|
|
Post by jgaffney on Apr 28, 2009 12:56:22 GMT -5
It gave Big Brother the right to listen in on my phone calls. I should have the freedom to converse in private.
Like many other liberal claims, this one is not supported by facts. Every single case that the ACLU and their fellow travellers have brought against the Patriot Act has been thrown out of court because the plaintiffs were unable to prove actual damages. On the other hand, if you are calling a phone number that has been known to have terrorist activity associated with it, yes, I definitely want to know what you are talking about. Did you think that NSA was listening in on everything? They start with a known terrorist number, then trace connections to other numbers, and keep following the trails. I'm sure they could care less about your little life. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 14:27:39 GMT -5
Any time we cede more power to the government we all lose freedom. Maybe not directly, maybe not instantly, but it will happen. Agreed but there are certain powers the Government should have or had all along. And then there is also the appropriate "Sunsetting" of laws once they are no longer necessary...YES I realize THAT is an extremely tough call and rarely happens....BUT if our government ran like it was "Supposed" to.... And again I'll ask you now Joe and Sunturtle, did you lose "Freedoms" from the Patriot Act? Portions of the Patriot Act were found Unconstitutional, if I recall. It dealt with receipts from bookstores and other issues. So yes, until the supreme court stepped in, some people did have their freedom to purchase specific materials from bookstores infringed upon. However, that is not the only time a law has had consequences such as this. There have been other times that our country has reacted to forces that were bent on destroying us and we passed some bad legislation. That is why we have a supreme court, to deal with those issues. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 14:28:35 GMT -5
Any time we cede more power to the government we all lose freedom. Maybe not directly, maybe not instantly, but it will happen. Fair enough, but wouldn't you agree that a large part of our current economic crisis was caused by deregulation of the financial sector? No. That is not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 14:29:20 GMT -5
Agreed but there are certain powers the Government should have or had all along. And then there is also the appropriate "Sunsetting" of laws once they are no longer necessary...YES I realize THAT is an extremely tough call and rarely happens....BUT if our government ran like it was "Supposed" to.... And again I'll ask you now Joe and Sunturtle, did you lose "Freedoms" from the Patriot Act? It gave Big Brother the right to listen in on my phone calls. I should have the freedom to converse in private. That is a misrepresentation of the facts. |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Apr 28, 2009 15:01:43 GMT -5
Fair enough, but wouldn't you agree that a large part of our current economic crisis was caused by deregulation of the financial sector?
No. That is not the case.CapttanKona, here is another classic case of liberal deflection. By raising the straw man argument about "financial deregulation," Saunterelle hopes to deflect the discussion away from the meat of the issue. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 15:35:55 GMT -5
I understand. But, what he fails to acknowledge is that deregulation began under President Jimmy Carter. He signed the first law for bank deregulation in 1980, a year before Ronald Reagan took office.
If we want to talk banks, and we probably should, then he will mostly get it wrong. He does not understand what happened to the banking industry in this nation. Heck, I only marginally understand it, but I have read alot about how we began this whole mess back in the 1930's. Banks were failing in the United States during the great depression, not because they were deregulated, but because they were over regulated.
In that same time frame, when America suffered hundreds of bank failures, Canada did not have a single failure. The reasons had to do with how our banks were regulated and the fact that Canada's were not so heavily regulated. It was a very interesting circumstance that you can read more about in FDR's Folly by Jim Powell. He covers the topic quite nicely.
Anyway, it was not deregulation that was our problem this time either. It was over regulation via the Community Reinvestment Act that was altered by the Clinton administration. Barney Frank was heavily involved. I have heard two audio recordings of his speeches on this very topic. In 2005 and again in 2008. He said exactly the opposite in both audios.
But, he is a leftist and will get a pass from people like saunterelle. You see, saunterelle will not admit this, but he wants to see America fail so he can build Amerika. However, in his march toward utopia he will only create dystopia and death. Deep down he knows that millions must die in this country to give birth to the oppressive totalitarian government he desires. The evidence is in the disdain and hate he hurls at our troops and leaders. He was a cheerleader for the former Iraqi regime, united in hate.
What I have concluded is that saunterelle is actually feeling guilty for his own success and the fact that he lives in the most successful country to ever exist. Because of his feelings of guilt, he strives to punish all those who are successful and believe in this great nation, even though he knows he is one of them. And, deep down he knows that in order to achieve his desires of a socialist or collectivist nation, millions of freedom loving individuals must die in the name of collectivism. It can not be any other way, because the natural state of man is to be an individual who cleaves unto his family, not the state. And he hates that more then anything, because unless they cleave unto the collective, his goals can never be realized. It is really just that simple. He represents everything every freedom loving soldier has ever stood against and died for in this nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Apr 28, 2009 15:46:36 GMT -5
Captain, you are clearly off base. Guess what, one of the largest expansions we have seen in Government occurred under George W. Bush and the conservatives, your party. Your anti-FDR books are dead wrong. You only read things that tell you what you want to believe is true, not what is actually the truth. FDR rescued our great nation from near collapse and Obama is faced with the same hurdle. Instead of your support, you hope he fails. Your arguments are weak and your hate for our country is apparent. You blame the economic crisis on Clinton and then say nothing when I bring up the fact that your conservative party did nothing to change things during the 6 years they were in power. Well guess what, they had their chance. Now it is time for the democrats to try their hand at fixing things. You can sit on the sidelines and yell "socialism" all you want but your ridiculous assertions ring hollow. You have cried wolf too many times.
|
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 16:01:28 GMT -5
Wow, I am clearly off base.
Explain this to me then. Why were there no bank failures in Canada during the great depression, when you consider they suffered the same economic down turn as the rest of the world?
Also, how is stating the CRA and Jimmy Carters beginning of deregulation blaming Clinton? Are you saying that loans were not granted based on race and with disregard to a persons ability to pay? Barney Frank claimed it both ways, that they were and were not race based. He of course is a liar, but are you?
And, correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the responsibility of the House of Representatives to set monetary policy in this nation? And, if it is, please explain why the Bush Adminstration was seated over an economy that was sound until Democrats took control of that very House of Representatives.
Lastly, how do you fix in six years what took 70 years to create? If you can tell me how that can be done realistically without severe reprecussions then I will concede. But, I somehow feel I won't have to, because it couldn't be done, especially with the Congress he had in his last two years, when the problems were beginning to surface.
Lastly, it is not my conservative party. It is my country however, and it is designed to run a specific way and not on the backs of the productive. That is something you will never understand, because you desire this country to be a collective. Well my friend, you will have to murder a lot of freedom loving Americans to achieve your desire for Amerika. You will have to erase individuality, freedom, liberty, love, companionship and family to do so. Because all of those things are by their very nature anti-collective, and you know this is true.
So, I conclude once again that you are most likely some type of marxist. You definately side with terrorism and oppose your country and people in the face of its onslaught. I bet you were secretly cheering when the towers collapsed, hoping it would trigger an event that led to the total Government control of every aspect of every Americans life. Excuse, I meant Amerikan in your terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Apr 28, 2009 16:06:24 GMT -5
Oh yes, I am in bed with the terrorists. If I was cheering when the towers collapsed then I must have been overjoyed to see Bush take us into Iraq and send our great nation into a nosedive. Face it, your policies failed and, like FDR did during the great depression, Obama is going to have to pull us up by our bootstraps.
|
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 16:22:35 GMT -5
Oh yes, I am in bed with the terrorists. If I was cheering when the towers collapsed then I must have been overjoyed to see Bush take us into Iraq and send our great nation into a nosedive. Face it, your policies failed and, like FDR did during the great depression, Obama is going to have to pull us up by our bootstraps. If FDR was so great, why did over 900 banks fail in the United States during the Great Depression and not one in Canada fail? You have not answered that question. And what Obama is pulling is not your boot straps. Also, you would never admit that you supported the destruction caused by the terrorists. However, by not supporting water boarding, and calling it torture when it is not, is clearly supporting the terrorist cause by giving him information on how he will be treated. Yes, you won't admit that you admire the results of what terrorism has accomplished, but that is exactly what you preach on this site, when you claim things like people need to be forced to do what is best. That is socialism. You harbor a desire to recreate this country in a socialist image. Just look at some of your posts under headings like "Science and Logic are Making a Come Back." You have no problems with supporting programs that would destroy the individuals right of choice, unless they are having an abortion of course. So, you can make all the claims you like. You may not have cheered when the planes hit the towers, but I am sure you were opposed to the response. You certainly did not care about the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds in Iraq. You supported the Saddam Hussein regime, claiming it had a right to be in place in spite of the crimes committed against humanity. So, though you were not active in the terrorist organizations, you were certainly supportive of their destruction of this nation. And you continue to support them with the water boarding issue which saved the entire LA basin from attack. But, that will not be confirmed unless all the memos get released, rather then the cherry picked memos that show we water boarded two detainees. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Apr 28, 2009 16:24:57 GMT -5
Check the thread on FDR and the Great Depression where I schooled you and drove you out of this forum, prompting a regrouping and name change on your part.
|
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 16:44:24 GMT -5
Check the thread on FDR and the Great Depression where I schooled you and drove you out of this forum, prompting a regrouping and name change on your part. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You schooled me? You don't know jack about the FDR adminstration, period, end of story. Come on, tell me again how Milton Friedman supported the New Deal because of the creation of the FDIC. You want to be schooled little boy? The idea for the FDIC was never put forth by FDR or anyone associated with his administration. Bet you didn't know that. The FDIC was not part of the New Deal, bet you didn't know that either. Come on boy, just who do you think you are speaking to? The idea of the FDIC was around since 1886 when it was first preposed. How old was FDR in 1886? He was four years old. Now who has been schooled boy? Glass-Steagal Act 1933, a bill that was not supported or opposed by FDR. Do your homework before you make ludicrous claims that are so easily refuted. Then I will not have to go balistic over your stupidity or ignorance you attempt to pass off as knowledge. Besides, I know have subdjoe doing the anger thing with the lies and falsehoods you perpetrate, like the one about Milton Friedman supporting the New Deal. Since I don't need to be the only one blowing my top, I can just let you make an even greater fool of yourself. And by the way. I love your personal attack. You have no other recourse because you are misinformed. |
|
