I feel personally Kakki, that some of the insinuating remarks from Bush and his administration have often indicated we'll have to give up some "comforts" to fight terrorism and keep us safe. In my mind this is inflammatory and excuses any invasions made into our personal lives. I know it seems small and necessary now, but I fear this leads us to a more disciplined, in-check society. When bad things happen, we all feel like we could do with a few more rules. But the bottom lineis it erodes our civil liberties,freedoms and choices.
I also feel - that yes - some of the airport security is out of line. I hope no one here will take this and blow it out of proportion. But some of the cavity searches, shoe removals and extensive bag checks will and are leading to the government's knowing just too much about our personal business. I feel it can also be used as a witch hunt. I wonder what has become of the person who carries small amounts of prescription drugs or even pot, this could be called an unwarrated search - in days gone by. And finaly Bush's very first judicial apointee has sparked huge concerns as far as "civil liberties" are concerned - and reproductive rights. Aren't judges supposed to be unbiased? Where the hell are all the moderates - have they no back bone, they have all but disappeared in our system. I welcome their return, right now in this country it's one constant tug-of-war between the left and right. Where is, not compromise but common sense and sympathy and understadning of the other side? We have a Cold War going on right here in our own country right now! Kakki wrote: Anyone who thinksdissension is anti-American is very simplistic. I could not agree more Kakki. But admittedly, I have slung those arrows myself, in the heat of debate. Especially towards Buchannan followers. It is sometimes just a human thing to try and push eachothers buttons. Kakki, you asked about the pot smoking and terrorist funding. Accordng to Dubya, anyone who uses drugs is helping fund terrorists to fund their wars & agendas. This coming from the Bush family, who attained their wealth by way of oil! Many are also saying now that diamond harvesting is the business of choice for terrorists. Am I now to point a finger at every jewel wearing hootchie and label them a terrorist or traitor. I know you are a tolerant human, and I respect your opinion, as you know, so please know that I am not pointing my chubby finger at you. I just get caught up in the heat of the debate. Kakki wrote: I would't be surprised at this point if 99% of Americans agree, including the administration. ... the U.S. only gets something like 10% of our oil from there these days. Well, I am sure you are correct. But the point issince the oil embargo of the 70's, we have not taken any major steps in alleviating our reliance. The oil &auto industies and their ties to most of the past administrations has played a huge part in this. For awhile thereafter, late 70's early 80's, we took to cars that were highly gas efficient. But in the past 15 years or so we drifted away and are now hooked on cars/SUVs with terrible gas mileage once again. While research has not been pursued as much with a more permanent solution. Although some have seen the light, and as Bill Mahr has often pointed out on his show. Why hasn't there been the hot pursuit of the hybrid car's perfection? Not sure if I am spelling or naming it correcly. I believe it is oil companies and American car makers stubbornes and fiscal fears. We are trying to rely on a limited resource to continue to feed us. Also, I may be mistaken, but I seem to remember that 10% has pretty much always been our benchmark as far back as the oil embargo of the 70's. For some reason I seem to recall that but I can't tell you what I did 5 minutes ago! Kakki wrote: A pentagon report (which I don't think any of us have seen) was leaked to a "commentary" writer who wrote about it in the L.A. Times. Small tactical nukes have been around for at least a decade and from what I've read (although I don't know for a fact) were developed by the Russians. Then the U.S. started developement of their own and who knows what other countries. They are nothing new and certainly not a sudden Dr. Stranglovian dream of the Bush administration. And no, this does not mean I am for nuking anyone Well I getting this vibe that you do not appreciate this guy from the L.A. Times. But the news seems to be that there is some accuracy to this story. Bush and Powell have bothe been in the news responding to it. Bush has made no apologies and is keeping that option open. While Powell has been, and I am no fan of his either, backing off that stance - more so. I understand your concerns about the leaking of sensitive documents, but I am glad I know about this and have the chance to object. I trust you are not for nuking anyone Kakki. You are correct from everything I have heard/read, the Russians did develop the "suitcase nukes" as I recall. But I too fail to see how this changes anything. To be the leader of the free world, and to be throwing around disturbing threats like this is reckless. I happen to love that movie by the way but I fear that our cowboy Dubya would look very comfortable riding that mustang! Thanks for letting me go on again! I look forward to more insight and opinions. And if I seeem to get out of line Kakki - sorry, you know it's not personal. Peace Susan Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/
