Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (220213)	2/22/2007 7:27:36 AM
From: SARMAN	Respond to of 281500

So you are saying that Clinton killed our* civil liberties,* When you say OUR you mean Israelis? By the looks of your post you care more about Israel than you care about America. You should be tried for treason.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (220213)	2/22/2007 5:40:49 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

OBL said he wanted US troops out of SA. Bush complied by moving troops out of SA. He moved troops into Iraq. Why did he invade Iraq again? How did it help his buddies in SA? Who is Baker representing against which Americans? You see about 1/4 of the picture and are missing the big pieces. Clinton is a social liberal most of the time but also passed the Telecom bill and NAFTA. Whether or not he went too far he does not represent the progressive wing of any party except, maybe, the Republican party from time to time. What I'm talking about is the NSA et al. We should all assume that it listens TO EVERYTHING. It data mines EVERYTHING. What does the CIA do with its enormous multibillion budget? What does the FBI do? The political piece of the government may turn itself over ever decade or so but the bureaucracy does not for the most part. Who missed 911? Who? Who is missing all of the attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who? What I'm saying is this, no matter how many civil liberties are quashed, no matter how much snooping is done we will not BE SAFE if we do not address the root of the problem. I'm for addressing the root of the problem.