But just as a layman, I also think the idea to hijack planes and fly them into buildings was, for lack of a better word, novel and something that most of us, including most gov't officials, were not prepared to anticipate (though I'm sure there were some who had theorized the danger). I, for one, am not ready to blame Bush for 9/11 per se. But everything since then? Yeah, that's on him.
Vehicles have been used as suicide devices since the early 80's--check the Marines barracks incident in Beirut. Planes had been discussed by the CIA and FBI as possible weapons since at least the mid 90's. When the 9/11 hijackers attended flight school, the FBI immediately acknowledged that suicide planes was a possibility. No one, however, counted on terrorists having the will to carry it out.
We live in a country that allows organizations like NAMBLA and Al Quaeda to exist.
Uh, I'm pretty sure Al Quaeda is not a legal organization in America. And I'm not sure what they have to do with NAMBLA. Both offend people but for completely different reasons. I think the NRA is offensive but I wouldn't compare them with either other organization.
We live in a country that allows organizations like NAMBLA and Al Quaeda to exist.
Uh, I'm pretty sure Al Quaeda is not a legal organization in America. And I'm not sure what they have to do with NAMBLA. Both offend people but for completely different reasons. I think the NRA is offensive but I wouldn't compare them with either other organization.
they knew these guys were Al Quaeda but could not get the authority to do anything to stop them from potential attacks.
This is basically bullshit. The people who knew didn't communicate that knowledge to the appropriate parties that could have, in fact, taken action.
Police illegally detain ordinary American citizens every day, yet you're saying that the FBI and CIA couldn't detain illegal immigrants because lawyers were worried about civil rights and ACLU. That sounds like the biggest right wing bogeyman crock of shit I've ever heard.
Police illegally detain ordinary American citizens every day, yet you're saying that the FBI and CIA couldn't detain illegal immigrants because lawyers were worried about civil rights and ACLU. That sounds like the biggest right wing bogeyman crock of shit I've ever heard.
Real Talk???.
And Rockadelic: Al Qaeda is NOT a legally recognized organization in America. It has no rights under the law. It MIGHT exist and anyone could be a member of it, but not in the same way I'd join up with the 4H Club. Whereas, NAMBLA or the NRA have rights to free assembly and other gov't freedoms in ways that Al Qaeda never would have.
Though, just to note, militia groups have certain legal freedoms in America despite their resemblance to terrorist cells on some (but not all) levels.
We live in a country that allows organizations like NAMBLA and Al Quaeda to exist.
Uh, I'm pretty sure Al Quaeda is not a legal organization in America. And I'm not sure what they have to do with NAMBLA. Both offend people but for completely different reasons. I think the NRA is offensive but I wouldn't compare them with either other organization.
I'm pretty sure it's your right as an American citizen to be a member of Al Quaeda...that's why the Able Danger scandal is taking place...they knew these guys were Al Quaeda but could not get the authority to do anything to stop them from potential attacks. I mentioned NAMBLA just to show we do uphold the civil rights of every type of offensive organisation and it's members.
Both of the above groups encourage, promote and participate in illegal actions...while I'm no expert on the NRA, I don't think they do??
Yeah, but the point is that they have right to assembly to change the law. Don't they?
they knew these guys were Al Quaeda but could not get the authority to do anything to stop them from potential attacks.
This is basically bullshit. The people who knew didn't communicate that knowledge to the appropriate parties that could have, in fact, taken action.
"didn't" or "couldn't"?
"didn't".
Oh I suppose, in the abstract, there were not the channels of communication set up that would easily allow such communication. Most of that was changed after 9/11, so that wouldn't apply to the current situation; but I digress. Bottom line is that anyone with their head on their shoulders could pick up a phone, send an email, ring an alarm - but the information sat in local files because the CIA and FBI in their bumbling incompetence couldn't figure out what to do with it.
The intelligence community doesn't need executive orders allowing them to do whatever they want, whenever they want - they need a fucking overhaul that puts responsible, competent, and (most importantly) apolitical people in charge rather than party hacks vying with each other over more power for their own personal fiefdoms.
This was culled from the BBC, a reputable news source. The Echelon Network exists to spy on all email, fax, telecommunications around the world at any time. They have this technology, the US (as well as Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain and Australia) don't even NEED to do this NSA spying, that's what pisses me off so much.
Echelon eavesdrops on international communications
Computer users across Europe should encrypt all their e-mails, to avoid being spied on by a UK-US eavesdropping network, say Euro-MPs.
The tentacles of the Echelon network stretch so far that the UK's involvement could constitute a breach of human rights, they say.
The Euro-MPs have been studying Echelon for almost a year, after allegations that it has been used by the US to commit industrial espionage against European firms.
They conclude that Echelon - whose existence is not officially acknowledged - is reading millions of e-mails and faxes sent every day by ordinary people.
Menwith Hill in the UK: Alleged to be part of Echelon
The system, which also eavesdrops on telephone calls, was set up after World War II and was used to glean vital information in the Cold War.
But the committee says ordinary individuals and companies are now being spied on, and they should routinely encode their e-mails and faxes if they want them to remain private.
Sending an unencrypted e-mail, they say, is like posting a letter without an envelope.
The report says the UK could fall foul of the European Human Rights Convention, which guarantees privacy to all individuals.
Satellite communications
The European Commission is now expected to study the MEPs' report, to decide whether to take action against the UK over the alleged breach.
However, the Echelon investigation did not prove all the claims made about the spy system.
The network's scope was rather less extensive than had been claimed, the MEPs found, as it was limited largely to communications transmitted by satellite rather than cable.
The committee also failed to prove that the US had used it to damage European commercial interests.
But the network certainly existed, the MEPs said, and its primary purpose is to intercept private and commercial communications, not military intelligence.
Out of the shadows
The US has denied the system even exists, and the UK refuses to give details, except to say that communications interception is a vital tool in the fight against "dangers to society".
The Echelon operation is based at Fort Meade in Maryland, America, and at the UK's spy centre, GCHQ in Cheltenham.
It remained a shadowy system until an ex-director of the American CIA told French newspaper Le Figaro that it was being used to track electronic messages sent by European companies.
He insisted that the intelligence services' motivation was to check for corruption and sanctions-busting, rather than set about industrial espionage. [/b]
This is not some New World Order conspiracy bullshit, this is a REAL legimitate operation run by the English speaking countries around the world to tap into communications whenever wanted or needed.[/b] What's funny is it has also been used to get private information for use in business contracts to aid US corporations, which is against WTO rules.
they knew these guys were Al Quaeda but could not get the authority to do anything to stop them from potential attacks.
This is basically bullshit. The people who knew didn't communicate that knowledge to the appropriate parties that could have, in fact, taken action.
"didn't" or "couldn't"?
"didn't".
Oh I suppose, in the abstract, there were not the channels of communication set up that would easily allow such communication. Most of that was changed after 9/11, so that wouldn't apply to the current situation; but I digress. Bottom line is that anyone with their head on their shoulders could pick up a phone, send an email, ring an alarm - but the information sat in local files because the CIA and FBI in their bumbling incompetence couldn't figure out what to do with it.
The intelligence community doesn't need executive orders allowing them to do whatever they want, whenever they want - they need a fucking overhaul that puts responsible, competent, and (most importantly) apolitical people in charge rather than party hacks vying with each other over more power for their own personal fiefdoms.
or perhaps, in the not so abstract, those channels had once been there, but had been eviscerated by previous administrations.
they knew these guys were Al Quaeda but could not get the authority to do anything to stop them from potential attacks.
This is basically bullshit. The people who knew didn't communicate that knowledge to the appropriate parties that could have, in fact, taken action.
"didn't" or "couldn't"?
"didn't".
Oh I suppose, in the abstract, there were not the channels of communication set up that would easily allow such communication. Most of that was changed after 9/11, so that wouldn't apply to the current situation; but I digress. Bottom line is that anyone with their head on their shoulders could pick up a phone, send an email, ring an alarm - but the information sat in local files because the CIA and FBI in their bumbling incompetence couldn't figure out what to do with it.
The intelligence community doesn't need executive orders allowing them to do whatever they want, whenever they want - they need a fucking overhaul that puts responsible, competent, and (most importantly) apolitical people in charge rather than party hacks vying with each other over more power for their own personal fiefdoms.
or perhaps, in the not so abstract, those channels had once been there, but had been eviscerated by previous administrations.
Wait, you mean previous administrations cut the phone lines? Previous administrations put lawyers in every police station and field office, armed with M-16s, with instructions to obliterate anyone who tried to detain these men? Give me a break. Everyone - including the Bush admin at the time - was asleep at the wheel. You can't blame that on Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, or anyone else.
And partially because it'll rile sabadabadoo a bit, I'll quote an NYTimes editorial that puts my feelings more eloquently than I can myself:
On Oct. 17, 2002, the head of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, made an eloquent plea to a joint House-Senate inquiry on intelligence for a sober national discussion about whether the line between liberty and security should be shifted after the 9/11 attacks, and if so, precisely how far. He reminded the lawmakers that the rules against his agency's spying on Americans, carefully written decades earlier, were based on protecting fundamental constitutional rights.
If they were to be changed, General Hayden said, "We need to get it right. We have to find the right balance between protecting our security and protecting our liberty." General Hayden spoke of having a "national dialogue" and added: "What I really need you to do is talk to your constituents and find out where the American people want that line between security and liberty to be."
General Hayden was right. The mass murders of 9/11 revealed deadly gaps in United States intelligence that needed to be closed. Most of those involved failure of performance, not legal barriers. Nevertheless, Americans expected some reasonable and carefully measured trade-offs between security and civil liberties. They trusted their elected leaders to follow long-established democratic and legal principles and to make any changes in the light of day. But President Bush had other ideas. He secretly and recklessly expanded the government's powers in dangerous and unnecessary ways that eroded civil liberties and may also have violated the law.
In Friday's Times, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau reported that sometime in 2002, President Bush signed a secret executive order scrapping a painfully reached, 25-year-old national consensus: spying on Americans by their government should generally be prohibited, and when it is allowed, it should be regulated and supervised by the courts. The laws and executive orders governing electronic eavesdropping by the intelligence agency were specifically devised to uphold the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.
But Mr. Bush secretly decided that he was going to allow the agency to spy on American citizens without obtaining a warrant - just as he had earlier decided to scrap the Geneva Conventions, American law and Army regulations when it came to handling prisoners in the war on terror. Indeed, the same Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo, who helped write the twisted memo on legalizing torture, wrote briefs supporting the idea that the president could ignore the law once again when it came to the intelligence agency's eavesdropping on telephone calls and e-mail messages.
"The government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties," he wrote.
Let's be clear about this: illegal government spying on Americans is a violation of individual liberties, whether conditions are troubled or not. Nobody with a real regard for the rule of law and the Constitution would have difficulty seeing that. The law governing the National Security Agency was written after the Vietnam War because the government had made lists of people it considered national security threats and spied on them. All the same empty points about effective intelligence gathering were offered then, just as they are now, and the Congress, the courts and the American people rejected them.
This particular end run around civil liberties is also unnecessary. The intelligence agency already had the capacity to read your mail and your e-mail and listen to your telephone conversations. All it had to do was obtain a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The burden of proof for obtaining a warrant was relaxed a bit after 9/11, but even before the attacks the court hardly ever rejected requests.
The special court can act in hours, but administration officials say that they sometimes need to start monitoring large batches of telephone numbers even faster than that, and that those numbers might include some of American citizens. That is supposed to justify Mr. Bush's order, and that is nonsense. The existing law already recognizes that American citizens' communications may be intercepted by chance. It says that those records may be retained and used if they amount to actual foreign intelligence or counterintelligence material. Otherwise, they must be thrown out.
President Bush defended the program yesterday, saying it was saving lives, hotly insisting that he was working within the Constitution and the law, and denouncing The Times for disclosing the program's existence. We don't know if he was right on the first count; this White House has cried wolf so many times on the urgency of national security threats that it has lost all credibility. But we have learned the hard way that Mr. Bush's team cannot be trusted to find the boundaries of the law, much less respect them.
Mr. Bush said he would not retract his secret directive or halt the illegal spying, so Congress should find a way to force him to do it. Perhaps the Congressional leaders who were told about the program could get the ball rolling.
In 1975 I was arrested in the great State of California on a charge of "Innsufficient Identification" while crossing Sunset Blvd. from Tower Records to a place called Licourice Pizza Records(still there??).
Things like National ID's and "spying" have been in place in this country for at least 50 years. Every administration used it to one degree or another.
Now...when were dealing with murderous terrorists, who might be more dangerous than that long-haired Jay-Walker in '75, I have no problem using similar tactics.
I am in Egypt right now, a mature police state that is known by everyone to spy on its citizens. There has been an emergency law that has given the regime the authority to do this since a break away group of muslim brothers killed Anwar Sadat. Two months ago, the secret police threatened Mubarak's challenger in the September presidential elections, Ayman Nur, with making public audio tapes of him having sex with his wife. Earlier this month he was arrested on trumped up charges of forging signatures on his party's petitions to participate in the parliamentary elections. He is now in the hospital because of complications of a hunger strike. But the regime used the power of the state to psychologically break a political opponent.
I mention all of this, because this is what happens when precedent is set for the best of intentions to forgo the rule of law for security and counterterrorism. I agree with Rockadelic that the scope of people surveiled is not worrisome to me, but the point is that without the check of a secret court that has served as a virtual rubber stamp in the past, this kind of power can be abused. And in recent history this kind of power was abused. Look up cointelpro, or the supreme court decision that overturned Nixon's gambit to spy on Americans. (And for the record, domestic spying of this nature was a bipartisan exercise, Roosevelt authorized this sort of program in WWII).
Now, I think the program was authorized because the FISA in the past was authorized only if the government could prove the American in question was an agent of a foreign power. Al-Qaeda and most international terrorists are not formally working for states. But this is no excuse. And also, I could understand if in the first 90 or 135 days after 9-11, the president authorized this program while seeking a change in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But he did not. And all of this invites more questions about what secret edicts were decreed after 9-11.
The government couldn't act on the terrorist threats because governmental beurocracy prevented the domestic agencies from taking action. There already exist processes through which the government can snoop on threats, they require a warrant and such warrants are rarely if ever denied (I think one has been denied since the practice has been in existence). There was plenty of time, with respect to the 9/11 hijackers, to obtain such a warrant and commence to snooping. Governmental incompetence, infighting, and territorialism prevented that from happening. Moreover this country is founded on a system in which no branch of government can or should be able to circumvent the other two, and by that principle the executive HAS to go through the courts and/or the congress. This wartime executive order bullshit is merely a disguise for another one of their grabs for more power in the executive branch.
I don't think the snooping threatens me at all; but I would ask you, do you have many Muslim friends? Because I do, and they are almost all related to someone who does business with someone who banks with a person who works for a company that donated to an organization that at one point made a payment to Hamas. Or have a cousin who hung out with a guy who owned a deli that employed a man who attended a training camp in Pakistan. Do they deserve to be spied on, without heed to the process already established?
We have to live up to our laws, or else what are they for. The President, in all his incompetence, is certainly not better than the law of the land and more importantly does not have the public confidence to pull off such a move. I don't trust this administration to act in my best interests, so I am not at all comfortable with their constant power grabs.
And partially because it'll rile sabadabadoo a bit, I'll quote an NYTimes editorial that puts my feelings more eloquently than I can myself:
Well, if its in the NYT oped, it must be true.
Can you point out the fallacies?
I only said that it expresses how I feel. Do you read, or just talk?
Shit talker plain and simple.
Before I discovered soulstrut, I used to post on the NYtimes message board... I really tried to engage the conservatives on there, but it seemed like 99% of them just wanted to hurl invectives and insults and revisit talking points that had already been disproven or debunked.
I've never seen such childlike behavior among adults as I did there. Good to see someone's still carrying the banner!
Before I discovered soulstrut, I used to post on the NYtimes message board... I really tried to engage the conservatives on there, but it seemed like 99% of them just wanted to hurl invectives and insults and revisit talking points that had already been disproven or debunked.
I've never seen such childlike behavior among adults as I did there. Good to see someone's still carrying the banner!
Dude, I agree with you on this issue. But why do you say conservatives "revisit talking points." The implication is that anyone who does not tout the liberal line is incapable of independent thought.
[quote Before I discovered soulstrut, I used to post on the NYtimes message board... I really tried to engage the conservatives on there, but it seemed like 99% of them just wanted to hurl invectives and insults and revisit talking points that had already been disproven or debunked.
I've never seen such childlike behavior among adults as I did there. Good to see someone's still carrying the banner! What's interesting is that when I would frequent "Conservative" sites and argue for drug legalization, the right to have an abortion, freedom of speech/music, etc. I experienced the same thing you did.
And when I engage "Liberals" in debate on issues of personal accountability, economics, law and order, etc. I experience the very same thing.
"Delete this Vitamin replacement"
The only two directions a finger should be pointed is up and at your mirror.
Conservative vs. Liberal very seldom = Right vs. Wrong
Comments
Vehicles have been used as suicide devices since the early 80's--check the Marines barracks incident in Beirut. Planes had been discussed by the CIA and FBI as possible weapons since at least the mid 90's. When the 9/11 hijackers attended flight school, the FBI immediately acknowledged that suicide planes was a possibility. No one, however, counted on terrorists having the will to carry it out.
Al Queda isn't? I better give the ACLU a call.
Your moral convictions are mind boggling.
This is basically bullshit. The people who knew didn't communicate that knowledge to the appropriate parties that could have, in fact, taken action.
Police illegally detain ordinary American citizens every day, yet you're saying that the FBI and CIA couldn't detain illegal immigrants because lawyers were worried about civil rights and ACLU. That sounds like the biggest right wing bogeyman crock of shit I've ever heard.
No offense intended, I like arguing
"didn't" or "couldn't"?
Real Talk???.
And Rockadelic: Al Qaeda is NOT a legally recognized organization in America. It has no rights under the law. It MIGHT exist and anyone could be a member of it, but not in the same way I'd join up with the 4H Club. Whereas, NAMBLA or the NRA have rights to free assembly and other gov't freedoms in ways that Al Qaeda never would have.
Though, just to note, militia groups have certain legal freedoms in America despite their resemblance to terrorist cells on some (but not all) levels.
Yeah, but the point is that they have right to assembly to change the law. Don't they?
"didn't".
Oh I suppose, in the abstract, there were not the channels of communication set up that would easily allow such communication. Most of that was changed after 9/11, so that wouldn't apply to the current situation; but I digress. Bottom line is that anyone with their head on their shoulders could pick up a phone, send an email, ring an alarm - but the information sat in local files because the CIA and FBI in their bumbling incompetence couldn't figure out what to do with it.
The intelligence community doesn't need executive orders allowing them to do whatever they want, whenever they want - they need a fucking overhaul that puts responsible, competent, and (most importantly) apolitical people in charge rather than party hacks vying with each other over more power for their own personal fiefdoms.
Echelon eavesdrops on international communications
Computer users across Europe should encrypt all their e-mails, to avoid being spied on by a UK-US eavesdropping network, say Euro-MPs.
The tentacles of the Echelon network stretch so far that the UK's involvement could constitute a breach of human rights, they say.
The Euro-MPs have been studying Echelon for almost a year, after allegations that it has been used by the US to commit industrial espionage against European firms.
They conclude that Echelon - whose existence is not officially acknowledged - is reading millions of e-mails and faxes sent every day by ordinary people.
Menwith Hill in the UK: Alleged to be part of Echelon
The system, which also eavesdrops on telephone calls, was set up after World War II and was used to glean vital information in the Cold War.
But the committee says ordinary individuals and companies are now being spied on, and they should routinely encode their e-mails and faxes if they want them to remain private.
Sending an unencrypted e-mail, they say, is like posting a letter without an envelope.
The report says the UK could fall foul of the European Human Rights Convention, which guarantees privacy to all individuals.
Satellite communications
The European Commission is now expected to study the MEPs' report, to decide whether to take action against the UK over the alleged breach.
However, the Echelon investigation did not prove all the claims made about the spy system.
The network's scope was rather less extensive than had been claimed, the MEPs found, as it was limited largely to communications transmitted by satellite rather than cable.
The committee also failed to prove that the US had used it to damage European commercial interests.
But the network certainly existed, the MEPs said, and its primary purpose is to intercept private and commercial communications, not military intelligence.
Out of the shadows
The US has denied the system even exists, and the UK refuses to give details, except to say that communications interception is a vital tool in the fight against "dangers to society".
The Echelon operation is based at Fort Meade in Maryland, America, and at the UK's spy centre, GCHQ in Cheltenham.
It remained a shadowy system until an ex-director of the American CIA told French newspaper Le Figaro that it was being used to track electronic messages sent by European companies.
He insisted that the intelligence services' motivation was to check for corruption and sanctions-busting, rather than set about industrial espionage. [/b]
If you don't know what Echelon is, click here:
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html
This is not some New World Order conspiracy bullshit, this is a REAL legimitate operation run by the English speaking countries around the world to tap into communications whenever wanted or needed.[/b] What's funny is it has also been used to get private information for use in business contracts to aid US corporations, which is against WTO rules.
Peace and Love
T.N.
or perhaps, in the not so abstract, those channels had once been there, but had been eviscerated by previous administrations.
Wait, you mean previous administrations cut the phone lines? Previous administrations put lawyers in every police station and field office, armed with M-16s, with instructions to obliterate anyone who tried to detain these men? Give me a break. Everyone - including the Bush admin at the time - was asleep at the wheel. You can't blame that on Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, or anyone else.
back into the abstract, I think this one, you could answer yes.
Things like National ID's and "spying" have been in place in this country for at least 50 years. Every administration used it to one degree or another.
Now...when were dealing with murderous terrorists, who might be more dangerous than that long-haired Jay-Walker in '75, I have no problem using similar tactics.
Call me crazy.
I am in Egypt right now, a mature police state that is known by everyone to spy on its citizens. There has been an emergency law that has given the regime the authority to do this since a break away group of muslim brothers killed Anwar Sadat. Two months ago, the secret police threatened Mubarak's challenger in the September presidential elections, Ayman Nur, with making public audio tapes of him having sex with his wife. Earlier this month he was arrested on trumped up charges of forging signatures on his party's petitions to participate in the parliamentary elections. He is now in the hospital because of complications of a hunger strike. But the regime used the power of the state to psychologically break a political opponent.
I mention all of this, because this is what happens when precedent is set for the best of intentions to forgo the rule of law for security and counterterrorism. I agree with Rockadelic that the scope of people surveiled is not worrisome to me, but the point is that without the check of a secret court that has served as a virtual rubber stamp in the past, this kind of power can be abused. And in recent history this kind of power was abused. Look up cointelpro, or the supreme court decision that overturned Nixon's gambit to spy on Americans. (And for the record, domestic spying of this nature was a bipartisan exercise, Roosevelt authorized this sort of program in WWII).
Now, I think the program was authorized because the FISA in the past was authorized only if the government could prove the American in question was an agent of a foreign power. Al-Qaeda and most international terrorists are not formally working for states. But this is no excuse. And also, I could understand if in the first 90 or 135 days after 9-11, the president authorized this program while seeking a change in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But he did not. And all of this invites more questions about what secret edicts were decreed after 9-11.
Well, if its in the NYT oped, it must be true.
Can you point out the fallacies?
I only said that it expresses how I feel. Do you read, or just talk?
is most 9 out of 10?
What he said!
Shit talker plain and simple.
Sabadawhatever can only respond in 1 or 2 sentences.
its because sabadabawhatever is studying for a civil procedure final.
Before I discovered soulstrut, I used to post on the NYtimes message board... I really tried to engage the conservatives on there, but it seemed like 99% of them just wanted to hurl invectives and insults and revisit talking points that had already been disproven or debunked.
I've never seen such childlike behavior among adults as I did there. Good to see someone's still carrying the banner!
More proof of what I was talking about.
Dude, I agree with you on this issue. But why do you say conservatives "revisit talking points." The implication is that anyone who does not tout the liberal line is incapable of independent thought.
Slobanabobonaknob reminds me of The Hamburglar. Always popping in and out leaving little turdburgers in every thread.
Before I discovered soulstrut, I used to post on the NYtimes message board... I really tried to engage the conservatives on there, but it seemed like 99% of them just wanted to hurl invectives and insults and revisit talking points that had already been disproven or debunked.
I've never seen such childlike behavior among adults as I did there. Good to see someone's still carrying the banner!
What's interesting is that when I would frequent "Conservative" sites and argue for drug legalization, the right to have an abortion, freedom of speech/music, etc. I experienced the same thing you did.
And when I engage "Liberals" in debate on issues of personal accountability, economics, law and order, etc. I experience the very same thing.
"Delete this Vitamin replacement"
The only two directions a finger should be pointed is up and at your mirror.
Conservative vs. Liberal very seldom = Right vs. Wrong