<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Take That, ACLU!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs4conservatives.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/take-that-aclu/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs4conservatives.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/take-that-aclu/</link>
	<description>Keeping Conservatism Alive in the 21st Century and Beyond</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:12:43 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: ralfast</title>
		<link>http://blogs4conservatives.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/take-that-aclu/#comment-1492</link>
		<dc:creator>ralfast</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:57:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs4conservatives.wordpress.com/?p=300#comment-1492</guid>
		<description>Of course, this is all circular logic based on false assumptions:

A) That the goverment (at least this goverment, guess what will happen if there is a Dem in charge!) can never, EVER, do anything wrong in the pursuit of terrorist.

B) That only terrorist (which are designated by said goverment in the first place, in secret) will be the target of said surveillance, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

C) That evidence can be procured when the goverment keeps it all secret in the first place. You must prove harm...but you can't know if there is harm because its secret, therefore you can't prove it.

D)That the State equal the Nation. That somehow opposing or even questioning a given goverment or even the State is an attack on the people or the Nation. The two are not the same.

E) That a goverment with such a poor record on everything needs more powers to invade our privacy when they fail to use the power they already had in the first place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course, this is all circular logic based on false assumptions:</p>
<p>A) That the goverment (at least this goverment, guess what will happen if there is a Dem in charge!) can never, EVER, do anything wrong in the pursuit of terrorist.</p>
<p>B) That only terrorist (which are designated by said goverment in the first place, in secret) will be the target of said surveillance, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>C) That evidence can be procured when the goverment keeps it all secret in the first place. You must prove harm&#8230;but you can&#8217;t know if there is harm because its secret, therefore you can&#8217;t prove it.</p>
<p>D)That the State equal the Nation. That somehow opposing or even questioning a given goverment or even the State is an attack on the people or the Nation. The two are not the same.</p>
<p>E) That a goverment with such a poor record on everything needs more powers to invade our privacy when they fail to use the power they already had in the first place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jack fate</title>
		<link>http://blogs4conservatives.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/take-that-aclu/#comment-1475</link>
		<dc:creator>jack fate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:41:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs4conservatives.wordpress.com/?p=300#comment-1475</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Only an imbecile would reveal to criminal terrorists that they are under surveillance. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

Only an imbecile would think that any group openly hostile to the country with the largest intelligence gathering machine on the planet is not aware that they probably are being watched by said country. Seriously, your reasoning is straight outta 1984.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Only an imbecile would reveal to criminal terrorists that they are under surveillance. </p></blockquote>
<p>Only an imbecile would think that any group openly hostile to the country with the largest intelligence gathering machine on the planet is not aware that they probably are being watched by said country. Seriously, your reasoning is straight outta 1984.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jack fate</title>
		<link>http://blogs4conservatives.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/take-that-aclu/#comment-1474</link>
		<dc:creator>jack fate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:36:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs4conservatives.wordpress.com/?p=300#comment-1474</guid>
		<description>Are you kidding? "Corrected for truth"? Did I miss the part where the Bill of Rights was rescinded? More specifically, the Fourth Amendment? That's some balls. Ignorant and in-denial of the real world and the &lt;i&gt;real&lt;/i&gt; laws which govern this society, but balls, none-the-less. 

You're going to be a pathetic joke when you, all of the sudden, regain your lost love for Constitutional principles and mandates once your Authoritarian Power Worshiping Daddy Party loses the White House. Don't think it won't go unnoticed. 

On the flip slide, should the utterly clueless and proto-authoritarian McCain win, I'm sure you'll be more than willing kneel in fealty before the powerful. Don't forget, just because you choose to be ignorant and submissive, doesn't make you any less ignorant and submissive. 

The cognitive dissonance would be funny, if you weren't being so serious. But what's to be expected from a political ideology that celebrates anti-intellectualism and rewards practical failure as long as the requisite loyal submission was observed. 

In short, while I do enjoy reading your blog, even though I don't agree with much of what you type, this whole post has to be the stupidest thing you've ever "corrected." Please, stay in your imagined reality, you'll do us less damage there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are you kidding? &#8220;Corrected for truth&#8221;? Did I miss the part where the Bill of Rights was rescinded? More specifically, the Fourth Amendment? That&#8217;s some balls. Ignorant and in-denial of the real world and the <i>real</i> laws which govern this society, but balls, none-the-less. </p>
<p>You&#8217;re going to be a pathetic joke when you, all of the sudden, regain your lost love for Constitutional principles and mandates once your Authoritarian Power Worshiping Daddy Party loses the White House. Don&#8217;t think it won&#8217;t go unnoticed. </p>
<p>On the flip slide, should the utterly clueless and proto-authoritarian McCain win, I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;ll be more than willing kneel in fealty before the powerful. Don&#8217;t forget, just because you choose to be ignorant and submissive, doesn&#8217;t make you any less ignorant and submissive. </p>
<p>The cognitive dissonance would be funny, if you weren&#8217;t being so serious. But what&#8217;s to be expected from a political ideology that celebrates anti-intellectualism and rewards practical failure as long as the requisite loyal submission was observed. </p>
<p>In short, while I do enjoy reading your blog, even though I don&#8217;t agree with much of what you type, this whole post has to be the stupidest thing you&#8217;ve ever &#8220;corrected.&#8221; Please, stay in your imagined reality, you&#8217;ll do us less damage there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
