yourself ) That alone is enough to rattle the fragile egos of some here, and it's funny to watch you get all fussy anytime anyone happens to display reason and logic on this forum, which is heavily weighted towards the Left.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Seriously, you see what I'm talking about?

Yes, we can all see that you were, as usual, wrong. But smile away.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm not convinced any of this actually happened.

THIS is how I define unwarranted.

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:21 PM

Quote:
Sorry, but you're way off on all those 'examples'. I was referring to INDIVIDUALS, not nations.

Oh, so you have one set of beliefs for individuals and another set for nations (corporations, religions)?

Does this mean that "authorities" (presidents, prime ministers, CEOs etc) are held to a different standard?

Why?

At some further point I'll get into detail about your other comments. (Which is mainly denial of fact)

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Yes, we can all see

Yes Citizen, I see.

The laughing Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen..

Again, you're a liar. ( You're so often a liar, I'm well beyond convinced you're now just a troll )

JSF doesn't so much praise me as simply agrees and points out the errors of others on here ( such as yourself ) That alone is enough to rattle the fragile egos of some here, and it's funny to watch you get all fussy anytime anyone happens to display reason and logic on this forum, which is heavily weighted towards the Left.

He just can't help proving me right. Though it's a sure sign of mental illness that he talks about himself in the third person.

Notice how the attack thread starter whose troll threads end up in troll country tries to call others trolls. Also notice, how he attempts to slur others with the accusation of lying, when he is the only proven liar. Also notice that the only people that lend any credence to his mad lies are him and his lying sock puppet.

Notice how he proves me right with his mad desperation and attempts to prove me wrong!

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Does this mean that "authorities" (presidents, prime ministers, CEOs etc) are held to a different standard?

Yes, as the morphing ethics suit him.
However "wrong" a Republican might be, the Democrats are always "wronger."
And world leaders know better than AU what to do with this planet...unless they don't.

It's useless. There can be no debate. I tried to give AU a platform for his beliefs, and he came out with vague broad jingoism. This is due to the time lag while translating Rush into 'Rapese.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm not convinced any of this actually happened.
THIS is how I define unwarranted.

The laughing Chrisisall

Huh? I honestly don't know what you're sayin here.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:32 PM

You've not made your case, offering zero proof to support your charge. My thread ended up in 'troll country' thanks to you and your buddies, who veered it so far off topic, long after I stopped even responding, that it only got there after you REQUESTED it. Self fulfilling action on your part, which goes no where in proving I'm a troll in the least.

You're the troll, and we all know it.

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You've not made your case, offering zero proof to support your charge. My thread ended up in 'troll country' thanks to you and your buddies, who veered it so far off topic, long after I stopped even responding, that it only got there after you REQUESTED it. Self fulfilling action on your part, which goes no where in proving I'm a troll in the least.

You're the troll, and we all know it.

See how he desperately tries to smear me with his brush, but only manages to confirm the truth about himself even more.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Does this mean that "authorities" (presidents, prime ministers, CEOs etc) are held to a different standard?

Yes, as the morphing ethics suit him.
However "wrong" a Republican might be, the Democrats are always "wronger."
And world leaders know better than AU what to do with this planet...unless they don't.

It's useless. There can be no debate. I tried to give AU a platform for his beliefs, and he came out with vague broad jingoism. This is due to the time lag while translating Rush into 'Rapese.

The laughing Chrisisall

Chris, be honest now. I was every bit as specific and to the point as anyone. I think you ( as is the case w/ river ) simply have no legitimate reply to my views, other than to ignore them.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:42 PM

Quote:
I think you ( as is the case w/ river ) simply have no legitimate reply to my views, other than to ignore them.

Mmmm.... this from the guy who quietly slips out of the conversation when he can no longer support his point... In any case, I DID ask you a question, and I hope you'll answer it. I know it isn't as much fun as
You're a troll.
No, YOU'RE a troll!

but I'd still like an answer.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Sorry, but you're way off on all those 'examples'. I was referring to INDIVIDUALS, not nations.
Oh, so you have one set of beliefs for individuals and another set for nations (corporations, religions)?

Does this mean that "authorities" (presidents, prime ministers, CEOs etc) are held to a different standard?

Why?

At some further point I'll get into detail about your other comments. (Which is mainly denial of fact)

.

Sig,
I don't know if you are intentionally doing this or if you're even aware of it, but you're needlessly muddying the waters here by asking me 1 question and then applying my answer to another. I was asked some specific questions, and you're transferring my reply to specific situations which I wasn't even addressing. Take a deep breath and relax.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:48 PM

I've NEVER slipped out of a conversation, dammit. Stop making up shit.

If you have a question, then ask it.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You've not made your case, offering zero proof to support your charge. My thread ended up in 'troll country' thanks to you and your buddies, who veered it so far off topic, long after I stopped even responding, that it only got there after you REQUESTED it. Self fulfilling action on your part, which goes no where in proving I'm a troll in the least.

You're the troll, and we all know it.

See how he desperately tries to smear me with his brush, but only manages to confirm the truth about himself even more.

You continue to not make any case, what so ever.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Sorry, but you're way off on all those 'examples'. I was referring to INDIVIDUALS, not nations.
Oh, so you have one set of beliefs for individuals and another set for nations (corporations, religions)?

Does this mean that "authorities" (presidents, prime ministers, CEOs etc) are held to a different standard?

Why?

At some further point I'll get into detail about your other comments. (Which is mainly denial of fact)

.

No, not " 1 set of beliefs " for one situation and another set for another. I simply was giving you my view of how I live MY life. I don't pretend to expect that the rest of the world lives by my rules. I understand that , for example, folks who believe in Jesus have their own view of the world, but not all who claim to believe see the world the same amongst themselves.

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You continue to not make any case, what so ever.

Notice how it doesn't realise that it is making my case for me.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:55 PM

Quote:
No, not " 1 set of beliefs " for one situation and another set for another. I simply was giving you my view of how I live MY life. I don't pretend to expect that the rest of the world lives by my rules. I understand that , for example, folks who believe in Jesus have their own view of the world, but not all who claim to believe see the world the same amongst themselves.

So you have a set of ethics that you hold yourself to, but anything is acceptable AFA other individual or organizational behavior, as long as they don't interfere with you personally?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
No, not " 1 set of beliefs " for one situation and another set for another. I simply was giving you my view of how I live MY life. I don't pretend to expect that the rest of the world lives by my rules. I understand that , for example, folks who believe in Jesus have their own view of the world, but not all who claim to believe see the world the same amongst themselves.
So you have a set of ethics that you hold yourself to, but anything is acceptable AFA other individual or organizational behavior, as long as they don't interfere with you personally?

We all do. Otherwise, no one would be able to get along w/ each other. I don't really know what you're driving at, and I'd kinda like to know where all this is going.

*edit* ok, not EVERYTHING is acceptable. Again, i'm not sure in what context you're speaking.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 2, 2009 7:51 PM

Quote:
We all do. Otherwise, no one would be able to get along w/ each other. I don't really know what you're driving at, and I'd kinda like to know where all this is going. *edit* ok, not EVERYTHING is acceptable. Again, i'm not sure in what context you're speaking.

I guess I'm not sure where you're going, so that's what I'm trying to find out.

Apparently you have another set of ethics that comes into play in a different context. So what context would cause you to shift from the "live-and-let-live/ ethic of non-involvement" to the ethic of involvement, and why?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm not convinced any of this actually happened.
THIS is how I define unwarranted.

The laughing Chrisisall

Huh? I honestly don't know what you're sayin here.

I mean that you can always fall back on whether you're convinced or not. I could do that too:
I'm not convinced that we actually landed on the Moon.
I'm not convinced that Hitler had Jews killed in ovens.
I'm not convinced that Saddam invaded Kuwait.

"But there's evidence!"

I never talked to any astronaut, Jew, or dude from Kuwait that could corroborate those "stories."

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
We all do. Otherwise, no one would be able to get along w/ each other. I don't really know what you're driving at, and I'd kinda like to know where all this is going. *edit* ok, not EVERYTHING is acceptable. Again, i'm not sure in what context you're speaking.
I guess I'm not sure where you're going, so that's what I'm trying to find out.

Apparently you have another set of ethics that comes into play in a different context. So what context would cause you to shift from the "live-and-let-live/ ethic of non-involvement" to the ethic of involvement, and why?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

I'm just tryin' to answer some questions.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
what context would cause you to shift from the "live-and-let-live/ ethic of non-involvement" to the ethic of involvement, and why?

*channels AU*
Immediate threats to our nation! Like Saddam & his old mustard gas & Scuds!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm just tryin' to answer some questions.

That's not an answer.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:33 PM

The point I'm making is that the claims by the Left that Bush did all the terrible things they claim he did ( which, if TRUE, I'd at the very least consider them to be wrong ) ... are incredible. As in, such claims lack credible evidence.

I wasn't there to see if man went to the moon, but I have seen a shuttle launch. One event does not directly lead to proof that the other occurred, but I do at least have 1st hand account that leads me to concluded that the Apollo missions were plausible. But what I've not seen is evidence which would lead me to believe that , under Bush, or the Patriot act, there was wide spread spying ( warrantless wiretaps ) of the entire US population. Hell, J Edgar Hoover spied on who ever the hell he wanted to, and this was 40-50 years ago! Long before there was a Patriot Act! So saying Bush was doing it , as opposed to any other President, seemed silly. Sure, he could have, so could have Clinton, Bush41, Reagan, Carter...... so what ? Where's the PROOF that W did any such thing ???

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

*channels AU*
Immediate threats to our nation! Like Saddam & his old mustard gas & Scuds!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

There are so many things wrong w/ that post, on different levels. I'll just bite my tongue and say nothing.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
So saying Bush was doing it , as opposed to any other President, seemed silly.

Never said no one else did it, or that it wasn't wrong when they did, just pointing out the abuse of the present (now former) President & administration.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5260892.stm

Why would a U.S. judge rule them illegal if they weren't?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/07/19/bush_blocked_pro
be_ag_testifies/

Why obstruct if it wasn't nefarious?

http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2008/07/11/473/senate-approves-te
lecom-immunity-bush-signs-expanded-wiretap-powers-into-law/

Why have a law that covers what you already did if you can't prove it was unnecessary?

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

*channels AU*
Immediate threats to our nation! Like Saddam & his old mustard gas & Scuds!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

There are so many things wrong w/ that post, on different levels. I'll just bite my tongue and say nothing.

I WIN!!!! He has no comeback!!

THIS is why I've almost given up.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I WIN!!!! He has no comeback!!

THIS is why I've almost given up.

The laughing Chrisisall

Umm.... congrats ?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Umm.... congrats ?

No word on the wiretap proof you requested?
Oh. You're not convinced.

Oh well, I had fun taking 3 minutes to look it up for you.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:56 PM

Bush did some things which I whole heartily disagree, as I've plainly stated. But when it comes to national defense, I'm gonna side w/ there NOT being a need for the public to know, as a general rule. We're not talking about a situation where the President or anyone can benefit personally, are we ? No, we're dealing w/ sensitive issues that deal w/ covert actions that are intended on stopping those motivated at causing us harm. To be honest, it sometimes seems like there are some who WANT to reveal our secrets to the world, which would enable terrorist an upper hand and achieving their goals, and there by making W look all that much worse of a President for not doing his job. I'm speaking of The New York Times, which use the laughable ' people's right to know ' line just a few too many times about things which clearly were designed to hinder terrorist. Why more folks weren't tossed in jail for this, I'll never know.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
No word on the wiretap proof you requested?
Oh. You're not convinced.

Oh well, I had fun taking 3 minutes to look it up for you.

The laughing Chrisisall

Wasn't that the ruling Bush won on appeal ?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:01 PM

I'm down with the Bond-hush-eyes-only thing on occasion, but these wiretaps were wasteful of money & manpower. Sloppy to boot. Do I care if someone hears me drone on for hours about Star Trek with a friend on a tapped line? Not really. Except that we're all paying for it, and taking peeps away from potentially more important work.

And btw, I am tapped, but it sort of dropped off around January.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Wasn't that the ruling Bush won on appeal ?

Not Bush, and not a blanket okay, but basically, yeah, it seems.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=1&hp

Illegal by law or not, it was still a waste- the thing big government is famous for.

The laughing Chrisisall

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:16 PM

"Wasn't that the ruling Bush won on appeal ?"

NO NO, NO and NO !!!!!

Bush did NOT get a retroactive OK for the illegal stuff he did when it was illegal !!!

GGAAADDDDD ! How MANY times to I have to refute that F^cks right-wing spin ???!!

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I'm down with the Bond-hush-eyes-only thing on occasion, but these wiretaps were wasteful of money & manpower. Sloppy to boot. Do I care if someone hears me drone on for hours about Star Trek with a friend on a tapped line? Not really. Except that we're all paying for it, and taking peeps away from potentially more important work.

And btw, I am tapped, but it sort of dropped off around January.

The laughing Chrisisall

I'd like to know why it is that you think that's actually happened. I'm not even going to suggest you're paranoid, so don't misundersand me. Do you TRULY think we've got agents sitting in vans or what ever, wearing headsets and randomly listening in on the phone conversations of over 300 million U.S. citizens ? Think about it, how many phone calls are made during a single day ? How many man hours would it take to listen to just 10 % of all those calls ? Our intelligence force would have to number in the 10's of thousands !

And how the hell do you KNOW you were tapped ? Elaborate, please.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:20 PM

*Hands the ball to the more-on-top-of-it Rue*

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:24 PM

Quote:
I'm just tryin' to answer some questions.

But you missed one. So here's the question again

Quote:
So what context would cause you to shift from the "live-and-let-live/ ethic of non-involvement" to the ethic of involvement, and why?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Our intelligence force would have to number in the 10's of thousands !

And how the hell do you KNOW you were tapped ? Elaborate, please.

That's just it, they have limited resources, so they have computers searching for key words, then manually sift through the flagged ones, mostly bored outta their skulls.

And that weekly *click* silence *click* when you pick up the phone is the sloppy part.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Wasn't that the ruling Bush won on appeal ?"

NO NO, NO and NO !!!!!

Bush did NOT get a retroactive OK for the illegal stuff he did when it was illegal !!!

GGAAADDDDD ! How MANY times to I have to refute that F^cks right-wing spin ???!!

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Hey rue, shut the fuck up. No one was talking about anything being retroactive, and there was no god damn 'spin'. It was an honest question, and I WAS right.

Quote:
July 7, 2007

CINCINNATI - A federal appeals court yesterday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic spying program, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.

The 2-1 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel was not on the legality of the surveillance program, but it vacated an order last year by a lower court in Detroit.

That court had found the post-9/11 warrantless surveillance aimed at uncovering terrorist activity to be unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:31 PM

Quote:
I'd like to know why it is that you think that's actually happened. I'm not even going to suggest you're paranoid, so don't misundersand me. Do you TRULY think we've got agents sitting in vans or what ever, wearing headsets and randomly listening in on the phone conversations of over 300 million U.S. citizens ?

No, they just install big friggn' signal splitters and computers in the middle of AT&T (or verizon, or wherever) transmission points.

Quote:
A former AT&T employee, Mark Klein, has released documents alleging the company spliced its fiber optic cables and ran a duplicate set of cables to Room 641A at its 611 Folsom St. building. Improperly-redacted documents seen by CNET News.com show that AT&T has tried to offer benign reasons for the existence of such a room. (AT&T has publicly neither confirmed nor denied cooperating with the National Security Agency.)

BTW- I still have that question for you.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Our intelligence force would have to number in the 10's of thousands !

And how the hell do you KNOW you were tapped ? Elaborate, please.

That's just it, they have limited resources, so they have computers searching for key words, then manually sift through the flagged ones, mostly bored outta their skulls.

And that weekly *click* silence *click* when you pick up the phone is the sloppy part.

The laughing Chrisisall

The Echelon program was in use during the Clinton era, and few seemed to care back then. Wonder why Bush gets so much wrath over something that precedes his administration.

I'm not sure , or to be more precise, I sincerely doubt that the 'clicking' sounds you hear are in any way connected to 'sloppy wire tapping'. Now you ARE sounding paranoid.

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:45 PM

"Hey rue, shut the fuck up. No one was talking about anything being retroactive, and there was no god damn 'spin'. It was an honest question, and I WAS right."

You were ? Where ? What were you right about ?

There WAS a program of (losely called) wiretaps on roughly 10% of Americans. ChrisIsAll was right about that. It WAS ruled illegal. ChrisIsAll was right about that. The Senate passed a bill which Bush signed into law that made similar FUTURE activities legal under some circumstances. ChrisIsAll was right about that.

What were YOU right about ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:48 PM

I was right about the ruling which was against the Bush administration's wire tapping policy that then was overturned in 2007. That's not the same case as what you're talking about, the legislation passed by Congress which gave cover to the phone companies for participating in any covert information gathering.

THAT'S where I was right.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:59 PM

Do you suppose you all could stop circling rapo long enough for him to answer my question?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I sincerely doubt that the 'clicking' sounds you hear are in any way connected to 'sloppy wire tapping'. Now you ARE sounding paranoid.

Shut the fuck up, AU! You think with all this political talk going on here, WE ALL AREN'T red-flagged???

Now you ARE sounding nieve.

The laughing Chrisisall

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:00 PM

Rap,

You and I are very similar. I place little value on most of the political opinions here, though I'll still state true things without fear in the hopes that lurkers might read them.

These next 4 years are going to be exciting indeed. They will demonstrate to the public how not to run a governmental process. As painful as these lessons will be to the common american citizen, they will yield valuble fruits in the end.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose you all could stop circling rapo long enough for him to answer my question?

Okay, sorry.

For the record:
"What context would cause you to shift from the 'live-and-let-live/ ethic of non-involvement' to the ethic of involvement, and why?"

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:

These next 4 years are going to be exciting indeed. They will demonstrate to the public how not to run a governmental process.

We've had 8 straight years of it already, what's four more?

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose you all could stop circling rapo long enough for him to answer my question?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

*edit* This question ?

- "What context would cause you to shift from the 'live-and-let-live/ ethic of non-involvement' to the ethic of involvement, and why?"

Are you talking about should I call the police if I hear a couple arguing, and think there might be real physical abuse going on, or are you talking about if I were to support or oppose of a President in the choice of sending in troops to another country ?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:15 PM

Quote:
:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm just tryin' to answer some questions.

That's not an answer.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:18 PM

Chris -

SHUT THE HELL UP!

thank you.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:22 PM

Quote:
Are you talking about should I call the police if I hear a couple arguing, and think there might be real physical abuse going on, or are you talking about if I were to support or oppose of a President in the choice of sending in troops to another country ?

yes.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose you all could stop circling rapo long enough for him to answer my question?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Oh Sig, that's never going to happen, even if people were to stop 'circling'.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:36 PM

Well, it would have to be a on going, and loud argument, and not just raised voices or a few choice words thrown around. It's hard to say, as I've never had to face that situation.

As for the war question, that's much more problematic, obviously. Per Iraq, so many seem to have forgotten the previous decade, and what went on before Clinton took office ( This isn't a bash Clinton point ) Actually, folks seem to have forgotten what happened when Clinton WAS in office too, with all the dealings w had w/ Iraq. After more than 10 yrs, there was 2 options we had left. Go in, and take care of business, once and for all, or meekly back down, tail between our legs, and basically give in and admit that Saddam had played us, and won.

But in general, I'm a bit stumped on how to give a clearer answer. Situations change, and sometimes we have to deal w/ the lesser of two evils. There's not always a clear cut answer. Iraq was an ally, but then it wasn't. Russia was the enemy , then an ally, then a enemy again.....for a long time, then not so much an enemy. To say the situation is always 'fluid', is an understatement when it comes to geo politics.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:41 PM

Apologies, especially to Anthony - it was not my intention to start a fight, simply to encourage Rappy to some honest introspection if I could.

I was askin the questions cause I wanted him to ask himSELF those questions and chew on the results.

Cause when you do provide evidence, it starts this huge cycle of denial, blameshifting, flaming, and in the end is ignored and denied completely.

As is shown here in all it's usual ugly detail.

Many times when I end a post with questions, it ain't cause *I* want an answer, it's cause I want YOU to think about it and see what answer you come up with, if any - to encourage folks to think and reason for themselves and see if they reach the same or different conclusions, and why.

This is often useful from a problem solving sense since there can be far more than one "right" answer to a problem, or even merged solutions from two different "right" answers which can be combined into an even more effective third solution.

But it falls apart when someone just howls..
I-am-right-you're-all-wrong-la-la-la-not-listening!
And denies every bit of logic, reason or evidence to the contrary, cause it's pointless once you reach that impasse.

I wasn't trying to break the guys windows, I was trying to encourage him to clean the mud off em.

I had thought it was obvious, but maybe not.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:47 PM

Well, situations change, but as you say- it helps to have a solid foundation from which to judge them.

Quote:
Well, it would have to be a on going, and loud argument, and not just raised voices or a few choice words thrown around

I expect that shrieks and what sounded like punches being thrown and breaking glass might trigger a call to the police.

So in the case of your neighbor, you believe in living and letting live, unless it appears that violence is being done to someone. At that point, one of your apparent ethics (something about not killing?) appears to supersede another of your ethics (live and let live). People make those kinds of choices all the time. Nothing wrong with it, but good to be aware.

Quote:
After more than 10 yrs, there was 2 options we had left. Go in, and take care of business, once and for all, or meekly back down, tail between our legs, and basically give in and admit that Saddam had played us, and won.

Which means....? Is this all about a pissing contest, or is there more the issue?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:24 PM

Well, Anthony, THIS thread certainly seems to have picked up!

Careful what you ask for, eh?

RUE

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:21 AM

"I was right about the ruling which was against the Bush administration's wire tapping policy that then was overturned in 2007."

Actually, in that one particular lawsuit, it was decided the people who brought the suit did not have standing. The other lawsuits over the same issue are still ongoing.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:23 AM

so everyone was sorta right, that what you tryin' to say?

SIGNYM

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:33 AM

Quote:
Is this all about a pissing contest, or is there more the issue?

Let me re-phrase that question, which might have sounded disrepsectful but wasn't meant to be: I can imagine that sometimes a person's reputation might be useful in avoiding unecessary violence and confrontation. I suppose the same could happen in the international realm. But what I want to know is... what were we "spending" our reputation on???? Was it worth it, whatever it was? Or am I completely off the mark?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 3, 2009 1:10 AM

Sig,

For starters, I don't hold to the often repeated claim that we've "spent" our reputation. If anything, we've solidified it,that we're good on our word, and we mean what we say.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 3, 2009 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
we mean what we say.

LOL. What world power can ever claim that?

Yoo too funny, AU.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 3, 2009 1:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
so everyone was sorta right, that what you tryin' to say?

Think on a family scale- who's ever right and who's ever wrong?
Life, politics, love, finance- it's all a balancing act. Sometimes we find our footing better than other times, but it's never solid.
Sorry Niska.

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Friday, April 3, 2009 5:32 AM

Quote:
For starters, I don't hold to the often repeated claim that we've "spent" our reputation. If anything, we've solidified it,that we're good on our word, and we mean what we say.

That sounds like you're directing the discussion away from my question. Whether or not we "spent" our reputation or enhanced it: what was the purpose?

If you think we invaded Iraq JUST to enhance our reputation, isn't that something of a shallow reason to invade a nation and kill tens of thousands of people? How does that square with "live and let live"?

And if there was a reason WHY enhancing our reputation was so important in that very instance, what was it?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, April 3, 2009 9:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I sincerely doubt that the 'clicking' sounds you hear are in any way connected to 'sloppy wire tapping'. Now you ARE sounding paranoid.

Shut the fuck up, AU! You think with all this political talk going on here, WE ALL AREN'T red-flagged???

Now you ARE sounding nieve.

The laughing Chrisisall

I thoroughly agree that just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you, but that doen't mean AU is naive.

Your clicking could possibly be caused by tapping. However, it is much more likely the multiplexer is losing it's duty cycle precision. The communications companies do perform periodic testing, and they may have caught it then and replaced that card in Jan. Or else the card did fail completely (which was signalled by the degraded multiplexer switching rate) and was replaced at that time. Most of the time MPX cards fail gradually, so before the replacement (catastrophic component failure) there is commonly a period of poor switching, sounding like clicking. To further the paranoia, we could consider the chip companies design the MPX this way to cover for the sounds made by NSA while tapping.

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 3, 2009 9:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
we mean what we say.
LOL. What world power can ever claim that?

Yoo too funny, AU.

The laughing Chrisisall

It's true. We backed up our threats w/ actions. Where's the joke?

CITIZEN

Friday, April 3, 2009 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sig,

For starters, I don't hold to the often repeated claim that we've "spent" our reputation. If anything, we've solidified it,that we're good on our word, and we mean what we say.

Yeah, that's totally how the rest of the world sees you.

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Yeah, that's totally how the rest of the world sees you.

As if you somehow represent the rest of the world.

Whatever makes you sleep at night C.

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sig,

For starters, I don't hold to the often repeated claim that we've "spent" our reputation. If anything, we've solidified it,that we're good on our word, and we mean what we say.

Yeah, that's totally how the rest of the world sees you.

Germans giving you guys problems again?

No ?

K. If they act up, you know where to find us.

KWICKO

Friday, April 3, 2009 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Yeah, that's totally how the rest of the world sees you.

As if you somehow represent the rest of the world.

Whatever makes you sleep at night C.

Or as if you and 'Rappy represent the U.S.

See how I just turned that around on ya?

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, April 3, 2009 1:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
See how I just turned that around on ya?

meh. I see how you tried.

RUE

Friday, April 3, 2009 2:37 PM

"It's true. We backed up our threats w/ actions."

I thought Bush said war was the last option, not the first choice. Are you saying that we made a point of threatening Iraq and then had to go to war just to back up our threats ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 3, 2009 3:23 PM

Guys, b4 you jump all over rapo's *ss will you please give him a chance to answer my questions?

The question was: what was the PURPOSE of invading Iraq? If it was JUST to enhance our reputation (whether it worked or didn't is another discussion) how does that square with "live and let live"?

If there was a reason BEHIND enhacing our reputation... if we were doing it to prevent something else or to push something else along (even in another arena)... what was it? Example: Send a message to the Russians?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 3, 2009 4:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
As if you somehow represent the rest of the world.

Whatever makes you sleep at night C.

As if you know there's a rest of the world outside your home state.

Whatever makes you sleep at night bs.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 3, 2009 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Germans giving you guys problems again?

No ?

K. If they act up, you know where to find us.

Hey, I just heard from the French, any time you have a war you can't win, they said they'd do all the fighting for you again.

RUE

Friday, April 3, 2009 4:25 PM

Just reposting this as a favor to SignyM

POSTED BY SIGNYM

Guys, b4 you jump all over rapo's *ss will you please give him a chance to answer my questions?

The question was: what was the PURPOSE of invading Iraq? If it was JUST to enhance our reputation (whether it worked or didn't is another discussion) how does that square with "live and let live"?

If there was a reason BEHIND enhacing our reputation... if we were doing it to prevent something else or to push something else along (even in another arena)... what was it? Example: Send a message to the Russians?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 3, 2009 4:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
we mean what we say.
LOL. What world power can ever claim that?

Yoo too funny, AU.

The laughing Chrisisall

It's true. We backed up our threats w/ actions. Where's the joke?

That's the only time it's true, seemingly. Where violence is concerned.
You just don't get & don't care that the rest of the civilized world see us as a bunch of trigger-happy cowboys. Maybe a little less now that we elected a non-white, non-old President that seems to wanna talk things out.

The laughing Chrisisall

WULFENSTAR

Friday, April 3, 2009 4:57 PM

Chris,

"the rest of the civilized world see us as a bunch of trigger-happy cowboys"

Actually, I don't care either. If the rest of the world see us that way, then maybe they will leave us the F*** ALONE.

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE