N-Syte said: Actually, there is one reference to God in the Constitution. The signers signed it "in the year of our Lord."

Yeah-huh.  You're just being a smartass, right?  Or do you actually think that putting "A.D." after the date means "I believe in God and our government should be based on religion"? 

I don't think that actually counts as "in the Constitution" any more than "John Hancock" -- OMG the Founding Fathers endorsed masturbation!

P.S. Nevertheless, I do stand corrected. Thank you.

P.P.S. Seriously, though, our dating system is based on an estimate of the year of the birth of Jesus Christ. It doesn't get much more religious than that. But it doesn't mean anything.

That's my whole point, the Constitution is not being gutted. Trust me, I think the government has grown well beyond its intended purpose. But it is not the primary functions of government, such as defense, that I worry about. It is the secondary impulses such as the expansion of entitlements that bother me. A government that wants to take care of all of your responsibilities is taking far greater liberties from you than its aggressive actions against terrorist cells.

Yes, I did mean to say British. I though it was implied that some intercepted communications were intended for Americans. Sort of a domestic spying analogy. Unless you are aware of Bush intercepting communications between Americans. If so, send the story to the NYT right away.

So Bush was the incompetent one that let Bin Laden go? Even when Clinton was served Bin Laden on a silver platter multiple times, but chose not to take him? That's harsh. But I suppose it is better you did not put it on the doorstep of the troops who are scouring the mountains of Pakistan/Afghanistan looking for him. I think you underestimate just how tricky it might be to find a recluse holed away in a cave in the wilderness.

Pointing out aggresive tactics the US has used in the past, is not meant to justify what is being done today. It is meant to bring some context. People talk about Bush with such irrational emotion. To say he is this country's greatest threat borders on hysterics.

N-Syte...

1. Curveball
2. Plamegate
3. "Slam dunk"
4. "If I had the political capital" (said in 2000)
etc.

Look up the facts. If you don't know what I'm referencing, you shouldn't be talking. Yes, the whole build up to the war was a sham.



Final Fan

Saying that Ron Paul believes in Theocracy, and doesn't believe in the seperation between church and state, is a simple lie. Not unlike the folks who claim he's a racist, etc. With his voting record and ethics, the best way to discredit him is to simply lie.

Yes, Paul does believe that churches and charity groups should do more to provide schools, hospitals and other services, rather than the government. These organizations can use money efficiently, act with altruism, and are run on free-will offerings instead of taxes. What's not to love?

But for pete's sake, he refuses to talk about his own religious beliefs beyond how it affects his policy (Christian Just War Doctrine, for one), and you claim he doesn't believe in seperation of church and state. Gimme a break.

As for the "superhighway," (which you can find ample documentation of, though it has never had any momentum) the greater point is the ideological debate of about the size of government. Some people do talk very openly about having one world government. Paul doesn't even like the size of the federal government, and wants to give power back to the state and local levels.

N-Syte said: That's my whole point, the Constitution is not being gutted. Trust me, I think the government has grown well beyond its intended purpose. But it is not the primary functions of government, such as defense, that I worry about. It is the secondary impulses such as the expansion of entitlements that bother me. A government that wants to take care of all of your responsibilities is taking far greater liberties from you than its aggressive actions against terrorist cells. Yes, I did mean to say British. I though it was implied that some intercepted communications were intended for Americans. Sort of a domestic spying analogy. Unless you are aware of Bush intercepting communications between Americans. If so, send the story to the NYT right away. So Bush was the incompetent one that let Bin Laden go? Even when Clinton was served Bin Laden on a silver platter multiple times, but chose not to take him? That's harsh. But I suppose it is better you did not put it on the doorstep of the troops who are scouring the mountains of Pakistan/Afghanistan looking for him. I think you underestimate just how tricky it might be to find a recluse holed away in a cave in the wilderness. Pointing out aggresive tactics the US has used in the past, is not meant to justify what is being done today. It is meant to bring some context. People talk about Bush with such irrational emotion. To say he is this country's greatest threat borders on hysterics.

AHAHAHAHAHA. Too easy. The New York Times already broke the story. Not spying domestically? "The program President Bush authorized reportedly allows the NSA to mine huge sets of domestic data for suspicious patterns, regardless of whether the source of the data is an American citizen or resident." http://www.slate.com/id/2133564/ also http://www.slate.com/id/2132810/ As for Clinton vs. Bush fuckups, Bin Laden wasn't A WORLD FAMOUS WTC-KNOCKER-DOWNER THE POTUS SWORE VENGEANCE ON in the 1990s. Tora Bora http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/24/pentagon.binladen/index.html and as recently as August of THIS YEAR http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304306,00.html

N-Syte

First of all, read Naomi Wolf's "Fascist America in 10 steps," if you haven't.

Second, I agree with you that the growth of entitlements needs to stop. But focusing on national military power inevitably takes freedom from the people too. Both require big government and big taxes. We would be far safer and far more free if we had no wars in the middle east, no bases overseas at all, and in turn had been able to make a fast, strategic strike against Al Quada after 9/11.

Third, as far as the threat of Bush... To me, a 20 year old American male, Bush is FAR greater threat to my very life than Osama is. Osama really has very limited ability to kill me unless my government ships me closer to him. And to the rest of the world, Bush dropping the bomb on Iran must seem like a far more likely and more scary scenario than Iran dropping a bomb anywhere, even before we found out they dropped their weapons program 4 years ago.

That line you say is a lie, the notorious 16 words, is still backed by the British who were the source of the intelligence (Lord Butler report). It is not disputed that an Iraqi trade delegation went to Nigeria. Nigeria's natural resources include uranium, oil and goats. Now which do you think oil rich Iraq was interested in? A piece of yellow cake anyone? Did you ever wonder how Wilson came to know with certainty that Iraq was not after WMD during their visit. The Nigerians told him it was all a misunderstanding over some iced tea? Do you even know how long he stayed there for his in depth "investigation". Did you know his own reports conflict? I'm sure they were only human errors and not deliberate lies, but still. You also know it was Armitage that leaked the name, a Republican CRITIC of the war? Of course he never came forward to fess up until much later, but gave you plenty of time to ring your hands over who in the Bush administration was the true culprit!

But your argument is that everyone was saying, "I think he has WMD's, but I'm not really sure."

While Bush said "I KNOW he has WMD's" when he really KNEW there were not. He just failed to think about how he was going to explain himself when the war proved he was a phoney.

Boy, that's quite the case you have there. It seems like you've come to a conclusion you feel very confident of, but have to backfill the facts to support it. Every statement Bush makes is a lie. Everyone else gets the benfit of the doubt.

And yes, I was just kidding when I brought up the date at the end of the Constitution. A little levity never hurts, eh?

Yes Final Fan. I am aware of that story. It had run for months it seems. That is why I said between Americans. The admistration has claimed that only communications of Americans being intercepted are those with suspected terrorists. If you have a problem with that, I think you're making a great mistake. If you know of communications between Americans, again forward the story on. My guess is you are safe unless you have a good friend in al Queda you like to chat with from time to time. All your calls to Grandma are probably not making the CIA's list.

Bin Laden was known as a very dangerous man well before WTC. But it doesn't seem Clinton was all to agressive going after the network behind the 93 WTC bombing either? Just throw a few guys in jail and call it a day!

Ron Paul's OWN WORDS:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."

So, CHURCHES THAT ECLIPSE THE STATE IN IMPORTANCE on the earthly plane. How is that not theocracy?

By the way: "Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government." Yeah, except for the IMMORAL and UNCIVIL ones we have to be protected against.

Ron Paul: "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

Thomas Jefferson: "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." HE INVENTED THE PHRASE.

"Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war." Yes, that's exactly the kind of man I trust not to try to break down the secular nature of our government.

There's a lot more that I object to in those two paragraphs, but I have to work twelve hours tomorrow -- make that today.

N-Syte said: Yes Final Fan. I am aware of that story. It had run for months it seems. That is why I said between Americans. The admistration has claimed that only communications of Americans being intercepted are those with suspected terrorists. If you have a problem with that, I think you're making a great mistake. If you know of communications between Americans, again forward the story on. My guess is you are safe unless you have a good friend in al Queda you like to chat with from time to time. All your calls to Grandma are probably not making the CIA's list. Bin Laden was known as a very dangerous man well before WTC. But it doesn't seem Clinton was all to agressive going after the network behind the 93 WTC bombing either? Just throw a few guys in jail and call it a day!

The NSA got all telecom companies except for Qwest to give them TOTAL ACCESS TO ALL INTERNET COMMUNICATION. "We only spied on bad guys!" You trust them. I'm not going to argue with someone who doesn't see the danger of TOTAL LACK OF OVERSIGHT of the people spying on people. Who doesn't see the potential for abuse when no one has to answer to any kind of regulatory body. Not when I have sleep, or work, or play, or paint I can watch dry.

N-Syte said: Bin Laden was known as a very dangerous man well before WTC. But it doesn't seem Clinton was all to agressive going after the network behind the 93 WTC bombing either? Just throw a few guys in jail and call it a day!

 Wag the dog wag the dog wag the dog was all the republicans said.. they accused clinton of fabricating the threat in order to take notice off the monica lewinsky scandal. Do you remember the 1998 bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? Clinton tried to do something and the republicans fought him on every step of the way. wag the dog wag the dog wag the dog.