Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 Would it be too much to ask to leave the U.S. politics discussion off the list? I've just left AA. I feel raw. I hear enough of this stuff all day. I kinda need a space where I can hear you guys discuss AA without the politics. And yes, I can avoid the posts that are obviously political, but if you MUST discuss politics, can you put an OT in the heading or something so I'm *sure* I can just skip that email? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 At 06:09 PM 10/4/01 -0000, no_never_met_him@... wrote: >Pete and List. > >Pete I want to thank you on two accounts. First I want to thank you >for your consideration that some people may not want to see the >humorous photos you have. I can understand how some people may take >offense to them as well. I saw the photos myself and I thought they >were very very funny. But I would up the ante a bit and call >this " Guillotine Humor " . I haven't seen these, not sure that I want to, but that's not the point of this message... >My other note of thanks comes out of the >spirit of the First Amendment of The Constitution of the United >States of America. There have been some recent events in the news >which have convinced me that this is something that is not as valued >in America as all the lip service we get may suggest. Journalists are >being fired or their jobs threatened for expressing views that differ >from the popular kill 'em all spirit. A journalist in Oregon was >fired for writing a column that criticized our president and other >national leaders for not returning to Washington sooner to lead the >country. I do not agree with his point, but I would fight tooth and >nail for his right to express it. And then Bill Maher said somethign >on Politically Incorrect one night about bravery and how calling what >the terrorists did a cowardly act was really inaccurate. I think all >of his sponsors dropped him and under high pressure from the network >he uttered an apology. Since when are we forced to apologize for >exercising our right to free speech in America???? You can exercise it all you want, you don't have the right to have advertisers pay for you to speak your mind on TV. >If I was Bill >Maher, I would have said, " Fuck you, I am going to go get a new job. >I am not going to swallow any of this Gestapo crap. " I have to say that the advertisers and the network were gutless for pressuring this, and Mahler was also gutless for caving in, but these are not the scariest things... >People are being >called traitors for opposing a war, for suggesting that the >perpetrators of the events of 11 September had other motivations >than " hating freedom " , or for thinking differently than the Bush >administration. What sort of propaganda is this? What is going on? >This is very frightening stuff. I won't argue that it's not frightening, but as far as I can tell, none of the above was done by the US or any other governnment. I don't find it as frightening as the other things I've read about. From this link: http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm> If you read this after Thursday night, Neal will have Friday's rant up, and the correct link for Thursday's text should be: http://www.boortz.com/oct4-01.htm> [i'll just quote this particular tirade (Neal also has other rants on this webpage) and add a comment in brackets - Ben] SECURITY VS. FREEDOM We have some chilling poll news from Interactive. Americans are ready to give up their freedom--they're just waiting for the government to say the word. Some of the results of the poll, which was conducted from September 19-24: 86 percent favor implementing new face-recognition technology for airline passengers. 81 percent want to give the government increased powers to oversee banking transactions. 68 percent want to see a national I.D. card introduced in the U.S. 63 percent want more video surveillance of public places. 63 percent want government controls over Internet transactions. 54 percent want greater monitoring of cell phone conversations and e-mail messages. But as many as 79 percent of the respondents said they were worried that police and the federal government could abuse these powers. Only 34 percent were confident that the new powers would be used properly against terrorists. So we're worried that the government won't use broadened surveillance powers responsibly...but we still want to give them the power. Count this as a partial victory for the terrorists. The Imperial Federal Government has asked for more power to scrutinize bank transactions before. It was called the " Know Your Customer " law. Your bank would have been required to develop a profile on you, monitor your transactions, and report on you if you made a " suspicious " (read: large) deposit or withdrawal. Once talk radio got wind of the plan and got people talking about it, the proposal died. [This concerned the War On Drugs and the cash deposits and withdrawals done by drug dealers - Neal has discussed this and the forfieture (sp?) laws started for the WOD and related things many times] Now the circumstances are different. There's a clear and present danger to the American people...and the American people are willing to give up all sorts of personal liberties to have a little more security. They may not trust the government completely--but they're still willing to give up those liberties. What happens after a national I.D. card gets implemented? What if the federal government starts making it a mandatory part of any gun purchase or bank transaction? What if the national I.D. card is required for purchases? Does the government need to know what groceries you buy, or how many guns you own? Does the government need to know that you bought an ointment for that scaly rash you had last winter? What if you need to wire several thousand dollars to a relative to help him pay for his medical bills? Or if you pay cash for a car in a private transaction? Do you want the government looking over your shoulder then? Where does it end? http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011004-7692312.htm> ---------- http://listen.to/benbradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.