X&%#$ Police State

cmr164

So the outside of the Manhattan HSBC bank has the following [url="%20%20%20%20http://www.iisc.com/nyc_040907/pages/IH9T3313.html"]plaque[/url] (see URL) and while I was outside the bank, one of their security droids comes up to me and says "It is illegal to take pictures of the bank". I tell him that it is legal for me to take a picture of the outside of any building and of anything I can see from the public sidewalk and proceed to take the picture of the above historical plaque. The droid gets on the walkie talkie and starts calling his fellow droids to the scene. I would have stuck around to follow up with a complaint to an HSBC VP type but I needed to be at the consulate by 2PM so I saunter off as they try to gather the courage to cross the street.

Some here might not like me saying this, but I directly blame this kind of mentality on the policies encouraging a police state put in place by this administration.

lynnma

cmr164 wrote:

So the outside of the Manhattan HSBC bank has the following plaque (see URL) and while I was outside the bank, one of their security droids comes up to me and says "It is illegal to take pictures of the bank". I tell him that it is legal for me to take a picture of the outside of any building and of anything I can see from the public sidewalk and proceed to take the picture of the above historical plaque. The droid gets on the walkie talkie and starts calling his fellow droids to the scene. I would have stuck around to follow up with a complaint to an HSBC VP type but I needed to be at the consulate by 2PM so I saunter off as they try to gather the courage to cross the street.

Some here might not like me saying this, but I directly blame this kind of mentality on the policies encouraging a police state put in place by this administration.

thats really scary charles...

ginger_55

I read yesterday that

1) you can take a picture of anything in public

2) to use that picture, for financial gain, you might, and probably will, need a release. That in fact that is true for all buildings built after a specific time, I think 1990.

3) I would imagine the Home Security act has, in fact, made it illiegal to take pictures of many things.

4) I predicted this

5) I hate it

6) We are about to watch the great American public vote for these policies over and over again..............................there are bad people out there, all of a sudden.

7) IMO, this has nothing to do with our safetly. If you want a photo, do it the new way, use a miniature camera.

g

mercphoto

we are at war

cmr164 wrote:

Some here might not like me saying this, but I directly blame this kind of mentality on the policies encouraging a police state put in place by this administration.

Whatever.

Soap box on: We are at war. Bin Laden declared war a decade ago. After 9/11/01 half this country still doesn't believe it. We had temporary liberties removed during WW-II, and things went back to normal afterwards. This is not a law enforcement problem, this is not something that can be appeased, this is not something that can be done "more sensitively".

We are FAR from being in a "police state". Please...

Soap box off.

Let's please keep this to cameras and not about politics.

DavidTO

mercphoto wrote:

Let's please keep this to cameras and not about politics.

That's what wide angle is for: everything else you want to talk about besides photography. If you don't want a political disussion in the wide angle forum, don't post to it.

Andy

security guards
not a day goes by in nyc where i don't get stopped by these guys. some are nicer than others, for sure.

i've taken to photographing them!

mercphoto

terror

DavidTO wrote:

That's what wide angle is for: everything else you want to talk about besides photography. If you don't want a political disussion in the wide angle forum, don't post to it.

Fair enough. I thought wide-angle was for any photography topic that did not neatly fit into a different forum. My mistake.

I think Dennis Miller described it best when he explained why he became a Republican. He said after 9/11 he asked what could be done to prevent it in the future. The Democrats said "nothing", the Republicans laid out a plan. You might not like the specifics of the plan, but it beats the hell out of saying "we can't do anything to prevent it". We can't screen at ports of entry, we can't profile, we have to search little old ladies at airports if we are to search anyone, we can't remove a single liberty.

But as soon as another strike happens on our soil, it will be the Democrats who scream bloody murder that this administration should have done something to protect, while all along they were saying there was nothing that could be done.

Kerry's approach to the war on terror scares the crap out of me. Four more years...

gubbs

Are the mustaches standard issue?

DJ-S1

I don't know that one party will be better than the other in dealing with these issues, and I don't think either one can absolutely prevent another attack. But it really ticked me off when the dems blamed the administration for not being prepared for 9/11. No administration would have been prepared, and I think overall the government's response was pretty good. Iraq aside.

As for the bank droids, I suspect that you might have gotten a similar response even before 9/11. They would be full of bluster to scare away the common folk who didn't know any better. What else have they got to do all day? I'm sure they are more touchy now, though.

Andy, in your experience did the police in general get more aggressive post-9/11, and if so are they still at that level or have they relaxed a bit?

cmr164

mercphoto wrote:

Kerry's approach to the war on terror scares the crap out of me. Four more years...

Kerry has been stood up under fire and that is way more than Bush with his Michael Jackson routine of playing with children during the attack. Or for that matter snorting coke and going awol during 'Nam. As a disabled US Army veteran I can tell you that Bush's plans and follow though are not worth even a laugh. Now my initial post was about photography and about police state idiots trying to stop people from photographing historic buildings. You seem to have left that behind so lets bring it back. Below is a shot of the entire bank building showing the new part encapsulated by the historic part. Perhaps you can rationalise why that bulding should not be photographed but I can't and I served in the Army with an oath "...to protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies domestic and foreign..." That oath does not include any kind of dictatorial creed.



You can make out the orange vests of the droid on the corner.

mercphoto

Photographing Buildings

cmr164 wrote:

Kerry has been stood up under fire and that is way more than Bush with his Michael Jackson routine of playing with children during the attack.

Clinton dodged the draft out-right. Didn't even serve in the Guard. And Bush was never AWOL from the Guard. Funny, when Cinton ran against Dole the Dems said military service was no big deal. Now the Dems say it is a big deal. Hypocrites.

Now my initial post was about photography and about police state idiots trying to stop people from photographing historic buildings. You seem to have left that behind so lets bring it back. Below is a shot of the entire bank building showing the new part encapsulated by the historic part. Perhaps you can rationalise why that bulding should not be photographed but I can't.

Did they let you keep the photos, or ask you to delete them? You obviously still have the photos. So maybe all they really wanted to do was question you, make sure you aren't some bad guy photographing something that someone wants to bring down in a horrific manner.

I photographed the Mansfield Dam a few months back in Austin. If some officer were to come up to me and ask me why I was doing so I would not have cared.

GREAPER

mercphoto wrote:

Fair enough. I thought wide-angle was for any photography topic that did not neatly fit into a different forum. My mistake.

I think Dennis Miller described it best when he explained why he became a Republican. He said after 9/11 he asked what could be done to prevent it in the future. The Democrats said "nothing", the Republicans laid out a plan. You might not like the specifics of the plan, but it beats the hell out of saying "we can't do anything to prevent it". We can't screen at ports of entry, we can't profile, we have to search little old ladies at airports if we are to search anyone, we can't remove a single liberty.

But as soon as another strike happens on our soil, it will be the Democrats who scream bloody murder that this administration should have done something to protect, while all along they were saying there was nothing that could be done.

Kerry's approach to the war on terror scares the crap out of me. Four more years...

First, there may have been Democrats that said nothing could be done to prevent it in the future, but I assure you most Democrats dont feel that way.

Second, I for one think that if we have to give up our civil liberties to prevent it, I am not willing.

Of course I was and still am shocked by the events on 9/11. I remember the day well and will never forget. I also believe that if we allow this to change our way of life, then the terrorists succeeded far more than in the damage and loss of life they caused. The freedom to live the way we want, to enjoy artistic freedom and to say what is on our minds is what we are all about. If we have to give that up to be safe from them, what is the point.

I am not some pacifist tree hugging nut case. I believe I finding people who did this, who might do it in the future, or who are even THINKING about doing it in the future and squashing them like a bug.

Perhaps if we were not contstantly meddling with the governments of oil producing nations in an effort to maintain the price of oil maybe they wouldn't all hate us so much.

The get the support of the American people politicians were all spouting off about liberating the people of Kuwate, but when the Gulf war was over many of them flatly admitted the gulf war was about maintianing the market price of oil.

Now who do we know that profits from the oil business? .... let me think....

mercphoto

oil

GREAPER wrote:

I am not some pacifist tree hugging nut case. I believe I finding people who did this, who might do it in the future, or who are even THINKING about doing it in the future and squashing them like a bug.

Pre-emption. I like it.

Perhaps if we were not contstantly meddling with the governments of oil producing nations in an effort to maintain the price of oil maybe they wouldn't all hate us so much.

"Maintain" the price of oil in which direction? Up or down?

Now who do we know that profits from the oil business? .... let me think....

So if the price of oil were to rise substantially due to political concerns over there, you would not mind? Certainly you don't think OPEC would drop oil prices if it weren't for our "meddling".

If Kerry had his way, the government would profit from the oil business. Don't forget, he desparately wanted an extra 50 cents per gallon not very long ago. Today he complains about the high price of gas, when in recent times he wanted to be the person to cause gas prices to go up. Lovely man. Flip-flop.

damonff

These debates are what makes this country so great. I haven't been hassled yet in D.C. We'll see. I agree with Charles though that all of this fear and paranoia has been brought on by an administration that isn't concerned about our safety; if they were, they'd be looking for bin Laden in Pakistan and they're not. Why? Because US troops in a nuclear power's nation would be unacceptable to the nuclear power. Everyone knows (and Rumsfeld a.k.a. Skeletor admits) that he's in Pakistan. Now, why don't we invade Pakistan and get him? Hmm? Pakistan doesn't have oil; Pakistan has nuclear weapons; Pakistan would overthrow Musharraf in a second if we went in to look for bin Laden, then India (another nuclear power) would take the opportunity to seize Kashmir outright while Pakistan dealt with its internal matters. So, what's the easiest thing to do? Invade Iraq, a country that has never posed a threat to the United States, convince the American public that he posed a threat by creating weapons that don't (and didn't) exist, seize some oil while Americans pay $2/gallon, and on and on and on while bin Laden is out there plotting the next attack. Bin Laden knows all of this; that's why he's in Pakistan.

cmr164

mercphoto wrote:

Clinton dodged the draft out-right. Didn't even serve in the Guard. And Bush was never AWOL from the Guard. Funny, when Cinton ran against Dole the Dems said military service was no big deal. Now the Dems say it is a big deal. Hypocrites.

Can you actually say the above and look in the mirror without blushing? I talked about the current state and blamed the administration. You brought in Kerry and Democrats and now when faced with the facts of Kerry vs Bush's record you want to drag in Clinton. Who is next, Hilary?

I don't give a hoot about Demo/Repu. I care about liberty and the constitution, about sound judgment before going to war, about a sound policy when fighting a war, and particularly a sound policy for winning the post war. Bush has been the worst president in the history of this nation on those counts and that doesn't even get into the financial side.

mercphoto wrote:

Did they let you keep the photos, or ask you to delete them? You obviously still have the photos. So maybe all they really wanted to do was question you, make sure you aren't some bad guy photographing something that someone wants to bring down in a horrific manner.

Perhaps you should go back and read again. I stated what happened pretty clearly. If one of them had physically tried to stop me I would have taken my disapproval to another level.

mercphoto wrote:

I photographed the Mansfield Dam a few months back in Austin. If some officer were to come up to me and ask me why I was doing so I would not have cared.

Asking why is not what these guys were up to. Please do discuss the events reported. Leave out Woodrow Wilson, Roosevelt, either Clinton, Kerry, Winnie the Pooh, etc. Focus.... we need focus

mercphoto

unreal

damonff wrote:

all of this fear and paranoia has been brought on by an administration that isn't concerned about our safety

Yeah, right.

if they were, they'd be looking for bin Laden in Pakistan and they're not. Why? Because US troops in a nuclear power's nation would be unacceptable to the nuclear power. Everyone knows (and Rumsfeld a.k.a. Skeletor admits) that he's in Pakistan. Now, why don't we invade Pakistan and get him? Hmm? Pakistan doesn't have oil; Pakistan has nuclear weapons; Pakistan would overthrow Musharraf in a second if we went in to look for bin Laden, then India (another nuclear power) would take the opportunity to seize Kashmir outright while Pakistan dealt with its internal matters. So, what's the easiest thing to do? Invade Iraq, a country that has never posed a threat to the United States, convince the American public that he posed a threat by creating weapons that don't (and didn't) exist, seize some oil while Americans pay $2/gallon, and on and on and on while bin Laden is out there plotting the next attack. Bin Laden knows all of this; that's why he's in Pakistan.

Everyone believed Iraq had weapons. EVERYONE. The UN, Bill Clinton, Russia, France, Germany, England. EVERYONE believed it. Iraq thumbed his nose at the UN for twelve years. Sadam could have quelled those fears if wanted to. Instead he decided to play a game of chicken. Sometimes you lose when you play chicken.

When evaluating a decision, you must look only at the data you had before the decision to determine if you made the right one. Before we invaded, everyone believed he had weapons. He had used them before. He was developing more. He wanted to go nuclear. Do you really want to risk being wrong about that? A man that had invaded countries before, and used weapons on his own people? Someone who has proven he will use what he has once he has it? Someone who openly supported suicide bombers?

If you are in Vegas playing black jack and have 18, do you pass? Most would say yes. Then the guy next to you draws a three. Did you make the right decision to pass? Your answer to this question will be very telling.

Me, I'd have been much, much happier if Clinton ever showed any balls and would have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance (three times).

As far as hunting down Bin Laden goes, as you state, the process is not simple. Bin Laden knows how to play the politics of the region to his advantage. If we were to go there as you suggest, the second and third order effects would be hard to predict and likely devasting. But to suggest we went to Iraq instead of going after BL is ludicrous. We went to Iraq because the UN didn't have the guts to stand behind its threats to Iraq.

damonff

Does everyone include the weapons inspectors (Ritter, et al) including the hand picked inspector that ALSO said that there are/were none?

mercphoto wrote:

Everyone believed Iraq had weapons. EVERYONE. The UN, Bill Clinton, Russia, France, Germany, England. EVERYONE believed it.

cletus

Going back the Charles' original post...

That's kind of funny that they're trying to prevent you from taking pictures of a building from a public sidewalk. I don't know that it's a "police state" issue though. More than likely it's a combination of rent-a-cops and desk jockeys trying to make themselves feel more important. The security guards are happy because they can now harass people outside the building, and some mouth breather in a tie feels better about him/her self because they came up with a way to improve security.

It's funny that these people are so concerned about their bank. You can go to Leavenworth Penitentiary and take all the pictures you want, just so long as you stay on the sidewalk that runs infront of the prison.

damonff

So, if we're so interested in countries that violate UN mandates, why don't we go into other countries that violate UN mandates? Oh yeah, that's right...no oil. And while we're at it, why not just take over the whole world and put McDonald's and Starbucks everywhere, destroy all of the civilizations, violate international treaties - after all, we're pretty good at lying and violating treaties...ask the Lakota.

mercphoto wrote:

As far as hunting down Bin Laden goes, as you state, the process is not simple. Bin Laden knows how to play the politics of the region to his advantage. If we were to go there as you suggest, the second and third order effects would be hard to predict and likely devasting. But to suggest we went to Iraq instead of going after BL is ludicrous. We went to Iraq because the UN didn't have the guts to stand behind its threats to Iraq.

mercphoto

Good idea

damonff wrote:

So, if we're so interested in countries that violate UN mandates, why don't we go into other countries that violate UN mandates?

Not a bad idea. In the very least, the UN should do something about countries that violate the mandates. If violations are not dealt with, why should anyone comply?

ginger_55

cletus wrote:

Going back the Charles' original post...

That's kind of funny that they're trying to prevent you from taking pictures of a building from a public sidewalk. I don't know that it's a "police state" issue though. More than likely it's a combination of rent-a-cops and desk jockeys trying to make themselves feel more important. The security guards are happy because they can now harass people outside the building, and some mouth breather in a tie feels better about him/her self because they came up with a way to improve security.

It's funny that these people are so concerned about their bank. You can go to Leavenworth Penitentiary and take all the pictures you want, just so long as you stay on the sidewalk that runs infront of the prison.

I missed "the bank" part. Actually, I think banks and financial institutions are part of the chatter the powers that be are hearing from the terrorists.

I think that, as a matter of policy, it was said to stop anyone from taking photos of "banks", etc. After all, you might have been casing the place.

There is humor in this, IMO. However, from the first day after 9/11, I did not want to give up one iota of freedom thinking that would stop future attacks. We have no clue what would stop future attacks, so we stop people from taking photos of possible targets, we think we do (I hear there are some great miniature devices).

As far as Bin Laden is concerned, I would imagine that he is with his friends, probably in Pakistan. However, he could be anywhere. We could systimatically (sp), take every country in the world and demolish it, while he hop scotches to another.

Please do not personalize this, as I am a big Clinton fan, just am, some people are big Bush fans, and I was going to suggest bombing California in the name of finding Bin Laden, then I realized that some of my internet friends live there.

ginger

Why don't you all, concerned parties, we here have no money for much of this stuff, but if you all know the law, you can avoid the hassle.

Seamaiden

cmr164 wrote:

I don't give a hoot about Demo/Repu. I care about liberty and the constitution, about sound judgment before going to war, about a sound policy when fighting a war, and particularly a sound policy for winning the post war. Bush has been the worst president in the history of this nation on those counts and that doesn't even get into the financial side.

Me either, because I see them as two legs of the same monster. However, what I find most amusing are the numbers of people who are completely ignorant of the fact that the Patriot Act was drafted up by the Clinton administration (the same that attacked a nation with which we have diplomatic ties with no warning and very little cause), and implemented while Bush is in office.

This completely discounts the role that our elected representatives played in the whole deal! I am certainly no apologist for the man I still describe as a megalomaniac, yes, even during political discussion with my fiance, a staunch Bush supporter. But let's get real here, both parties have had a hand, and very few of our compatriots care enough to even bother to vote, so essentially our fate is decided by the very few, yes?

Knee jerk doesn't begin to describe the political reaction to the attacks on September 11th. Yes, you are right, our liberties ARE being taken away, one by one, but it started looong before this.

I find what you describe here, Charles, abhorrent. But I don't see it changing much at all unless (or, more positively thinking - until) the REST of us get OFF our collective arses and pay attention! Too many allow themselves to be spoonfed everything, and believe that they can count on the folks who have a vested financial interest in maintaining the status quo to 'take care of us' because 'they must know better'. Or, even worse, taking the attitude that nothing they say, think, or do can make one whit of difference.

I better stop now, I tend to get riled up when I think about all those non-voters out there.:splat

GREAPER wrote:

Second, I for one think that if we have to give up our civil liberties to prevent it, I am not willing.

Amen to that.

Of course I was and still am shocked by the events on 9/11. I remember the day well and will never forget. I also believe that if we allow this to change our way of life, then the terrorists succeeded far more than in the damage and loss of life they caused. The freedom to live the way we want, to enjoy artistic freedom and to say what is on our minds is what we are all about. If we have to give that up to be safe from them, what is the point.

Indeed! Besides, they don't want to simply change our way of life, they (those being the Islamist/Islamo-fascists) want to smite us from the face of the earth.

I am not some pacifist tree hugging nut case. I believe I finding people who did this, who might do it in the future, or who are even THINKING about doing it in the future and squashing them like a bug.

Perhaps if we were not contstantly meddling with the governments of oil producing nations in an effort to maintain the price of oil maybe they wouldn't all hate us so much.

My own feelings exactly. Of course, we've been meddling for over a hundred years now, a bit late to go back change things, eh? So, it is what it is, and we are here with the hand we've been dealt. So much to contend with, so much to fight, but I still feel the most difficult fight comes from within (see above rant).

mercphoto

Oil

Seamaiden wrote:

Me either, because I see them as two legs of the same monster. However, what I find most amusing are the numbers of people who are completely ignorant of the fact that the Patriot Act was drafted up by the Clinton administration

The conspiracist in me says that is because the media will not point that out because it takes the blame for the Patriot Act away from Reps and to the Dems. All the Liberals out there complaining about the Patriot Act need to thank your good friend Clinton for that.

This completely discounts the role that our elected representatives played in the whole deal!

Correct. Its not all Bush's fault. He's only 1 politician.

I find it interesting that everytime somebody mentions our meddling in the affairs of others to maintain a low price of oil, when I ask those same people if they therefore don't mind if oil goes sky high they never respond. If we are "meddling" to maintain a low price of oil then the Dems have some explaining to do.

Kerry complains about the high price of gasonline, and yet he proposed legislation to add 50 cents tax to each gallon of gas. We complain about OPEC raising oil when the biggest problem with the price of gas in this country is a lack of capacity and a ridiculous number of summer gas blends. We say we want off foreign oil dependance but won't drill locally and won't stop buying SUV's and trucks.

We are our own enemy when it comes to oil. Its not OPEC, its not Bush, its not Halliburton, its us.

GREAPER

mercphoto wrote:

I find it interesting that everytime somebody mentions our meddling in the affairs of others to maintain a low price of oil, when I ask those same people if they therefore don't mind if oil goes sky high they never respond. If we are "meddling" to maintain a low price of oil then the Dems have some explaining to do.

Kerry complains about the high price of gasonline, and yet he proposed legislation to add 50 cents tax to each gallon of gas. We complain about OPEC raising oil when the biggest problem with the price of gas in this country is a lack of capacity and a ridiculous number of summer gas blends. We say we want off foreign oil dependance but won't drill locally and won't stop buying SUV's and trucks.

We are our own enemy when it comes to oil. Its not OPEC, its not Bush, its not Halliburton, its us.

I dont drive a gas gussling SUV, and I dont support adding gas taxes to raise the price. I do support spending massive amounts of money to find a cleaner replenishable power source and eliminating our need for ANY oil.

I dont think they do it to lower the price of oil. I think they do it to keep the price of oil at the maximim profitability. If they do it to keep oil prices down then they aint doin it right because they sure aren't down. If the price goes down too low they have to produce a lot more to make the same amount of profit and the percentage goes down.

If the price goes too high we "the people" reduce our usage enough that profits go down. They need to maintain it in the middle to maximise profits.

How is it the oil companies all raise their prices and lower their prices on the same day. Competition should force the prices down, but they all raise them at the same time.

If my company and their competition did that we would be in court for colusion so fast it would make your head spin.

mercphoto

Businesses are supposed to make money...

GREAPER wrote:

They need to maintain it in the middle to maximise profits.

And the problem of a business maximizing profits is exactly what? And if you were running a business would you run your company in any other way? Put another way, do you spend your own money in a way to maximize or minimize the utility of your money?

How is it the oil companies all raise their prices and lower their prices on the same day. Competition should force the prices down, but they all raise them at the same time.

Gasoline is a commodity. Its all from the same raw ingredients, processed in nearly identical ways, and there is little difference between brands. And you conveniently ignored the times when they all drop the prices at the same time. (There are strict laws, by the way, of when a station can change prices.) There are plenty of industries out there like this that have similar pricing behaviors. Gasoline is not unique. Any commodity product exhibits this behavior.

GREAPER

mercphoto wrote:

And the problem of a business maximizing profits is exactly what? And if you were running a business would you run your company in any other way? Put another way, do you spend your own money in a way to maximize or minimize the utility of your money?

Yes but I dont need to send my son or neighbor to kill or die in a foriegn country to maximise my money.

mercphoto

oil

GREAPER wrote:

Yes but I dont need to send my son or neighbor to kill or die in a foriegn country to maximise my money.

So if the price of oil was to rise, you wouldn't care?

Those who think we went into Iraq for oil need to read up about just how tiny the amount of oil we consume comes from that part of the world. Or how the real problem with the price of gasoline in this country is a lack of refinery capacity and a stupid number of "summer blends" of gasoline. Of course the tree huggers don't want to admit to this (not saying you are one). They don't want to admit they are a huge part of the problem they are complaining about.

Congrats on being a person who doesn't drive a gas guzzling SUV. In all seriousness. By the way, you might want to re-consider your comment that you don't suport higher gas taxes. Tax the crap out of it, use the funds to finance the alternative fuels you are interested in. The research has to be financed in some manner. And as long as oil is cheap (which it still is), people won't seriously look for alternatives, and people won't buy the alternatives. Dollar per energy content, gasoline is great.

damonff

We may not get a high percentage of our oil from Iraq, but the vested interests make a lot of money from the fraction that now comes from Iraq. And I'm not talking about oil that is used in the U.S. If Bush and his cronies take the oil from Iraq and sell it on the world market, they're going to make a lot of money. Whether or not U.S. residents/citizens/tourists use the oil from Iraq is not relevant. What is is that the oil in Iraq is now controlled by a few rich Americans. That's scary - and to think that just because we don't use the oil means that the use of said oil is not a reason for invading a country is just not very bright (not saying that you're not bright). There are very dirty businessmen behind all of this. Bush is allowing it to happen...it has nothing to do with freedom, what a joke.

mercphoto wrote:

Those who think we went into Iraq for oil need to read up about just how tiny the amount of oil we consume comes from that part of the world.

damonff

Our good friend Clinton? Who cares who started it! Bush pushed it and passed it; Clinton proposed it...so what? If they take away all of our freedoms, would you say, "oh, well, you know, that was originally a liberal idea!" This is not about politics. It's about our country being dragged into the gutter by a few short-sighted idiots, liberals, conservatives, communists, whomever. Clinton is not my good friend. I am a devout, staunch libertarian. These crazy people who are presently running my government are insane.

And, to address your point...if Bush had said that he didn't want the Patriot Act because Clinton proposed it, would you label him an irresponsible traitor? What exactly does it mean that Clinton's administration proposed it? What are you saying? Do you know?

mercphoto wrote:

All the Liberals out there complaining about the Patriot Act need to thank your good friend Clinton for that.

mercphoto

This is plain stupid

damonff wrote:

Our good friend Clinton? Who cares who started it! Bush pushed it and passed it; Clinton proposed it...so what?

Because people use it as an excuse to vote Democrat, as if a Democrat would have never thought of something like the Patriot Act. That is why it matters. Since when is incomplete knowledge of a topic a bad thing?

To address someone else's point about controlling interests of oil and such. Do you not realize that the French and Germans were getting rich themselves by going behind the UN resolutions they were "supporting" in public view? And exactly why would electing Kerry be any better?

I don't care about the oil. Saddam had to go. Somebody has to give the UN teeth. Its obvious the UN is a paper tiger, except now people think its just a cute, declawed kitten. Twelve years of dodging resolutions on weapon systems was reason enough to remove the man. And for that reason I fully support the war.

damonff

Bush in 2004
If Bush wins, all who support him deserve what they're going to get. After all, Hitler was a man of the people and now Germany is a better place because of his horrors. They had to see the ugly side of humanity in order to come to a better conclusion as to what a nation should be. Perhaps the U.S. needs a similar wake-up call. A nice dictatorship of the Bush clan is what we need.

mercphoto wrote:

Twelve years of dodging resolutions on weapon systems was reason enough to remove the man. And for that reason I fully support the war.