A rebuttal needs to be given to ole Ted’s concept of ‘The Price for Security’. This is not to say some of his program doesn’t have merit, but everything does have a price – even the free stuff (someone ultimately pays for it). The nitty-gritty of all this (in my view) boils down to yours and my stupidity. We are not dumb, we are lazy and conditioned to believe the media, no manner what is said, mainly because we don’t exert the effort to research the information ourselves. If we ever lose our freedom, it will be you and I that did it, not Ted, not the government, but yours and my stupidity. We allowed others to sway our decisions, because we were too lazy to find out the facts ourselves. We allow our media, which most certainly is biased (financially, politically, religiously and all the factors possible) to sway our thinking. Why are they biased? Because they are humans and are swayed in the same manner you and I are!!
This war will not end at the end of George Bush, nor did he start it. Learn the real reason why America and Europe are (and have been) targets for the terrorists. Research it yourselves and learn “the facts”, not some biased opinion of the media. Even then you and I may not agree on how events are handled, but we will have a common knowledge of the facts and our difference of opinion is called ‘freedom’. The price of yours and my freedom should never be equated to American lives (God bless our service personnel for their ultimate sacrifices) but more to you and I understanding and making wise decisions based upon our efforts in researching and educate ourselves in these areas. We still control the government with our votes, and the media with our buying habits and who and what we view. Use this control wisely and our freedom will be sustained forever.
Originally posted by jerber35: A rebuttal needs to be given to ole Ted’s concept of ‘The Price for Security’. This is not to say some of his program doesn’t have merit, but everything does have a price – even the free stuff (someone ultimately pays for it).
What exactly are you trying to rebut? The program essentially is about the conflict between the Bush Administration's anti-terror policies and critics who say those policies violate civil liberties. Regardless of which side you're on, it's a fact that this conflict exists.
I think it is clear the intent of this program is to attempt to skew the "stupid" masses to a liberal point of view, in the environment of a pending change in presidential administration. His treatament of Ted Olson while he was speaking, and his obvious hand picked family members of victims. What percentage of the family members of victims of the 9/11 attacks agree with this small sampling Mr. Koppel has presented?
I always knew our media will use any means necessary to further it's liberal political agenda, But Mr. Koppel has done nothing less than fully prove this to America. Hopefully they will not be so influenced as to accept such unethical conduct. Hopefully we will continue to educate ourselves. I guess we will see in the coming elections just how stupid our country is.
I believe the most intelligent our country has ever been is at the exact moment we were being attacked on our own soil. The passengers of United flight 93 knew they would have to take these islamic soldiers out to prevent them from harming even more American citizens. They were heros in the ongoing war against soldiers that will live among us to gain our trust as one of many tactics we can no longer ignore. We are good at protecting our own, that makes us great, in my humble opinion.
Originally posted by candace_a: I think it is clear the intent of this program is to attempt to skew the "stupid" masses to a liberal point of view, in the environment of a pending change in presidential administration.
I agree with thats statement 100%. Ted was a bit determined to give the Bush Administration a big public black eye for the things that have been done while Bush has been in office. He consistantly "shut down" guest speakers that seemed to actually know what they were talking about - if they had valid points to defend the administrations actions.
I could really care less about what anyone from the ACLU has to say about pretty much anything in regards to the war on terror or anthing even remotely related. I'm really sick and tired of hearing tree hugging liberal hippes complain about something that they truley do not understand. Let me make something perfectly clear here...terrorists don't want to take away Americans civil liberties...they want to KILL us. They don't care what polictical party you are, what income level your in, what race you are or what kind of car you drive. They want to exterminate all of US because of what we are...Americans. Until we all can recognize that fact, we will never come to a full agreement on how to deal with the issue. We cannot treat this as if this were a civil law issue. It's a national security related issue, and I feel these matters fall into different levels of justice - of which most people do not understand.
I personally have no problem if the government wire taps my phone or reads my email. I know that the government would find nothing of interest in me since I don't converse or have any ties with terroists. I'm 100% confident that the NSA, FBI and CIA are only investigating persons that they feel warrant that kind of attention due to their actions - not just because they are muslim or are from the middle east.
I find it humourous that privatly owned companies can gather, track and sell information about American citizens for the purposes of target marketing and credit offers...but if the government gathers that very same information to prevent future terrorist attacks and protect the very civil liberties that are supposedly in jeapordy, that people then have an issue with it.
Originally posted by parrhesia: I could really care less about what anyone from the ACLU has to say about pretty much anything in regards to the war on terror or anthing even remotely related. I'm really sick and tired of hearing tree hugging liberal hippes complain about something that they truley do not understand. .
a)If you don't care what both sides have to say in a debate, why bother to watch it at all?
b)Name-calling is not a very effective method of persuasion. You're going to make a more effective case if you avoid denigrating or stereotyping the other side. (Besides, the other side on this issue includes people such as former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican who is about as far from a "tree hugging liberal hippe" as one can get. (Here's Barr's take on the recent court ruling about warrantless surveillance.)
Let me make something perfectly clear here...terrorists don't want to take away Americans civil liberties...they want to KILL us.
You're right, it's our own government that wants to take away our liberties, and that scares the hell out of me. I'm not afraid of terrorists, I'm afraid the government is trying to take mroe and more liberties away from the people.
As so many founding fathers said they would rather have their liberties than their lives, I feel the same way. There is no life without liberty.
to pat_k, way to stick to pointing out the flaws and attempting to sway the topic back to the obvious agenda of the show: not to show both sides, but to skew the arguement by saying, 'this Republican agrees with us'...
Originally posted by candace_a: I think it is clear the intent of this program is to attempt to skew the "stupid" masses to a liberal point of view, in the environment of a pending change in presidential administration.
I was impressed with the very obvious attempt to have an equal number of guests from both sides of the aisle represented. And frankly, my dear, a stupid person would have not been able to understand at least half of this program.
He interviewed Tom Ridge (who I was most impressed with) and Condi Rice. And Koppel's leading questions gave both these people more than adaquate time to explain their positions along with how and why they have reacted the way they have.
quote:
His treatament of Ted Olson while he was speaking, and his obvious hand picked family members of victims.
Koppel interrupted a number of guests; from both the left and the right. One in particular near the end of the program had quite a bit to say that I wanted to hear, but Koppel cut him off too.
quote:
What percentage of the family members of victims of the 9/11 attacks agree with this small sampling Mr. Koppel has presented?
If I remember right three Family of 9/11 victims spoke. One was solidly behind the president, one was solidly behind a program that the Bush Administration created, and one had a problem with the loss of civil liberties.
If anything the "Right" was more favorably represented by FO911 members than not.
That kind of statement may have made sense for someone like Ben Franklin... of course he never had this type of threat to deal with. There were rules of engagement that were followed. Men behaved as men with honor and dignity, as Americans still do. Unfortunately, our enemies do not, which is why we must use any means necessary to protect our freedoms.
Further more, the only people whose civil liberties are supposed to have been taken are those soldiers of war who crossed the battle field into our homes to attack us. In times of war we are allowed to detain those that would presumably attack again.
I agree with thats statement 100%. Ted was a bit determined to give the Bush Administration a big public black eye for the things that have been done while Bush has been in office.
Did you miss the portions of the program where current and past administration officials had the lions share of the airtime?
quote:
He consistantly "shut down" guest speakers that seemed to actually know what they were talking about - if they had valid points to defend the administrations actions.
Yes, from both sides...obviously due to time contraints. Not a one of his guests were denied the ability to put their primary point across. Typically Koppel would interrupt when the speaker got past a certain length of time and always for a commercial break or to allow another speaker to state his/her views.
quote:
I could really care less about what anyone from the ACLU has to say about pretty much anything in regards to the war on terror or anthing even remotely related. I'm really sick and tired of hearing tree hugging liberal hippes complain about something that they truley do not understand.
Tree Hugging Liberal Hippies? Are you stuck in a time warp? There haven't been any Hippies for over twenty years.
quote:
Let me make something perfectly clear here...terrorists don't want to take away Americans civil liberties...they want to KILL us. They don't care what polictical party you are, what income level your in, what race you are or what kind of car you drive. They want to exterminate all of US because of what we are...Americans.
Prove it!
quote:
Until we all can recognize that fact, we will never come to a full agreement on how to deal with the issue.
I don't think; I know, you are overstating the case...without a doubt.
quote:
We cannot treat this as if this were a civil law issue.
As Tom Ridge and John Yee stated we are a nation of laws. Throw them out?
quote:
It's a national security related issue, and I feel these matters fall into different levels of justice - of which most people do not understand.
So administer differing levels of justice based on religious background? Skin color? Surname?
quote:
I personally have no problem if the government wire taps my phone or reads my email.
You don't speak for all Americans. You know that don't you?
quote:
I know that the government would find nothing of interest in me since I don't converse or have any ties with terroists. I'm 100% confident that the NSA, FBI and CIA are only investigating persons that they feel warrant that kind of attention due to their actions - not just because they are muslim or are from the middle east.
I guess you missed the part of the program where a Canadian citizen was sent to Syria and tortured for a year...and had no ties to terrorism.
quote:
I find it humourous that privatly owned companies can gather, track and sell information about American citizens for the purposes of target marketing and credit offers...but if the government gathers that very same information to prevent future terrorist attacks and protect the very civil liberties that are supposedly in jeapordy, that people then have an issue with it.
What if a Democrat were in office and had the same "snooping" powers of the United States. Would it be OK then?
Mr. Koppel did not just interrupt Mr. Olson, he went from labelling him as "Ted Olson, civil liberties guy" at the beginning, to "Ted Olson, family member of victim" when he started expressing the opinion that we should have the right to treat these prisoners of war as soldiers that would attack us if released... because that is exactly what they would do. And as far as interrogations, sleep deprivation is not torture. If any member of my family was involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks I would expect the government to use any means necessary to get what information they needed.
quote:
If I remember right three Family of 9/11 victims spoke. One was solidly behind the president, one was solidly behind a program that the Bush Administration created, and one had a problem with the loss of civil liberties.
If anything the "Right" was more favorably represented by FO911 members than not.
You are wrong, 2 were in complete favor of protecting civil liberties even if it meant losing their loved ones, and one was slightly against. The first 2, as most of the presenters in the live segment, used the forum as an opportunity to further their wholly Democratic viewpoints and political agenda, and feel quite certain that Mr. Koppel was well aware that this would happen. In fact, he encourage it. To an obvious liberal thinking person as yourself it would not seem that way, but to the conservative that live, eat and breath it is plain and clear.
So administer differing levels of justice based on religious background? Skin color? Surname?
No, we administer differing levels of justice to those that attempt and succeed at bringing war into our living rooms and break rooms over morning coffee.
quote:
Originally posted by bing-go:
What if a Democrat were in office and had the same "snooping" powers of the United States. Would it be OK then?
we must use any means necessary to protect our freedoms.
We must not use "any means necessary" because this is fundamentaly wrong thinking. if anything goes, where do we draw the line? what's right and wrong? you say men back then behaved with honor and dignitiy - why can't we still behave with honor and dignity? why must we be the most vile creature on the playground to battle the bully? we have to take the high road.
Mr. Koppel did not just interrupt Mr. Olson, he went from labelling him as "Ted Olson, civil liberties guy" at the beginning, to "Ted Olson, family member of victim" when he started expressing the opinion that we should have the right to treat these prisoners of war as soldiers that would attack us if released... because that is exactly what they would do. And as far as interrogations, sleep deprivation is not torture.
A run-on sentence is a bit hard to respond to so here goes. When did Koppel call Olson "the civil liberties" guy? His official title is "Soliciter General" which makes him an attorney for the United States Government. Also his wife, Barbara Olson, friend of Ann Coulter, was on Flight 77. So where's the inaccuracy?
Frankly Mr. Olson had more than two opportunities and speak, two more than anyone else except Tom Ridge.
quote:
If any member of my family was involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks I would expect the government to use any means necessary to get what information they needed.
Inlcuding violating the Constitution?
quote:
You are wrong, 2 were in complete favor of protecting civil liberties even if it meant losing their loved ones, and one was slightly against.
You are wrong. There were a total of five families of vitims people who spoke and three of them were pro adminstration. Did you even watch the program?
quote:
The first 2, as most of the presenters in the live segment, used the forum as an opportunity to further their wholly Democratic viewpoints and political agenda, and feel quite certain that Mr. Koppel was well aware that this would happen.
And those on the right had every opportunity to express their views. Why do you have a problem with Democrats expressing views? This IS a democracy.
quote:
In fact, he encourage it. To an obvious liberal thinking person as yourself it would not seem that way, but to the conservative that live, eat and breath it is plain and clear.
He also encouraged the right to speak. So?
Look, just because there were some guests on the program that you don't personally like doesn't mean there was a slant to the left. By and large Administration officials and people in the halls of government spoke. I'd say about 75% of what aired was administration centric. Would you have been happier if it were 100%?
What kind of "democracy" do you want to live in anyway? One with a single party?
"They" who? "They already did." Is not proof of anything;[DELETED BY MODERATOR].
quote:
No, we administer differing levels of justice to those that attempt and succeed at bringing war into our living rooms and break rooms over morning coffee.
Differing levels of justice is not justice.
And guess what deary, what we are going through for the last five years the rest of the world has had to endure for the last twenty...if not more. Welcome to reality.
quote:
Yes. So what is it that you have to hide?
Do I want my government knowing how I'm going to vote before I vote? Do you? Would you want your government to know how you were going to vote if there was a Democratic Senate, Judiciary, and sitting president?
Have you read the fourth amendment lately? Maybe you should read it again. It's not a matter of my wanting to hide something. It's a matter of having a life that the entire country or selected individuals within government are not privy too.
Do you plan to leave your bathroom door open to public scrutiny? If not why not?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: pat_k,
The thing is, the people on the left will say the program was "right biased" and the people on the right will say it was "liberal biased" - so Ted can rest assured he's in the middle.
Originally posted by destroyideas: The thing is, the people on the left will say the program was "right biased" and the people on the right will say it was "liberal biased" - so Ted can rest assured he's in the middle.
I thought it was quite fair frankly and it gave me much better insight into Condi Rice and Tom Ridge.
Originally posted by candace_a: to pat_k, way to stick to pointing out the flaws and attempting to sway the topic back to the obvious agenda of the show: not to show both sides, but to skew the arguement by saying, 'this Republican agrees with us'...
The show has being critized by posters on the left and right, which seems to me a pretty strong proof that TK isn't pushing an ideological agenda. You seem to have missed my point in bringing up Bob Barr, which is that stereotyping one or other side of the debate is wrong. There are some very conservative people in this country who disagree with the Bush Administration on civil liberties issues.
why can't we still behave with honor and dignity? why must we be the most vile creature on the playground to battle the bully?
I think if you put Sadaam and his soldiers next to our troops we are fighting a fair fight. Next you'll be spitting on soldiers as they come home... oh, but there haven't been hippies since the 70s, right?
quote:
A run-on sentence is a bit hard to respond to so here goes. When did Koppel call Olson "the civil liberties" guy?
If correcting my grammar makes you feel smarter, then go for it. My statement was a bad example of the facts, so I will clarify: the label at the bottom of the screen under Mr. Olson's name stated his title as member of the President's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, then after he began to speak the changed the label to state something regarding his wife being a victim on 9/11, which to me was a small thing, but caught my attention. And yes he was allowed to speak, but it seemed to me rebutted more than just cut off so the next person could speak.
quote:
Inlcuding violating the Constitution?
The Constitution does not apply to soldiers at war against us. There is a seperate set of laws for those willing to bring the fight into our backyard.
quote:
You are wrong. There were a total of five families of vitims people who spoke and three of them were pro adminstration.
You were the one who first said there were three, and no I did not intently watch the entire program. When I started getting frustrated with the slant of the program I began to write. It scares me that this country could be pushed to shift into another Clinton-type administration, which is the whole reason we are here to begin with. If Clinton had worried less about defending his extra-martial affairs and more on responding to intelligence presented to him none of this would have ever happened. We as a country relaxed, we were lulled into a false sense of security by the Clinton administration, and now we are paying for it.
quote:
And those on the right had every opportunity to express their views. Why do you have a problem with Democrats expressing views? This IS a democracy.
As far as this program is concerned, the liberal view points were encouraged and the conservative viewpoints were rebutted. But you're right, this is a democracy, and that is what I believe... so I guess you'll just have to deal with it won't you?
quote:
"They" who? "They already did." Is not proof of anything; except your own ignorance.
Are you kidding? And you say I'm ignorant? If you don't know who they are why are YOU here? [Deleted by Moderator]
quote:
Do you plan to leave your bathroom door open to public scrutiny? If not why not?
Colorful, but again, [Deleted by Moderator] A very good point was made by someone else earlier: if you don't mind the private sector using that same information to sell you your favorite brand of beer (imported no less), then who cares if they use it to keep you safe. Oh, but that's right, you'd rather die with your civil liberties worn on your sleeve. Well, not me brother! Of course, that's the beauty of democracy, again.
quote:
Orginally posted by pat_k: ...stereotyping one or other side of the debate is wrong
You said that earlier in response to someone else, not me. But I will respond to it since you seem to have put me into the categoy of "people who stereotype": if we have a varying viewpoint, and identify the parts of an opposing viewpoint which we believe are flawed, does that mean we are stereotyping, or ju
