Originally Posted By davewasbaloo " it's why he has stopped so many attacks already." How do you know, if they haven't taken place, they may not have ever been planned.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo "If that is the case then, yes you do what ever it takes to win. If that means rounding up ever Muslim in every Mosque so be it." I think you were born 1000 years too late - you would have fit in so well in the dark ages and tyhe crusades.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Dave, I'm just telling you how reality works in todays world of radical Islam. You either take the steps to stop these scumbags or you have your subway, bus, pizza parlor, disco, embassy, KFC, school, pentagon, hotel, airliner, ship or theme park destroyed. Get it? <<I think you were born 1000 years too late - you would have fit in so well in the dark ages and tyhe crusades.>> Actually, it's the Islamofacists who want to take us back to the dark ages. We either fight them or we live by their rules. Got it?
Originally Posted By jasmine7 <<We either fight them or we live by their rules.<< But you're wanting to act the same way that they do, wanting to act just as barbarically. If we lose our rights and what made this country great (i.e. freedom), then they will have won.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy You keep saying that if we fight them they have won. I don't get this. Your dealing with an enemy that has NO rules of conduct. These Muslims have no problem lying, raping, killing anyone who gets in their way. Yet you want us to fight them with one hand tied behind our back just so you can say we " are above acting like barbarians "? In the real world, this world that is now fighting terrorists, to stay alive, so strop these thugs, you might have to break some rules that we normally follow. This is so basic I have a hard time grasping why the left is so lost on this point. This is the major reason a guy like Bush keeps us safe while a guy like Kerry would get us killed by sheer ignorace alone.
Originally Posted By jasmine7 <<You keep saying that if we fight them they have won.<< Where did I say that, here or ever? I supported the war in Afghanistan because it was clear that they were behind the attacks on 9-11. I cannot say the same about Iraq. However, I still feel that we have a code of conduct to uphold. When we start torturing our enemies, saying that a race of people need to be wiped out, we are no better than those we fight.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>We either fight them or we live by their rules.<< Judging by how easily you'll give up your liberty in exchange for some security, you probably would be okay for that as long as you can still gamble and go to theme parks.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe What's that old defintion of a conservative being a liberal who was mugged. Maybe, just maybe Beau is speaking from his heart, and is projecting into a future where the U.S. gets nuked by a Muslim with a suitcase bomb? Is he that crazy trying to save millions of lives. Is he hateful in his desire to save millions of lives? Just a question I'm asking as my biggest fear is the nuke in the suitcase at the OIA Orlando International Airport where I've been 6 months in a row. It's not unreasonable that the terrorists would love to strike at the heart of Americana i.e. Disney World that we all love so much. Can't anyone see that Beau is trying his darndest to preclude that from happening?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Beau you can mail that $1000 that you promised me for that post sticking up for you to ccjoe @@@@@@@@@@@@@ hehehe
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Hell, I'll stick up for Beau for $1000. I might actually consider meeting him in person for that much.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "What he did was legal. Every court that has looked at the program has said it's legal." This is a lie. NO COURT has looked at what Bush specifically doing as of yet. That day of reckoning is coming.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Judging by how easily you'll give up your liberty in exchange for some security, >> What liberty have we given up?? I can never get an answer on this and Joe is right.... I am only concerned about the national security of this country. If the constitution ties our hands in todays would of jihadists with nuclear bombs, I say you override the constitution until that threat is taken care of. To just sit ther and claim we are not able to protect ourselves because we have to stick to a set of rules while the enemy has no rules is fool hardy and suicidal. What would you say to a boxer who goes into a fight with only his hands because he says that is what the rules say, while the other guy has a bat and a knife? I would call that guy an idiot who is about to get killed.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Hell, I'll stick up for Beau for $1000. I might actually consider meeting him in person for that much.>> Tom, if your in Portland or if I get to Seattle, lets have that beer. Think of the debate we could have!! Of course Kareoke is going to be on the agenda.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>To just sit ther and claim we are not able to protect ourselves because we have to stick to a set of rules while the enemy has no rules is fool hardy and suicidal.<< No one is saying that.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<This is a lie. NO COURT has looked at what Bush specifically doing as of yet. That day of reckoning is coming.>> Hey STPH, hope you had a great Valentines get away. At least five federal appellate decisions stand for the proposition that the President has the constitutional authority under Article II to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence gathering purposes. This means that the NSA program is legal. STPH offers no argument or authority to the contrary.
Originally Posted By jasmine7 Beau, could you please, please, PLEASE stop plagiarizng? Make it your New Year's resolution or something. It's just plain wrong and dishonest, and frankly, it doesn't take more than a second to copy & paste a link when you've already gone to the trouble of finding someone's writing to use. The source for Beau's second paragraph in post 134 is the following site: <a href="http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013075.php" target="_blank">http://powerlineblog.com/archi ves/013075.php</a>
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "STPH offers no argument or authority to the contrary." If you were able to read what I wrote or comprehend the law at all you'd understand what I said. To date, NO COURT has specifically reviewed what Bush is doing. The White House is relying on analogous and likely distinguishable cases. Therefore, it is merely the OPINION of White House counsel that the Administration's behavior is permissible.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Beau, could you please, please, PLEASE stop plagiarizng?" What, again? The kind of irresponsible behavior could actually get the owners of this site in trouble. Way to go.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>At least five federal appellate decisions stand for the proposition that the President has the constitutional authority under Article II to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence gathering purposes. This means that the NSA program is legal. << Beau, you're plagiarizing again. There's no shame in quoting other sources, but don't try to pass it off as your own thought. <a href="http://americanscribbles.blog-city.com/" target="_blank">http://americanscribbles.blog- city.com/</a> Wednesday, February 8th entry.
