A Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ad that appeared on the Internet this week attacks the record of "Bush and the GOP" on homeland security, but makes some factual stumbles.
It claims terror attacks have increased four-fold under Bush, which isn't true. The official count jumped due to a much broader definition of what constitutes a terrorist attack.
The ad says "law enforcement" spending has been cut $2 billion, but that refers only to cuts in aid to states and localities and ignores a big increase in spending on federal anti-terrorism activities.
It says that only 6 percent of cargo containers are being inspected. ThatÂ’s about right, but its also a big improvement from three years earlier when the figure was only 2 percent. Also spending has increased seven-fold.
The ad's biggest stumble was political, not factual. It correctly noted that millions of illegal aliens have entered the US in recent years. But the ad's images of bazooka-toting terrorists and Osama bin Laden, associated with men furtively crossing the border, drew objections from Hispanics and the DSCC quickly took the ad off their website.
Dem's love to simply make stuff up for political gain. How in the hell can they say a word about border security when they are the ones blocking bills to build a fencee and spend more money on the border. I know, people who had brain abortions say a wall will not work, and that is flat out ridiculouss.
Dems also love to say things have been "cut" when they were never cut, usually they were not increased as much as they would have liked....and then they yell at Republicans for having too big a budget...ha ha ha...I had to laugh after coming up with that one...
Dems campaigns are a joke, so you should be laughing...watch them dance to the Right, seem enough like conservatives to try and win...I'll do my part to make sure that doesn't happen.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Democrats Ask, Do You Feel Safer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I think the hatred of GW is the only thing that unites Dems. Who will they hate when he is gone?
Thanks for stopping by. I am sure Doug will add you to our conservative blogroll if you aren't there already.
Did they actually ask that question, "do you feel safer?" The question is, "ARE you safer?" and the answer is, "ain't been blowed up yet!" It's like, do you feel healthy? Many will say yes, but most people at stage 4 cancer didn't feel stages 1-3, so how one feels is irrelevant. Find out how healthy you are, find out how safe you are. Considering there are far too many people whining to head shrinkers, how one feels is misleading. But the Dems are all about feeling when they should be thinking.
"The ... administration wants government to be able to read international computer communications – financial transactions, personal e-mail and proprietary information sent abroad – all in the name of national security . . . .
Granted, the Internet could be used to commit crimes, and advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?
The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. . .
Every medium by which people communicate can be exploited by those with illegal or immoral intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records or translate our international communications."
--John Ashcroft 1997
Jim--
Do you read the comments rhyno, ron, dedanna, and even you post **right here** on this blog?
Or do I have to reproduce them for you?
Ok, let me ask you thi:
If the gov't were to listen in on everything we do, well, here's a hypothetical situation:
Gov't listens in, watches us, everything --
Then they get a disgruntled employee or terrorist-in-disguise hack them.
How safe is this process then?
Also, we see what happened to Russia, et. al, who listened in on everything by their KGB -- Russia fell apart. It was one of the main reasons the communistic regime in Russia was taken down, because this was a communistic tactic, and not a part of a democracy (which is said that the U.S. is). Now we want to do what we had a hand in taking down, for our own? What a hypocrit the U.S. is! Just makes sense not to take a communistic (fascist) tactic, when there are so many other ways to go. There were too many political refugees from Russia just for these reasons -- the people were watched too closely, and their gov't came after them for the most ridiculous things; saying the word "shit" would get you busted. That is how tight it was, and would need to be now were it put into practice in the U.S.
Do you want to leave your country because they don't like something you say or do, or do you want to keep your freedom to come and go, think and speak every day? That's what it boils down to.
Do we want that to happen to the U.S.? If you do, beware, because you'll get what you wanted. Be careful what you wish for.
The short answer to "Do You Feel Safer?" is HELL NO!
Post a Comment