http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/
This happened during Vietnam, now they're at it again.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/
This happened during Vietnam, now they're at it again.
ANY organization should be considered a threat until a review. This is the state of our world. You are better protected by a pro-active policy than reactive. If a threat to security is absent, no harm done.
Joseph Felker
AllentownOptical.com
Yes, of course, that's all part of our "guilty until proven innocent" tradition.Originally Posted by jofelk
Considering what other states have done in the past with dissenters, the protestniks are getting off easy.
If you want to ***** about policy (which is your right), be prepared to face some real-world consequences.
Boo-hoo.
Does the proposition that "which ideology is ascendant changes over time" require much evidentiary support? If true, are you not concerned that when the godless infidels finally consolidate their power, they will come looking for you? At which time, would you not welcome certain rights, which those in power might well claim to be dangerous in the "real world"?
Nice forethought! Prophesy foretells that such protection will not be present, and vast persecution will occur, but most believe the church will be spared by rapture, and, in fact, it will be latecomer Messiah-believing Jews that face such tribulation.
If we're talking about utopian society, then we wouldn't have war or protests that would lead to government intelligence-gathering. But, alas, the nature of this world does not allow it. Defeatist and cynical? I guess. But a completely benign government is not realistic, and the pukes that spend valuable time organizing free-love, bring-back-the-sixties, I hate my father protests deserve what they get, IMO. Heck, it just makes it more fun for them, like getting arrested. What's the point in protesting, if you can't get the souveniers?
You're assuming they stopped during the meantime ?? ;)
At least it wasn't as obvious.
Isn't domestic surveillance the job of the FBI? After all, if some group here in the US was found to be up to something, it would be law enforcement not the military that does something about it.
The key is having a free flow of necessary information between the military and the FBI. etc., which we haven't done so well in the past.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear brighter before you hear them speak.
I'd like to see all the intelligence gathered on the people who protested against Clinton's sexual indiscretion.
drk, I like you, really I do, but what the hell? You're telling me scary police-state behavior happening here and now in the real world is perfectly acceptable because your religion tells you Jesus will come back and save the day?
This is where religion makes me crazy--when it crosses the boundaries of being a life-affirming belief system that gives us hope that there's more meaning to life than what's apparent on the surface and becoming a end-of-days death cult where real-world responsibilities are abdicated in lieu of faith.
Spartus, I know, I know.
There is great tension within Christianity (and myself) as to what to think about such things.
Not to bore, but this explains things a bit. Eschatology-the study of the end.
Now Catholics (and forgive me if I'm wrong) have the position that Christ's Thousand-Year kingdom on earth is happening now, in an abstracted way through the Catholic Church. So they don't see the world as going to hell in a handbasket, and they feel empowered to make changes and be activist in tackling world problems. They also have a very "pastoral" view that their church's role is to help and enlighten. It's a positive message.
Liberal Protestants I cannot speak for, because liberalism is an emotion.
Conservative, Evangelical Bible-Thumping Born-Again Nutcases, of which I am one, take everything literally, and believe that things will run down, badly, based on prophecy about tribulation, persecution, etc. (prophecy that Catholics and others may feel describe what happened to Christians in the early church; lions and all). Satan, while conquered about 2000 years ago, has not had his sentence imposed, and is going to have a party in the last days.
If this country loses it's Christianity, and I believe it has gone under the 50% mark, there will be little to restrain evil, not only in the U.S. but in the world. I think the U.S. is grossly underestimated as the current repository of moral good in this world (but, of course, not the exclusive source), with the strength to enforce it. (Great Britain being the former.) When the U.S. becomes, say, France or Germany (which it is slowly is), we will no longer be under God's protection, and this world will erupt in evil, which is it's natural state. (This paragraph is only my personal opinion.)
While no one knows when Jesus is returning, there are signs that can be seen. The timeframe is unclear, but it's getting closer, for sure.
Let me ask you, Spartus, what do you think of James Dobson? I'll wait for your response.
DoD orders review of domestic intelligence gathering
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10479445/
source: RinselNews™
Gasp! Did you, or Optiboard, or Jesus himself bleep-out the word "b!tch" for you?
Fink
Fink, you are the super-sleuth of off-color language. You must know a lot about how it is used.
lmao, drk! I appreciate that. I haven't been called "super" anything in a while. :shiner:
This was news to me. I thought it was more a philosophy. Happiness is an emotion. Cranky before bedtime is an emotion. The best definition I could quickly find was this:
So it's a modernization, probably largely kicked off by the Industrial Revolution. I get it, and I get why you're skipping over it, due to, uh, fundamental differences with your beliefs as well as general obsolescence.Liberalism, Theological: Primarily a Protestant phenomenon, liberal theology was the attempt to reconcile modern science and reason with the Christian faith. Although it had its origins in the Enlightenment, liberalism reached its peak in the late nineteenth century. The results of this outlook were belief in and inevitability of human progress and the focus on the moral and social aspect of the Christian gospel. The devastation of the Great War saw the demise of liberalism in theology and the rise of alternative views, such as neo-orthodoxy. The foremost liberals in theology were Albrecht Ritschl and Adolf von Harnack. see also Social Gospel.
My in-laws are Bible-Thumping Born-Again Nutcases, so I am largely familiar with the trip. My father-in-law was once associate pastor to Mike Huckabee--Google him--and yes, that Mike Huckabee. So I know about this stuff, and it's fine that you're part of the whole End-of-Days thing. I even appreciate tacky Rapture artwork. The part where I start to have a problem is where real problems facing real people in the real world are skipped over because the End is coming. Either go whole-hog and sell everything you own and live in a tree until Jesus comes back, or hedge your bets a little and just hope you're wearing clean underwear that day.Conservative, Evangelical Bible-Thumping Born-Again Nutcases, of which I am one, take everything literally, and believe that things will run down, badly, based on prophecy about tribulation, persecution, etc. (prophecy that Catholics and others may feel describe what happened to Christians in the early church; lions and all). Satan, while conquered about 2000 years ago, has not had his sentence imposed, and is going to have a party in the last days.
And, while I don't have verse-by-verse familiarity with the whole of Revelations, I do know the history of the Temple Mount quite well and understand its three-way significance. And, believer in the seven-headed beast from the oceans or no, if the Dome of the Rock is demolished to make way for the Third Temple, it will be, at the very least, World War III.
Iraq, of course, has key significance in the whole thing, what with multiple references to "Babylon" throughout St. John's little manifesto. However, the name of "Babylon", then as now, referred to any decadent and corrupt society, not necessarily the historical Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar, which happens to lie in present-day Iraq. The decadent and corrupt empire of the day (2nd Century, IIRC) was, of course, Rome. It's likely that he was just sitting on Patmos, doodling his dream fantasy of the Roman Empire's grandiose defeat.
The continued existence of the devil in this particular strain of the story has always eluded me. If God's so big and bad and all-powerful, why is there a devil? What could oppose God's will? We must infer that the devil is still kicking around by divine design, so what purpose, other than providing a reason to knock this (His!) creation down, could the devil fulfill? And why couldn't God do that on his own? The Greeks called this deus ex machina, and even they thought it was the hallmark of a bad storyteller.
So--and I'm trying not to be flip here, but it's getting difficult--God is watching the polls and church attendance, and when it reaches some arbitrary number, "evil" will be released. Again, it seems to me a handy way to blame society's ills on something that you can't really help rather than doing anything about it.If this country loses it's Christianity, and I believe it has gone under the 50% mark, there will be little to restrain evil, not only in the U.S. but in the world. I think the U.S. is grossly underestimated as the current repository of moral good in this world (but, of course, not the exclusive source), with the strength to enforce it. (Great Britain being the former.) When the U.S. becomes, say, France or Germany (which it is slowly is), we will no longer be under God's protection, and this world will erupt in evil, which is it's natural state. (This paragraph is only my personal opinion.)
While no one knows when Jesus is returning, there are signs that can be seen. The timeframe is unclear, but it's getting closer, for sure.
This country, as a country, has no Christianity. It may be the religion of the majority, but it's certainly not the official religion, since we don't have one. You mentioned Great Britain as the former moral good in the world. What caused them to lose their influence? Was it giving up the Empire? Was it something else? Can't be their religion--the Queen still is head of the official Church. I mean, they're actually a Christian nation, but somehow we stole the crown away, so to speak.
I think he's got a lot of problems. One of them is animal abuse:Let me ask you, Spartus, what do you think of James Dobson? I'll wait for your response.
In his favor, he's not quite as nutty as, say, Donald Wildmon or Lou Sheldon. But that ain't saying much."Please don't misunderstand me. Siggie is a member of our family and we love him dearly. And despite his anarchistic nature, I have finally taught him to obey a few simple commands. However, we had some classic battles before he reluctantly yielded to my authority.
"The greatest confrontation occurred a few years ago when I had been in Miami for a three-day conference. I returned to observe that Siggie had become boss of the house while I was gone. But I didn't realize until later that evening just how strongly he felt about his new position as Captain.
"At eleven o'clock that night, I told Siggie to go get into his bed, which is a permanent enclosure in the family room. For six years I had given him that order at the end of each day, and for six years Siggie had obeyed.
"On this occasion, however, he refused to budge. You see, he was in the bathroom, seated comfortably on the furry lid of the toilet seat. That is his favorite spot in the house, because it allows him to bask in the warmth of a nearby electric heater..."
"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"
"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me "reason" with Mr. Freud."
What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"
An excerpt from Dr. James Dobson on Parenting
Philosophy : A blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat, that is not there.
This was news to me. I thought it was more a philosophy. Happiness is an emotion. Cranky before bedtime is an emotion. The best definition I could quickly find was this:
This is interesting:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/
It's stunning how little value a lot of people place on the Bill of Rights. And as Shanbaum points out, the clear inference of some of the remarks supporting the military spying on citizens is that this this only and ever affects other people, "not possibly me".
Isn't it pretty to think so?:hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
Thanks, Jacqui, for bringing back the thread to the orginal post.
I feel a little embarrassed, like I've hijacked the thread. Forgive me. I'll lay off, after this.
Spartus, you are quite knowledgeable and articulate. Nice post. You bring up some good points: why not just chuck it all, and give up all materialism, until I die or Jesus returns? I'm looking into that option. That is a tough one, but as you probably are familiar, it's asked of us. I'm not the best at it, YET.
Your question on Satan's delayed imprisionment is, I think, simply answered this way: God's patient. He could end it all today, but He has his own timeframe. Remember, every day you get is another opportunity to make the right decision for your future. For all any of us know, He has a pre-conceived notion of how many souls He will create and allow to be tested on earth, and there are a few more to allow. And while Satan is not necessary for the testing conditions, he is sufficient.
My statement regarding America is, of course, speculation on my part, but I do think that God uses countries for His ultimate purposes. If a country turns away, He can still use them (like Assyria or Egypt were used in antiquity), but the country will not necessarily get His blessings of prosperity. Not to be nutty/alarmist, but you can see a demonstration with the natural disasters recently. Whether God was behind that, I do not know, but all it would take would be a little nudge and our heretofore strong country could be neutralized on the world stage.
I do not think the "officiality" of a country's Christianity influences God; I think it more likely that He knows the hearts of its citizens.
You didn't take the Dobson bait. I was trying to point out that when Christians do get political, they are damned worse than when they stay out of world affairs. The only way they are appreciated is if they deny their faith and promote a popular liberal viewpoint, which is not going to happen. So it's tempting to say "why not sit back and watch it unravel?". It's more useful, though, to fight and suffer predjudice and persecution.
I'll quit this thread, here. Sorry.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10505574/
Bush says he ordered the spying. Gee, what a guy.
Let's face it you left wing folks who would publicly support any enemy of the United States bears watchin.
If Nixon had been smart enough to say this after watergate he would have gotten off the hook.
How our government is to protect the United States from another terror attack and answer the 9/11 comission' s criticism that we missed communications between terrorist here at home and terrorist abroad - without intercepting messages?
"Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon -- Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Mihdar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al-Qaida who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late."
"In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations."
"Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country."
" I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups.
"Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it."
Source - Bush weekly radio message
You call it spying - I call it protecting America.
Rep
There was a way to do this legally.
Here is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Its Section 1809a makes it a criminal offense to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute."
FISA does authorize surveillance without a warrant, but not on US citizens (with the possible exception of citizens speaking from property openly owned by a foreign power; e.g., an embassy.)
FISA also says that the Attorney General can authorize emergency surveillance without a warrant when there is no time to obtain one. But it requires that the Attorney General notify the judge of that authorization immediately, and that he (and yes, the law does say 'he') apply for a warrant "as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance."
It also says this:
"In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof".
Nothing in the New York Times report suggests that the wiretaps Bush authorized extended only for 72 hours, or that normal warrants were sought in each case within 72 hours after the wiretap began. On the contrary, no one would have needed a special program or presidential order if they had.
According to the Times, "the Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to the United States." But this is just wrong. As I noted above, the law specifically allows for warrantless surveillance in emergencies, when the government needs to start surveillance before it can get a warrant. It explains exactly what the government needs to do under those circumstances. It therefore provides the flexibility the administration claims it needed.
They had no need to go around the law. They could easily have obeyed it. They just didn't want to.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks