Text 15263, 413 rader
Skriven 2008-05-13 08:13:58 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 15156 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Unrest in France
========================
11 May 08 09:44, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 RB>>>>> Roy, what do you want me to do? I don't damn the States out of
 RB>>>>> hand,

 RW>>>> Just out of ignorance.

 RB>>> Do you mean that if I were better informed, I _would_ damn the
 RB>>> States out of hand?

 RW>> No, you already do that.

 RB> Somehow I get the impression you're either not reading what I write,

Look at what you say and tell me that it's my misunderstanding. The facts
that are, stare you in the face and you continue with your line of holier
than thou.

 RB> or you are dead set on assuming ulterior motives to _any_ criticism
 RB> whatever.

 RB> That said, I'm used to it... when I defended Bush and the Iraq
 RB> invasion in the German echos (at the time when it was by no means
 RB> clear that thge intelligence was indeed false) I got torn apart too.
 RB> Your above comment just evens up the score... now I'm persons non
 RB> grata to _both_ sides ;-)

Actually, you lost that exchange...

 RB>>>>> the President was a gung-ho fanatic,

 RW>>>> I think he did the right thing.

 RB>>> And I meanwhile think he did the one thing that would enable bin
 RB>>> Laden, al Quaida and the Taliban to regroup and strengthen.

 RW>> Oh yeah? Where is their strength?

 RB> Taliban? Read the newspapers.

Again I ask: where is their strength?

 RB> Now there's talk that Bush wants to send more troops to Afghanistan
 RB> to combat rising Taliban activity. Bin Laden and al Quaida?

To keep that faction locked up in the Afghan mountains. Where is their
strength, say in Iraq?

 RB> Maybe you haven't heard of the Madrid and London attacks.

I haven't heard that Osama or any of his Taliban friends were there.

 RB> And if they are finished, why do so many in the States and elsewhere
 RB> react with total panic at the mere names?

They do? That's news to me.

 RB> Why do foreigners get treated like criminals when the enter the
 RB> States

We dont' want you criminals here.

 RB> - and in future _also_ when they leave? Is that a sign of confidence
 RB> - or of helpless weakness toward an invisible enemy?

It's a sign that the US has finally gotten tough, whereas the Euros are
still fighting to survive the Madrid and London attackers. Fortunately for
British LEOs, there is no Constitutional amendments keeping them from
searching everybody's house without a warrant.

 RW>> Or is hiding in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan
 RW>> something to worry about?

 RB> The USA apparently thinks so.

I doubt that.

 RW>> Keep your eye on Iran. That will be the next biggest threat to the
 RW>> world.

 RB> Possible.

Likely.

 RB>  At the moment, I'm still withholding judgement on that,
 RB> although I agree that there are grounds for concern in that
 RB> direction.

Like wiping Isreal off the map concerns.

 RB>>>>> and the constitutional separation of powers is a myth.

 RW>>>> Is it? I see the separation everyday. Congress is always fighting
 RW>>>> with the White House, and vice versa.

 RB>>> And who loses? Congress.

 RW>> Congress hasn't acted on their own because they know they won't get
 RW>> re-elected if they do.

 RB> I notice you don't deny what I wrote.

I did. You just didn't read that into it. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelozi
stand before each house and constantly deride the President and his fellow
party members in Congress, and then do nothing to stop him. That doesn't
mean that both houses are tied in with the Prez. Nor that the USSC is in
kahoots with anybody outside of their court.

 RB>>>>> Just look at Bush's blatent rejection of the idea that he cannot
 RB>>>>> order domestic wiretaps without judicual approval - and Congress'
 RB>>>>> kowtow to that view.

 RW>>>> The only people who have anything to worry about there are those
 RW>>>> who would conspire with the enemy. I'm for it.

 RB> Good! Now please post your last income tax return here, your credit
 RB> card numbers and details of your bank accounts. Since you have
 RB> nothing to hide, that shouldn't worry you at all. Or do you "conspire
 RB> with the enemy"?

All of that is available to the IRS from my banking institutions. The IRS
is not above allowing other governmental instutions access to that info.
Doing as you ask would subject my bank accounts to scrutiny by the
'un-washed' - who wouldn't give a shit about any of it, accept how to get
their hands on the money. Thus, I will not conspire with the enemy.

 RB>>> This kind of BS is also prevalent among those here in Germany who
 RB>>> are uninformed and unable to realize that _everyone_ has something
 RB>>> to hide.

 RW>> Sure...I have nothing to hide, so I don't feel intimidated by it.
 RW>> Others may have problems with it, but I don't think it's a big deal.

 RB> Hey, that's good! In that case, please also detail your sexual
 RB> proclivities,

Heterosexual. Twice to three times a week (younger wife). Does not use or
abuse prostitutes, teenagers or children.

 RB> your movements over the last 6 months

69% of my waking hours, I was working. The other 40% I was watching TV,
working on my cars, grocery shopping or engaging in heterosexual
activities. See above.

 RB>  and what you did with the neighbor's daughter

None of my neighbor's have daughters living with them. The young couple
next door are expecting, but I don't know what gender it will be.

 RB>  behind the barn when you were 7 years old.

That would be my cousin. We herded pigs for my uncle to castrate. She
showed me hers and I showed her mine.

 RB>  That's not a "big deal", is it?

Nope.

 RB>  Oh yes, and don't forget your fingerprints, DNA patern, good
 RB> mugshots and passport number (if any).

The police have my fingerprints on file, since I'm working as a lock smith
these days. My DNA can be had from my hair brush (yes, I still have plenty
of hair at 67). No mugshots. I do not have a passport.

Your problem as I see it is, you now have all of the information you asked
for, yet you still don't know anything. For all you know, I could be
telling the truth, or pulling your chain.

 RB>>> The most regrettable part of it is that they generally only realize
 RB>>> their error too late, and then scream because they themselves are
 RB>>> the targets of government snooping.

 RW>> I could agree with you there, if I lived in Europe. Here, Congress
 RW>> has to agree and pass it into law permanately. Then it will have to
 RW>> pass under the noses of the USSC before anyone should be worried
 RW>> about it.

 RB> Like the secret wiretaps without judicial approval? Tell it to
 RB> someone else, Roy, maybe they'll believe it.

The law states that wiretaps may be set (and live) before permission can
be obtained from a judge, which must be obtained within 24 hours of the
start of the wiretap.

BTW, this was the law of the land when Lincoln was Prez, during the Civil
War to intercept telegraph messages. Wilson used it during WW1. FDR used
it to spy on the Japanese embassy before and during WW2. That law is older
than Bush and used long before his daddy was a twinkle in his daddy's
eye...

 RW>>>> You have democracy over there? Odd, I didn't think there was such
 RW>>>> a thing in countries who haven't got the 'people' running
 RW>>>> government.

 RB>>> And how long have you lived outside the States to venture such an
 RB>>> opinion?

 RW>> That's an opinion voiced by your friends there who believe it's
 RW>> called freedom. They don't know real freedom, as they have no
 RW>> experience with it. It's like the subject above where the government
 RW>> snoops into your private life. They think they have freedom, but
 RW>> they really don't.

 RB> Unfortunately, the same applies to you. I know what freedom is, as it
 RB> existed in the States in the 40s and 50s.

You and I were naive in those days. There were the hearings in Congress
over who is a communist, just to mention one that you may have heard of
back then. There are plenty of publications today that show the government
was spying on everyone, even your dad.

 RW>>>> I'm still as free as I was on September 10, 2001...

 RB>>> That's what you think.

 RW>> That's what I know.

 RB> As long as you live in a small town in Texas and never have any
 RB> contact with the outside world except for the Internet, you may be
 RB> right. At least subjectively.

Small town? 53k and bordering on like 'towns' along the road to San
Antonio. Yeah, small town. This small town has a 8 lane freeway running
through it and it's a small town. Yeah, right. You havn't been to Texas in
40 years and have no idea what it's like now. Oh, and don't forget that I
lived in San Diego, CA for 38 years before coming here...small town my
ass.

 RW>>>> What I see is an improvement in illegal immigration laws. If you
 RW>>>> want to come here and work, fine, but when the job is done, go
 RW>>>> home.

 RB>>> Too late, Roy. If the States had wanted that, it would have had to
 RB>>> start a couple of hundred years ago.

 RW>> You're not living here, so you have no idea what is wanted here.

 RB> Not very good in history, are you? I remembewr the Chinese laborers
 RB> who were imported to help in the California gold fields in the 1850s
 RB> and 1860s. Ever hear of Chinatown in San Fransisco? Their decendents
 RB> are there.

Not a very good history lesson. You see, the Chinese were originally
imported to work on the California Central Railroad.

When construction of the Atlantic/Pacific railroad began, the same Chinese
were employed to build it.

Some of them went AWOL when gold was found at Sutter's Mill in California.

China town is there because those who got rich in the gold fields, built
it. And yes, that doesn't mean that some of them didn't work in the gold
fields for others.

 RB>>> And of course, it would not have developed as it did for lack of
 RB>>> population.

 RW>> right, it developed as it did because the government didn't allow
 RW>> the border patrol enougn money or manpower to enforce the law. Not
 RW>> to mention the people who want those illegals here to pick their
 RW>> fruit.

 RB> You're thinking of the 20th century.

There weren't millions of Mexicans crossing the border in the 19th
century or even the first half of the 20th.

 RW>> I'm looking all about and all I see is freedom. There's no gestapo
 RW>> roaming the streets harrassing anyone.

 RB> Stuff like that is never out in the open. Lokk at how long it took
 RB> for the secret, unauthorized wiretaps to become public.

None have ever been unauthorized in the past 150 years. At least, none by
government agencies.

 RB>>> As a matter of fact, I _am_ a German citizen, naturalized after
 RB>>> some 35 years here. At the time, I was sad that I had to give up my
 RB>>> American citizenship to become naturalized, but meanwhile that
 RB>>> sadness has faded considerably.

 RW>> Great. Don't worry about America, she's in good hands.

 RB> Yeah, we've noticed that in the last 8 years.

 RB>>> I think once you get past the border, the intrusive, demeaning and
 RB>>> downright insulting "security" checks (do they really think foreign
 RB>>> visitors are going to bomb a taxi from the airport to the city??),

 RW>> You can never tell. That's done in other countries...

 RB> Since when?

Since 15 to 20 years before Sept 11, 2001 - maybe longer.

 RW>> The more security the better.

 RB> OK, then amend the Constitution to prohibit private citizens from
 RB> acquiring firearms and you've gained a great deal of "security"

How would that work? All that would do is make criminals out of those who
would keep them anyway. Besides, guns in the hands of the public isn't the
problem. Far from it.

 RB>  - oh, I forgot... you only mean "security" against foreigners.

They should stay home if they don't like our security measures.

 RB> Like the guy who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma city...
 RB> Timothy McVeigh, doubtless an al Quaida member from Scotland.

Not even related to Ramzi Yousef, who drove a van loaded with explosives
into the underground parking garage at the WTC in 1993...

Or the Saudi Arabian 'foreigners' who flew two jet liners into the world
trade center and another into the Pentagon...fortunately the one headed
for the White House crashed into a Pennsylvania corn field because of the
actions of some brave Americans.

Yeah, those foreigners...

 RB>>> But I don't expect you to understand that, as you've apparently
 RB>>> never ben outside the States (except maybe on a visitors' card to
 RB>>> Mexico),

 RW>> There isn't a visitor's card required to enter Mexico.

 RB> There was when I was there. And you couldn't get out of the country
 RB> without one.

You weren't an American citizen either. I've been to Mexico many times
over the 38 years I lived in California, including the time I visited
Mexico while on vacation in 1965...at first, it was my Illinois driver's
license that identified me, then my California driver's license. No other
papers were required to get in or out of Mexico. Back then, a Mexican
citizen had to have a 'green' work card to get into the US, but just waved
at the police standing guard at the re-entry gate into Mexico. By the same
token, I needed a Mexican work permit to enter the Baja 500 race in 1970.
I recall visiting the Mexican Embassy in San Diego to get it. That was
required in case I won any money prizes.

 RW>> There is a passport required to go deep into Mexico, but that can be
 RW>> waivered if you have enough cash.

 RB> And that was no requirement when I was there.

Yes it was...you crossed the border as a German citizen or with a German
citizen and you needed a passport to do that.

 RW>> Crossing the border into Mexico only requires a ride or walk across
 RW>> the border. I havn't been near the border of Mexico in a few years,
 RW>> but entering probably hasn't changed a one bit.

 RB> I'd be willing to bet it has.

You're right of course, the Mexicans are worried that some gringo will
hijack and fly a Mexican Airlines plane into their equivalant to the WTC.
:o)

 RW>> I hear that it may have changed, a photo ID issued by the US
 RW>> government may be required now. No big deal. In the near future,
 RW>> State photo IDs will have the HLS logo on them and it'll be just as
 RW>> easy to cross as it was in the past.

 RB> HLS... is that something like the Gestapo?

No, they don't have any orders to arrest, detain and imprison jews, just
because they're jews.

 RB> And right as rain, that's a damned leading question, but one that is
 RB> starting to seem justified based on developments.

I cleared the air on that for you.

 RB>>> if you had visited a country behind the Iron Curtain, you might
 RB>>> have some idea how foreigners now view American immigration
 RB>>> procedures. The only difference was that the Iron Curtain countries
 RB>>> never took your fingerprints.

 RW>> Too bad you gave up your US citizen papers. You could now get a
 RW>> passcard and wouldn't need to go through all that.

 RB> Passcard? Without a passport _you_ can't enter the EU.

BS...this announcement is over a year old.

http://tinyurl.com/6paofx

 RB>  But at least you still don't get treated like a criminal for wanting
 RB> to do so.

No bother, I don't want to do so.

 RB> No fingerprinting, no mugshots, no interrogations. But just wait...
 RB> our politicians are enthusiastically following the developments in
 RB> the States, and may well institute such things for Americans in the
 RB> future - if they have the backbone to weather the complaints by
 RB> American tourists, which I doubt.

Since your inflated currency is now a deterent to travel in the EU, I
doubt they'll make it harder for people to spend their deflated dollars
there. They'll do like the Euros do and go where their money is worth more
than the native currency. Mexico, South America, the Far East or stay
right here and see the USA.

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)