>>IJ, my previous post was harsh, but just be forewarned, the next time you insist that I’m ignorant, just know that I have a quiver full of arrows.
TD,
When did I say you were ignorant? Give us a link to my post.
You are smart and teaming with knowledge of all sorts. So I can't imagine that I would call you ignorant. You frequently draw unwarranted conclusions, are biased on political matters (me too, though I try to be even handed), and make angry public posts (my opinion from the tone of your posts).
But if you think that you can scare me into silence by your threat of a "quiver full of arrows" you misjudge me.
Your prior post is so full of non-sense that I did not even try to respond. After all, you believe what you want to believe and live in the delusions.
If anyone has questions for me about your delusional remarks in that post, the one I now reply to, or the quiver of arrows you may fire, I will try to answer them.
In the mean time, feel free to enlighten us as to the true understanding of history - but do allow us to draw our own conclusions.
In case anyone is interested, which I doubt, I will address your two examples.
>>Two examples are the recent comments about what Palin said about the bailouts of Freddie Mac and Freddie Mae.
"Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee [Palin] claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers."
You and liberal pundits have spun those nine words into the equivalent of her saying that FNM and FRE were departments of the Federal government. There is another plausible understanding of that statement: That they are too big and that dealing with the then evident problem would be expensive to the taxpayers. Of course that understanding would not serve your bias.
National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru explained it this way, "But Palin is right! Fannie and Freddie are too big, and they have become very expensive to bail out. McClatchy, HuffPo, and Baker are all blowing smoke."
corner.nationalreview.com
>>But the classic example was last year when there was the heated discussion about protecting our rights of privacy, privacy that is being disrated right before our eyes by George W. Bush and his former lackeys, Alberto Gonzalez and Monica Goodling. Do you remember attempting to make me the ignorant unyielding one on that subject…do you recall how you maligned me with the Utopian conservative response that I was un-American and that you had no problem with the government listening in on “your” telephone conversations because you the true American had nothing to hide from the government. Do you remember this, IJ!
Perhaps, you can provide us with links to statements in which I called you ignorant or un-American. (I doubt they exist except in your mind.)
On substance you have me right. I would allow government monitoring of all phone calls. I do not fear that. I do not take our civil rights lightly. Nor do I take the threats of Islamic terrorists to kill us or drive Israel into the sea lightly. So when I consider the trade-off of my privacy for my safety, I come down in favor of monitoring calls. It is a balancing of interests decision. Perhaps, I am wrong - but it is my view. I do not believe that those who balance the interests in favor of absolute privacy are un-American (though some of them may be but for other reasons).
>>I asked you if you would mind telling every potential client and the clients that your currently have, that you in your law practice had no issues with the Federal government listening in on your telephone, direct conversation, mail, e-mail or for that matter any and all subjects and matters presented to you by a client.
I do not make the laws. In fact, I think it fair to say that I don't have any influence on what the Congress will do about phone taps. What they do becomes the law, subject to passing constitutional review. Duh. If privacy is the law, I will support it.
ij |
