Mr. George W. Bush Sir.

Originally posted by Moni: I'll step in and say that yes, born in this country makes us all Americans and we are given our rights by birth. It is what we do with them that allows us to keep them or not. We do EARN our rights by contributing to our communities and believe it or not, like it or not...some people have more rights than others simply by the names of the people they know or are related to and the names of a$$es they kiss and support(not saying that any of you kiss anyone's a$$ so please don't misunderstand me OK?)...others are given less rights simply by not kissing a$$ and who they don't know personally. It all a matter of who you know, how much they like you, and how much money you have when it comes down to matters of law where you happen to be not guilty where someone with "more rights than you" can get you canned regardless of your innocence. It happens. As far as everyday life is concerned, we all have the same rights and should consider ourselves lucky for them. I think we all agree on this last statement so let's not argue OK? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just to butt in with nothing of consequence There are also several government regulations, policies and laws that give you more rights than others simply because of your race or sex. They avoid the term "quota" like the plague but at their heart they are quota's...a rose by any other name.....Just thought Id add that, and I do agree with your post Moni [img]smile.gif[/img] a rarity I think [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Rokenn]

Excellent summation Moni [img]smile.gif[/img]
Yes, in everyday, real world applications of our rights as citizens what you say is dead-on true.
I was approaching it more from a constitutional law sense, not in the real world application of those rights.

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Moni: I'll step in and say that yes, born in this country makes us all Americans and we are given our rights by birth. It is what we do with them that allows us to keep them or not. We do EARN our rights by contributing to our communities and believe it or not, like it or not...some people have more rights than others simply by the names of the people they know or are related to and the names of a$$es they kiss and support(not saying that any of you kiss anyone's a$$ so please don't misunderstand me OK?)...others are given less rights simply by not kissing a$$ and who they don't know personally. It all a matter of who you know, how much they like you, and how much money you have when it comes down to matters of law where you happen to be not guilty where someone with "more rights than you" can get you canned regardless of your innocence. It happens. As far as everyday life is concerned, we all have the same rights and should consider ourselves lucky for them. I think we all agree on this last statement so let's not argue OK? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just to butt in with nothing of consequence There are also several government regulations, policies and laws that give you more rights than others simply because of your race or sex. They avoid the term "quota" like the plague but at their heart they are quota's...a rose by any other name.....Just thought Id add that, and I do agree with your post Moni [img]smile.gif[/img] a rarity I think [img]smile.gif[/img]
[/QUOTE]This is true! You can add being handicapped to that list as well (thinking of my incompetent Math instructor last semester lol).

A rarity, lol...you and I have been in agreement all day so far! Should one of us be afraid because of it?

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Donut: How to make freinds and influence people (from an article in The Times) May 29, 2002 Bush fails to bridge gap with sarcastic asides The President completed his tour of Europe last night. Anne E. Kornblut, of The Boston Globe, travelled with him (snip) In Paris, the President demonstrated again his distant relationship with Europe, although this time through his attitude. After his meeting with M Chirac, Mr Bush arrived at a press conference ready for a joust. When an American television reporter addressed M Chirac in French, Mr Bush snapped sarcastically: “Very good. The guy memorises four words, and he plays like he’s intercontinental.” When the reporter, David Gregory, of NBC, good- naturedly offered to continue in French, Mr Bush retorted: “I’m impressed.” And then, in a remark that M Chirac is sure not to forget, Mr Bush added: “Que bueno. Now I’m literate in two languages.”

I have my sources too.

When he was at Sainte-Mère-Eglise, celebrating the memory of the 9000 American soldiers killed during the Normandy landing, Dubya said : "For the good of the U.S, for the good of France, for the good of the free world, I promise to make sacrifices comparable to those of our ancestors" ...

At a dinner with Poutine, the russian president said facetiously that, after their eggs have been taken, the sturgeons were sewed back and put back in the river ... and Dubbya told Poutine seriously that he believed him ...

Three days later in Paris, as he was with our President Jacques Chirac at the Elyseum (the French "white house"), when asked two questions in a row by a journalist, he mixed up the answers, then said "That's what happen when you're over 55" ... imagine Chirac's face, who is 72 ...

[ 05-31-2002, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Excellent summation Moni [img]smile.gif[/img] Yes, in everyday, real world applications of our rights as citizens what you say is dead-on true. I was approaching it more from a constitutional law sense, not in the real world application of those rights.

I understand completely.

Originally posted by Moiraine: I have my sources too. When he was at Sainte-Mère-Eglise, celebrating the memory of the 9000 American soldiers killed during the Normandy landing, Dubya said : "For the good of the U.S, for the good of France, for the good of the free world, I promise to make sacrifices comparable to those of our ancestors" ...

Thinking of Bush's remarks about the military personnel killed in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (dead-faced serious, "Well they're there to make the sacrifice.")
The statement you quoted would scare the bejesus out of me if I were in the military.

Originally posted by Moni: A rarity, lol...you and I have been in agreement all day so far! Should one of us be afraid because of it?

First Epona and Now Moni....I'm so so

[b]ASHAMED!!!

[b] hehehehe

[ 05-31-2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Rokenn]

ok, now this is just scarey. I have been reading this excellent book by David Brin called "The Transparent Society - Will technology force us to choose between privacy and freedom?" This book was written in 1998. I just came across this passage that is relevant to this very thread

As a mental experiment, let's go along with FBI director Freech and try to envisage what might have happened if those bombers had actually succeeded in toppling both towers of New York's World Trade Center, killing tens of thousands. Or imagine that nuclear or bio-plague terrorists someday devastate a city. Now picture the public reaction if the FBI ever managed to show real (or exaggerated) evidence that they were impeded in preventing the disaster by an inability to tap coded transmissions sent by the conspirators. They would follow this proof with a petition for new powers, to prevent the same thing from happening again.

Sounds like he was reading today's headlines four years ago! To paraphrase the following few paragraphs, he states that this kind of think will slowly chip away at both our privacy and security. The effect is like a ratchet that will creep relentlessly toward one way transparency. A one-way mirror under which we are watched by officials from on high, while they receive little or no oversight in the exercise of these powers.

The book poses some very complex questions and situations in regards to the apparent dichotomy of privacy vs security. Brin argues that we can have both if we have two way transparency. If you get a chance to check this book out I highly recommend it.

Originally posted by MagiK: [b] quote: Originally posted by Moni: A rarity, lol...you and I have been in agreement all day so far! Should one of us be afraid because of it?

First Epona and Now Moni....I'm so so

[b]ASHAMED!!!

hehehehe[/QUOTE]LOL [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Rokenn: ok, now this is just scarey. I have been reading this excellent book by David Brin called "The Transparent Society - Will technology force us to choose between privacy and freedom?" This book was written in 1998. I just came across this passage that is relevant to this very thread As a mental experiment, let's go along with FBI director Freech and try to envisage what might have happened if those bombers had actually succeeded in toppling both towers of New York's World Trade Center, killing tens of thousands. Or imagine that nuclear or bio-plague terrorists someday devastate a city. Now picture the public reaction if the FBI ever managed to show real (or exaggerated) evidence that they were impeded in preventing the disaster by an inability to tap coded transmissions sent by the conspirators. They would follow this proof with a petition for new powers, to prevent the same thing from happening again. Sounds like he was reading today's headlines four years ago! To paraphrase the following few paragraphs, he states that this kind of think will slowly chip away at both our privacy and security. The effect is like a ratchet that will creep relentlessly toward one way transparency. A one-way mirror under which we are watched by officials from on high, while they receive little or no oversight in the exercise of these powers. The book poses some very complex questions and situations in regards to the apparent dichotomy of privacy vs security. Brin argues that we can have both if we have two way transparency. If you get a chance to check this book out I highly recommend it.

I agree with Brin. I'll definitely look for the book! Thank you for bringing it to our attention!

[ 05-31-2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Moni ]