The Patroit Act works in Germany as well!!

[steveox]

Germany: Plot targeted U.S. facilities

BERLIN - Three militants from an Islamic group linked to al-Qaida were planning "massive" bomb attacks against Americans in Germany when an elite antiterrorist unit raided their small-town hideout after months of police surveillance, officials said Wednesday.

Prosecutors said the suspects — two German converts and a Turkish citizen sharing a "profound hatred of U.S. citizens" — had military-style detonators and enough material to make bombs more powerful than those that killed 191 people in Madrid in 2004 and 52 commuters in London two years ago.

German Federal Prosecutor Monika Harms said the suspects arrested Tuesday were aiming at institutions and establishments frequented by Americans in Germany, including discos, pubs and airports. Her office said the plan was to set off car bombs.

"We were able to succeed in recognizing and preventing the most serious and massive bombings," Harms said at a news conference. She declined to name specific targets.

In Washington, a senior U.S. State Department official said German investigators had determined the Frankfurt International Airport and the nearby U.S. Ramstein Air Base were the primary targets of the plot, but that those arrested may have also been considering strikes on other sites, particularly facilities associated with the United States.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe discussions between American and German intelligence agencies.

Germany's announcement was the second in two days that a major attack had been foiled in Europe, after Danish authorities arrested eight alleged Islamic militants with links to senior al-Qaida terrorists.

The German raids were launched after an intense, six-month investigation by 300 officers, who followed the suspects so closely that, at one point, police stealthily substituted a harmless substitute for the raw bomb material the suspects had collected, according to prosecutors.

German and U.S. officials have been increasingly on edge after Islamist attacks on German troops in Afghanistan, fearing an attack at home, and security measures had been increased. Officials praised law enforcement officers after the raids, but warned that the country could not let down its guard.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070905/ap_on_re_eu/germany_terror

The Patriot Act works on German soil as well. They Intercepted an E-Mail from Al Queda.Thats why they got them before they commited the act! You see Democrats dont understand this. And Nether does ABC,NBC,CBS or CNN understand this.

[Popeye]

The Patriot Act works on German soil as well. They Intercepted an E-Mail from Al Queda.Thats why they got them before they commited the act! You see Democrats dont understand this. And Nether does ABC,NBC,CBS or CNN understand this.

Fascism worked on German soil too, and some parts of The Patriot Act tread dangerously close to it. Most major media outlets understand that, too bad Republican apologists Fox News doesn't.

[vyo476]

The Patriot Act works on German soil as well. They Intercepted an E-Mail from Al Queda.Thats why they got them before they commited the act! You see Democrats dont understand this. And Nether does ABC,NBC,CBS or CNN understand this.

Hey Steve, who are you planning on voting for?

[USMC the Almighty]

Hey Steve, who are you planning on voting for?

Post of the week.

[Reliant]

Fascism worked on German soil too, and some parts of The Patriot Act tread dangerously close to it. Most major media outlets understand that, too bad Republican apologists Fox News doesn't.

"Judge Victor Marrero, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled Thursday that the Patriot Act provision that allows the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation to obtain ISP and telecom subscribers' billing, calling and Web surfing records without court approval violates the U.S. Constitution.

Marrero ordered the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice to stop issuing so-called national security letters, or NSLs, requiring ISPs to turn over subscriber records. The NSL program prohibited ISPs from telling customers that they were being investigated".

Looks like another blow to the fascist Bush regime. I'm sure we're all aware how the Republicans hate the Constitution and have done just about everything in their power to destroy it, but it is good news to finally see a semblance of sanity return to America.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

The Patriot Act is totally evil.

[Popeye]

The Patriot Act is totally evil.

Agreed,the Patriot Act goes against everything this country supposedly stands for.

[USMC the Almighty]

The Patriot Act is totally evil.

Agreed,the Patriot Act goes against everything this country supposedly stands for.

Care to be a little more specific?

[Reliant]

Care to be a little more specific?

For starters...

* It creates a new category of “domestic security surveillance,” that permits electronic eavesdropping of entirely domestic activity under looser standards than are provided for ordinary criminal surveillance under Title III. (Section 122)

* It gives the government secret access to credit reports without consent and without judicial process. (Section 126) So, everyone with bad credit is a potential terrorist?

* It allows for the sampling and cataloging of innocent Americans’ genetic information without court order and without consent.

* It permits searches, wiretaps and surveillance of United States citizens on behalf of foreign governments – including dictatorships and human rights abusers – in the absence of Senate-approved treaties. (Sections 321-22)

* It harms fair trial rights for American citizens and other defendants by limiting defense attorneys from challenging the use of secret evidence in criminal cases.

Now, I'll wait for the typical response of "If you're a law abiding citizen who minds his own business, you might not have anything to worry about". Obviously then, law abiding citizens who mind their own business but are still bothered by this must object to it on principle. Under the Patriot Act, someone can be arrested and held indefinitely without bail and without being charged with a crime. Did you ever think that America would see the day when the Police could knock on someone's door and arrest them, only to have them just "disappear?"

If you think that government monitoring of presumably innocent individuals is necessary for public safety, my advise to you is to move to Red China.


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

[USMC the Almighty]

The problem with your whole premise is that you assume the government is going to go snooping into innocent people's information just for kicks. Laws like the PATRIOT Act are nothing new. They give the President useful tools in combatting the enemy of the time.

Our "quasi-war" with France saw John Adams' Alien and Sedition Act.

Our Civil War saw Lincoln abuse civil rights more than any President in American history. He suspended habeas corpus, silenced dissenting opinions in the media, Clement Vallandigham, ex parte milligan, etc. Not to mention he also "lied" and took the Union into war "under false pretenses".

WW1 -- Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Act and Espionage Act.

WW2 -- hid bad news from the media (could you imagine if John Murtha or Harry Reid were Senators with access to information about Guadalcanal or D-Day), interned Japanese Americans, delivered prayer to the country on night of D-Day

Clinton's ECHELON program

Bush's PATRIOT Act

[Reliant]

Does the CIA not make mistakes? Does the Government not make mistakes?
Every red-blooded American should reject this fascist document on principle alone. When someone tells me that "they" hate us because of our freedom, then turns around a curtails our Constitutional freedoms, it makes me wonder if "they" didn't get exactly what "they" wanted when "they" ran those planes into the towers.
Living in a "free" society means that you will be taking certain risks; living in a totalitarian society means that you will be dealing with different risks. People in a "free society" are "free" to choose their own destiny as long as they don't effect anyone else's destiny; and when they do interfere with a third party's well being, that's where the law comes in. Everything else in between is the price that we pay to live in (what is left of) a free society. To think that empowering the government to randomly monitor and search individuals without warrant, ensures the safety of the public is taking a step back to every dictatorship that has come and gone.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Care to be a little more specific?

Evil is Evil.

Have you read the Patriot Act?

[jb_1430]

To think that empowering the government to randomly monitor and search individuals without warrant, ensures the safety of the public is taking a step back to every dictatorship that has come and gone.

????? You are demonstrating that you dont even know what is contained within the patriot act. Feel free to point to any particuilar provision that so empowers the government.

[USMC the Almighty]

Have you read the Patriot Act?

Not in it's entirety. So what? You claimed that the PATRIOT Act is evil. I challenged you to support this position. The burden of proof is on you to now prove your original assertion. Whether or not I have read the PATRIOT Act is irrelevant.

[Reliant]

????? You are demonstrating that you dont even know what is contained within the patriot act. Feel free to point to any particuilar provision that so empowers the government.

Did you just return from Mars? U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero barred the FBI from invoking a portion of the law in the future, saying the mandatory gag orders amount to an "unconstitutional prior restraint of speech in violation of the First Amendment."
This is not the first rebuff related to the Patriot Act that the Bush administration has encountered. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court said that prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay can ask American judges to review their confinement--a blow to Bush's assertion that "enemy combatants" can be held indefinitely without judicial review.
Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 309 to 118 for legislation that would essentially block part of the Patriot Act that permitted law enforcement officials to seek a court order that would let them surreptitiously enter a home or business.

How long will it be before we see Republican Brown Shirts, with no warrants, roaming the streets kicking in doors , political protesters disappearing without a trace, and people with conflicting points of view being locked up without due process?

Any document that goes against First Amendment rights and takes away our freedoms is simply a fascist document that takes power from the people and gives it to a select few. The only "rights" that this government pays attention to are the rights accompanied by the obligatory noun, wing.

[jb_1430]

You are demonstrating my point. Nothing youve stated even attempts to support your claim that the Patriot act is


empowering the government to randomly monitor and search individuals without warrant,



Did you just return from Mars? U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero barred the FBI from invoking a portion of the law in the future, saying the mandatory gag orders amount to an "unconstitutional prior restraint of speech in violation of the First Amendment."
This is not the first rebuff related to the Patriot Act that the Bush administration has encountered. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court said that prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay can ask American judges to review their confinement--a blow to Bush's assertion that "enemy combatants" can be held indefinitely without judicial review.
Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 309 to 118 for legislation that would essentially block part of the Patriot Act that permitted law enforcement officials to seek a court order that would let them surreptitiously enter a home or business.

How long will it be before we see Republican Brown Shirts, with no warrants, roaming the streets kicking in doors , political protesters disappearing without a trace, and people with conflicting points of view being locked up without due process?

Any document that goes against First Amendment rights and takes away our freedoms is simply a fascist document that takes power from the people and gives it to a select few. The only "rights" that this government pays attention to are the rights accompanied by the obligatory noun, wing.

[Popeye]

You are demonstrating my point. Nothing youve stated even attempts to support your claim that the Patriot act is

Oh no, you must be right, it's a document just chock full of civil liberties. Excuse us for even daring to criticize what has obviously become a conservative bible.

[Reliant]

Oh no, you must be right, it's a document just chock full of civil liberties. Excuse us for even daring to criticize what has obviously become a conservative bible.

Yes, chock full of Civil Liberties. :D

Section 215....

* Section 215 allows the FBI to order any person or entity to turn over "any tangible things," so long as the FBI "specifies" that the order is "for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
* Section 215 vastly expands the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents.
- The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity.
- The FBI need not have any suspicion that the subject of the investigation is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.
- The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights.

For example, the FBI could spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because they don't like the web sites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy.
- Those served with Section 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing the fact to anyone else. Those who are the subjects of the surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been compromised.
If the government had been keeping track of what books a person had been reading, or what web sites she had been visiting, the person would never know.

Is Section 215 Constitutional?

* Normally, the government cannot effect a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause.
- The violation of the Fourth Amendment is made more egregious by the fact that Section 215 might be used to obtain information about the exercise of First Amendment rights. For example, the FBI could invoke Section 215 to require a library to produce records showing who had borrowed a particular book or to produce records showing who had visited a particular web site.
- Section 215 might also be used to obtain material that implicates privacy interests other than those protected by the First Amendment. For example, the FBI could use Section 215 to obtain medical records.
* The provision violates the First Amendment by prohibiting those served with Section 215 orders from disclosing that fact to others, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
* The provision violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to investigate U.S. persons, including American citizens, based in part on their exercise of First Amendment activity, and by authorizing the FBI to investigate non-U.S. persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment activity.
* The provision violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by failing to require that those who are the subject of Section 215 orders be told that their privacy has been compromised.


There is no doubt that this is a fascist (noun - 1. an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views) document that violates First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment Rights and is certainly something we should all reject on principle alone. But if you give it a name like "Patriot" Act, even though it goes against everything a true Patriot stands for, just proves that the right-wing monkeys don't look at substance, they just like the name.


And yes, mistakes are being made and Americans are paying the price...

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/10/america/NA-GEN-US-Patriot-Act-Lawsuit.php

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9546933

http://www.nysun.com/article/50252

[jb_1430]

If your going to go to the trouble of posting 3 different links, might as well post a link to the source of everything in the post.

http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/215.html


Yes, chock full of Civil Liberties. :D

Section 215....

* Section 215 allows the FBI to order any person or entity to turn.....
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/10/america/NA-GEN-US-Patriot-Act-Lawsuit.php

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9546933

http://www.nysun.com/article/50252

[USMC the Almighty]

If your going to go to the trouble of posting 3 different links, might as well post a link to the source of everything in the post.

http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/215.html

Now if you were a liberal, you could claim that the facts aren't true simply because they come from a biased source. But as a conservative, I would expect that you would try to defeat them on an intellectual level.

[Popeye]

Now if you were a liberal, you could claim that the facts aren't true simply because they come from a biased source. But as a conservative, I would expect that you would try to defeat them on an intellectual level.

An intelligent conservative? Outside of a few exceptions, that is, without a doubt, an oxymoron.

[USMC the Almighty]

An intelligent conservative? Outside of a few exceptions, that is, without a doubt, an oxymoron.

Come on, you can't really believe this. First I'm told that political ideology corresponds to your sexual preferences and now it has correlation to your intelligence? There are plenty of smart conservatives (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind) and dumb liberals and vice versa. I wouldn't necessarily call one side "smarter" than the other.

[jb_1430]

Now if you were a liberal, you could claim that the facts aren't true simply because they come from a biased source. But as a conservative, I would expect that you would try to defeat them on an intellectual level.

It was claimed that the patriot act is


empowering the government to randomly monitor and search individuals without warrant,


Section 215 refers to

order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.


and has nothing to do with the power to randomly monitor and search individuals without warrant.



SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.
Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

`SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.
`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.

`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period--

`(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and
`(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

[Popeye]

Come on, you can't really believe this. First I'm told that political ideology corresponds to your sexual preferences and now it has correlation to your intelligence? There are plenty of smart conservatives (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind) and dumb liberals and vice versa. I wouldn't necessarily call one side "smarter" than the other.

I said that there were exceptions, but conservatives, by definition, are closed minded. This, most definitely, is a reflection on their overall intelligence.

[USMC the Almighty]

I said that there were exceptions, but conservatives, by definition, are closed minded. This, most definitely, is a reflection on their overall intelligence.

Please explain to me how exactly conservatives are "close minded".

[jb_1430]

I said that there were exceptions, but conservatives, by definition, are closed minded. This, most definitely, is a reflection on their overall intelligence.

Conservatives have a value system they can and do use to judge the world around them. Liberals are awash in a sea of moral relativism that does not judge right from wrong, good or bad. Its called judgement, not closed minded.

[Popeye]

Conservatives have a value system they can and do use to judge the world around them. Liberals are awash in a sea of moral relativism that does not judge right from wrong, good or bad. Its called judgement, not closed minded.

Yeah, that's quite a value system all right, and it's not called judgment, it's called judging, conservatives are quite good at that. Conservatives ought to look in the mirror, when it comes to morals. Good morals are not found in a bathroom stall, and then lying about it afterwards. Nor are they found in an immoral war which was also lied about. Yes, conservatives have quite a value system, makes one want to sing God Bless America.

[palerider]

Conservatives have a value system they can and do use to judge the world around them. Liberals are awash in a sea of moral relativism that does not judge right from wrong, good or bad. Its called judgement, not closed minded.


Meaning that liberals do not refer to experience, historical perspective, or common sense before taking an action. That is why liberals are the kings of unintended consequences. Do you need examples?

Conservatives are eager for change if the changes make sense. Shrinking the size of government, for example, or getting it off our backs and out of our pockets is a change that most conservatives would eagerly accept if it were done in a logical and methodical manner.

[palerider]

Yeah, that's quite a value system all right, and it's not called judgment, it's called judging, conservatives are quite good at that. Conservatives ought to look in the mirror, when it comes to morals. Good morals are not found in a bathroom stall, and then lying about it afterwards. Nor are they found in an immoral war which was also lied about. Yes, conservatives have quite a value system, makes one want to sing God Bless America.


If you are under the impression that the actions of a single individual accurately depict the entire group, let me remind you of gerry studds having a sexual relationship with a minor and subsequently getting a standing applause from his collegues on the floor of the house.

You will note that conservatives send theis packing when they are found out in such behavior as there is no place for it within conservativism as opposed to liberals who embrace theirs. Your moral relativism requires that you embrace and welcome an unrepentant child molseter back into the fold.

[Popeye]

If you are under the impression that the actions of a single individual accurately depict the entire group, let me remind you of gerry studds having a sexual relationship with a minor and subsequently getting a standing applause from his collegues on the floor of the house.

You will note that conservatives send theis packing when they are found out in such behavior as there is no place for it within conservativism as opposed to liberals who embrace theirs. Your moral relativism requires that you embrace and welcome an unrepentant child molseter back into the fold.

First off, Republican sexual indiscretions involve much more than a single individual. As you know, Reliant supplied an extensive list, which could not be refuted. As for Republicans sending their right-wing perverts "packing", I think we both know that is purely for political reasons and not a true indication of the darkness that resides within many "family values" Republican hearts.

[palerider]

First off, Republican sexual indiscretions involve much more than a single individual. As you know, Reliant supplied an extensive list, which could not be refuted. As for Republicans sending their right-wing perverts "packing", I think we both know that is purely for political reasons and not a true indication of the darkness that resides within many "family values" Republican hearts.

No. There is no place within conservativism for the relativism of liberalism. Conservatives who are caught in such behavior know that they have done wrong and are, in the eyes of their peers, and constituents, no longer fit to do the job they were sent to do.

The list is irrelavent in that no group is pure as the wind driven snow and only an indication that some liberal made a blatant hypocrite out of him or herself by bringing that which liberals claim to be a private matter out for public view.

Gerry Studds is the literal face of liberal acceptance of child molesters. He admitted to the crime and got a standing ovation and kept his job. Enough said.

[Popeye]

No. There is no place within conservativism for the relativism of liberalism. Conservatives who are caught in such behavior know that they have done wrong and are, in the eyes of their peers, and constituents, no longer fit to do the job they were sent to do.

The list is irrelavent in that no group is pure as the wind driven snow and only an indication that some liberal made a blatant hypocrite out of him or herself by bringing that which liberals claim to be a private matter out for public view.



Liberals do believe it is a private matter, until Republican hypocrisy rears its ugly head. Right-wing, bible thumping Republicans are all about judge, judge, judge. So, when they are caught in the same behavior they publicly condemn, it becomes an issue. An issue, I might add, that Republicans,understandably, are extremely uncomfortable with. Hypocrisy has claimed another victim and it's the Republican party.

[palerider]

Liberals do believe it is a private matter, until Republican hypocrisy rears its ugly head. Right-wing, bible thumping Republicans are all about judge, judge, judge. So, when they are caught in the same behavior they publicly condemn, it becomes an issue. An issue, I might add, that Republicans,understandably, are extremely uncomfortable with. Hypocrisy has claimed another victim and it's the Republican party.

And by attempting to make a public spectacle out of it make hypocrits of themselves. The lack of depth in your thinking is typical of liberals.

It is as I always say, liberals are doomed to become the very thing they claim to hate. You clearly hate the hypocricy of people on your "list" but then make a hypocrit of yourself by doing that which liberalism claims to hate, ie making private matters public.

You are right in that it does become an issue. It is an issue to conservatives as well and as you can see in all cases, they are forced to step down as opposed to yours who are embraced. The true, and deeper hypocricy lies, as always, within liberalism. Conservatives, as a group, would be hypocrits if they claimed to stand against moral relativism but allowed people who clearly don't live up to the claim to remain within their ranks. Clearly they don't. Liberals, on the other hand, are hypocrits, as a group, because they embrace their own deviants while loudly, and conspicuously, condemming conservatives who get caught in behavior that is acceptabe to liberals.

Reference the definition of hypocrite:

One who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Clearly the conservative who is behaving in a way contrary to conservative principles is a hypocrite but conservatives in general are not hypocrites because they do not accept the one who is behaving in such a manner. Liberals as a group, however, are hypocrites as they embrace and accept those of their own who behave in such a manner (and worse) while condemning those across the aisle who behave in the same manner.

So long as you are a liberal, you are doomed to become the very thing you claim to distain. It is the nature of liberalism.

[Popeye]

And by attempting to make a public spectacle out of it make hypocrits of themselves. The lack of depth in your thinking is typical of liberals.

It is as I always say, liberals are doomed to become the very thing they claim to hate. You clearly hate the hypocricy of people on your "list" but then make a hypocrit of yourself by doing that which liberalism claims to hate, ie making private matters public.

You are right in that it does become an issue. It is an issue to conservatives as well and as you can see in all cases, they are forced to step down as opposed to yours who are embraced. The true, and deeper hypocricy lies, as always, within liberalism. Conservatives, as a group, would be hypocrits if they claimed to stand against moral relativism but allowed people who clearly don't live up to the claim to remain within their ranks. Clearly they don't. Liberals, on the other hand, are hypocrits, as a group, because they embrace their own deviants while loudly, and conspicuously, condemming conservatives who get caught in behavior that is acceptabe to liberals.

Reference the definition of hypocrite:

One who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.



In general, both conservatives and liberals can be guilty of a "lack of depth" in thinking. I do believe however, that conservatives wrote the book on it. It also appears, apparently, that they wrote the book on stereotyping as well. As for hypocrisy, while both groups can be guilty of that as well, it's conservatives who pretend to be morally superior while many of them have boyfriends on the side, not liberals. The definition of hypocrite fits many of the closet homosexual, Christian right Republicans like a glove. The only reason the Republican party wishes them to resign, when found out, is because they've been exposed, in more ways than one.

[USMC the Almighty]

It also appears, apparently, that they wrote the book on stereotyping as well.

Ironic coming from the arguably the board's most partisan member who has never found a conservative stereotype that he didn't cling to.

[Popeye]

Ironic coming from the arguably the board's most partisan member who has never found a conservative stereotype that he didn't cling to.

"Arguably" is the key word, because there are certainly members of this forum who never heard a liberal stereotype they didn't repeat. I, on the other hand consider myself an independent thinker. I'm not to be faulted if conservatives leave themselves open to a vast array of criticism.

[USMC the Almighty]

"Arguably" is the key word, because there are certainly members of this forum who never heard a liberal stereotype they didn't repeat. I, on the other hand consider myself an independent thinker. I'm not to be faulted if conservatives leave themselves open to a vast array of criticism.

Indpendent thinker? Tell me three of your positions that differ from the Democratic party.

[Popeye]

Indpendent thinker? Tell me three of your positions that differ from the Democratic party.

Without going into specifics, gun control, illegal immigration, legalization of drugs. Liberals are, by nature, more independent in their thinking.

[USMC the Almighty]

Without going into specifics, gun control, illegal immigration, legalization of drugs. Liberals are, by nature, more independent in their thinking.

Just to get you on record -- you are against gun control, illegal immigration, and legalization of drugs?

And what exactly is it that makes liberals more independent than conservatives?

[Popeye]

Just to get you on record -- you are against gun control, illegal immigration, and legalization of drugs?

And what exactly is it that makes liberals more independent than conservatives?

For the record, I am completely against any and all gun control, I am completely against any amnesty for illegal immigrants, lastly, I am for the legalization of drugs something the Democratic party doesn't agree with. Now, what makes liberals more independent than conservatives? I'm a liberal, I just demonstrated my independence, and I'm far from alone. Again, liberals are, by their nature, more independent in their thinking.

[USMC the Almighty]

To recap:

Liberals are, by nature, more independent in their thinking.


And what exactly is it that makes liberals more independent than conservatives?

I'm a liberal, I just demonstrated my independence, and I'm far from alone. Again, liberals are, by their nature, more independent in their thinking.

You can't providing support for a statement includes more than copying and pasting it.

[Popeye]

To recap:







You can't providing support for a statement includes more than copying and pasting it.

Lets make it simple, liberals are, by definition, open to new things. Therefore, they are more independent in their thinking. Conservatives, by definition, are less open to new ideas. Therefore, they are less independent in their thinking. Sure it's a generalization but the basic truth is irrefutable.

[jb_1430]

Lets make it simple, liberals are, by definition, open to new things. Therefore, they are more independent in their thinking. Conservatives, by definition, are less open to new ideas. Therefore, they are less independent in their thinking. Sure it's a generalization but the basic truth is irrefutable.

Biggest line of crap Ive heard in a while. Liberals are more open to new things simply because they are new. They are more open because they dont think. More open because they dont do enough independent thinking to develope their own foundation from which to judge new things. So they embrace new things because they become popular, the new fad.

[Popeye]

Biggest line of crap Ive heard in a while. Liberals are more open to new things simply because they are new. They are more open because they dont think. More open because they dont do enough independent thinking to develope their own foundation from which to judge new things. So they embrace new things because they become popular, the new fad.

Liberals don't do enough independent thinking? untrue, that is a quality they embrace. Meanwhile, conservatives are stuck in a kind of right-wing cement as the beast of conservatism has hardened around them. Just look at the way they follow the dictates of a corrupt administration, goose-stepping all the while.

[jb_1430]

Liberals don't do enough independent thinking? untrue, that is a quality they embrace. Meanwhile, conservatives are stuck in a kind of right-wing cement as the beast of conservatism has hardened around them. Just look at the way they follow the dictates of a corrupt administration, goose-stepping all the while.

What makes you think they are "following" the Bush Administration? I supported most current Bush administration policies before the Bush administration even existed.

[Popeye]

What makes you think they are "following" the Bush Administration? I supported most current Bush administration policies before the Bush administration even existed.

Like preemptive strikes on sovereign nations? Whoa, I'd be proud of that.

[jb_1430]

Like preemptive strikes on sovereign nations? Whoa, I'd be proud of that.

Did you have a point you wanted to make regarding the topic of conversation, or merely the need to respond, combined with the inability to formulate a response to the topic?