Welcome to PatsFans.com

"Your" computer??? Not any more

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Fogbuster, Sep 9, 2009.

  1. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

  2. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    ever wonder why conspiratorial con men never batted an eye when the Bush League was battering our civil liberties, but now they're suddenly ready to force revolution?

    yeah, i think we all know why. The new guy is BLACK!!!

    It's a shame you guys couldn't remove your heads from your other area back when we were telling you something was wrong here. Unfortunately, the good ole' boy from Texas could do no wrong, and the Patriot Act I and II were completely legit. As was wire tapping, and undeniable levels of internet surveillance. During Bush, it was all fine. Now, suddenly, it's fascism.

    You guys are a caricature of yourselves.

    Welcome to the Tea Party, though. Better late than not at all.
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2009
  3. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    Lol!! Where's the "masked vigilante" smiley??!! :rolleyes: ..... :cool:

    I know you'll never get the difference between a guy who was concerned about losing his nation of America to a bunch of crazed, looney, hopped-up religious fanatics, like al qaeda and the taliban, and a serial nut-job in Saddam, but for those who still have open minds, you will see that there IS a difference, .... a BIG difference.

    I've voiced my disappointments with Bush so many times, I won't burden anyone with repeating them all again, but I will say that one thing I never doubted about the man was his love for America as a nation where people could be free to make their own decisions about what to believe and who to follow. The Obamanistas, however, are of an entirely different stripe: the hard left totalitarian stripe that is literal when they say: "the party's way or the highway" ... that leads to things like Obama's stated desire to "have a domestic security force equipped and manned at least as well as the U.S. military".

    :wha: Why do we need TWO military forces????? We have one, and ONE is all we need; for domestic issues we have many agencies, from the FBI to the Bureau of ATF, to the U.S. Marshalls, etc. Obama's call for a "second" DOMESTIC military force is very, very troubling. Such a power grab is completely in line with this new revelation about once you call up the national car program your computer is no longer yours, but it then belongs to "Big Brother". No freaking way.

    And it's something that neither Bush nor any other Republican EVER called for. Not that I ever heard about. This is WAY, WAY beyond mere wire-tapping of potential threats, or temporary internet surveillance of the same; this is total and complete control. And it is very VERY troubling.



    //
  4. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    The President is half BLACK!

    [​IMG]
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2009
  5. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    It's all right, Wistah. Get a good night's sleep, and it'll be all better in the morning. We all have tough days now and then.



    //
  6. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Fundamental Islam was hardly George Bush's chief concern. Nice paranoid RW spin. But, you are right (wing), there is a big difference between Obama, and the most corrupt administration in U.S. history led by Dick Cheney.

    No, you really haven't. Maybe a few surface objections, but nothing significant, ever. No one on this forum is falling for your faux attempt at centrism. You're a Bushie of the most transparent order.

    That's because you wouldn't be able to find them.

    Shall we review his vast list of faith-based legislation? It's quite the opposite of what you're sugar-coating about here. America overwhelmingly wanted an end to foreign occupation. Why didn't your hero allow them to be "free to make their own decisions?"


    Dear McClueless: Domestic planning for civil breakdown started long ago, and magnified greatly under the Cheney Adminstration. Perhaps you were busy recruiting unwitting, poor Eastern Europeans during that time, or merely in intense denial.

    What you "ever heard about," and what we Americans have been exposed to are two very different realities.

    Get some perspective. I posted about this many times. Perhaps you gave it your typical spin and erased it from your consciousness:

    The Cheney plan to deploy the U.S. military on U.S. soil - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

    This new report today from The New York Times' Mark Mazzetti and David Johnston reveals an entirely unsurprising though still important event: in 2002, Dick Cheney and David Addington urged that U.S. military troops be used to arrest and detain American citizens, inside the U.S., who were suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda. That was done pursuant to a previously released DOJ memo (.pdf) authored by John Yoo and Robert Delahunty, addressed to Alberto Gonzales, dated October 23, 2001, and chillingly entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the U.S." That Memo had concluded that the President had authority to deploy the U.S. military against American citizens on U.S. soil. Far worse, it asserted that in exercising that power, the President could not be bound either by Congressional statutes prohibiting such use (such as the Posse Comitatus Act) or even by the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which -- the Memo concluded -- was "inapplicable" to what it called "domestic military operations."​

    We understand though, clergyman: 'Different when the black leftist does it!'
  7. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    In a related story former President Clinton had sex with an intern.

    How many times are we gonna do this story?
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,764
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +162 / 7 / -13

    Pathetic when all criticism is attributed to the race of whoever, last resort of people without a coherent position.

    Haven't read the org story just looking at the reaction of some here.
  9. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,819
    Likes Received:
    424
    Ratings:
    +911 / 8 / -18

    #87 Jersey


    The front ... his backside is white.
  10. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    It's simple deductive reasoning, considering both presidents mulled the use of a domestic military force. If they both do it, then what's the difference, and why didn't people like goofy you chime in when the white men were doing it?

    That's what i thought.
  11. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    See, now that's YOUR big mistake. From the get-go. Out of the box you hit the ground stumbling over your own feats ..... cue the vigilante scene. (.... your THC levels must be kicking in again. Magic mushrooms don't wash out over night, either .......) Anywho, Bush (and Cheney, I believe) were/are genuinely concerned about the rise of militant Islam. Bush is an actively fundamentalist Christian, and therefore sees fundamentalist Islam as an enemy to be greatly feared; I, too, am deeply concerned, though I am NOT a fundamentalist Christian; many such "Christians" see me as their arch-enemy, though I do not see them as such. Cheney is not a fundamentalist Christian, either, though I do not share Cheney's views on life: he believes in the Bilderberg/CFR future; I do not. I believe in the Heavenly Kingdom of True Parents future; totally different.

    No, I'm not. I have spoken out on Bush's behalf -- not because I support all of his beliefs and actions: his rush to war was clearly wrong, and his beliefs about my faith are also misinterpreted and incorrect, as he opposes them -- because he was acting from his sincere view that America was under attack from outside, which indisputably is the case. I differ STRONGLY on his solution to the problem, but I agree with him that we had/have a problem that needs to be addressed.

    No, again. They're there, but I'm not going to dig them out just now.

    "Faith-based legislation" and Bush's rush to war are two completely DIFFERENT things. Faith, itself, is a sacrosanct right in America, and I oppose ALL attempts to remove that right from America; with that I agree with W, even though our faiths are SUBSTANTIALLY different as well as our differing interpretations of how to deal with the events of 9/11: I believe America should have pursued a way to meet with and make common cause with the reasonable moderate Muslims of the world, and support their efforts to deal with problems within their own communities. I do NOT believe it was America's role to deal directly with either al qaeda, the taliban, or Saddam. America could have and SHOULD have pushed the international community to deal with the violent elements within Islam, as the rest of the world mostly sympathized with America immediately after 9/11.


    That's a low blow that does not deserve any serious response. You're out of line.


    I've been in America for extended periods since 9/11 ... more than a year in total. I've had to deal with the horrendous delays at airports, the disturbing state of semi-martial law; I hate it, too.

    This has been a surgical targeting -- a "profiling" -- of a very specific threat; what the Obama administration is now proposing has all the earmarks of going FAR, FAR beyond all of that. Again, I recall the Elian Gonzalez and Waco, Texas incidents with great concern over the attack on ALL faithful people in general. It's got nothing to do with "race" as much as you like to play that race card. The cult of personality surrounding Obama is unhealthy, given his limitations as a person.

    See above. Your "race card" is a JOKER. Try again. I know you can do better.


    //

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>