Question for the politically minded
 

I'd like to open for debate the following issue.

Assuming that Senator Clinton gets elected into office in 2008, do you think she will give back of all the rights that Bush & company have taken away?

e.g. eavesdropping, guantanamo imprisonment, search & seizure infringements, airport profiling, and the like (add to this list if you like, this is just what comes to mind right away).

i always thought of Bill C as an expert of grabing Rep popular issues, seeing them through, and taking credit for the hole thing.

it worked for Bill and i expect Hillary to follow the same playbook. Her Presidency will be about following popular opinion.

So you think nothing is going to change?

Re: Question for the politically minded
 

You have the right to not be profiled in the airport? Interesting. You have the right to not be imprisoned for acting like a terrorist? Also interesting.

I reckon you probably also think you have the "right" to vote, huh?

I think Hillary is right up your alley...

Re: Question for the politically minded
 

I cannot think of a single right that I have lost...

You're missing the point. The point is not whether those things are legal or illegal, whether they are or are not your rights.

The point is, many people are ranting and screaming about our rights being taken away, that Bush=Hitler, etc.

My question is, Do you think Hillary would rewind to pre-911 and undo what Bush has done?

Wait until the terrorists hit here after her election. She will piddle in her panties and someone will have to take over and run the country.

There is a reason why the general population constantly states that they trust the conservatives over libs when it comes to safety and security, and its that the libs do not have the balls nor backbone needed to stand up to our enemies.

Well kids, Hilary will let our enemies come onto our home soil to continue the war on terror and then I hope that "YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE AT WAR" and have been for years.

Re: Question for the politically minded
 

No, I do not think she will be interested in signing any legislation removing rights denial by government. If anything, she'll use the laws to go after the internet in a major way, and other rights access. She's a hardcore sociofascist and will do anything to get her way.

She has no morals of any kind that I've been able to detect, in that way, she's just like Bush II.

What has Bush done (regarding rights) that was not done pre-911?

Have you not watched TV for the past 5 years?

i think some of you were brainwashed shortly after 9/11.

Yes, but I thought you meant something that Bush actually did to took away rights that were not taken pre-911...not something from TV.

Remember guys, fintstone supports all these new anti-rights laws, in fact would have myself and numerous others on this forum arrested had he the power to do so.

fintstone wants concentration camps in America, so he's unlikely to recognize any rights in the first place, and if he doesn't recognize rights, he doesn't recognize they're being taken away.

Ahhh, just when were you appointed Fintstone's spokesman?

Lying about people AGAIN on the BBS huh? It never ceases and someday you will get your just rewards for these posts.

Look, I know what I think on the matter, I simply wanted to know what all of you thought on the matter. I am trying to keep the question impartial to get everyone's view. Popular opinion, both in the general public (at least here in LA) and among some of the members here is that Bush is an evil profiteering warmonger, intent on taking away our rights.

Now if we can all agree on the premise that Some people think Bush is doing that, then we can postulate that Should Hillary get into office, she would either do Nothing, or so Something.

Now if you happen to think that Bush has not taken away any rights, then there is Nothing for her to do. If on the other hand, you think the inverse, then My hypothetical question was simply which one do you think it would be, Something or Nothing?

You get it?

Homeland Security will definitely be out. The whole idea of that is a joke, particularly when you consider our porous borders and how anything can sneak over and into the U.S.

I have really thought hard about your question and cannot think of a single right I have lost. I am just waiting for one of the LA folks you mentioned to tell me which one of the rights I have lost.

Regarding what Hillary would do after an attack VS Bush. First off, I very much would think that Hillary would not piss her self. I would be much more concerned of the opposite problem. There seems to be a general impression Bush actually did something on 9/11. My recollection was refreshed recently watching a news program review the events of 9/11. Cheney is show giving the order to allow the military to shoot down the civilian planes if necessary. In fact he had at one point during the confusion thought that two planes were shot down. Its strange to me that the VP was giving orders to the military. That is the president's line of authority unless he is declared incapacitated.

It was Cheney who actually made the first "presidential" address to the nation on 9/11. No statement was made by Bush until at least 9/12 or even later.

At the time the white house told us that Bush was not in communication because he was flying. Now, anyone who has even the remotest idea of the AF one communications system knows that it is not technical issue, nor a security issue for communications to occur while in-flight. So the question is, why did Bush not address the nation instead of Cheney?

I contend that he had both pissed his pants and soiled himself badly and was in no condition to give the country reassurance.

I don't really care for Hillary at all. You can call her a lot of things, but a coward is not what comes to mind first. Aside from that, I think she would make a very poor president.

So that would put you in the Nothing for her to do camp. Ok with me.

As far as rights, sure, I expect Hillary and a Democratic Congress to roll back EVERYTHING Bush has done. But not out of some notion of "right vs. might," but partisan humiliation.

The Democratic Party - when they win - will seek to shame Republicans, particularly the NeoCons born from Bush's presidency.

Unfortunately, that's the B.S. that goes along with having a self-concerned two-party political system.