open mail without warrant

[Jonesy]

What do you have to hide? Are you a terrorist?

Blueblaze, I hate to break it to you, but terrorists aren't the only people who would like to have privacy.

[Squeezer]

Blueblaze's argument, summed up is: Since we all Mooch off the government, then we should let them do what they want.

Without even going into the whole Govt. serves the people and vice versa argument, most Americans pay their taxes on time and lead a generally crime free and carefree life.

Why should they be made to suffer when Bush deems it necessary for all mail to be searched for the sake of "national security."

[WuTang420]

smells like spinsanity

[Ephemeral]

Ya, my bad, I got myself caught up ih the patriotic movement and thought I saw Jesus give me the nod. Ephemeral, I'm sorry I took such an agro stance, I do consider you a friend. But twice now, with the Somalia bombings and with this parcel service, you have insinuated that they are in some way "unconfirmd". I asked you then, without being so rude, and I ask you again now, who do we need to site as a source for you to consider a poltical social event as confirmed. This particular instance we have a letter written by a Senator to the President, and a Signing Statement which he made on Dec 20, 06. These are undisputable facts. If you are saying that 404's ideas about the postal service is going to lose business due to these, then yes, that is obviously unconfirmed. But you'll have to be more specific if you tell someone that their post is unconfirmed. Obviously I take these issues very seriously, and I don't like it when people tell others not to post them here at all. Even if they did 3 in a row. These days, 3 isn't that many. There is clearly a movement to curb civil liberties, that cannot be disputed. Whether they are helpful, needed, power-grabs, or should be made legal, is disputable.

If you take these issues seriously, then you should understand the point I was making. I have never defended Bush or this administration beyond trying to illustrate that there are always two sides to every issue. My personal opinion, even though it is meaningless, is that this current administration sucks. And as I pointed out, I certainly have made mistakes in my political choices before (Nixon comment).

I have a hard time putting weight in someone’s opinion when they seem to be starting threads with an agenda. 404 was coming across, due to the starting of 3 threads within 2 days, as a person who was simply had a bitterness towards Bush. I think it is fine to take that position, start a thread ‘I hate Bush and here is why’. My bitch was about starting threads that present only one side of a issue and presenting it as reality.

It is a sure sign of limited thinking when someone presents only one side of an issue, particularly when that position is to the extreme side (one end or the other) of the discussion spectrum. This is true for Republicans/Democrats, Euros/Americans, Jews/Arabs, Blacks/Whites, etc etc etc. Just look at the recent religious threads in these forums where a person took an extreme position with the literal interpretation of the bible.

So to summarize, I was not saying that anyone needs to site a particular source of information for it to be considered reality. I am saying that if anyone wants to be more effective in presenting their position, do not take the easy way out. This means spending the time to hear and understand the other side of the issue. Consider that your position may be affected by emotions and try to put it aside. Go ahead and present both sides of the issue, show people that you understand all the perspectives, you have done the work, and that your purported objective thread is not simply a personal vent.

[404 Not Found]

In my defense, I must note that the one thread does not simply point a finger at Bush as my source for my being upset upon his action. The thread that notes how a war on terrorism can be an objective when we harbor a known terrorist is what the point was about. To not turn him over for trial upon his crimes due to a fear of torture, when we ourselves torture what we believe are terror suspects.

If it was read with any scrutiny, it would note that this was a subject that has roots since 1976, so it is not just geared at Bush. It was a thread that shows that what one government percieves as a terrorist, the other side does not.

It was only a thread to point out policy failure and not just a stab at Bush solely as this is decades old.

I know that everyone undertands my dislike for Bush, but the 3rd thread you mentioned was not about Bush, rather on how hypocritical the worlds war on terror is, when one government can support and not turn over a terroist, yet fight a war on terror while demanding the turnover of known terrorist from others.

This is what I found to be odd and also interesting.

[Zerzera]

In a Democracy you can speak your mind, and you should. Even when the majority of people gets tired of these discussions.
In a free country there's a proper balance between freedom and limitation, and once that it's reached there will be an endless pushing from both sides.
The moment pressure drops on one side the balance will be gone.

This often happens when a charismatic and ideologic leader rises up that promises an utopia. Look at Ceausescu, Hitler, Lenin/Stalin.
A leader should be only there for the people and that balance, the moment they try to push some sort of ideological/religious agenda, some(or a lot of) people are going to get trampled.

To Blueblaze: I really dislike you, you seem to have the mind of a child. Calling someone who's in favor of freedom a terrorist doesn't sound very intelligent.

[Reaver]

I said this in my original post, but will note this again, especially when one see's the problems that the U.S.P.S. have had in the past decades.



This signing will not help. in fact it will only hurt the U.S.P.S. It is really not a security measure, but a billboard for everyone to stop using the U.S. Mail and fiond other sources as noted in my above quote. It's all just bad publicity & poor marketing.

Even though this is really another topic most people aren't discussing, I'll say it. I'd much rather see the U.S.P.S. drastically hurt, mail used much less and technology used much more. Why? Because we have the technology available to stop using so much paper! This won't be enough to move us from a reliance on paper, but it's a step in the right direction, even though the process by which we're getting there isn't right.

With that aside, I honestly feel like it's not a big deal that the government is checking into my 1st class mail. What I'm more concerned with are the next privacy infringements they legalize. It all comes back to how much Americans are willing to give up in freedom and privacy in order to live a more secure and safe life. How many people they'll catch, and finally how many people will be saved from this, I don't know but I'm betting at least a few. I for one am willing to give up this small amount of privacy for someone's life.

P.S. I think you mentioned that you caught this information on C-Span, is that correct? I don't think I get C-Span but if they're actually bringing news of importance to people then I must get it. I'm tired of over dramatized news with their bleeding heart propaganda blindfolding Americans by diverting their attention to minuscule bullshit. You do a better job of bringing important news than they do, 404.

Edit: Once again, interesting topic posted by 404. Try to switch things up a bit if you don't mind, with topics about other politicians. Possibly discuss some good things Bush or other's have done too, please.

Double Edit: It would be fantastic if we could cover some politicians that are soon up for re-election or people running for positions.

[404 Not Found]

P.S. I think you mentioned that you caught this information on C-Span, is that correct? I don't think I get C-Span but if they're actually bringing news of importance to people then I must get it.

Most people would think C-Span is the most boring channel ever presented to viewers. It's a 24 hour channel and has C-Span 1 and C-Span 2. One covers the House and the other the Senate for the most. It shows live coverage of the legislation on both floors of the Capital.

As far as my other news sources, There is always MSNBC, CNN, BBC, PBS for TV. On the net I read from many sources. The U.S. Dept of Def website, National Security Archive website, BBC News, CNN, WorldNews.com, The Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Herald, Chicago Trib., NY Times., Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting & one of my favorite sites to see how every politician voted or did not vote on -"On The Issues"