Comments | arkadiaraduesca: really?

arkadiaraduesca

really?

Mar 11, 2006 21:17

I've been wondering this for awhile now... is it really 2006? is this seriously the year we're living in? because there are still people dying in mines, the government is tapping our phones and everything we do today radically contradicts our constitutional rights. i guess we didn't totally destroy the Soviet Union ( Read more... )

Comments 11

thehenry March 12 2006, 17:16:43 UTC

I love you.

arkadiaraduesca March 13 2006, 22:29:48 UTC

weee! *dances like your special puppet*

... i am your specialy puppet.

that's wrong on so many levels... but so right;P *lol*

roybert07 March 14 2006, 04:00:53 UTC

The taping of phone lines is technicaly leagal if it is suspected to be a matter of national security. I was just discussing this in government calss actually. It is completly leagal. Also, eah we can see alot with our satalies but we cant see threw things completly. Osama's physical charicteistics are distinct herem but over there it is quite common. Also, the option of plastic surgery is quite possible in this case. Finding 1 man in a world with so many is litteraly a 1/659977499 this second. That is a prety slim chance. People dont reasise how hard the army has it over there. Also, just gettin Osama wolnt do anything you realise, Al quida is basically a corperation. It is completly impiossible to removwe it, it is an idea and you cant defeat an idea no matter how many you kill. There will always be soemthign aginst us, it isnt as simple as gettign 1 man.

(just some not very commonly known facts for your knowlege and enjoyment)

arkadiaraduesca March 14 2006, 20:27:41 UTC

This post wasn't serious- it was intended to make people laugh.

i know that the gov't only taps calls if they have reason to suspect something, but there are literally thousands of cases where they've listened in on a private conversation from someone who had done nothing. a number of the cases were on purpose too, which is an illegal invasion of privacy. and i know finding one man in a world of billions is not simple, and getting Osama wouldn't get rid of Al Quada- but if you take out the top dog, the rest usually follow. i know our satellites are powerful but not *that* powerful, i put that in as a joke, which is what most of this was- just a spoof on the current political issues. i know you can't defeat an idea- but you can control it, which is what we're trying to do. you're right, it isn't as simple as getting one man, but getting that one man will certainly help.

just my feedback:) don't take offense, i'm not being cocky, just giving ya my side of it.

roybert07 March 15 2006, 02:50:53 UTC

Geting Osama will acomplish nothing at all. If he falls another will simplay arise. Also, the one who rises will be pissed. Do we really want that aginst us aswell? Osama is a figure head that the ingnorant american public can direct there anger aginst. Getting him will actually hurt us. Also, with the fact that that power of the president has incresed since the constituition was written, he can legaly tap our phones, its an exectuutive preivelege. Also, how would we know that those "thousands of cases" where ley listened into private phone call were false if we didnt listen in on the phone calls? That privelege helps us, it donst hurt us.

arkadiaraduesca March 15 2006, 20:53:14 UTC

yes, i know. but one of the reasons we're still stationed in Afghanistan is because if we do catch Osama, we'll try to make sure that other person doesn't arise. as well as humanitarian efforts, but that's beside the point. Inevitably once we leave Al Quada will begin again because this has been a part of Afghanistan's history for centuries- everyone knows about it, and a number support it, but we're trying to stop that at the moment. what do you mean 'do we really want that against us'- we already have it against us! most of afghanistan is going to hate us no matter what we do ( ... )

Thread 9