If we live in a free country ...

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
Okay, so once again Botwinick doesn't like the source of the information so he just tosses it out as not factual,

Read my post again and then try being honest in your representation of what I said. I know it will be hard for you to do as it is not a common thing for you and it won't support your argument, but please try.

Please give me cold hard evidence...not speculation from a source that is fishing for a victim to represent to push a political agenda. Nowhere in your post above did you prove your point.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[JGrubbs]

Thanks for calling me dishonest, I just love your Christian attitude!! I gave you a link to the story in the New York Times, if need more information you can contact them to find out their source of information. While the ACLU is very dangerous liberal organization, I have found that on some issues they are right, it may be a very few issues, but it still happens.

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

http://tinyurl.com/ctlvx

As I stated on the last page, these are liberal groups that I have no respect for, but they are not in any way connected with Al Qaeda. These are US citizens who are being spied on without a warrant, not just possible Al Qaeda terrorists.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
Thanks for calling me dishonest,I just love your Christian attitude!!

You're welcome. The truth hurts sometimes. Don't try to misrepresent what I say and I won't call you dishonest. Speaking of Christian attitudes...I am quite sure that bearing false witness is not one of them.

I gave you a link to the story in the New York Times, [/QUOTE]

You gave me a link to speculation, not evidence, from an anti-American smear machine. And you expect me to take that seriously? Give me one name of someone who was spied on who had nothing to do with terrorists whatsoever, and then show me the evidence, not speculation (may have doesn't cut it with me), and then we can talk. Otherwise, you should admit that there is no evidence that this has occurred and is merely your own speculation created in your imagination if you would like to try being honest about the issue for once.

if need more information you can contact them to find out their source of information.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you should contact them. I am not the one who made the accusation, and therefore, am not the one with the burden of proof to defend my comments. You are.

While the ACLU is very dangerous liberal organization, I have found that on some issues they are right, it may be a very few issues, but it still happens.[/QUOTE]

Every now and then, you are correct here. They are right on some issues. Even a dead clock is right twice a day.

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.[/QUOTE]

Do you know that none of these groups, or individual members of these groups, for a fact had nothing to do with terrorism. I don't think you have proved your point yet. But, that is some good speculation.

http://tinyurl.com/ctlvx

As I stated on the last page, these are liberal groups that I have no respect for, but they are not in any way connected with Al Qaeda. These are US citizens who are being spied on without a warrant, not just possible Al Qaeda terrorists. [/QUOTE]

And you know this how?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[JGrubbs]

It didn't hurt, because it wasn't the truth, I learned long ago not to be offended by your personal attacks. I didn't bear false witness against you, I simply stated that you don't like the source, so you disregard the story. You do that all the time on the forum, how is that bearing false witness?

Again, here you choose to ignore the information because you don't like the source. How is the "Vegan Community Project" or the Catholic Workers group, or PETA connected to Al Qaeda? Your logic makes no sense. You automatically assume that anyone that the Bush administration is spying on must be related to Al Qaeda simply because they are spying on them. hmmmm.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
It didn't hurt, because it wasn't the truth, I learned long ago not to be offended by your personal attacks. I didn't bear false witness against you, I simply stated that you don't like the source, so you disregard the story. You do that all the time on the forum, how is that bearing false witness?

I can only assume that you either have a problem with reading comprehension, or you are purposely dishonest about what I said. Let me see if I can more clearly communicate what should be obvious to you:

You Wrote:

For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.

There are two objections that I have to what you have presented as "evidence":

1. It is speculation, not fact.

2. The speculation originates with an anti-American smear group.

Therefore, whether it be a problem with reading comprehension or just plain dishonesty, it is clear that you ignored the fact of my first objection, making it look as if I had only one objection against the source itself. Do you understand now, or do you not want to understand? Which is it?

Again, here you choose to ignore the information because you don't like the source. How is the "Vegan Community Project" or the Catholic Workers group, or PETA connected to Al Qaeda? Your logic makes no sense. You automatically assume that anyone that the Bush administration is spying on must be related to Al Qaeda simply because they are spying on them. hmmmm. [/QUOTE]

1. Do you know for sure that they, or perhaps some of their individual members, are not connected to terrorists? How do you know oh grand omniscient bearer of all knowledge? Do you know more about our national security than the president and the FBI? Are you really that arrogant?

2. You automatically assume that anyone that the Bush administration is spying on must not be related to Al Qaeda simply because they are spying on them. hmmmm.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[NiteShift]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
and NiteShift ignores the law to create his own conspiracy about the timing of the NYT article. I would rather deal with the facts that the law states that this surveillance against US citizens without a warrant is considered unlawful, and that our president has choosen to ignore the law and the US Constitution to continue his "war on terror"

I don't "ignore the law". I maintain that no law was broken. If one has become an "Agent of a foreign power" as defined under subsection (b)(2)(C), if one "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefore, for or on behalf of a foreign power,", then according to the law, surveillance is justified. Even including US citizens. The whole point being to protect against sabotage or international terrorism by a "foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."


As to a conspiracy by NY Times, it looks pretty fishy to me, but use your own judgment.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JGrubbs:
It didn't hurt, because it wasn't the truth, I learned long ago not to be offended by your personal attacks. I didn't bear false witness against you, I simply stated that you don't like the source, so you disregard the story. You do that all the time on the forum, how is that bearing false witness?

I can only assume that you either have a problem with reading comprehension, or you are purposely dishonest about what I said. Let me see if I can more clearly communicate what should be obvious to you:

You Wrote:

For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.

</font>[/QUOTE]No problem with readin comprehension here, I posted content with links to an article, you stated: "Names and evidence, not speculation from the Anti-Bush, Anti-American ACLU, please.", So I replied, that you don't "like the source of the information" so you "just tosses it out as not factual" That is not bearing false witness. You don't trust the New York Times or the ACLU, so you disregard the news story as speculation. Don't worry your personal attacks won't confuse me, I understand perfectly well. Good night!

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Nope. You either do not understand or are dishonest when you ignore the second part of my objection to your non-evidence. Don't worry, John. I have never known the truth to confuse you when you are trying to smear people. You understand absolutely nothing, except perhaps, how to bear false witness. You do that very well.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Thread closed as it has been a personal squabble since page one.

 

[Rufus_1611]

[/b]THey are not in the same league. The ideas of Washington and Franklin have stood the test of time and received universal recognition. Baldwin's views have not. Perhaps in fifty years you can quote him int eh same sentence.

[/b]I am not convinced they are true, especially not Baldwin's since he didn't identify any God-given rights. I have no idea whether I agree or not. Somehow, I can't find "freedom to talk on the telephone" as a God given right. Perhaps I need another Bible though.

[/b]Such as???

[/b]I don't know, but the words of hte Bible come to mind, that say, "Romans 13:3 Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same." THe kind of life I believe in is a radically biblical life, that is less concerned with civil freedom and civil issues and more concerned with spiritual and eternal ones.

[/b]They can already do that. All they need to do is show up. Or go to church websites where churches have recorded their message and make them publicly available. I have no problem at all with the government enforcing 501c3 status. I wish they would.

[/b]"The sky is falling." I think even you know that this is great hyperbole.

[/b]They, or you, are welcome to read or listen to whatever I say on teh phone or write in an email. I have nothing to hide and no reason to be concerned. The rights aren't being taken away. The problem is that your cry of "Wolf" hurts the real issues that will one day come.

You wish that the government would monitor churches for the purpose of enforcing 501c3 status? I know this is an old thread so do you continue to hold this position? If your church is not 501c3 then why do you wish this monitoring on others?

 

[KenH]

If we live in a free country, then why isn't the FBI, the President, whoever free to monitor whatever they like?

The U.S. Constitution is one of enumerated powers for the federal government. The federal government is to be chained by that document.

 

[JustChristian]

Mr

Can you name one?

Joseph Botwinick [/b]</font>

For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.[/b]</font>[/QUOTE]May have been? ACLU is seeking access? You mean they're going on a fishing expidition looking for a victim to represent in their smear campaign of the President? Seriously, can you name one person who was spied on by the president who had no ties to terrorists whatsoever? Names and evidence, not speculation from the Anti-Bush, Anti-American ACLU, please.

Joseph Botwinick[/QUOTE]

I know a person whose apartment was broken into by the FBI without a search warrent. He is absolutely not related to terrorism in any way. I'm not providing any details because he was warned not to tell anyone that this had happened.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You wish that the government would monitor churches for the purpose of enforcing 501c3 status? I know this is an old thread so do you continue to hold this position? If your church is not 501c3 then why do you wish this monitoring on others?

I don't really care. Churches are open places where anyone is (or should be) welcome to come and hear what is said. They are not private clubs. I would welcome government, or ACLU or anyone else to come and listen. It would be great to have them under the sound of hte gospel where the power of God unto salvation is found.

The U.S. Constitution is one of enumerated powers for the federal government. The federal government is to be chained by that document.

So you are admitting the freedom is qualified. I agree, FTR.

I know a person whose apartment was broken into by the FBI without a search warrent. He is absolutely not related to terrorism in any way. I'm not providing any details because he was warned not to tell anyone that this had happened.

That's pretty convenient.