Gov't Eavesdropping Ruled Unconstitutional

ManiacalMadMan

Experimental Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Posts
1,073
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
183
Age
68
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
madame_zora said:
It wasn't worth it the first time, you're just the volunteer-du-jour.
But if I am on the enemies list of Republicanism, how on earth could I possibly be a volunteer?



madame_zora said:
I think it's safe to remove the "perhaps". Of course, you've never used name calling as a way of making a point.:rolleyes: Do you really want me to waste my time going through all your posts and reposting every time you've done it?
Oh would you? That would be such a treat, knowing that you were helping the downtrodden dolts such as myself (hope you don't slip and injure yourself on my sarcasm)
madame_zora said:
I didn't think so, fucktard.
didn't I just indicate that I most cretinly do want you do do this? You are a forgetful one aren't you?
madame_zora said:
I love people who profess to be taking the high road while they're still in the ditch.
Who are you whining about now...yourself or Joe Lieberman? (thought I'd throw that in as a diversionary tactic)



madame_zora said:
This is a truly amazing piece of philosophical reasoning. Truly. Amazing.
My reasoning always is.

madame_zora said:
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!
Ooooh! I've been placed on the Moron list, just like the President! I feel so honored! To the meat of your paragraph though...All rights are temporary. These are only called inalienable rights because a human being in some level of power deemed them to be of a nature which should be given that title. Just because a word or term is created does not make it truth. Again, your inalienable rights as defined in any politcal tract, are indeed temporary, as are various forms of government.



madame_zora said:
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.
You may have to...these things take time.

madame_zora said:
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?
Haven't we already established that I love lists? Anyway, I do not support fear-based legislation. What I am supporting is Protection for all That Madame Zora is the sort of legislation I am in favor of.


madame_zora said:
Then allow me to ask- what IS your political affiliation?
I am a registered Democrat...have been since 1980; prior to that I was a registered Conservative. My voting has crossed many party lines, I have at times voted Independent, Dempocrat (when they still had decent choices), Conservative, Republican and possibly the lesser known parties as well.
 

ManiacalMadMan

Experimental Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Posts
1,073
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
183
Age
68
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
madame_zora said:
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?

I'm sensing more sarcasm...
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
MMM, you haven't addressed my questions regarding rights being temporary gifts, nor the difference between a right and a privilege.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
MMM, that whole post almost completely lacked content. Yes, I name-call while I'm ranting, but at least I still say something. You only made two points in that entire post, so I won't bother quoting it. First, you stated that you DO support legislating "protections" which (at least to me) implies fear. If we NEED protections, there must be "something scary" we need protection from. Can you see how that's a logical conclusion to draw? No matter what answer you use to fill in the blank, it can only be something based on fear. The difference between people in your camp and mine is that we disagree dramatically on how realistic the "threats" are that we apparently need protection from. It's an argument we won't win online, I see your view as infantile and you see mine as supporting "running rampant in the streets"
(I actually DO support running rampant in the streets probably, by your definititons, based on what I've gathered thus far).

You also stated your voting record, and mine is very similar (currently registered dem, previous repub, and have voted dem, repub and indie.). Looks like we BOTH made assupmtions about the other's affiliations.

Oh, it was particularly amusing to me that you accused me of "forgetting" something from the same post! I'm intuitive, but I'm not psychic.

Bronx was right, I haven't told you to fuck off and die yet, but I certainly am enjoying letting you expose yourself. Must be getting drafty.
 

ManiacalMadMan

Experimental Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Posts
1,073
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
183
Age
68
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
MMM, you haven't addressed my questions regarding rights being temporary gifts, nor the difference between a right and a privilege.
All rights are temporary. Rights and privilege are in essence equal partners and both are revocable at any time. There are no guarentees in life and to decide that you are permanently entitled to a gift is ignorant bliss (or blissful ignorance if you'd prefer). We have been given certain things and they are ours for now, however they can be taken away at a moments notice. You and many others fail to realize that we as a people have at least been informed what is happening, and that too is a right, a privilege if you will, which may be only fleeting.

The real question once more comes down to what are people willing to stand up for and fight for? It is one thing to say that these are all inalienable rights and that it is wrong for them to be taken away; but, it is quite another to be willing to lay down ones own life to retain them. Are you willing to go that far?
 

ManiacalMadMan

Experimental Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Posts
1,073
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
183
Age
68
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
COLJohn said:
Two questions, MMM: Which of the "temporary" rights are you willing to give up to fight terrorism? In a democracy, who should determine which of those rights you need to give up?
I am more than willing to cede any of my current rights if it is for the safety and protection of my country and even the entire planet.

As to the person who should make this decision; the fact is that we as a people (even a narrow majority that it was) decided that George Bush was the person who would be given both the right and the power to make many of these critical decisions.
 

ManiacalMadMan

Experimental Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Posts
1,073
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
183
Age
68
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
madame_zora said:
MMM, that whole post almost completely lacked content. Yes, I name-call while I'm ranting, but at least I still say something. You only made two points in that entire post, so I won't bother quoting it. First, you stated that you DO support legislating "protections" which (at least to me) implies fear. If we NEED protections, there must be "something scary" we need protection from. Can you see how that's a logical conclusion to draw? No matter what answer you use to fill in the blank, it can only be something based on fear. The difference between people in your camp and mine is that we disagree dramatically on how realistic the "threats" are that we apparently need protection from. It's an argument we won't win online, I see your view as infantile and you see mine as supporting "running rampant in the streets"
(I actually DO support running rampant in the streets probably, by your definititons, based on what I've gathered thus far).

You also stated your voting record, and mine is very similar (currently registered dem, previous repub, and have voted dem, repub and indie.). Looks like we BOTH made assupmtions about the other's affiliations.

Oh, it was particularly amusing to me that you accused me of "forgetting" something from the same post! I'm intuitive, but I'm not psychic.

Bronx was right, I haven't told you to fuck off and die yet, but I certainly am enjoying letting you expose yourself. Must be getting drafty.
Are you taking your meds?

At any rate, I must head out for now...I do hope the security camera is off...

I will return later and respond more in depth to this...I would send you a PM but I feel you may have been inundated by those on other matters already, so I won't. Besides, it's much more proper to state all my views here where they can be viewed by all concerned.

Until later...unless of course George Bush pulls the plug on us all while I am out...
 

D_Sheffield Thongbynder

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Posts
2,020
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
ManiacalMadMan said:
I am more than willing to cede any of my current rights if it is for the safety and protection of my country and even the entire planet.

As to the person who should make this decision; the fact is that we as a people (even a narrow majority that it was) decided that George Bush was the person who would be given both the right and the power to make many of these critical decisions.

Both reasonable answers --if the country needs THAT much protection from terrorists. Terrorism must be fought vigorously, but IMO we don't need to sacrifice our freedoms to do so. As for GB, the nation did elect him, but electing someone doesn't mean he can do as he pleases once in office. If any President's performance is unacceptable according to a majority, he can be impeached. I doubt that those who voted for Bush were giving him a mandate to increase the national deficit with wild spending or to take away our personal freedoms guaranteed us in the Constitution.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
ManiacalMadMan said:
All rights are temporary. Rights and privilege are in essence equal partners and both are revocable at any time.

Who says, and by whom?

There are no guarentees in life and to decide that you are permanently entitled to a gift is ignorant bliss (or blissful ignorance if you'd prefer).

What the fuck are you talking about, seriously? As much as I feel filthy for continuing to talk to you, I think it's important to play this out as far as it will go, so our readership can understand why it's so important to fight this kind of stupidity. It all comes down to this, doesn't it? Your arguments come down to greeting card sentimentalism, not reality. You have never once addressed what you think about the Constitution, or what position you see it playing in our government. Instead we get this non-answer full of mystery and intrigue. Somehow, mysteriously, we have been "given" rights and priveledges (which you see as the same thing) by some unseen force (god, perhaps?) who can rip them away from us at any time. How in the hell could you come to a conclusion like that?

We have been given certain things and they are ours for now, however they can be taken away at a moments notice.

BY WHOM? For fuck's sake, by whom?

You and many others fail to realize that we as a people have at least been informed what is happening, and that too is a right, a privilege if you will, which may be only fleeting.

Dammit, now you're honestly scaring me. *feels a FOAD coming on*


The real question once more comes down to what are people willing to stand up for and fight for? It is one thing to say that these are all inalienable rights and that it is wrong for them to be taken away; but, it is quite another to be willing to lay down ones own life to retain them. Are you willing to go that far?

I don't know, I've been asking myself that very thing. I wonder how people felt in any times of historical significance, and how scary it must have been to be the group that has to actually do the dirty work to protect their ideals. I'm glad our forefathers did it though, because as a woman, and one of mixed ethnicity at that, I enjoy far more freedoms than many of my "sistahs" in other nations.

Should I fight? yes. Do I have the courage? I sure hope so, but honestly, I can't say for sure. My forms of protest thus far have been limited to writing and door-to-door pandering. There are causes I would die for, but I'm not sure where I stand on my government right now- that is to say, I would only sacrifice my life if I was convinced it would make a difference.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,176
Media
37
Likes
26,249
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
ManiacalMadMan said:
All rights are temporary. These are only called inalienable rights because a human being in some level of power deemed them to be of a nature which should be given that title.


They had no pwer other than the power they took. They were rebels- criminals against the king. They wanted to overthrow the gov't. The power came later, the man who wrote this was our third president. I wish he could leave his grave and slap somebody sometimes. I wear a t-shirt with his words on the front. I have them memorized, but too many have forgotten.
 

Lex

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
8,253
Media
0
Likes
118
Points
268
Location
In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
ManiacalMadMan said:
All rights are temporary. Rights and privilege are in essence equal partners and both are revocable at any time. ...

Now I get it. Your entire paradigm is based on faulty reasoning. Rights and privileges are exactly NOT the same thing. That is why our rights are protected and privileges are not (or have limited protections and some inherent restrictions).

I can't really be bothered since you don't address direction questions and you can't seem to grasp the basic foundations of our government and how it is SUPPOSED to work as outlined by the Constitution.

Next.
 

D_Sheffield Thongbynder

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Posts
2,020
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
madame_zora said:
There are causes I would die for, but I'm not sure where I stand on my government right now- that is to say, I would only sacrifice my life if I was convinced it would make a difference.

If two branches of government would do their job, you wouldn't have to be agonizing over this right now. I think a potential flaw in any democracy is that when complacency sets in and too many people stick to the sidelines, our rights can easily erode.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Lex said:
Now I get it. Your entire paradigm is based on faulty reasoning. Rights and privileges are exactly NOT the same thing. That is why our rights are protected and privileges are not (or have limited protections and some inherent restrictions).

I can't really be bothered since you don't address direction questions and you can't seem to grasp the basic foundations of our government and how it is SUPPOSED to work as outlined by the Constitution.

Next.

Clearly you are much smarter than I am. :biggrin1:
 

brainzz_n_dong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
226
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
34
MMM,

I have to disagree with that last post (if it's your last post by the time I get this posted...).

Bush, as President, can take the lead in proposing what he feels needs to be done to more aggressively protect American citizens and, to a lesser degree, our allies around the world when U.S.-based programs can afford them greater security. But Bush, as a President who swears to uphold the constitution, cannot choose to randomly discard a right or law if he so chooses. Would you want the next President, someone you may personally despise, having pick of the litter rights with the laws of the USA?

I disagree with the democrats/liberals in the forum as what I've read doesn't lead me to conclude that he has broken any law. Many of them automatically assume that if Bush does anything...farts even, he has broken something - clean air regulations in that example. And, to me, the right to continue living is the most important civil right. We have to have programs that allow us to fight this enemy in the ways the current age dictate. It can be argued that the "old" FISA law didn't allow for the kind of surveillance needed to prosecute terrorism. However, if that was the only obstacle (an "old" FISA law) then it should have been updated to include what we're talking about...loosely...in this discussion.

I can post the findings of what I've read, but duties at school (which kicks off on Monday) are calling and I have to leave for now.
 

Lex

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
8,253
Media
0
Likes
118
Points
268
Location
In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
madame_zora said:
Clearly you are much smarter than I am. :biggrin1:
nah, I just get off on watching you spank people. :biggrin1:

brainzz_n_dong said:
...It can be argued that the "old" FISA law didn't allow for the kind of surveillance needed to prosecute terrorism. However, if that was the only obstacle (an "old" FISA law) then it should have been updated to include what we're talking about...loosely...in this discussion.
Absolutely no argument there. Update the lasw to relfect the needs of surveilence based on modern issues and times while still protecting the privacy and rights of law-abiding citizens. This is what SHOULD have happened, and

Bronx said:
It is against the law to tap the phones of a citizen's home without a warrant. He has done that, and admits as much.
This is what DID happen. Now, they continue to lie about it which makes the thoughts of further insidious actionsbeing carried about by the government more plausable, not less. DC DEEP has already made this point, and I restate it here.

You can not talk your way out of a situation you behaved your way into.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
It just seems to escape some people, but our founding fathers worded the Constitution very very carefully; their choice of the word "right" over the word "privilege" lay entirely in both the denoted and the connotated meanings:

privilege: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor; esp : one attached specifically to a position or an office.

right: something to which one has a just claim, as the power to which one is justly entitled; something that one may properly claim as due; the cause of truth and justice.
{source for definitions: Webster's New Collegiate}
There is a difference between saying "you have the right to remain silent" or saying "you have a privilege of remaining silent." The subtle, but important difference here, is that a right is inherent and non-negotiable, but a privilege is granted, and therefore may be revoked.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
And yet, no one on either side is addressing the real issue, which is: why are terrorists targeting (primarily) the United States and (almost as vigorously) the UK and Spain? I promise you, it has nothing to do with "them" being "jealous" of our western way of life. It has everything to do with imperialist foreign policy. OK, class, can anyone give me a paraphrased summary of Osama bin-laden's very first anti-American speech? A gold star and a lollipop to the first correct answer.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
DC_DEEP said:
And yet, no one on either side is addressing the real issue, which is: why are terrorists targeting (primarily) the United States and (almost as vigorously) the UK and Spain? I promise you, it has nothing to do with "them" being "jealous" of our western way of life. It has everything to do with imperialist foreign policy. OK, class, can anyone give me a paraphrased summary of Osama bin-laden's very first anti-American speech? A gold star and a lollipop to the first correct answer.

Ooh, pick me!

I just read it again, it was a very detailed littany of complaints against US foreign policy in the first part. I was impressed with the language and wondered how many people got together to produce it, it was fairly amazing.

The second part was a demand the the US immediately adopt Islam as the law of the land, as is required by their religion. While I read it, I couldn't help but think the fundies of our own nation demand the very same things. No wonder this well written letter was never addressed- what could we really say?