Tex W. and Diseased Humanity, I think you may be more moderate than you think. Great article, ID...LW, great input.

And that's all our Constituion requires.

And that's the head of the nail...the Constituion says that we can have no officially sanctioned national church or faith, and that's all. And we don't.
It's the interperetation of a left-leaning Supreme Court that screwed it all up.

No, we are not a police state...YET. But the fact remains, those who claim we aren't a police state are ignoring the fact that we are fast becomming a police state because the majority of the American public refuses to be diligent.

Having your ID checked before getting on public transportation is not a police state, nor is it close to one. I have traveled many places in this country, and it's nothing like a police state.

No, that's not what I believe. I believe our country is going down the drain because many people are trying to force their beliefs on us when that is nothing like what our country stands for.

Who are these "people"? You do realize that most people are relgious and people believe that this country was founded in Christianity.

Link

Having your ID checked before getting on public transportation is not a police state, nor is it close to one. I have traveled many places in this country, and it's nothing like a police state.

Your logic is flawed here. You are, in fact, saying we should willingly surrender our freedoms because we're not yet a police state. That is EXACTLY how a police state comes about.

It is not a stretch to envision agents at these terminals running background checks to apprehend criminals and "subversives" before they board; it would take only a slight modification of current procedure to put such a system in place.

I said outright that we're not yet a police state. But when I see a family detained by bus station authorities because they failed to carry identification with them (they may have been criminals, they may not have; failure to carry papers should not constitute an assumption of guilt, however), as well as some of the other constitutionally questionable practices I have seen (a few of which were detailed above), I seriously wonder how much longer we can continue to hold off becoming a police state.

Your logic is flawed here. You are, in fact, saying we should willingly surrender our freedoms because we're not yet a police state. That is EXACTLY how a police state comes about.

Please tell me how showing your ID is giving up a freedom.

People are required to have ID sometimes so people like law enforcement know who they are dealing with. Just because someone was "detained" at a bus station because they had no ID does not assume guilt. It's within local law enforcements or the company who runs the station to know who these people are.

I have stopped many people before and needed to check their ID's. It wasn't because "the man" instructed me to. It was because I needed to know who these people were. Let me tell you in my experience, people who refuse to show ID, or play stupid about their ID's, usually have something to hide, such as a warrant.

Showing identification to someone such as a local law enforcement agent is nothing. The government already knows who you are anyways. They are not gaining nothing additional than they already know.

News flash: many candidates ALREADY ignore the small states precisely BECAUSE of the electoral college. In 1992 (being young and foolish), I wanted to work on the Clinton campaign in Oklahoma. Long story short, there WAS no Clinton campaign in Oklahoma; the dems didn't want to even try for those votes. There are liberal states that the Republicans likewise ignore.

thank you for supporting my point. what follows is not to argue you but to extend my point.
the electoral college allows one vote to states of the smallest populations. that makes it proportional. if politicians say "Fuck Alaska, Wyoming, and Rhode Island" with the electoral college, they will say the same assuming popular vote replaces it

--Our country (USA) was founded by religous (don't freak out,its just a word) followers,christian,catholic,whatever, they believed in a faith.....namely christianity...it is engrained in our history and culture, no one realizes that...

true, but the principles it was founded on are what to keep in mind, because thats what's important. This country wasnt fouded on christianity, it was founded on freedom of religion. thats one of the top reasons people were fleeing England - religious persecution. So what the people who founded this country were religious? They believed in the free exercise thereof so it doesnt matter what religion is and or was the most common in America.

They believed in the free exercise thereof so it doesnt matter what religion is and or was the most common in America.

exactly, and still do, the freedom to worship or not worship as you choose.

exactly, and still do, the freedom to worship or not worship as you choose

But not the freedom to impose that on other people.

Cheers, Pads

But not the freedom to impose that on other people.

Who and what are these "people" imposing? The only time a religion forces anything on you is when they kill you if you don't share their religion. Now we only know of one religion who is doing that now, and that happens to be the one the left tolerates the most.

Hell people, why dont all of those people that get pissed when the hear of religion being "shoved" down throats go plug their ears,i believe its 95%of the world is religious (UH-OH) better hurry,i mean serioously,just because others want a religious thing to be included in an activity (a prayer, praying around a flag pole) its not hurting you, they arn't shoving it down your throat,they are engaging in the free exercise thereof (of religion),its the assholes who jump at any mention of religion that are fucking things up,if you don't like it,leave...otherwise,shut up...have a nice day

In fact, why don't we just get rid of freedom,hmmm?
These people that cry out about religion shoved down their throats don't care about freedom, or rights for people. Only thiers...and maybe others like them...

and that happens to be the one the left tolerates the most.

Stop being so dramatic. It would just as fair to say that the right tolerates it the least and tolerates christianity the most.

Stop being so dramatic. It would just as fair to say that the right tolerates it the least and tolerates christianity the most

It's not being dramatic. Christianity is not the religion killing people because they are "infidels". I can show many examples of how liberal groups attack Christianity, but "tolerate" islam.

WAR FOR OIL: No matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary,

What evidence to the contrary? All I hear and read is deny, deny, deny with absolutely no evidence at all. However, the fact remains that Iraq has oil. The US wanted it. They drummed up this evidence about WMD's, which turned out to be false, and actually a full-blown lie, then backtracked and said that the reason for war was that Saddam was a bad guy. Well, there are lots of bad guys out there. None had oil that would have been "easy" to take, except Iraq.

If I provide links, all you will do is bash my links, so I'm not going to bother, unless you ask. I'm not going to waste my time on people who refuse to acknowledge that maybe, maybe maybe the bush dynasty made a humongous mistake. And, they make mistakes after mistakes after mistakes, which you people refuse to acknowledge. This has got to be the mostest, bestest, bushie supporters club I have ever encountered. Pretty stunningly and absurdly amazing.

that the reason for war was that Saddam was a bad guy.

During bush's SOU speech beforewe invaded iraq, he mentioned reasons why, and WMD, bad guy, etc... are just a few...i wish people would remember that...

I wish people would remember that bush lied about the WMD's, that it was all over the internet that the Niger documents were forgeries before we invaded Iraq, and therefore the bushies knew it was a lie, but advanced the lie anyway.

I wish people would remember that we armed saddam during the Iran/Iraq war because he was our buddy. I wish people would remember that Cheney was shaking saddam's hand a few years before we invaded.

I wish people would remember that saddam is not the only baddy on the block, nor was he the most dangerous.

I wish people would remember that during the SOU speech, his #1 reason for invading iraq was to prevent a "mushroom cloud", because he had WMD's.

I wish people would remember the 1600 American lives that were lost for nothing.

I wish people would remember the thousands upon thousands of iraqis killed because of our invasion to take out ONE man.

Lots of you here refuse to remember. But, it will be remembered. And, you will be defending your asses, because that's all the credibility you'll have left.

I will remember all the liars, cheaters, thieves, corporate welfare, ruined environment, growing deficits, and the joeuser band of amnesiacs.

I will remember all the liars, cheaters, thieves, corporate welfare, ruined environment, growing deficits, and the joeuser band of amnesiacs.

You do just that, and we'll remember the "idiots" fromn the other side!

I wish people would remember that saddam is not the only baddy on the block,

--Thats one less, bush knew we couldn't handle NK or Iran,both would be suicide...thats why they are handled diplomatically...

I wish people would remember that during the SOU speech, his #1 reason for invading iraq was to prevent a "mushroom cloud", because he had WMD's

--True,but, he had others, the left's (not saying all leftwingers) rallying cry has been the "fact" that bushes "only" reason was WMD's...BULLSHIT....

I wish people would remember the thousands upon thousands of iraqis killed because of our invasion to take out ONE man

--And thousands upon thousands of iraqi's were killed by that one man...now...no more...

I wish people would remember the 1600 American lives that were lost for nothing

--One question; "Do you believe in freedom for others?" Should we be the only ones that have democratically elected gov'ts,or free speech...?

Lots of you here refuse to remember. But, it will be remembered. And, you will be defending your asses, because that's all the credibility you'll have left

--I remember, its your side that has ran out of reasons...sure, bush has his faults...who doesn't...i am glad we went into iraq,i am sure that those 1600 who died realized what they were doing...or else they wouldn't have joined...

I will remember all the liars, cheaters, thieves, corporate welfare, ruined environment, growing deficits, and the joeuser band of amnesiacs

I wish people would remember that bush lied about the WMD's, that it was all over the internet that the Niger documents were forgeries before we invaded Iraq, and therefore the bushies knew it was a lie, but advanced the lie anyway

--Proof? Please provide a link...

--Ironically,SAS,French Intellegence,CIA, and the German and Russian intellegence (which we got most of our "lies" from) where all wrong...


--Most of your stuff here is easily refutable...so i can do this all week long...please...give me another excuse...oh, and have a nice day!

--Ironically,SAS,French Intellegence,CIA, and the German and Russian intellegence (which we got most of our "lies" from) where all wrong...

Add the greeks, the Italians and the egyptians to that list! Oops forgot one. British intelligence.

When you forbid a person to pray at a public event, or even mention the God they believe in, what have you done to their rights? If a group of kids choose to pray around the flagpole, or someone mentions Jesus Christ at the opening of a ceremony--how does that infringe on the "rights" of non-believers?

well, now these are all places where taxpayer dollars are involved in government business and thats when it stops being okay.

I hear stuff I don't believe every day, we all do. For instance, I don't believe that using a certain deoderant will increase my sex appeal, but I am exposed to the commercial repeatedly. No matter how many times I see it, I'm not going to believe it. I'm simply not interested, so their claims are dismissed and I barely even notice it when I see it anymore.

Now before some moron points out the obvious, that religion and deodorant commercials are not the same, let me assure you that I know they arent. But the concept I'm trying to point out is the same, it does you no harm to see or hear these deodorant ads, you simply disregard them.

Deoderant isn't protected by the conststution and people haven't nearly the same convictions in deoderant as they do religion. neither did the founding fathers. Their convictions were on freedom of riligion. So they most certainly aren't even the same concept.

That being the case, where's your tolerance, lefties?

Wheres your tolerance of my atheism? of my desire to not hear religious terms/words/phrases at tax-funded govenment functions? What if i worshiped Satan? what kind of tolerance would you be having then? If I was folding the flag at YOUR navy ball and said "the sixth fold will represent the holy number 666 and will be folded in reverence for the almighty Satan? What would you have to say about THAT?

--And thousands upon thousands of iraqi's were killed by that one man...now...no more...

Great! We're killing them instead. How utterly righteous we are.

Uhm, no, we are killing the insurgents who are killing Iraqi citizens who dare apply to be policemen, or innocent civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Big freaking difference, thought I'd point that out to you.

Well, thank you for pointing that out. I guess our bombs only killed insurgents? Wrong. I guess our incursions into cities only killed insurgents? Wrong. One thing you're right about is that innocent civilians happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I contend that had Bush not invaded Iraq, and allowed the weapons inspectors to do their jobs, and allowed the no-fly zones to continue working, as we had Saddam stopped, then the thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis would not have been caught in ours or the insurgents' crossfire. There would have been no crossfire to be caught in.

Saddam was a killer. No doubt. But, we invaded Iraq for his past killings; killings that we turned our backs on when we did business with him. Why all of a sudden, after the killing had already stopped, did we have to go in and take him out? There was absolutely no reason, other than some sense of breast beating on Bush's behalf for his father's "failure", and let's not forget the oil.

Thank you, LW, for pointing that out. But you couldn't be more wrong.

#55 by zinkadoodle Thursday, June 09, 2005 Uhm, no, we are killing the insurgents who are killing Iraqi citizens who dare apply to be policemen, or innocent civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Big freaking difference, thought I'd point that out to you. Well, thank you for pointing that out. I guess our bombs only killed insurgents? Wrong. I guess our incursions into cities only killed insurgents? Wrong. One thing you're right about is that innocent civilians happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I contend that had Bush not invaded Iraq, and allowed the weapons inspectors to do their jobs, and allowed the no-fly zones to continue working, as we had Saddam stopped, then the thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis would not have been caught in ours or the insurgents' crossfire. There would have been no crossfire to be caught in. Saddam was a killer. No doubt. But, we invaded Iraq for his past killings; killings that we turned our backs on when we did business with him. Why all of a sudden, after the killing had already stopped, did we have to go in and take him out? There was absolutely no reason, other than some sense of breast beating on Bush's behalf for his father's "failure", and let's not forget the oil. Thank you, LW, for pointing that out. But you couldn't be more wrong.

YOUR the one who couldn't be more wrong if you tried! Saddam's killing had NOT stopped prior to us going in! Proven fact that the no-flys were not working! Or have you conveniently forgotten they were shooting at our planes? And just an FYI...Saddam was NOT allowing weapons inspectors back in. So that kinda shoots you theories in the foot, don't it?

You know how you can tell your talking to a leftie? Their lips are moving!