This is were we differ. I don't care if the Government knows what I'm checking out. For one thing, I'm not checking out anything weird. Next, they aren't going to come back and taunt me. What do I have to hide and why am I suffering? Is it that you just don't think its right even if some good comes out of it? Even though you receive a little protection? We get these terrorists that come in our country and learn how to attack us by these books. Would you perfer us to just get rid of those books? Or would you perfer that we ignore these books and the terrorists use them to attack again?

I'm sure there is more to it then this but I don't see it, yet.

I have no quarrel with your willingness to bend over and spread your cheeks to the government -- so they can FUCK YOU IN THE ASS! Where I draw the line is when you want to force me to bend over and spread MINE!

Sincerely,

Ken V.

Where does it end? Next they'll want to track what food you buy at the store or where and for what you use your credit card or what websites you look at. If you think that sounds far-fetched, think again. These are things that the gov't has wanted and even tried to implement. It's not about what you have to hide, it's about the gov't's right to look.

Here's more info if you want it. Do a search for TIA, formerly known as Total Information Awareness, but I guess the gov't thought that sounded to omniscient (gee, I wonder why? Its all about increasing people's fear and paranoia and dependence). So they changed it to Terrorism Information Awareness. I believe it was started as a DARPA project. Here's my own thoughts: BEWARE of anything that DARPA does.

Cheney still receives between $180,000 - $1,000,000 per year apparently in deferred compensation.

Cheney also has stock options in his former company. If they do good, he does really good. So, does he truly NOT have an incentive for his former company to have no-bid contracts, be involved in rebuilding a country that should not have been destroyed? Is this man truly able "to be president" should GWB choke on another pretzel? In keeping with the standard set forth by this administration, he is guilty until proven innocent, he is an lying, deceitful crook that should be tried for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

He has questioned the integrity of our nation. And I don't like that. But most of all I don't like the fact that after he has done so, he wants to act like everything's peaches and cream. So now I will inform him of my view of his conduct in no uncertain terms: Dick Cheney, GO FUCK YOURSELF!

Gee, he's right. I do feel better.

I'm lazy. The "[quote blah blah]" has to be in CAPS, I think. I just don't feel like switching back and forth.

Actually, it doesn't have to be in caps.

Ken V.

It is implicit in the Democratic process that if you participate -- by voting in this instance -- you agree to go along with the majority. So actually, those who don't vote, are the only one's who legitimately CAN complain.
Ken V.

I am sorry Ken but I must disagree with you. If you DO NOT vote you have NO RIGHT to complain. At the ballot you even have a write in option. You do not vote you FORFEIT your right to bitch and moan about the outcome. Also if you only want to vote along party lines, i.e. what is on the ballot, you chose the LESSER of the 2, 3, 4 or whatever number on the ballot, EVIL. Personally I am conservative, but I agree with you about the Liberatial party EXCEPT for the drug use believes about it. If it is legal now, let it be legal, but if it is illegal, screw the addicts and suppliers, the should tried to the limit of the law AS IT STANDS! I also believe the addicts should be given 2 free "passes", as in lesser sentences, in convictions, but after the 3 then start at the supplier's first sentenceings. Cause at the point the addict has demonstrated a lack of "community responsibility" like suppliers do. I should know, I have been in that situation myself.

I am sorry Ken but I must disagree with you. If you DO NOT vote you have NO RIGHT to complain.

The first amendment disagrees with you. As for me, I maintain a right to complain about anything I please. And if I can't find something to complain about . . . I'll probably complain about THAT! Sew their!

(And what I said about Democracy is true. Left and right wing sniveling to the contrary notwithstanding. You have probably heard the argument you gave me all your life . . . so it's no wonder that the truth sounds so alien to you.)

Personally I am conservative, but I agree with you about the Liberatial party EXCEPT for the drug use believes about it.

Do you mean Libertarian Party?

As a Libertarian, I do not believe that anyone has any right -- not to mention any business -- telling another adult what he or she may or may not do with his or her own body. You can't teach individual responsibility by denying the pupil the chance to practise it. Or by "protecting" individuals from the consequences of their own actions.

Hurting yourself isn't criminal . . . just stupid! And if some people want to obliterate their conciousness . . . let them. They are probably not fit to live, and this is their way of showing it. If drugs were legal, they would be cheap. And people wouldn't have to resort to crime to support their habits.

As I see it, legalizing drugs would hurt only two groups in this country: those who profit from selling them, and those who profit from fighting the sale of drugs -- drug dealers, and drug "warriors." These are the only people in this country who have a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal.

Kinda reminds of what my father told me once regarding drugs, "We have the same situation in this country today that we did when I was a kid and alcohol was against the law."

I have a friend in the La Sheriff's Department. He once told me that with this asset forfeiture business -- which is blatently unconstitutional by the way -- police and sheriff's departments have changed their tactics. Before asset forfeiture, they used to try to track down drug distributers and confiscate their cache of drugs . . . which they would have to pay out of their budgets to destroy. After asset forfeiture, (thanks to the Reagan administration) they wait until the drugs are SOLD! They then confiscate the money . . . which they get to KEEP!

As a friend of mine put it:

"In declaring "war on drugs", America declared war on itself, not because recreational drugs are an especially valued or indespensible part of our national culture (they're not) but because you can't declare war on any Ninth Amendment right without declaring war on all of them -- and along with them, on every other right under the first ten Amendments to the Constitution."

Cause at the point the addict has demonstrated a lack of "community responsibility" like suppliers do.

The term "community responsibility" sounds like more of that politically correct speech people here have been discussing. PC speech has been going on a lot longer than most people imagine.
It hasn't been until recently that the tactic has been exposed.

So, what does community responsibility mean to you?

Ken V.

Hurting yourself isn't criminal . . . just stupid! And if some people want to obliterate their conciousness . . . let them. They are probably not fit to live, and this is their way of showing it. If drugs were legal, they would be cheap. And people wouldn't have to resort to crime to support their habits.

As I see it, legalizing drugs would hurt only two groups in this country: those who profit from selling them, and those who profit from fighting the sale of drugs -- drug dealers, and drug "warriors." These are the only people in this country who have a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal.

Kinda reminds of what my father told me once regarding drugs, "We have the same situation in this country today that we did when I was a kid and alcohol was against the law."

At some point doesn't it cross the line into endangering others, i.e. drinking and driving, etc? There is a point when interaction with others takes the issue beyond just hurting yourself.

I have a friend in the La Sheriff's Department. He once told me that with this asset forfeiture business -- which is blatently unconstitutional by the way -- police and sheriff's departments have changed their tactics. Before asset forfeiture, they used to try to track down drug distributers and confiscate their cache of drugs . . . which they would have to pay out of their budgets to destroy. After asset forfeiture, (thanks to the Reagan administration) they wait until the drugs are SOLD! They then confiscate the money . . . which they get to KEEP!

And if they get them during the transaction, they get the drugs and the money.

Jimbo (BTW, Ken, it's "blatAntly" and "distributOrs." - gotta keep you on your toes, buddy )

At some point doesn't it cross the line into endangering others, i.e. drinking and driving, etc? There is a point when interaction with others takes the issue beyond just hurting yourself.

It's against the law to drink and drive, not to just drink. If they were legalized, I imagine it would -- in fact it is already -- be illegal to drive impared with drugs.

The point I was trying to make, was that as long as you didn't cause injury or loss of property to some innocent third party, your life is your own to do with as you choose.
Go sky diving, shove opiates into your arm, ride a bicycle without a helmet on . . . do anything you want to, to yourself. But if you injure someone else, justice demands that you make restitution to them. Restitution to the victim -- not paying a fine to the State.

Ken V.

I saw this Monday night and have to say wow. Michael Moore does it again with an interesting story, interesting connections

I am very strongly opposed to the war in Iraq, but I probably won't go see this movie. Why? Because Moore is a dishonest, deceiving, partisan slimeball, the Democrat twin to Rush Limbaugh. Where was Moore when Clinton was killing Yugoslav civilians by the thousands and Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands (sanctions)? And what do you want to bet that, if war criminal ("if it's Asian, it dies") Kerry gets elected, Moore will suddenly quiet down about Iraq... even as Kerry escalates the war?

"Belief in the value of free markets, limited government, and individual self-reliance in economic affairs, combined with a belief in the value of tradition, law and morality in social affairs." -Dr. Thomas Dye

If you're a conservative, and that's your definition of a conservative... then why in the world are you a Bush supporter? Bush believes in none of those things. He has presided over the greatest expansion of the powers of the Federal Government since Lincoln, and his expansion of the Welfare State puts Lyndon Johnson to shame.