<p>“Oh phew. I’m so glad I imagined the plane flying into the building. Thanks for clarifying that Opie. I see death and destruction as actual threats, but to each his own, right.”</p>
<p>everyday you prove me correct. </p>
<p>And you are a stereotype with fingers. Do you actually wear your tin-foil hat or just keep it nearby? "</p>
<p>Yes, they are equal, for sure. I claim your response proves my point and you accuse me of being a tin foil hat wearing sterotype. Yup, that’s truly equal. :)</p>
<p>I have to actually side with Opie here to some extent.</p>
<p>Clearly, terrorism presents a visceral, immeadiate threat. But, and I believe this is what Opie is arguing, is that a greater threat then rolling back the gains of the last several hundred years of Western civilization in terms of personal privacy and respect for human rights? Don’t we have to be careful to avoid the Vietnam effect of “destroying the village to save it?” I do not think that the current administration’s actions approach the level of threat that some might make it out to be, but to ignore the possibility of the slippery slope is reprehensible. We live in an open and free society. While clearly i do not wish to see anyone killed by extremism, would you rather live in a police state, or suffer a terror attack? The odds of you being killed in a car crash are far higher then being the next victim of al Qaeda, especially if you live in the continental United States.</p>
<p>Finally, we are not at war or under attack by Islam. We are engaged with extremists who manipulate and bend Islam to suit their own purposes. Any ideology can be so abused (see: communism, indigenous rights, anarchism).</p>
<p>Opie, I never attacked you. Never. I responded in kind to your post which I took to be tongue in cheek. Wow. I’m absolutely stunned.</p>
<p>Opie: “So while a middle eastern man with no education may hate me because he is told to, you hate me and try to destroy me because while we’re both educated, my opinion is different than yours,”</p>
<p>Hate you? How could you possibly get something like that from my posts? That’s all on you and not based on anything I’ve ever said to you. I enjoy your posts very much and, if asked, would have said that I like you. Destroy you? How bizarre. I’m truly stunned. I can’t imagine where you got this from anything I’ve ever posted and can only conclude that there is something about yourself that over-dramatizes disagreement.</p>
<p>Another example of how mere text can be read different ways. Shows how email can be easily misinterpreted.</p>
<p>“I have to actually side with Opie here to some exten”</p>
<p>Hey somebody gets it pretty darn close!! Nicely put.</p>
<p>My work here is done, I must return to my home planet. 
</p>
<p>[ adjusts “tin foil hat”, fluffs red cape and whoosh up, up and away!)</p>
<p>“Hate you? How could you possibly get something like that from my posts? That’s all on you and not based on anything I’ve ever said to you. I enjoy your posts very much and, if asked, would have said that I like you. Destroy you? How bizarre. I’m truly stunned. I can’t imagine where you got this from anything I’ve ever posted and can only conclude that there is something about yourself that over-dramatizes disagree”</p>
<p>It must be my tin foil is out of alinement, let’s see…hmmm. Can I find a post that attacks you personally from me? Well, I can find some where I challenge your pov? Are there any accusing you of being a sterotype? Mentally ill because you differ from me? I’ll keep looking. Let’s see can I find any posts from you towards others that attacks them personally?? hmmmm… </p>
<p>Very simply maybe you should learn to ASK why I feel the way I do about a subject, rather than imply I’m a menatly ill liberal because my opinion differs from yours. Who looks worse in that exchange?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I like how it’s assumed here that it’s liberals who believe this. </p>
<p>What the hell does “liberal” mean anymore?</p>
<p>What about the slippery slope of two major executed attacks and probably several others thwarted as in the recent case in England. That’s a slope with a much rockier bottom than monitoring communications in order to find plots before they can be executed. I can live with that and sleep better.</p>
<p>Opie, I think it would be best if you and I didn’t respond to each other again. Clearly, we don’t communicate on the same wave length. You read things (or claimed to, but I’m not quite sure even you believe what you posted) into my posts that were simply not there. As I said, I was tongue-in-in cheek and I took your previous post to be tongue in cheek, as well. Obviously, I was wrong and you were serious, which is why you are ascribing to me motives and emotions that don’t exist. You could have asked me to clarify before you posted such viciousness, but you didn’t, so I think you don’t have the right to expect me to ask you to clarify either. I wish you well, you are a very smart, articulate and interesting poster, but it’s best if we don’t communicate again.</p>
<p>tomadog02, which liberties and respect for human rights have we given up? If anything they seem to be expanding. Until the recent Supreme Court Hamden decision, the courts have held that illegal combatants need not be accorded Geneva Conventions protection; now, however, the courts have expanded the rights of terrorists at the expense to our personal safety. Had this decision been made a couple of years earlier we would have experienced another 8 attacks and many top al Qaeda leaders, including KSM the mastermind of 9/11, would be still on the loose planning even more attacks. This is an example of liberals undermining the very actions that have kept us safe.</p>
<p>As far as the “odds” are concerned, the reason that the odds have been fairly favorable lately is that we have taken such measures to prevent attacks. Your odds are made from a backward-looking perspective. It is likely just a matter of time before nuclear terrorism rears its ugly head in this world. When that happens, I think we would all feel safer in a '62 Corvair without seat belts.</p>
<p>But can you live without the writ of habeus corpus, that constitutional right that protects you from being held indefinitely, with no legal recourse?</p>
<p>Sure, you probably think that is OK, since it is merely big, bad Muslim terrorists who will be held without rights. But doing away with a constitutional right has that slippery slopyiness to it too, and very possibly could affect you, your family, or people you care about.</p>
<p>That’s the problem when presidents ignore the rule of law.</p>
<p>Which rule of law has been ignored? What I see is a following of a SC decision that may be looked back at as one of the most costly in terms of human life ever made. (Except of course the decision taking away the rights of the voters to decide what laws regarding abortions can be passed.)</p>
<p>As Barrons has put it: the bottom of the slippery slope of a terrorist attack is far more rocky than anything that we have been asked to give up (which is nothing as far as I’m concerned.)</p>
<p>try adding a when your kidding, or even being sarcastic. And you’ll find I really don’t usually respond to yours. You attempted the jump on me on this one for my comments.</p>
<p>“try adding a when your kidding, or even being sarcastic. And you’ll find I really don’t usually respond to yours. You attempted the jump on me on this one for my comments.”</p>
<p>I can’t stand those smiley faces, so I’m not going to add them. I didn’t attempt to do anything to you. You’re simply not that important to me. Hate and destroy are very strong words and I really am shocked that you would attribute such to a poster on a message board. Take care!</p>
<p>Oh, they can always listen to the Dixie Chicks and the new liberal credo:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>During 2006, the Dixie Chicks became the first major band to hire a designated blogger to be embedded with them for their promotional activities and tour. Thank God there is always Canada if Houston ain’t working too well!</p>
<p>:) last word. ;)</p>