Gov't Eavesdropping Ruled Unconstitutional

[ManiacalMadMan]

Horsefeathers. If you can't be bothered to read up on all the people who have been arrested just because they came from the Middle East, or have some kind of Middle Eastern connection... well... you have no business commenting.


The point being, there is a lot of hysteria about terrorism among our fearless leaders, and given that they have a history of lying when it comes to terrorism, I'd be more inclined to believe my neighbour.



See above re: lying. If our governments didn't have a history of lying for the purpose of expediting their personal agendas, we might be more inclined to trust them.

Nice attempt to forestall discussion though... I give it... 4/10.



How many sets of personal rights are you willing to see violated to accomplish this? 1000? 100,000? 50 million?

In the words of George Bernard Shaw: "We've already established what you are, madam. Now we're haggling over the price."

A) First off, I have read this that and the other thing secondly, I have every right to respond here whenever and wherever I damned well please
B)Well then you just go right on ahead and trust your neighbor...even as they blow up your house.
C)You made my point when you indicated GOVERNMENTS hisory of... as I stated, (although you were possibly too stupid to see it) this is not a one sided matter...government in general is dishonest, although, at times with the intent of the well being of its citizens.
D)I am not trying to forestall anything , I was stating my views which as much as it may scare you and shock you is allowed here.
Discussions are not necessarily one sided with all involved agreeing with one particular take on a matter. A discussion often involves MANY different and opposing viewpoints. If you do not allow that, or do not want that, then you are no better in your behavior on matters than the people you are claiming to be against.
E)Personal rights as such are merely a temporary gift and if a so-called right is to plan terrorist acts with no fear of being punished, then it is a right which needs to be taken away since people are abusing the gift they were given.
F)Quoting Shaw is not going to win me over.

 

[madame_zora]

I can't believe that no one else but me seems to see the broader implications of current federal judicial trends here.

A federal judge declares that these actions and procedures "violate the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III." That seems pretty clear. But she not only refuses to demand accountability for what she has just deemed to be patent violation of federal law and constitutional principles, she tells the administration that they may continue with these violations for at least several months!!! No "cease and desist pending appeal"...

If I were to violate federal wiretapping laws and tap White House phones, and got caught, how long do you think it would take for the guys in black suits and sunglasses to drag me out of my house in the middle of the night? Do you think they would say, "well, that's illegal, but go ahead and keep tapping the phones until the end of October, and then we'll figure it out."?

The same thing happened recently in Massachusetts, with a federal judge telling the state "what you are doing is illegal, but we aren't going to do anything. Carry on."

Oh, I got it, and mark me down for a case of righteous indignation!

Just because it's illegal, does that REALLY mean he should stop doing it? I mean, if that's the case, why do I get speeding tickets that I have to pay? Why'd Heather get a dui? Why does ANYONE have to pay for their crimes? The idea is that no one is above the law. If the laws don't apply to the president, then we simply don't have a democracy, or a representative republic. What we have here is a monotheistic police state, and the fucking fundies would understand everyone else's outrage a lot better if it happened to be an Islamic one rather than an xian one.

Can't understand why most sane people don't want a religion for a governmental system? Sorry, if this is where someone's thinking is, they are probably just far too stupid to communicate with. What we need to do is start publicly humiliating them for their stupid thoughts and behaviors, just like in grade school- that's all they'll understand. Remember when everybody had to stay in from recess because one or two fucktards were acting stupid? Remember teaching them a lesson later so it wouldn't happen again? That's where we are folks, laugh and laugh loudly, and never stop. We really can't afford to give an inch, and good manners are simply NOT required when we're being stripped of our rights right in front of our faces.

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
And freedom is the farthest thing from security. Anyone who loves freedom- really adores it- knows that. You, on the other hand, would sacrifice freedom, and the blood of our forefathers for a measly peice of temporary, flimsy, insufficient security. People like you are ruining my country.

Have I told you lately that I love you? Girl, you just nearly gave me a brain-gasm with that. Please see my post above and give me some feedback?

 

[ManiacalMadMan]

Yes. Where indeed? First, a reminder that moderators here are not and do not pretend to be unbiased in their political views. Who the hell is? I certainly don't want to be moderated by a fake person like that! All the mods are supposed to do here is keep it moving. It is not a popularity contest, they don't need your approval. If you don't like Lex's threads, ignore him. Won't make him no never mind, as my grandma says.

My point was that he starts off an excessive number of these slanted topics. I have no objection to an occasional entry or his engaging within a discussion, it just seems to me to be a bit excessive. I am not asking him to deny his beliefs, I just am asking for a little less in the way of starting so many topics of this nature.

Now on topic: The people you have asserted want security most have never said they want security. That is YOUR desire. Do not project it onto them.

Merely stating it as I see it when I look at the postings here and in other onesided arenas.

They, like me cherish freedom. And freedom is the farthest thing from security. Anyone who loves freedom- really adores it- knows that.

Oh yes by all means let's have the people run wild in the streets and do whatever they damned well please with no thought of consequence...ever. Is that the sort of freedom which you are endorsing?

You, on the other hand, would sacrifice freedom, and the blood of our forefathers for a measly peice of temporary, flimsy, insufficient security. People like you are ruining my country.

I would beg to differ on this and say that in the long run it is going to serve to strengthen the country and further I am not looking to sacrifice your freedoms, I am looking to make your true freedoms more secure.

 

[Lex]

I can't believe that no one else but me seems to see the broader implications of current federal judicial trends here.

...

Oh, I get it too. The "You're wrong but we won't stop you from doing wrong things" stance is HORRIFYING. The implications of this kind of half-assed decision on future constitutional/legal breaches are tremendous.


BBS--I love you dear. HUGGLES.

 

[Lex]

...

Now on topic: The people you have asserted want security most have never said they want security. That is YOUR desire. Do not project it onto them. They, like me cherish freedom. And freedom is the farthest thing from security. Anyone who loves freedom- really adores it- knows that. You, on the other hand, would sacrifice freedom, and the blood of our forefathers for a measly peice of temporary, flimsy, insufficient security. People like you are ruining my country.

I can never understand why issues surrounding our constituional freedoms even become partisan at all. Having MORE freedoms is better for everyone--it gives us ALL more leeway to live our lives to their utmost potential in the manner in which we choose. Isn't that why this country was founded in the first place? To escape what was considered restrictive governmental actions?!? Restrictions on freedoms is a harmful thing.

Our media and government would have you live in fear so that they can they "sell" you this type of unconstitutional action in the name of your safety and security. It's the same as the ADT Security salesman. Once per month he comes around trying to sell me a home security system. When I say I don't want one, he says "Most of your neighbors have them. Don't you feel you need one?"

And I respond by saying, "I don't live my life in constant fear and would not live in an area where I felt that I needed a security system to keep my home safe." When I was a kid, my greatgrandmother would talk about being able to leave your doors unlocked and never having to worry about being hurt. My EX was from the mountains of western MD and he never locked his house up except at night. Nothing was every touched. Why be fearful if you don't have to be?

When you free yourself from these partisan smokescreens and comfort yourself in knowing that your freedoms are in place--it is easier to see when you are being fed a pile of bullshit.

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

I think that both liberals and conservatives at this site will agree that imposing limitations and accountability on our government is necessary. To cede our freedoms willingly in the name of protection against an enemy is dangerous. Once a freedom is taken away, will it ever be returned? Studying history, I have not encountered any government that gave up its powers without coercion. That is the nature of all governments. In our version of democracy the system of checks and balances was created to prevent any branch of government from acquiring powers it shouldn't have. When confronted with a situation deemed so threatening to our survival, those limitations may be temporarily lifted (remember the disgraceful WW2 Japapese-Americans' displacement). Despite the potential for abuse or hairtrigger thinking that may occur as a result of panic, that is probably a necessary exception to accountability. The problem as I see it here is that we are not in a situation that requires that we give away our freedoms. I distrust too much of what comes out of Washington, DC. I would be interested to hear from foreign members at this site as to what their governments are doing to combat terrorism. How mant freedoms have been sacrificed in England, for example? Care to fill us in, Dong20?

 

[DC_DEEP]

My point was that he starts off an excessive number of these slanted topics. I have no objection to an occasional entry or his engaging within a discussion, it just seems to me to be a bit excessive. I am not asking him to deny his beliefs, I just am asking for a little less in the way of starting so many topics of this nature.

MMM, Lex is just picking up where I left of a couple of months ago. I used to be the political instigator on the board. I just don't see how you think this is "slanted." Evidence has been presented (I'm not going to cite, in this instance. It was on the AP wire, it can be searched) that the umbrella of wiretaps and interceptions far exceeded what was originally claimed when the story first hit the front pages. At first, the administration claimed it was only international calls - then admitted there were a large number of domestic, in-country calls too. At first they said they were only targeting known or suspected terrorists - then admitted that ordinary citizens (gay rights groups? you bet!) were being "monitored." At first, they claimed that all non-flagged information in the database would be purged immediately after parsing - then admitted it was all being archived. If the administration would stop the outright lies, the coverups, and the backpedalling, some of us would be less inclined toward suspicion.

Merely stating it as I see it when I look at the postings here and in other onesided arenas. Oh yes by all means let's have the people run wild in the streets and do whatever they damned well please with no thought of consequence...ever. Is that the sort of freedom which you are endorsing?

I don't understand your hysteria and fallacious reasoning here. How does my desire for privacy in my own home equate to running rampant in the streets? For a true, patriotic, American, freedom is not necessarily the same as anarchy. How long has it been since you had a civics class?

 

[Lex]

My point was that he starts off an excessive number of these slanted topics. I have no objection to an occasional entry or his engaging within a discussion, it just seems to me to be a bit excessive. I am not asking him to deny his beliefs, I just am asking for a little less in the way of starting so many topics of this nature.

What are you talking about? I don't start an excessive number of ANY kind of thread anywhere on this board.

Slanted topics? American freedoms being eroded (or withheld) is not a slanted topic: it is a fact. That you can't see that is pretty scary.

 

[ManiacalMadMan]

As determined by whom? Do you not understand at all why we have laws, and that our president needs to be just as beholden to them as the rest of us? Perhaps you are retarded enough to trust that moron to do whatever HE thinks is right based on your idealogical belief that "if even one person is caught", all of us forfeiting our right to privacy was worth it, but that's simply NOT something that you, or anyone else has a right to decide.

Kindly re-read EVERYTHING I wrote.

Again, you exhibit your complete lack of understanding of due process of law. We let known murderers off the hook when due process is determined to have been violated, if you diagree with this practise, you simply do not support the America in which you live. Fucktard.

I so enjpy being called 'perhaps retarded' in your opening salvo and a Fucktard in the second volley. Care to add any more? Your name calling reeks of Democratic failure filled liberalism which has killed both the Democratic party and millions of people through dumbassed stupidity.

]I am extremely angry at people like YOUvoting away EVERYONE'S rights without so much as a "by your leave". You're afraid of your own shadow- great, we get it. Once our rights are gone, they're gone.

I am not afraid of anything, least of all my shadow. As for rights, as I indicated somewhere in a response to one of the earlier comments in this thread, rights are temporary gifts and the oddest thing about gifts is that they are temporary (hence the term temporary gifts) However to cheer your otherwise useless gloomy life sucks day, let me remind you that the future is a huge territory of time and to say that freedoms are lost forever shows that you have absolutely no knowledge of history. Yes, freedoms are at times curtailed, however over time they are often brought back and at times with even more perks than existed prior Look at any former Communist country for proof of this...they had freedoms prior to Communism, they lost them under Communism and now they have freedoms again...some are even new freedoms which they never had before.

*knocks on MMM's head* Hello? Is anyone in there?

Yes, but I refuse to answer the incessant rapping at my skull...as you have alleged, I am too affeared to look out the eye-socket portals.

YOU try being honest for once, do you really think these laws will magically disappear when the war os over? If it wasn't so fucking sad to realise how many idiots like you think this way, it would be fucking hilarious. You don't see our republic disentigrating into a police state basically because you don't WANT to see it. You get the false sense of security you so desperately crave at the expence of any sort of accountability from our leaders. Bad trade.



Oh, and it's not YOUR job to decide how anyone else should post, even a moderator. Worry about your own business, or is that too much to ask a republican?

Oh fabulous! Now I'm an idiot as well! However I am not now, nor have I ever been a Republican...sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[AlteredEgo]

My point was that he starts off an excessive number of these slanted topics. I have no objection to an occasional entry or his engaging within a discussion, it just seems to me to be a bit excessive. I am not asking him to deny his beliefs, I just am asking for a little less in the way of starting so many topics of this nature.

There you go limiting people's freedom again. Don't fucking read them! You are free to do that! I wish people wouldn't start so damn' many threads about whether or not girth is more important than length. It's excessive. To me. But who am I to declare when enough is enough? So I just don't read them anymore, or vote in the polls. It is that simple.

Merely stating it as I see it when I look at the postings here and in other onesided arenas. Oh yes by all means let's have the people run wild in the streets and do whatever they damned well please with no thought of consequence...ever. Is that the sort of freedom which you are endorsing?

Find me a quote, please. This is ridiculous. No, I like laws. Like the one which says gov't officials cannot enter my house except under specific conditions, and that even then, they can't go through my things unless certain other conditions are met. I like the law that says I can't enter your house without permission, and goes further to say that I can't start walking off with the nice things I find there either. But I don't kid myself. Just because it is illegal to steal, that doesn't mean I'm secure from thieves.

I would beg to differ on this and say that in the long run it is going to serve to strengthen the country and further I am not looking to sacrifice your freedoms, I am looking to make your true freedoms more secure.

What true freedoms are you refering to? If you understood freedom, truly, you'd know that freedom is the only real security. And I didn't learn that in some poly-sci philosophy textbook. I learned that from studying economics on my own. An understanding of economics has helped me to understand a lot of things better.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Kindly re-read EVERYTHING I wrote.

Your name calling reeks of Democratic failure filled liberalism which has killed both the Democratic party and millions of people through dumbassed stupidity.

Nah. Jana's just bitchy. And perhaps doesn't like you. She hasn't told you to fuck off and die, yet has she? Maybe she likes you after all. :biggrin1:

I am not afraid of anything, least of all my shadow. As for rights, as I indicated somewhere in a response to one of the earlier comments in this thread, rights are temporary gifts and the oddest thing about gifts is that they are temporary (hence the term temporary gifts) However to cheer your otherwise useless gloomy life sucks day, let me remind you that the future is a huge territory of time and to say that freedoms are lost forever shows that you have absolutely no knowledge of history. Yes, freedoms are at times curtailed, however over time they are often brought back and at times with even more perks than existed prior Look at any former Communist country for proof of this...they had freedoms prior to Communism, they lost them under Communism and now they have freedoms again...some are even new freedoms which they never had before. Yes, but I refuse to answer the incessant rapping at my skull...as you have alleged, I am too affeared to look out the eye-socket portals.

So you are saying we should let this gov't do what it wants as it slides further out of control, and then wage bloody, horrific war and revolution and install a wholly new gov't? Let's not and say we did.

 

[ManiacalMadMan]

If you understood freedom, truly, you'd know that freedom is the only real security. And I didn't learn that in some poly-sci philosophy textbook. I learned that from studying economics on my own. An understanding of economics has helped me to understand a lot of things better.

I do understand true freedom. Do you? Apparently not.


As to your understanding "a lot of things better", thank you for the laugh, I needed that.

 

[AlteredEgo]

I do understand true freedom. Do you? Apparently not.


As to your understanding "a lot of things better", thank you for the laugh, I needed that.

I understand that you react to statements without addressing questions. One thing I learned from economics is that cowardice will do you no good. There are bizarre, seemingly unassociated lessons to be taken from most things.

 

[madame_zora]

Kindly re-read EVERYTHING I wrote.

It wasn't worth it the first time, you're just the volunteer-du-jour.

I so enjpy being called 'perhaps retarded' in your opening salvo and a Fucktard in the second volley. Care to add any more? Your name calling reeks of Democratic failure filled liberalism which has killed both the Democratic party and millions of people through dumbassed stupidity.

I think it's safe to remove the "perhaps". Of course, you've never used name calling as a way of making a point. Do you really want me to waste my time going through all your posts and reposting every time you've done it? I didn't think so, fucktard. I love people who profess to be taking the high road while they're still in the ditch.

I am not afraid of anything, least of all my shadow. As for rights, as I indicated somewhere in a response to one of the earlier comments in this thread, rights are temporary gifts and the oddest thing about gifts is that they are temporary (hence the term temporary gifts)

This is a truly amazing piece of philosophical reasoning. Truly. Amazing.

Now, MORON, please explain to me what "inalienable rights" are, and how you can claim they are temporary? INALIENABLE rights are the rights to "Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness." Those are NOT temporary, nor are they granted by anyone who has the RIGHT to take them away. The right to drive is a right granted by the state, as it is not protected in the Constitution. Driving rights are granted by your state, and may be revoked by said. INALIENABLE FUCKING RIGHTS are guaranteed BY the Constitution, and are INALIENABLE!

However to cheer your otherwise useless gloomy life sucks day, let me remind you that the future is a huge territory of time and to say that freedoms are lost forever shows that you have absolutely no knowledge of history. Yes, freedoms are at times curtailed, however over time they are often brought back and at times with even more perks than existed prior Look at any former Communist country for proof of this...they had freedoms prior to Communism, they lost them under Communism and now they have freedoms again...some are even new freedoms which they never had before. Yes, but I refuse to answer the incessant rapping at my skull...as you have alleged, I am too affeared to look out the eye-socket portals.

Oh goody. Let's all just cheer taking two hundred years worth of steps back, just because some fucktard on the internet says in three hundred years it will be new and improved! Yay, I just can't wait.

Here's a better idea- why don't we stop fucking up BEFORE we go too far? Maybe, just MAYBE we could start EMPLOYING some of the lessons learned through history, rather than just repeating mistakes anew.

Your posts indicate that you certainly DO support fear-based legislation, shall I compile a list?

Oh fabulous! Now I'm an idiot as well!

yes.

However I am not now, nor have I ever been a Republican...sorry to burst your bubble.

Then allow me to ask- what IS your political affiliation?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Rights and freedoms are temporary? Gifts? I must have missed those phrases and caveats in the first 14 amendments to the constitution. Kindly point them out to me?

 

[madame_zora]

Rights and freedoms are temporary? Gifts? I must have missed those phrases and caveats in the first 14 amendments to the constitution. Kindly point them out to me?

Yes, now listen carefully. Your rights are granted by the president, at his pleasure. You are to concede that he can forfeit them at will, if HE decides it's in "the country's" best interest. The Constitution has become outdated and no longer applies. Got it yet?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Yes, now listen carefully. Your rights are granted by the president, at his pleasure. You are to concede that he can forfeit them at will, if HE decides it's in "the country's" best interest. The Constitution has become outdated and no longer applies. Got it yet?

Not quite yet, you cunt-breathing dragon! I just require one more enlightenment: What is the difference between a privilege and a right? I have never read a portion of a document nicknamed "The Bill of Privileges".

 

[AlteredEgo]

Not quite yet, you cunt-breathing dragon! I just require one more enlightenment: What is the difference between a privilege and a right? I have never read a portion of a document nicknamed "The Bill of Privileges".

Privelage is granted only to and by the right. Bwahahahahahaahahahah*dies*

 

[madame_zora]

Not quite yet, you cunt-breathing dragon! I just require one more enlightenment: What is the difference between a privilege and a right? I have never read a portion of a document nicknamed "The Bill of Privileges".

Alrightythen, you nailed that one. That is in fact the distinction- rights vs. priveledges. We have colloquialised "rights" to be a generic term for both, but their distinctions are extremely important. This reminds me of something I just posted on the thread about political correctness- language DOES influence our thinking, and that drawing distinctions is extremely difficult for most people.