#41 Posted on 10.9.04 0948.07 Reposted on: 10.9.11 0948.20
Originally posted by Pool-BoyTo be honest, I never even looked at the flag next to your name. "Your local police force" was supposed to be a generic reference to any old police force OVER HERE. So it wasn't an "ours is better than yours" comment.
Hey, my bad. If you say that wasn't the way it was intended then fair enough.
And yes, local cops can perform a search without a warrant, if they have probably cause.
Unlike the FBI who now no longer need to prove probable cause.
And what the hell are you bitching about the Patriot Act for, anyway? Not like it affects you.
Because I spend a fairly significant portion of my time in America and the act affects US and non US citizens?
Because it affects people I care about who live in the US?
Because where the US goes the UK inevitably follows (publications.parliament.uk)?
Because its maybe not a bad thing to be concerned about the laws of foreign nations, especially if said nation is setting itself up as an example of all that is good about democracy?
Since last post: 3651 days Last activity: 2339 days
#42 Posted on 10.9.04 1016.37 Reposted on: 10.9.11 1016.38
Originally posted by PalpatineWBack on topic, here's the LA Times editorial take (shockingly reasonable)
Originally posted by LA TimesSens. Kerry and John Edwards have been criticizing President Bush's performance on terrorism since 9/11 and promising to do a better job at it if given the chance. In doing so, they surely mean to suggest that the risk of another terrorist attack will be greater if Bush and Cheney win the election. A vote for George W. Bush, in other words, is a vote for more terrorism. Or if Kerry and Edwards don't mean that, it's hard to know what they do mean.
I know it's an editorial piece so you automatically take it with a grain of salt, but what kind of editorial leaves such stupid and obvious holes in their reasoning. The term "They surely mean to suggest" is full-on putting words in someone's mouth. As if I told a reporter I didn't have any gay friends and they reported that " he surely means to suggest he hates gay people". When they say Kerry and Edwards have cricized Bush's "performance on terrorism" and promise to do a "better job if given the chance", I don't take that as the same thing Cheney said (which, mind you, I don't think was a big whoop either, just poor word choicing). Bush's "performance on terrorism" has been about pre-emptive strategy lately, yes, but even according to Bush's own camp, they're struttin' around talking about how great they've handled 9/11. Kerry's camp never said anything about better preventing a terrorist attack. And surely his quote means to suggest he could handle another attack better. For instance, say something like the Russian school incident goes down and quick thinking is needed. Kerry's camp surely means to suggest that they'll HANDLE the situation better. Bush has the quick part down, but not the thinking.
Since last post: 4338 days Last activity: 4335 days
#43 Posted on 10.9.04 1839.58 Reposted on: 10.9.11 1839.58
But you have to admit, a swaggering, power wielding commander in chief is always going to have an easier time at the ballot box than a seemingly complicated, contemplative and cautious personality, given the current climate relating to the somewhat exaggerated and overblwon fear of terrorism.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE