#Reminder# From Micheal Moore

[OCinBuffalo]

So you are a fan of big government. And government being your nanny. And government intervention in your life.

 

You can't have it both ways. I'm willing to live more free and take the risk of more attacks. You want to give up freedoms and put your trust in government efficiency in order to feel safer. Just a difference in philosophy. I prefer small government--you prefer big government.

Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? What kind of "argument" is this counselor?

 

You: "Yes I will gladly compare these apples to coconuts, since after all they are both fruit..."

 

Size of government, or in this case coconuts, has nothing to do with this. It comes down to rules of engagement, not size of anything. You can give the exact same # of FBI/CIA people different rules and get vastly different outcomes. And, as Obama, etc. have now proven: arguing against "Bush's Policies" was stupid since no reasonable alternative exists(see: GITMO is STILL OPEN, idiots). So...by definition, size has nothing to do with this.

 

Piss poor thinking = Micheal Moore telling us "There is no terrorist threat", has nothing to do with how large or small the government is, it's just piss poor thinking. You seem to want to have a discussion predicated on this piss poor thinking/assertion. My question is: why waste our time? As I said above, at this point, anybody attempting to tell us that a credible terrorist threat doesn't exist, is either lying, crazy, or an idiot.

[Booster4324]

http://itanimulli.com/

 

Grrr thanks, now I am probably on yet another list.

[John Adams]

Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? What kind of "argument" is this counselor?

 

You: "Yes I will gladly compare these apples to coconuts, since after all they are both fruit..."

 

Size of government, or in this case coconuts, has nothing to do with this. It comes down to rules of engagement, not size of anything. You can give the exact same # of FBI/CIA people different rules and get vastly different outcomes. And, as Obama, etc. have now proven: arguing against "Bush's Policies" was stupid since no reasonable alternative exists(see: GITMO is STILL OPEN, idiots). So...by definition, size has nothing to do with this.

 

Piss poor thinking = Micheal Moore telling us "There is no terrorist threat", has nothing to do with how large or small the government is, it's just piss poor thinking. You seem to want to have a discussion predicated on this piss poor thinking/assertion. My question is: why waste our time? As I said above, at this point, anybody attempting to tell us that a credible terrorist threat doesn't exist, is either lying, crazy, or an idiot.

 

Let's simplify things for you. The "size" of government has less to do with the bodies in it (though that increases every day) but also something to do with its reach, control, and role in your life. You're for it. Which means you're for bigger government. That's OK. Hypocritical like 99% of modern would-be conservatives but at least own it.

 

And as to Moore's comment, you obviously know what he meant because you are arguing about it. Moore is mostly moron, but on this topic he's kind of right. The terrorist threat was used as a reason to expand government powers disproportionately to the threat. You have no problem with that. I do.

[Celtic_soulja]

You can't even say Moore is a little right, man. The liberal cooties will infest your mind if you start thinking like that. heheheeh

 

The threat is there, our response to it could not have been more Anti-American.

 

More guns and more freedom is obviously the answer. Not some far reaching governments. Less government would work. Our response time was too slow, but not by much. So what did we do? Add more levels of bureaucracy. Our response to Katrina was even more pathetic, showing that we are getting even slower than we were pre 9/11. More guns, more freedom. Let us carry guns on airlines, on a bus, in a taxi, teachers with guns, soldiers that can carry guns on a base. More guns more freedom

[OCinBuffalo]

Let's simplify things for you. The "size" of government has less to do with the bodies in it (though that increases every day) but also something to do with its reach, control, and role in your life. You're for it. Which means you're for bigger government. That's OK. Hypocritical like 99% of modern would-be conservatives but at least own it.

Flat out wrong/inside out. Your "simplification" doesn't answer the fundamental question. So I will make it even more simple for you: IS THERE A TERRORIST THREAT OR NOT? Simple enough?

 

"Size of Government" has always been defined as # of people in it, first, or at least since FDR. See, the whole retarded Obama/Jimmy Carter plan is: give people government jobs first, making them beholden and buying their vote. The solution those added jobs provide is a secondary concern. This exact same mentality is driving all of this government expansion across the board. And, as more people are added to the payroll, suddenly, we have to find something for them to do ....and that's how government power gets expanded.

 

You simply have it backasswards. No surprise that a lawyer would mess this up. And again, none of this has anything to do with whether or not there is a terrorist threat. You still haven't acknowledged the truth: there is one and we have to go do something about it. What we do is another matter.

And as to Moore's comment, you obviously know what he meant because you are arguing about it. Moore is mostly moron, but on this topic he's kind of right. The terrorist threat was used as a reason to expand government powers disproportionately to the threat. You have no problem with that. I do.

1. Where did I say any of that? Answer: noplace.

2. My issue is with Moore, and you apparently, either being crazy, dishonest or choosing stupidity regarding this issue. Is there a terrorist threat or not? Answer the question and stop obfuscating.

3. I haven't said a thing about our response to this threat, whether I like it, support it, etc. As was said above, you have made a giant leap here, and, with nothing under your feet, get ready for the fall

 

You could ask me if I support the response to the threat. You could ask me what I would be doing differently. However, that would be talking about the solution. We are still stuck on defining the problem, because apparently you haven't admitted the problem exists yet. For the last time: is there a terrorist threat, or not?

[OCinBuffalo]

You can't even say Moore is a little right, man. The liberal cooties will infest your mind if you start thinking like that. heheheeh

What part of "There is no terrorist threat" is right? Answer: none of it. As I said above, the first step is always defining the problem. Saying "There is no terrorist" threat doesn't define the problem, it attempts to deny it exists. Isn't flat out denial of reality far and away more nefarious than anything else? This is pure logic dude: you can't solve a problem until you define it, and you can't define it if you won't admit it exists. Anything else is 100% wrong, leaving no room for Moore's, etc. mewling.

The threat is there,

ahh, finally, now we can get somewhere. See, that wasn't so bad now was it?

our response to it could not have been more Anti-American.

Not sure about this: I can think of many things that Bush, etc. could have done that they didn't...and I am certain those steps are much are more Anti-American that what we have now. Please understand it could be a lot worse, and that is what I am worried about. I am worried that not doing enough, leading to us getting hit, will cause a massive overreaction that will make what have now seem like nothing.

 

There is risk in invading privacy to stop terrorists, but, there is just as much risk in not doing so. When has the Federal government/media NOT overreacted? Or, how the hell did we end up with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House?->How the hell did we end up in Iraq?->How the hell did 9/11 happen?->We did NOTHING when these a-holes declared war on us in 1996, and I see the rest as a series of overreactions. Therefore, the root cause of this is doing nothing in 1996. At least doing something can be scrutinized. Doing nothing, and pretending the problem doesn't exist, or, pretending this is a legal matter, instead of a war, is far more dangerous.

More guns and more freedom is obviously the answer. Not some far reaching governments. Less government would work. Our response time was too slow, but not by much. So what did we do? Add more levels of bureaucracy. Our response to Katrina was even more pathetic, showing that we are getting even slower than we were pre 9/11. More guns, more freedom. Let us carry guns on airlines, on a bus, in a taxi, teachers with guns, soldiers that can carry guns on a base. More guns more freedom

Interesting. The only problem with that is: what happens when there is a misunderstanding, and a supermarket turns into a fire fight? It only takes one for the idiots to say "see what happens". Look at how they are trying to attack the tea party for being violent using nothing other than supposition. I am all for less government because I am all for less power for politicians and their bureaucratic slaves. The country was designed for political service, not political careers, and was never intended to allow people to "vote themselves money". But, I am for the Feds focusing on what they are Constitutionally supposed to be doing = national defense, and not focusing on things they aren't = nationalized health care.

 

Fundamentally: I am far less concerned with doing things in this country. I would much rather be focused on doing thing in other countries. Taking the battle to the enemy's doorstep is a time tested winning strategy. I would much rather see us focus on limiting the enemy's freedom, invading his privacy, invading his center mass with 5.56 rounds, invading his vehicles with Hellfire missiles, and doing "Un-American" things in places that aren't America, than worry about what we are doing here.

[Alaska Darin]

The "root cause" of this crap is that you and I and the vast majority of U.S. citizens are "infidels" and deserve to die according to a significant portion of the Muslim faith.

I'll all but guarantee you don't know ANY Muslims.

[Alaska Darin]

Yes, that's why they attacked in Spain, Italy, Germany and the UK?

I don't know. I don't live in those places and I'm too lazy to spend the time to look at all the tentacles required. I have no idea the root cause of their terrorism problem(s) but I am smart enough to know it's not the stupid and overly regurgitated and intellectually bankrupt "argument" that you're trying to pass off.

 

Every egg doesn't always fit in the same basket.

[3rdnlng]

I'll all but guarantee you don't know ANY Muslims.

 

 

Well, you would be wrong then. That was a response to my statement that a significant amount of the Muslim population regard U.S. citizens as "infidels" and believe we deserve to die? Somehow I thought you were better than that. That was just a weak and dumbass response.

 

Do you remember the televised outpouring of pure joy in Palestine when the Twin Towers went down? Those people were dancing in the street. They are our enemy and not because of our actions, but because of who we are. This is a clash of civilizations and religions. It is not about our arrogance or meddling as you and Obama might claim. It is about them wanting us to convert or die. Therefore there is no compromising or appeasement. The sooner we come to that realization the better off (safer) we will be.

[3rdnlng]

I don't know. I don't live in those places and I'm too lazy to spend the time to look at all the tentacles required. I have no idea the root cause of their terrorism problem(s) but I am smart enough to know it's not the stupid and overly regurgitated and intellectually bankrupt "argument" that you're trying to pass off.

 

Every egg doesn't always fit in the same basket.

 

This is another weak response. You're "too lazy" to spend the time to understand why those other countries have been attacked? Fine. I'll give you the answer; it is because they are "Westerners" and "Infidels". This happens to be my own opinion based on observation and using my brain. It is not based on your leftist catch-all phrase that invariably includes references to "overly regurgitated and intellectually bankrupt arguments". I'll be glad to have a well thought out discussion with you but if you're going to argue like Conner or pBills I won't waste my time.

[GG]

I don't know. I don't live in those places and I'm too lazy to spend the time to look at all the tentacles required. I have no idea the root cause of their terrorism problem(s) but I am smart enough to know it's not the stupid and overly regurgitated and intellectually bankrupt "argument" that you're trying to pass off.

 

Every egg doesn't always fit in the same basket.

 

How's this for an exercise, of all the foreign lands that you've been in thanks to US Gov't sticking its nose everywhere, have you been met with outright hatred everywhere?

 

Asked another way, why haven't we seen any plots by Japanese, Germans, Vietnamese, Argentinians, El Salvadorians, Haitians, Panamanians, Nicaraguans, Brazilians, Cubans, or Serbians to blow up NYC sidewalks? Hell, I'm not aware of any plans by Iraqis to conduct jihad in the US, even though they probably have very good reason to do so.

 

While it's convenient to blame US imperialism for the cause of the jihad, it's ignorant to dismiss the true foundation of radical Islamism and why it's different than anything else that the world has faced in its history. It's about time that people are waking up to the Muslim Brotherhood and its roots.

[John Adams]

...blah blah blah

 

Why would you want to argue about "whether" there is a terroristic threat? Do you also want to argue that child rapists are bad?

 

Perhaps the argument departed from the statement "There is no terrorist threat" to the broader topic about how the government is growing/expanding (in people and scope) disproportionately in response to it because that is actually a topic worth discussing and that was Moore's point, however it was taken out of context.

 

Carry on though: You obviously feel it's worthwhile to debate whether there is a terroristic threat.

[3rdnlng]

Why would you want to argue about "whether" there is a terroristic threat? Do you also want to argue that child rapists are bad?

 

Perhaps the argument departed from the statement "There is no terrorist threat" to the broader topic about how the government is growing/expanding (in people and scope) disproportionately in response to it because that is actually a topic worth discussing and that was Moore's point, however it was taken out of context.

 

Carry on though: You obviously feel it's worthwhile to debate whether there is a terroristic threat.

 

I guess no reasonable person could argue that there is no terrorist threat. I also don't think that OCinBuffalo is arguing for an expanded government. I am not for an expanded or bloated (further) government either. My argument is to allow certain common sense investigative powers to be utilized in preventing terrorism. Now I know that sounds like a typical liberal statement that doesn't include specifics, but to be honest with you I'm not even sure what those powers might consist of. They might include a little profiling or expanded eavesdropping. I guess I would judge them on a case-by-case basis. I do know that there is a determined group of people that have vowed to destroy as many Americans as they can. I guess that I would like to see the government have the ability to do what they are supposed to do and that is to protect this country.

[RkFast]

I can make up any **** I want, but that doesn't make it true. You call me naive and then back it up with...NOTHING.

 

If you're going to drag conspiracy theories into the discussion, have some evidence to back them up. Which conspiracy sites exactly are you getting your truth from?

 

LOLOLOL.

 

Thats twice in one thread. Wanna go for a third?

[OCinBuffalo]

Why would you want to argue about "whether" there is a terroristic threat? Do you also want to argue that child rapists are bad?

 

Perhaps the argument departed from the statement "There is no terrorist threat" to the broader topic about how the government is growing/expanding (in people and scope) disproportionately in response to it because that is actually a topic worth discussing and that was Moore's point, however it was taken out of context.

 

Carry on though: You obviously feel it's worthwhile to debate whether there is a terroristic threat.

So, given the fact that you, once again, have lost the argument, you try to talk about "the broader topic"? Dude, it was retarded to say "There is no terrorist threat" in any and all contexts. You know it, now deal with it. There was nothing "courageous" about it, nothing admirable, just a f'ing coward running his mouth.

 

You want to talk to me about our response? That's one thing. Telling people that a problem either doesn't exist, or propagating the lie that "It's all being manufactured by the government" in the hope that you will gain something politically, is a-hole behavior and there is no excuse for it.

 

Now that you have conceded, I'd be more than willing to talk about our response to the clearly existing and ongoing terrorist threat. The fact is that there has been a terrorist threat against this country from 1996 until right this second. Now, given your concession of that fact, feel free to proceed within, and only within, THAT context....

[Celtic_soulja]

What part of "There is no terrorist threat" is right? Answer: none of it. As I said above, the first step is always defining the problem. Saying "There is no terrorist" threat doesn't define the problem, it attempts to deny it exists. Isn't flat out denial of reality far and away more nefarious than anything else? This is pure logic dude: you can't solve a problem until you define it, and you can't define it if you won't admit it exists. Anything else is 100% wrong, leaving no room for Moore's, etc. mewling.

 

ahh, finally, now we can get somewhere. See, that wasn't so bad now was it?

 

Not sure about this: I can think of many things that Bush, etc. could have done that they didn't...and I am certain those steps are much are more Anti-American that what we have now. Please understand it could be a lot worse, and that is what I am worried about. I am worried that not doing enough, leading to us getting hit, will cause a massive overreaction that will make what have now seem like nothing.

 

There is risk in invading privacy to stop terrorists, but, there is just as much risk in not doing so. When has the Federal government/media NOT overreacted? Or, how the hell did we end up with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House?->How the hell did we end up in Iraq?->How the hell did 9/11 happen?->We did NOTHING when these a-holes declared war on us in 1996, and I see the rest as a series of overreactions. Therefore, the root cause of this is doing nothing in 1996. At least doing something can be scrutinized. Doing nothing, and pretending the problem doesn't exist, or, pretending this is a legal matter, instead of a war, is far more dangerous.

 

Interesting. The only problem with that is: what happens when there is a misunderstanding, and a supermarket turns into a fire fight? It only takes one for the idiots to say "see what happens". Look at how they are trying to attack the tea party for being violent using nothing other than supposition. I am all for less government because I am all for less power for politicians and their bureaucratic slaves. The country was designed for political service, not political careers, and was never intended to allow people to "vote themselves money". But, I am for the Feds focusing on what they are Constitutionally supposed to be doing = national defense, and not focusing on things they aren't = nationalized health care.

 

Fundamentally: I am far less concerned with doing things in this country. I would much rather be focused on doing thing in other countries. Taking the battle to the enemy's doorstep is a time tested winning strategy. I would much rather see us focus on limiting the enemy's freedom, invading his privacy, invading his center mass with 5.56 rounds, invading his vehicles with Hellfire missiles, and doing "Un-American" things in places that aren't America, than worry about what we are doing here.

 

Not that my post was entirely written in a serious tone, but I'll go with it.

 

I agree the threat is there, and my first line about Moore and believing in him was totally in jest, and analyzing that is suspect. I think Moore is an azz, and always have.

 

About epidemics of supermarkets turning into shooting galleries is unwaranted. It is obvious you have never carried a guy. Personally, when I am carrying a weapon, I am much more careful to avoid confrontation. It still lurks in your mind that murder is 25 to life, as a matter of fact it is more in your mind when you do have a piece on you, well speaking for myself anyway. If more people were given the right to carry weapons, everyone would still not choose to carry. It is not as if we would mandate gats. What it would do is make any would be terrorist a little less likely to try and pull that crap in the United States knowing there could be a plane full of DE .50's in his face. More freedom, more responsibility. That has always been the answer to fix things.

 

We keep relying in your method of government reliance, we will continue to weaken our nation.

[DC Tom]

About epidemics of supermarkets turning into shooting galleries is unwaranted. It is obvious you have never carried a guy. Personally, when I am carrying a weapon, I am much more careful to avoid confrontation. It still lurks in your mind that murder is 25 to life, as a matter of fact it is more in your mind when you do have a piece on you, well speaking for myself anyway. If more people were given the right to carry weapons, everyone would still not choose to carry. It is not as if we would mandate gats. What it would do is make any would be terrorist a little less likely to try and pull that crap in the United States knowing there could be a plane full of DE .50's in his face. More freedom, more responsibility. That has always been the answer to fix things.

 

So do you carry a guy, a gun, or a gat?

[Gene Frenkle]

How's this for an exercise, of all the foreign lands that you've been in thanks to US Gov't sticking its nose everywhere, have you been met with outright hatred everywhere?

 

Asked another way, why haven't we seen any plots by Japanese, Germans, Vietnamese, Argentinians, El Salvadorians, Haitians, Panamanians, Nicaraguans, Brazilians, Cubans, or Serbians to blow up NYC sidewalks? Hell, I'm not aware of any plans by Iraqis to conduct jihad in the US, even though they probably have very good reason to do so.

 

While it's convenient to blame US imperialism for the cause of the jihad, it's ignorant to dismiss the true foundation of radical Islamism and why it's different than anything else that the world has faced in its history. It's about time that people are waking up to the Muslim Brotherhood and its roots.

It's our extreme, long-lived support of Israel that makes the people in Arab countries hate the US.

[Celtic_soulja]

So do you carry a guy, a gun, or a gat?

 

I carry a guy with a gun he calls his gat.

[Gene Frenkle]

I guess no reasonable person could argue that there is no terrorist threat. I also don't think that OCinBuffalo is arguing for an expanded government. I am not for an expanded or bloated (further) government either. My argument is to allow certain common sense investigative powers to be utilized in preventing terrorism. Now I know that sounds like a typical liberal statement that doesn't include specifics, but to be honest with you I'm not even sure what those powers might consist of. They might include a little profiling or expanded eavesdropping. I guess I would judge them on a case-by-case basis. I do know that there is a determined group of people that have vowed to destroy as many Americans as they can. I guess that I would like to see the government have the ability to do what they are supposed to do and that is to protect this country.

So you don't really know what you're bitching about, you just know you hate the team that's currently in office.