Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

We’ll be secure without liberties

June 18, 2013

The issue of the National Security Agency having programs that have the capability of trolling through every American’s personal information and web surfing, as well as knowing at least the......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(63)

Kozy62

Jun-25-13 7:53 AM

Ok, then with up to 9 scandals and a fugitive on the move...where is the President? The Washington Post 6/25/2013... By Philip Rucker

It 1s bright and sunny in Washington on Saturday as President Obama stepped out of the White House in flip-flops and khaki shorts to hit the golf course with his buddies.

At the same time, officials throughout his administration were scrambling to keep one of America’s most-wanted fugitives from evading extradition in Hong Kong.

The White House press secretary said Hong Kong’s failure to arrest Snowden was “a setback” for U.S. relations with China.

The juxtaposition illustrates the hands-off approach Obama has taken — in public, at least — to the government’s efforts to bring Edward Snowden, the 30-year-old former contractor who exposed classified details of U.S. surveillance programs, back to the United States to face charges of revealing government secrets.

Scandal or another failure?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-25-13 7:43 AM

But, haven't Holder and Obama both said they don't know anything about anything...

Obama’s first brief public comments on Snowden came Monday during an event focused on immigration. The remarks came nearly 40 hours after Snowden had set off on his global odyssey, jetting first to Moscow with the possibility of seeking asylum in Ecuador by way of Cuba.

“We are following the appropriate legal channels and working with various countries to make sure that all the rules are followed,” Obama told reporters in response to a question Monday afternoon. “Beyond that, I will refer you to the Justice Department, which has been actively involved in this issue.”

Really?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-25-13 7:23 AM

Actually, those of the "world" will not only set themselves up to compare their beliefs against those of Christians (appose) but also oppose in every way they can as did during Jesus' time ministering. But, the end has been written.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-25-13 7:16 AM

The facts are that the "world" and their desire for the things of the "world" will always be apposed to the Truth and Light of Jesus. He brings us joy and freedom and everlasting life with God and that's not what those who rant against Christians want. Just be true to your faith and pray for them and God will open a door for them to accept...then it's completely up to them.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-24-13 4:11 PM

Some very good points but some lousy cutting and pasting...my bad!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-24-13 4:10 PM

...(continued)...If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn’t be found — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

What a country!

How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-24-13 4:09 PM

...(continued)...If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots...(continued)...

If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-24-13 4:07 PM

.

...(continued)...If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots...(continued)...

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-24-13 4:04 PM

"A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots"

Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy:

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was fou

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Phoenix

Jun-24-13 12:28 PM

Questioner, apologies for misreading your post!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Phoenix

Jun-24-13 11:37 AM

Questioner, Not sure if your post was directed at me, but violence is never the answer, especially against women.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Phoenix

Jun-24-13 11:36 AM

NotSocialist, You certainly had to go along way for that spin. This History lesson is getting rather boring, especially since you're such a poor student.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Jun-24-13 9:58 AM

Freedom. It's not easily won, not easily kept, and not easily lived out.

When it means different/conflicting things to different people, even more difficult.

I think I learned in Jr Hi that my freedom to swing my fist ends at the end of your nose. (Not totally sure how that applies here, but I've kept thinking about it for the last week, so....)

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-24-13 6:04 AM

The South, of course, has been Democratic before: the post-Reconstruction, pre-Civil Rights era when it was the party's "Solid South." But Nixon's "Southern Strategy" began a decades-long realignment toward the GOP at all levels of government. In 2012, Republicans took over the Arkansas state legislature, and Democrats now do not control a single legislative chamber in the old Confederacy.

Do you believe this all has to do with and anti civil rights movement?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-24-13 5:57 AM

Phoenix Jun-23-13 10:19 PM "Kozy, although the States Rights Democratic Party dissolved after the 1948 election their ideology did not. Southern Democrats who adhered to this ideology continued to refer to themselves as Dixiecrats until they finally left the party and became Republican in the 60's and 70's."

I agree that many kept fighting for their cause but the term Dixiecrat as used and written about was a short time thing. I don't really know whether some in the South called themselves that or not, so you might be correct if that's what you mean. I just don't know.

As far as which party they later joined, it may be true many joined the republican party but I would hope for positive reasons as the republican party has been the party for equal rights for minorities and women and strange they would tend to move republican to continue to be against something the party had fought so hard for. But, one just never knows.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Phoenix

Jun-23-13 10:19 PM

Kozy, although the States Rights Democratic Party dissolved after the 1948 election their ideology did not. Southern Democrats who adhered to this ideology continued to refer to themselves as Dixiecrats until they finally left the party and became Republican in the 60's and 70's.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rentss

Jun-23-13 9:56 PM

For an informed oppositional viewpoint read the letter to editors in today's paper. You'll see a viewpoint with which I completely disagree. But it is consistent and bases the argument on a logical and educated viewpoint.

No contrast that with the senility of Kozy's posts, and outright uneducation of Notsocialists.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rentss

Jun-23-13 9:53 PM

It's pointless trying to debate someone who has so little knowledge of US history. Kozy goes from not knowing what a Dixiecrat is, to trying to explain today why the term Dixiecrat is only applicable to a one-time Presidential party. All the while not even aware that they were far-right in ideology, and that that segment gradually broke away and joined the GOP.

How Tea Party is that!? Not know the Constitution until the day a black guy gets elected President, not know the Dixiecrat party-realignment, and not see Snowden as a traitor because he thinks he might be used against Obama. Typical uneducated teapartier.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-23-13 8:30 PM

Now, saying that...the anti civil rights movement was alive and strong up to and even after the 1964 civil rights act.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-23-13 8:29 PM

Phoenix...Dixiecrats were not left or right or far either way. They were democrats who rejected the civil rights platforms of either party. They were desirous of not being a part of either the right leaning republican party or the left leaning democratic party. They were a force in about 1948 and since they had to be old enough to be in office or at least voting age, I figured they must have been born in the teens or no late than the early 20s. No congressmen or voter could have done so at 14...not certain the 78 year old was a true Dixiecrat.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Phoenix

Jun-23-13 6:44 PM

Kozy, I live right next door to a former Dixiecrat, he's 78 and still racist. You do know that the Dixiecrats weren't liberals don't you? They were a far right faction of the southern Democratic Party.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Phoenix

Jun-23-13 6:41 PM

Read all your quotes notSocialist, still can't find where anyone said anything about racist republicans in office. I see your quoting from Brietbart again, still having trouble thinking for yourself.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-23-13 3:20 PM

Dixiecrats, who would most likely be about 100 years old by now, rejected the Civil rights platforms of not one, but both parties. Republicans had always supported civil rights since their inception. What was new is that the Democrats, led by Harry Truman, were publicly taking a stand for Civil rights as a necessity politically. The ‘totalitarian, centralized bureaucratic government”, according to the Dixiecrats, was the federal government’s enforcement of the 14thand 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. With both parties, now, for good reasons or bad, standing for Civil rights the segregationist had no party to go too. Thus, they started their own with the idea of causing a stalemate, which they hoped to break, once both parties relinquished their pro-civil rights planks.

I really hope we can move on...

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-23-13 3:00 PM

It's a shame we have to limit the discussion to who's more "bad" or more "southern"...

The facts to show the republican party of the past has been more pro freedoms for both women and minorities w/o a benefit politically. The democrats, as in the case of healthcare and imigration seem to be doing whatever, win or lose, for political gain...the heck with what we the people want.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Phoenix

Jun-22-13 10:31 PM

NotSocialist/Brietbart/Beck/Hannity/LaPierre/Limbaugh, Since you appear incapable of having an original thought, maybe it's time to give credit to some of the people who do your thinking for you. Oh and I reread all the posts, can't find where anyone said anything about racist Republicans in office.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 63 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web