NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so America is catching all this heat over wiretaps of suspected terrorists, with people saying that "Big Brother" is getting out of control, yet THIS (http://srs.targetpoint.com/external.htm?url=http%3A//news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece&nw=0&uid=236980$181&cid=6411,7250,7251,7252,7201,7200,1600&tp=1&ps=2!1!8$$3!1!13$$3!4!12$$3!6!1$$4!1!0$$4!4!12$$5!1!0$$6!3!%23808080$$6!4!%23CCCC99$$6!6!16$$7!1!0$$ 7!4!11$$7!5!0$$8!1!8$$&wd=760&hg=78&lo=http%3A//thelostlinks.com/&tpq=britain%20will%20be%20first%20country%20to%20monitor%20every%20car%20journey#exit)is ok?

This, ladies and gents, is the type of Big Brother stuff you should be worried about!

I don't even know what to say! Did this face any opposition at all?


STILL glad to be an American! ;)

Christ, that's disgusting. But you're talking to a proud American libertarian here...

How does this help your freedom-hating causes?

Christ, that's disgusting. But you're talking to a proud American libertarian here...

How does this help your freedom-hating causes?
My freedom hating causes?

your score-card:

Pro Civil-Libeties=0
Anti-such= Zilch.

Are you denying what even you know about yourself?
Aren't you bsically authoritarian, or are you not?

Stop being confusing, and come out already.

your score-card:

Pro Civil-Libeties=0
Anti-such= Zilch.

Are you denying what even you know about yourself?
Aren't you bsically authoritarian, or are you not?

Stop being confusing, and come out already.
BTW- I mistkenly wrote zilch, instead of "the number of your posts".

My freedom hating causes?
you being okay with random wiretapping of phone calls both inside and to outside the U.S. and random checks on what you check out at the library and giving up the rest of your freedoms to "homeland security."

you being okay with random wiretapping of phone calls both inside and to outside the U.S. and random checks on what you check out at the library and giving up the rest of your freedoms to "homeland security."
Rediculous, considering he almost believed himself in starting a pro-small goverment post. :rolleyes:

-snip-
Are they...serious?

Oh, OK. I'm an anti freedom prick. I got it. Forgot about that. Sorry. CAMERAS IN ALL THE BEDROOMS, TRACKER CHIPS IN ALL THE ARMS! SIEG HEIL! :rolleyes:

Oh, OK. I'm an anti freedom prick. I got it. Forgot about that. Sorry. CAMERAS IN ALL THE BEDROOMS, TRACKER CHIPS IN ALL THE ARMS! SIEG HEIL! :rolleyes:
Hell, Social Security will be confined to just its own account.
Welfare will be limited to those in verified medical need of support.

See the slope? Stop being so gullible.

Hell, Social Security will be confined to just its own account.
Welfare will be limited to those in verified medical need of support.

See the slope? Stop being so gullible.
But then again, I guess you support these government programs, seeing as how it would be unpatriotic not to. Criticism=terrorism, right?

And I ask again the question that wasn't answered:

Aren't you bsically authoritarian, or are you not?

And I ask again the question that wasn't answered:
Actually, I'm clostest to being a Libertarian, but I don't let my beliefs endanger my family and friends.

Of course, I don't know why I even answered you. Your gonna call me whatever you want, because you disagree with me, and you don't seem very apt to keep your mind open to anything but your own narrow view of the world.
Hell, Social Security will be confined to just its own account.
Welfare will be limited to those in verified medical need of support.

See the slope? Stop being so gullible.
Stop pretending you know anything about me, junior.

Is it me, or has this asshole all but disappeared from his own thread? :p

Is it me, or has this asshole all but disappeared from his own thread? :p
Now your calling me an asshole? Yep, your definately mature enough to voice your opinion and have me listen!

Isn't there a kiddy thread in here for the "little people" to play in while adults discuss the issues? :rolleyes:

Actually, I'm clostest to being a Libertarian, but I don't let my beliefs endanger my family and friends.

Of course, I don't know why I even answered you. Your gonna call me whatever you want, because you disagree with me, and you don't seem very apt to keep your mind open to anything but your own narrow view of the world.
Sir, I really hate people who judge others..
But you really do need to reevaluate your idea of libertarianism. If you think GWB is even close, you're not one.
Yes, we have some shit in common, but not so much. Not near enough.
Do your homework.

Well, the world is going down the drain, not just the US.

http://www.vicpeace.org/sedition/info/0002.html
This is legal advice an Australian MP got about the new "Sedition" Laws that are contained in the anti-terror legislation that was passed recently.

Essentially, if media in Australia publicise a viewpoint like the one by John Pilger ("Iraqi resistance has the right to kill Western soldiers"), not only will Pilger himself be hauled off to jail, but also the media station that covered it.

Actually, I'm clostest to being a Libertarian, but I don't let my beliefs endanger my family and friends.

Of course, I don't know why I even answered you. Your gonna call me whatever you want, because you disagree with me, and you don't seem very apt to keep your mind open to anything but your own narrow view of the world.

Stop pretending you know anything about me, junior.
Junior? I'm old enough to know that this slur is pretty rediculous, considering I've passed the 25 mark a while ago.

Free Scotland!

Junior? I'm old enough to know that this slur is pretty rediculous, considering I've passed the 25 mark a while ago.
Act it then.

Well, the world is going down the drain, not just the US.

http://www.vicpeace.org/sedition/info/0002.html
This is legal advice an Australian MP got about the new "Sedition" Laws that are contained in the anti-terror legislation that was passed recently.

Essentially, if media in Australia publicise a viewpoint like the one by John Pilger ("Iraqi resistance has the right to kill Western soldiers"), not only will Pilger himself be hauled off to jail, but also the media station that covered it.
:eek: Holy shit... are you serious? I don't like it when the UK or Australia goes authoritarian... Vey, very dangerous.

Is it me, or has this asshole all but disappeared from his own thread? :p
Sir, I really hate people who judge others..
But you really do need to reevaluate your idea of libertarianism. If you think GWB is even close, you're not one.
Yes, we have some shit in common, but not so much. Not near enough.
Do your homework.
Cute! :D

Act it then.
Erm... your mother???

Being adults, let's talk what's been brought up-- Your libertarianism.
How do you deserve that self-given title?

Fill me in, please. I don't think I'm alone in saying that should be interesting.

Eichen, sure you mightve 'passed the 25 mark', but it sure doesnt seem like it from the way you have acted in this thread...

:eek: Holy shit... are you serious? I don't like it when the UK or Australia goes authoritarian... Vey, very dangerous.
Yep, very serious.

The legislation does not accurately define what exactly sedition is*, so that is up to a court. It does cover both the person who said it, and the person who spreads it.
And our main opposition supports it, because they don't want to be seen as "Weak on Terror". And even if they didn't, thanks to an election campaign telling Australians that interest rates will rise if people vote Labour, the Conservatives hold the majority in both houses, and can push through whatever they want, whenever they want, with as little debate as they want.

I'm outta here as soon as I'm done with Uni.

More info on this website: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1499125.htm

Being adults, let's talk what's been brought up-- Your libertarianism.
How do you deserve that self-given title?

Fill me in, please. I don't think I'm alone in saying that should be interesting.
Speaking of deserving, here's what you deserve, as far as explanations from me are concerned.

...............................

Yep, very serious.

The legislation does not accurately define what exactly sedition is*, so that is up to a court. It does cover both the person who said it, and the person who spreads it.
And our main opposition supports it, because they don't want to be seen as "Weak on Terror". And even if they didn't, thanks to an election campaign telling Australians that interest rates will rise if people vote Labour, the Conservatives hold the majority in both houses, and can push through whatever they want, whenever they want, with as little debate as they want.

I'm outta here as soon as I'm done with Uni.

More info on this website: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1499125.htm
Dude, that sounds like a creeping autocracy... I don't like that at all becuase the dickwads here in America take shit like this as license.
I hope the citizens enact their privelieges, but like here, they prolly won't.
The zeitgeist isn't just American. Not so happy to hear that.

Eichen, sure you mightve 'passed the 25 mark', but it sure doesnt seem like it from the way you have acted in this thread...

The problem, Detroit1, is that you're relatively new here, so you can't properly appreciate the lengths Man in Black goes to defend the President and the way he often goes about it.

Man in Black is so frightened of the terrorists that he's willing to give up his Libertarian ideals in the hope that Daddy Bush will defendi him. So, in order to defend Daddy Bush, Man in Black has consistently and repeatedly been an apologist for the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security.

What Man in Black doesn't realize is that those Civil Liberties aren't just a nice philosphy applied arbitrarily. What they are are time-tested defenses AGAINST the government, put in the Constitution by some of the brightest men in history.

I'm sure Man in Black would never consider abolishing the 2nd Amendment, because then only criminals AND THE GOVERNMENT would have guns. Likewise, the right to privacy and process, as guaranteed in the 4th and 5th Amendments, is important because without it, only the Government can organize in secret.

The problem, Detroit1, is that you're relatively new here, so you can't properly appreciate the lengths Man in Black goes to defend the President and the way he often goes about it.

Man in Black is so frightened of the terrorists that he's willing to give up his Libertarian ideals in the hope that Daddy Bush will defend him. So, in order to defend Daddy Bush, Man in Black has consistently and repeatedly been an apologist for the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security.

What Man in Black doesn't realize is that those Civil Liberties aren't just a nice philosphy applied arbitrarily. What they are are time-tested defenses AGAINST the government, put in the Constitution by some of the brightest men in history.

I'm sure Man in Black would never consider abolishing the 2nd Amendment, because then only criminals AND THE GOVERNMENT would have guns. Likewise, the right to privacy and process, as guaranteed in the 4th and 5th Amendments, is important because without it, only the Government can organize in secret.
Most of your post is pure idiocy, but since it's Christmas, I give you the honor of a response on the bolded part.

Your right, I wouldn't never consider abolishing the 2nd amendment. But I also wouldn't apply it so liberally that people could own tanks, or high explosives, or RPGs.

You see, while some of you may pick and choose your amendments, and battle for them to be applied TO THE LETTER, I am a realist, and I understand the fact that balance is necessary in all aspects of life.

I wouldn't ban guns, and I wouldn't ban free speech, or the right to privacy. But I also wouldn't use those rights as an excuse to chop the governments legs off, when there are crazy fucks out there who want us all dead, and have vowed to use any means necessary to destroy us.

You call ME a coward, yet your scared to death that the government is gonna hear you talking dirty to your girlfriend. Now THAT is fucking funny. Who's the coward? I have nothing to hide. and nothing to fear. And the only reason you don't fear the terrorists either is because of people like me who are willing to sacrifice for the safety of innocent people who just want to live their lives in peace.

You call ME a coward? That's fucking rich Gymmy, old chum. :D

and nothing to fear.
Which begs the question why we need to change the rules in the first place.

The problem, Detroit1, is that you're relatively new here, so you can't properly appreciate the lengths Man in Black goes to defend the President and the way he often goes about it.

Man in Black is so frightened of the terrorists that he's willing to give up his Libertarian ideals in the hope that Daddy Bush will defendi him. So, in order to defend Daddy Bush, Man in Black has consistently and repeatedly been an apologist for the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security.

What Man in Black doesn't realize is that those Civil Liberties aren't just a nice philosphy applied arbitrarily. What they are are time-tested defenses AGAINST the government, put in the Constitution by some of the brightest men in history.

I'm sure Man in Black would never consider abolishing the 2nd Amendment, because then only criminals AND THE GOVERNMENT would have guns. Likewise, the right to privacy and process, as guaranteed in the 4th and 5th Amendments, is important because without it, only the Government can organize in secret.
Weaing jeans... would you like to unwrap you present now, or later? ;) :fluffle:

Most of your post is pure idiocy, but since it's Christmas, I give you the honor of a response on the bolded part.

Your right, I wouldn't never consider abolishing the 2nd amendment. But I also wouldn't apply it so liberally that people could own tanks, or high explosives, or RPGs.

You see, while some of you may pick and choose your amendments, and battle for them to be applied TO THE LETTER, I am a realist, and I understand the fact that balance is necessary in all aspects of life.

I wouldn't ban guns, and I wouldn't ban free speech, or the right to privacy. But I also wouldn't use those rights as an excuse to chop the governments legs off, when there are crazy fucks out there who want us all dead, and have vowed to use any means necessary to destroy us.

You call ME a coward, yet your scared to death that the government is gonna hear you talking dirty to your girlfriend. Now THAT is fucking funny. Who's the coward? I have nothing to hide. and nothing to fear. And the only reason you don't fear the terrorists either is because of people like me who are willing to sacrifice for the safety of innocent people who just want to live their lives in peace.

You call ME a coward? That's fucking rich Gymmy, old chum. :D

If you've read my stance on terorism, you'd find I'm not exactly in the good graces of liberals.

But I can say, I agee wholeheatedly with Bill:
"I have a problem with people who take the Constitution loosely and
the Bible literally."

And let's face it, I've read your posts. I know your angle, and you know mine.):

Oh, OK. I'm an anti freedom prick. I got it. Forgot about that. Sorry. CAMERAS IN ALL THE BEDROOMS, TRACKER CHIPS IN ALL THE ARMS! SIEG HEIL! :rolleyes:


as an austrian that is very offenseive, when you live through hitlars time then you can make comments like that until than you have no idea. I bet you dont even know what Sieg Heil means......so ignorant

If you've read my stance on terorism, you'd find I'm not exactly in the good graces of liberals.

But I can say, I agee wholeheatedly with Bill:
"I have a problem with people who take the Constitution loosely and
the Bible literally."

And let's face it, I've read your posts. I know your angle, and you know mine.):
Apparently not, genius. I'm an atheist. ;)

as an austrian that is very offenseive, when you live through hitlars time then you can make comments like that until than you have no idea. I bet you dont even know what Sieg Heil means......so ignorant
But even an Austrian would know how to spell "Hitler"...;)

But even an Austrian would know how to spell "Hitler"...;)


never said i was a good spelling fast typer bad speller and when you speak three langeges it gets harder to spell trust me, i still want to spell house as hause etc

Most of your post is pure idiocy, but since it's Christmas, I give you the honor of a response on the bolded part.

Your right, I wouldn't never consider abolishing the 2nd amendment. But I also wouldn't apply it so liberally that people could own tanks, or high explosives, or RPGs.

With ya so far.

You see, while some of you may pick and choose your amendments, and battle for them to be applied TO THE LETTER, I am a realist, and I understand the fact that balance is necessary in all aspects of life.

Exactly. That's why domestic spying is currently legal and only requires a minute amount of oversight (i.e. a warrant.)

I wouldn't ban guns, and I wouldn't ban free speech, or the right to privacy. But I also wouldn't use those rights as an excuse to chop the governments legs off, when there are crazy fucks out there who want us all dead, and have vowed to use any means necessary to destroy us.

Disease, automobiles and accidents around the home cause a whole lot more death and property damage than terrorists. Perhaps the government should prevent us from driving or living in our homes. Sure there are crazy fucks out there. But the less oversight and the more power we concentrate in the executive branch, the greater the chances that one of those crazy fucks will be in charge here.


You call ME a coward, yet your scared to death that the government is gonna hear you talking dirty to your girlfriend. Now THAT is fucking funny. Who's the coward? I have nothing to hide. and nothing to fear. And the only reason you don't fear the terrorists either is because of people like me who are willing to sacrifice for the safety of innocent people who just want to live their lives in peace.

Yes, because the U.S. government is a lot more powerful than some idiots with improvised explosives who aren't even on the same continent as me anyway.

You call ME a coward? That's fucking rich Gymmy, old chum. :D

If the yellow shoe fits, wear it. If we were happy with these kinds of assaults on our civil liberties, we'd still be a part of the British Empire.

You have no problems with wiretaps without warrants when they make you safer in no way shape or form. You're willing to go along with it all based on the word of someone who said warrantless taps were not occurring.

Weaing jeans... would you like to unwrap you present now, or later? ;) :fluffle:

:eek:

I forget, are you a he or a she?

Apparently not, genius. I'm an atheist. ;)
Wow. We have something in common. Still doesn't expalin your so-called libertarian position.
And what's the deal with "Jesus talks to me" Bush, and your defense?

I'm no genius, but I can pick out an authoritarians among us... including the ask-not-lest-spae-the-patriotism Bush supporters. Are you familiar with the Commie regime the Libertarians and Republicans fought for so long?
They didn't believe in God either. It was illegal.

I wanna know, why exactly do you support the infringement of civil liberties?
Also, do you, based on history, not see why the civil libertarians among us are reluctant to give them up, seeing how we don't get them back?

:eek:

I forget, are you a he or a she?
Not too big, not near too small cockbearer. Still care? :p
You know I'm playing. :fluffle:

Not too big, not near too small cockbearer. Still care? :p
You know I'm playing. :fluffle:

Heh.

I'd play along if I had any idea what your first sentence there meant.

I assume you mean you're an average-sized dude.

More's the pity. Another lump of coal in my stocking...

:D :D

:eek:

I forget, are you a he or a she?
Upon consideration, you know me. You knew I was just fagging out.

Sorry to make you uncomfortable, liberal. :D

Upon consideration, you know me. You knew I was just fagging out.

Sorry to make you uncomfortable, liberal. :D

Heh. Me?? Uncomfortable?? Okay, maybe a little.:D But flattered, silly boy.

You have no problems with wiretaps without warrants when they make you safer in no way shape or form.
That's what REALLY gets me. I can understand you wanting to protect your civil liberties. In fact, when someone speaks civilly with me about it, they'll find I actually admire it.

It's when people say shit like "the terrorists aren't a threat to us" or "the wiretaps haven't even made us safer" that I stop listening, and start rolling my eyes.

Protect your civil liberties all you want. Whether you believe it or not, I wish you nothing but the best. But don't bullshit me.

The terrorists want us dead. FACT Wiretaps help catch terrorists FACT If we defend our liberties to the point that we leave the government crippled, we WILL have another 9/11, if, that is, were lucky enough that's it on such a small scale compared to what it could be.

You can at least admit that, and still be for civil liberties.

That's what REALLY gets me. I can understand you wanting to protect your civil liberties. In fact, when someone speaks civilly with me about it, they'll find I actually admire it.

It's when people say shit like "the terrorists aren't a threat to us" or "the wiretaps haven't even made us safer" that I stop listening, and start rolling my eyes.

Protect your civil liberties all you want. Whether you believe it or not, I wish you nothing but the best. But don't bullshit me.

The terrorists want us dead. FACT Wiretaps help catch terrorists FACT If we defend our liberties to the point that we leave the government, we WILL have another 9/11, if, that is, were lucky enough that's it on such a small scale compared to what it could be.

You can at least admit that, and still be for civil liberties.

Wiretaps do help catch terrorists. That's why there are legal processes in place so that wiretaps can be conducted...even 72 hours BEFORE a warrant is issued.

So, how do the illegal forms of wiretapping make us safer?

You can at least admit that, and still be for civil liberties.
But why would he have to admit anything? AQ is a group of a few hundreds of people. In America, the risk is tiny anyways, since you don't have the same problems with integrating young Muslims that other places have.

There is no realistic grounds for the hype that is out there. There is no war other than what you make of it.
9/11 cannot be repeated - there are air marshalls now (one anti-terror measure I actually very much agree with).
The introduction of nuclear-, chemical and biological weapons is impossible if there are checks at Borders, Ports and Air Ports. No need to infringe civil liberties there. In fact, chances are that you wouldn't even have to open bags to find those.

There are no terrorists among you. If there are, they can be caught using normal procedure. There is no convincing case to be made for an extension of governmental powers (especially without a warrant - what, you think courts won't issue warrants if asked?), other than one made on hysteria and meaningless phrases.

The problem is that this administration isn't always doing things the legal way. They can conduct their wiretaps, there's a LEGAL process of warrants that allows it to happen. They can find out almost anything they want, with a warrant. When you disallow warrants, you allow the government to conduct witchhunts on intuition. Warrants force cause and fact to be present. The government is being lazy not following that step. The first duty is to protect its own citizens, and without following the laws it enforces, it's not going to be doing that. All the citizens, including terrorist scum. Because, believe it or not, there's a legal way to get them too. It's called indicting and due process.

Heh. Me?? Uncomfortable?? Okay, maybe a little.:D But flattered, silly boy.
As you should be. And due to my efusal to shave everyday, I haven't been called a boy in a long time. ;)

Wiretaps do help catch terrorists. That's why there are legal processes in place so that wiretaps can be conducted...even 72 hours BEFORE a warrant is issued.

So, how do the illegal forms of wiretapping make us safer?
You hit the neve. The one I've brought up repeatedly, but can't get an admission (let alone an answer) of, and to.

WTF is so hard about up to 3 days later?

But why would he have to admit anything? AQ is a group of a few hundreds of people. In America, the risk is tiny anyways, since you don't have the same problems with integrating young Muslims that other places have.

There is no realistic grounds for the hype that is out there. There is no war other than what you make of it.
9/11 cannot be repeated - there are air marshalls now (one anti-terror measure I actually very much agree with).
The introduction of nuclear-, chemical and biological weapons is impossible if there are checks at Borders, Ports and Air Ports. No need to infringe civil liberties there. In fact, chances are that you wouldn't even have to open bags to find those.

There are no terrorists among you. If there are, they can be caught using normal procedure. There is no convincing case to be made for an extension of governmental powers (especially without a warrant - what, you think courts won't issue warrants if asked?), other than one made on hysteria and meaningless phrases.
Agreed, but that's why I will, again, eiterate that terrorism is an import, and should be dealt with as such.
Can't infring on citizens rights that way. And we may catch a few.

That's what REALLY gets me. I can understand you wanting to protect your civil liberties. In fact, when someone speaks civilly with me about it, they'll find I actually admire it.

It's when people say shit like "the terrorists aren't a threat to us" or "the wiretaps haven't even made us safer" that I stop listening, and start rolling my eyes.

Protect your civil liberties all you want. Whether you believe it or not, I wish you nothing but the best. But don't bullshit me.

The terrorists want us dead. FACT Wiretaps help catch terrorists FACT If we defend our liberties to the point that we leave the government crippled, we WILL have another 9/11, if, that is, were lucky enough that's it on such a small scale compared to what it could be.

You can at least admit that, and still be for civil liberties.

Wow, you're an idiot. Maybe you should read up as to why the terrorists "want us dead" in the first place. That means you have to actually do some research. And none of those "facts" are actually facts. Show me where a random wiretap prevented a terrorist attack. How about you stop reacting, and sit and think, for a change?

It is a sad reflection on American society that many of our fellow countrymen share your same arrogant, black and white, beliefs.

Maybe you should read up as to why the terrorists "want us dead" in the first place..
Because we'e sinful western infidels. Surely you know that, and you liberalism hasn't prevented you from admitting the obvious, right?

So what do we do about it?

There are no terrorists among you.

or few enough as makes no difference, anyway.

the only ones we really have the various neo-nazi groups. they kill a good number of people every year, but not enough to be more than a blip. though they are also the only ones we've actually found to be in possession of chemical weapons and attempting to smuggle in more. and i strongly suspect them to be behind the anthrax attacks back in 2001.

of course, the all-knowing federales didn't bother to follow up on the info they got from the nazis with the chemical weapons. they were apparently too busy conducting warrantless searches of brown-skinned people and turning up nothing of any value whatsoever.

Wow, you're an idiot.
It's Christmas, I'll forgive your rudeness. Happy Holidays.;)

or few enough as makes no difference, anyway.

the only ones we really have the various neo-nazi groups. they kill a good number of people every year, but not enough to be more than a blip. though they are also the only ones we've actually found to be in possession of chemical weapons and attempting to smuggle in more. and i strongly suspect them to be behind the anthrax attacks back in 2001.

of course, the all-knowing federales didn't bother to follow up on the info they got from the nazis with the chemical weapons. they were apparently too busy conducting warrantless searches of brown-skinned people and turning up nothing of any value whatsoever.
You know I agree with your anti-supremacist tant. I do.
But as far as focus goes, what's the numbes?
Do they add up to the equivalent of the Muslim-fundamentalist chastizements upon we Western Infidels?

Let's do the math. I want to see it, 'cause this situation makes me sad. :( :(

Because we'e sinful western infidels. Surely you know that, and you liberalism hasn't prevented you from admitting the obvious, right?

So what do we do about it?
well for starters, we (as a country, not American citizens) should resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict, then get Bush out of office and replace him with someone more rational who doesn't live in a faith-based world. That will serve to 1) Lessen the partisanship divide, 2) Restore financial responsibility in the White House, 3) Prevent any future wars waged by the PNAC, 4) Take away the terrorists' main target (a whole different story), 5) Restore dignity in the White House. There would be many other benefits as well, but those are the biggies. Then every American should all share a bite in the world's largest hot dog.

It's Christmas, I'll forgive your rudeness. Happy Holidays.;)
And I'll forgive your intolerance :fluffle:

And I'll forgive your intolerance :fluffle:

I forgive his inflexibility and willful ignorance. :fluffle:

And I'll forgive your intolerance :fluffle:
I forgive his inflexibility and willful ignorance. :fluffle:

Now I feel like it's Christmas! Thanks, guys. :fluffle:

well for starters, we (as a country, not American citizens) should resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict, then get Bush out of office and replace him with someone more rational who doesn't live in a faith-based world. That will serve to 1) Lessen the partisanship divide, 2) Restore financial responsibility in the White House, 3) Prevent any future wars waged by the PNAC, 4) Take away the terrorists' main target (a whole different story), 5) Restore dignity in the White House. There would be many other benefits as well, but those are the biggies. Then every American should all share a bite in the world's largest hot dog.
If you wee as kinky as I, you'd get at least a heavy petting for Christmas.;)

But #4, if you mean the "giving up" of our "gasline-rights", we'd be in agreement.
When you drive alone, you drive with Osama. ;)

I must wonder, who are all these people that we need wire taps for? Supposedly we have hundreds, right? I'm guessing that someone here will be more then willing to offer up one or two stories about normal people getting tagged but still, that hardly makes up a difference. After all, we only get the stuff that falls between the cracks but what is really going on behind the scenes?

I must wonder, who are all these people that we need wire taps for?
Everything from NeoNazis to pesky Peace Activists and Demonstrators at WTO meetings.

In other words: Everyone the government doesn't like will invariably be put under observation.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/deported-peace-activist-blameless/2005/10/31/1130720485717.html

I must wonder, who are all these people that we need wire taps for? Supposedly we have hundreds, right? I'm guessing that someone here will be more then willing to offer up one or two stories about normal people getting tagged but still, that hardly makes up a difference. After all, we only get the stuff that falls between the cracks but what is really going on behind the scenes?
Can't help you there. Also, it seems to be just as hard to find a conservative who currently suppots the constitution they've been waving like a flag come gun control issues.

Forgive my cynisism.

Everything from NeoNazis to pesky Peace Activists and Demonstrators at WTO meetings.

In other words: Everyone the government doesn't like will invariably be put under observation.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/deported-peace-activist-blameless/2005/10/31/1130720485717.html

Interesting. It really is remarkable though, it's easy to talk about this sort of thing but in practice there must be hundreds or thousands of payed individuals doing some part in this for a living on a daily basis. I wonder if it ever gets old or boring? Really makes you wonder about the more personal human aspect of it.

Everyone seems to have sand in their vagina tonight.

Everyone seems to have sand in their vagina tonight.
Tinsel in my asscrack. Get it right. :rolleyes:

Tinsel in my asscrack. Get it right. :rolleyes:

Jack Frost was nipping at your...

Jack Frost was nipping at your...
He's such an assgoblin.

He's such an assgoblin.
Dude, you've made a few too many homophobic comments (along with your boytoy, South islands) to speak.
This is a politic board, about politics, and if you were judged accordingly...

All I'm saying is that you only have - things to say. Never +.

What's up with that?
From on Lib to another, I wanna know...

I hope that we older, experienced (voted for years) Libertarians don't give guys like you the impression that we're swinging close to conservative.
That's the studpidist, least informed thiing I've been seeing here on the board.

Again, what's uyp with that?

Most of your post is pure idiocy, but since it's Christmas, I give you the honor of a response on the bolded part.

Your right, I wouldn't never consider abolishing the 2nd amendment. But I also wouldn't apply it so liberally that people could own tanks, or high explosives, or RPGs.

You see, while some of you may pick and choose your amendments, and battle for them to be applied TO THE LETTER, I am a realist, and I understand the fact that balance is necessary in all aspects of life.

I wouldn't ban guns, and I wouldn't ban free speech, or the right to privacy. But I also wouldn't use those rights as an excuse to chop the governments legs off, when there are crazy fucks out there who want us all dead, and have vowed to use any means necessary to destroy us.

You call ME a coward, yet your scared to death that the government is gonna hear you talking dirty to your girlfriend. Now THAT is fucking funny. Who's the coward? I have nothing to hide. and nothing to fear. And the only reason you don't fear the terrorists either is because of people like me who are willing to sacrifice for the safety of innocent people who just want to live their lives in peace.

You call ME a coward? That's fucking rich Gymmy, old chum. :D


Thanks for the laugh. You just fully contradicted yourself.

Why are you afraid of the UK government monitoring cars but not the US gov't monitoring phone calls? Makes no sense at all.

The rest is just a bunch of dick waving on your part.

That's what REALLY gets me. I can understand you wanting to protect your civil liberties. In fact, when someone speaks civilly with me about it, they'll find I actually admire it.

It's when people say shit like "the terrorists aren't a threat to us" or "the wiretaps haven't even made us safer" that I stop listening, and start rolling my eyes.

Protect your civil liberties all you want. Whether you believe it or not, I wish you nothing but the best. But don't bullshit me.

The terrorists want us dead. FACT Wiretaps help catch terrorists FACT If we defend our liberties to the point that we leave the government crippled, we WILL have another 9/11, if, that is, were lucky enough that's it on such a small scale compared to what it could be.

You can at least admit that, and still be for civil liberties.

Perhaps you should start listening and stop rolling your eyes long enough to recognize the difference between legal wiretaps and illegal wiretaps.

The first may make us safer. The second invades our civil liberties.

Again, what's uyp with that?
It has to do with the simple left-right dynamic.

I TGed you an answer to your questions above.

Thanks for the laugh. You just fully contradicted yourself.

Why are you afraid of the UK government monitoring cars but not the US gov't monitoring phone calls? Makes no sense at all.

The rest is just a bunch of dick waving on your part.
Where I come from, government is gaining ground. And it's becoming HUGE...

I''m concered, as unpatriotic as that may be. :confused:

Really, my fave counties going that way ... :confused: :( :mad:

It has to do with the simple left-right dynamic.

I TGed you an answer to your questions above.
I apologize for being pulic, I polly shoud've TG'd you to begin with...

But we'e not Republican-Lite, and I'm tired of that well-deserved image.
You know I'm gonna read that now. ;)

1984 Was 26 years ago. This has been coming on for a long time. If freedom was taken all at once people would fight. Take it away slowly and generation to generation the lack of freedom becomes the norm.

Dude, you've made a few too many homophobic comments (along with your boytoy, South islands) to speak.
This is a politic board, about politics, and if you were judged accordingly...

All I'm saying is that you only have - things to say. Never +.

What's up with that?
From on Lib to another, I wanna know...

I think Neo was just playing along and was referring to Jack Frost (see the context.)

I don't think anything negative was meant to anyone personally.

I think Neo was just playing along and was referring to Jack Frost (see the context.)

I don't think anything negative was meant to anyone personally.
Well, as a faggot, I've had my eyes out for pseudos.
And among the "libertarians" hee, I find a very uncomfortable turn toward the right. In fact, it's hard to not see, unless I qualify as left-wing-opportunistic.
I get beat up all around. I stand and say, bring it.

Now your calling me an asshole? Yep, your definately mature enough to voice your opinion and have me listen!

Isn't there a kiddy thread in here for the "little people" to play in while adults discuss the issues? :rolleyes:

Welcome to the forums buddy!

Now grow some skin will you! :rolleyes:

Welcome to the forums buddy!

Now grow some skin will you! :rolleyes:

No kidding. I find Man in Black's defensive whine to be particularly annoying since he seems to be singularly rude himself.

Just like the chickenhawks he idolizes, he can dish it, but he can't take it. Plus he's afraid the terrorists are going to steal his bike.

Ok, so America is catching all this heat over wiretaps of suspected terrorists, with people saying that "Big Brother" is getting out of control, yet THIS (http://srs.targetpoint.com/external.htm?url=http%3A//news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece&nw=0&uid=236980$181&cid=6411,7250,7251,7252,7201,7200,1600&tp=1&ps=2!1!8$$3!1!13$$3!4!12$$3!6!1$$4!1!0$$4!4!12$$5!1!0$$6!3!%23808080$$6!4!%23CCCC99$$6!6!16$$7!1!0$$ 7!4!11$$7!5!0$$8!1!8$$&wd=760&hg=78&lo=http%3A//thelostlinks.com/&tpq=britain%20will%20be%20first%20country%20to%20monitor%20every%20car%20journey#exit)is ok?

This, ladies and gents, is the type of Big Brother stuff you should be worried about!

I don't even know what to say! Did this face any opposition at all?


STILL glad to be an American! ;)
Yeah because the stupid fucking choice they made makes all the BS we pull better:rolleyes:

Yeah because the stupid fucking choice they made makes all the BS we pull better:rolleyes:
And who says you'e not hot due to abundance of class. ;)

I can always use some of dat... Hand it over. :D

And who says you'e not hot due to abundance of class. ;)

I can always use some of dat... Hand it over. :D
:fluffle: thanks lol its the best I could do, drunk enough to not feel the keyboard lol

Hey, that's my job And I'm dealing with a keyboard I fucked up with a beer. :D

Hey, that's my job And I'm dealing with a keyboard I fucked up with a beer. :D
ROB :fluffle: UT

Hey, that's my job And I'm dealing with a keyboard I fucked up with a beer. :D
I better not fuck mine up with Jack Danials lol its my new laptop lol

"Bush knocked down the towers"


-Jadakis

Wow , just think, if the states had kept to isolationism like you planned, none of this would have happened. You wouldent have helped and trained thousands of Afgani's to be solviet killers (back then they were called soldiers not terrorists) and then they wouldent have hated you for not leaving saudi arabia. so then no 9/11. then no bush because he wouldent have had a strong enough platform to be voted in. soo dumb. its really your own fault.

Oh yeah, right, correct me if i'm wrong but did the US backed Osama when the taliban was getting rid of the soviets out of afghanistan?

Oh yeah, right, correct me if i'm wrong but did the US backed Osama when the taliban was getting rid of the soviets out of afghanistan?
The US was backing the Mudjaheddin. Some of those belonged to the faction later known as Taliban, but most didn't. Osama wasn't one of them for example.
So when the Russians left, the different factions continued the fighting until the Taliban took control of enough of the country to become something like a ruling elite. The rest joined the Northern Alliance and others.
Because Osama had helped the Mudjaheddin (he'd been a big leader - very inspiring) they offered him a place to stay, an offer he took them up on later when he left Sudan.

So the Taliban were not explicitly backed, but various Islamist factions were. And the Taliban actually visited Texas when George was Gouvernor for talks on a pipeline. It didn't go through, but AFAIK it has now under Karzai (who used to work for Unocal I think...)

Ok, so America is catching all this heat over wiretaps of suspected terrorists, with people saying that "Big Brother" is getting out of control, yet THIS (http://srs.targetpoint.com/external.htm?url=http%3A//news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece&nw=0&uid=236980$181&cid=6411,7250,7251,7252,7201,7200,1600&tp=1&ps=2!1!8$$3!1!13$$3!4!12$$3!6!1$$4!1!0$$4!4!12$$5!1!0$$6!3!%23808080$$6!4!%23CCCC99$$6!6!16$$7!1!0$$ 7!4!11$$7!5!0$$8!1!8$$&wd=760&hg=78&lo=http%3A//thelostlinks.com/&tpq=britain%20will%20be%20first%20country%20to%20monitor%20every%20car%20journey#exit)is ok? This, ladies and gents, is the type of Big Brother stuff you should be worried about! I don't even know what to say! Did this face any opposition at all? STILL glad to be an American! ;)
What IS your point? I personally think illegal wiretapping is paranoid idiocy and traffic monitoring is, well, paranoid idiocy. So, I believe both measures are wrong. Those in favour of paranoid idiocy in general are likely to believe both are right. You're trying to pin inconsistencies on people that oppose NSA wiretappings by supposing they'd be all for UK traffic monitoring. You however, are in favour of wiretapping, but against a similar operation in the UK. Now that's inconsistent, unless you claim that the US have the right to do these things and the UK doesn't.

Actually, I'm clostest to being a Libertarian, but I don't let my beliefs endanger my family and friends.
Are you sure you don't mean your klan?



Stop pretending you know anything about me, junior.
After all of your posts, one could reasonably assume that you're not only gullible but you have a sophomoric wit.
But you could indeed be having us on.

Now your calling me an asshole? Yep, your definately mature enough to voice your opinion and have me listen!

Isn't there a kiddy thread in here for the "little people" to play in while adults discuss the issues? :rolleyes:
Hey, i've got a *GREAT* example of your version of maturity, and how you like to play in the forum of the "little people"!
Do ya want me to post it? You never did come up with a decent reply!

Act it then.
Black, i say, indeed, thou art black, kettle.
How appropriate your nom de plume :rolleyes:

It's Christmas, I'll forgive your rudeness. Happy Holidays.;)
Get in line ....

Thanks for the laugh. You just fully contradicted yourself.

Why are you afraid of the UK government monitoring cars but not the US gov't monitoring phone calls? Makes no sense at all.

The rest is just a bunch of dick waving on your part.
...dick waving with a spotty, stained American Flag on the end! :eek:
And the only way to keep it properly elevated is to constantly stand at attention at every call for "patriotism" that the administration dishes out!

Now your calling me an asshole? Yep, your definately mature enough to voice your opinion and have me listen!

Isn't there a kiddy thread in here for the "little people" to play in while adults discuss the issues? :rolleyes:
And that was mature?

you being okay with random wiretapping of phone calls both inside and to outside the U.S. and random checks on what you check out at the library and giving up the rest of your freedoms to "homeland security."
Someone is going to say this is just the start of a whole bigger retraction of civil liberties, but...
They at least say that the wiretaps they are doing without warrants, first of all aren't random, and second of all, are done on phone lines of people who have contacted terrorists or suspected terrorists. I find that to be awfully reasonable.
They also don't randomly find what books everyone was has checked out. If they find someone who they think is suspicious, they have the power to make sure he or she isn't checking out "A Dummies Guide to building Atomic Bombs in the privacy of your own closet"

Uh... did I miss the punchline? Your license plate has been photographed and recorded for years here in the US, or didn't you know that?

Wave to the camera the next time you pass through a toll booth or cross a bridge...

Oh yeah, right, correct me if i'm wrong but did the US backed Osama when the taliban was getting rid of the soviets out of afghanistan?

The CIA backed the Muhajideen, who were also backed by Osama bin Laden, during the Soviet foray into Afghanistan. The CIA never backed Osama, only his allies, who became al-Qaida and the Taliban. The US did, also, under Clinton and Bush I (I think), back the Taliban as part of the 'War on Drugs'.

The US was backing the Mudjaheddin. Some of those belonged to the faction later known as Taliban, but most didn't. Osama wasn't one of them for example.
So when the Russians left, the different factions continued the fighting until the Taliban took control of enough of the country to become something like a ruling elite. The rest joined the Northern Alliance and others.
Because Osama had helped the Mudjaheddin (he'd been a big leader - very inspiring) they offered him a place to stay, an offer he took them up on later when he left Sudan.

So the Taliban were not explicitly backed, but various Islamist factions were. And the Taliban actually visited Texas when George was Gouvernor for talks on a pipeline. It didn't go through, but AFAIK it has now under Karzai (who used to work for Unocal I think...)

Actually, Osama bin Laden didn't go straight to Afghanistan. He started in Saudi Arabia when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He got his old buddies back together and swore that they would never allow Arabia to fall to Iraq. But the Saudis passed him over in favor of something bigger and better, the US-led international coalition, which wouldn't be so bad in and of itself, except Osama, and many Arabians, took offense at the presence of infidels in the heartland of the Muslim holy land. So they started railing and eventually we pressured the Saudi government to get Osama to leave (mistake number 1).

Then he fled to a North African nation (forget which), which had recently come under the control of a Muslim theocratic government, which had need of Osama's 'talents'. After a while, we pressured that government to make Osama leave (mistake number 2).

Finally, he arrived back in Afghanistan.

Most of your post is pure idiocy, but since it's Christmas, I give you the honor of a response on the bolded part.

Your right, I wouldn't never consider abolishing the 2nd amendment. But I also wouldn't apply it so liberally that people could own tanks, or high explosives, or RPGs.

You see, while some of you may pick and choose your amendments, and battle for them to be applied TO THE LETTER, I am a realist, and I understand the fact that balance is necessary in all aspects of life.

I wouldn't ban guns, and I wouldn't ban free speech, or the right to privacy. But I also wouldn't use those rights as an excuse to chop the governments legs off, when there are crazy fucks out there who want us all dead, and have vowed to use any means necessary to destroy us.

You call ME a coward, yet your scared to death that the government is gonna hear you talking dirty to your girlfriend. Now THAT is fucking funny. Who's the coward? I have nothing to hide. and nothing to fear. And the only reason you don't fear the terrorists either is because of people like me who are willing to sacrifice for the safety of innocent people who just want to live their lives in peace.

You call ME a coward? That's fucking rich Gymmy, old chum. :D

You, sir, are a coward. Nay, you are a malodorous coward. Were the Canadians to invade tomorrow, you'd kill yourself trying to drop your rifle and run to Mexico.

For while you may not have a problem sacrificing your own rights, you show equal comfort with destroying the rights of others. Rather than trying to get us to give up our rights to allow you to sleep at night, perhaps you should move to a nation that better suits your ideal. How does Iran sound? Or perhaps, sir prefers a more domestic locale. You have a number of prisons to select from, just commit a crime, and be prepared to be taken care of for life in one of the world's most secure and safest locations. Perhaps Riker's Island is to your liking, then?

The simple fact is, sir, that millions of American patriots have lost their lives to defend rights which you so eagerly surrender at the first sign of trouble. On 9/11, 3000 martyrs were lain at the alter of freedom. Your politics do naught but despoil their blood.

Prithee, GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY.

Then he fled to a North African nation (forget which)...
That would be Sudan AFAIK.

...which had recently come under the control of a Muslim theocratic government...
Well...not that theocratic.

...which had need of Osama's 'talents'.
And money, don't forget the money.

After a while, we pressured that government to make Osama leave (mistake number 2).
Finally, he arrived back in Afghanistan.
Which is what I said. :)

And money, don't forget the money.

I thought that was his talent....

Which is what I said. :)

Indeed, sir.

On 9/11, 3000 martyrs were lain at the alter of freedom. Your politics do naught but despoil their blood.

Cold hard facts, not chest thumping nationalist bullshit.

The world Trade center was a monument to Capitalism, not freedom, not America. Those 3000 souls were sacrificed on an alter whorshipping money and power, not freedom and independence.

What despoiled their blood was the atrocities that have been done since in the name of vengence for the atrocity that took their lives.

I thought that was his talent....
Oh, you can't deny that he has a talent for inspiring people, and his organisation skills aren't bad either (although he's got people who help with that).
He's a sort of icon, and as such, if you promote it the right way, having him in your country can give you something of a boost.

On 9/11, 3000 martyrs were lain at the alter of freedom. Your politics do naught but despoil their blood.

Cold hard facts, not chest thumping nationalist bullshit.

The world Trade center was a monument to Capitalism, not freedom, not America. Those 3000 souls were sacrificed on an alter whorshipping money and power, not freedom and independence.

Perhaps sir would find the nations of Australia or Great Britain to his liking? No? Perhaps one of the many Soviet, er- former Soviet Republics?

As much as I dislike Bush, he was correct in saying that Muslim fundamentalists hate our very way of life. Flawed though our way of life may be, I much prefer it to their vision of how things could be. Maybe I'm just too attached to my Judeo-Buddhist beliefs. Which is not very far-fetched. Keep in mind the fact that Christian fundamentalists hate our way of life, too.

Those three thousand became a sacrifice to freedom the instant the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law. Do you have a problem with me trying to out-nationalist the ultra-nationalists like Man in Black? What's wrong with me using his own rhetoric to shame him?

What despoiled their blood was the atrocities that have been done since in the name of vengence for the atrocity that took their lives.

My point. And Man in Black support those bastards.

Oh, you can't deny that he has a talent for inspiring people, and his organisation skills aren't bad either (although he's got people who help with that).
He's a sort of icon, and as such, if you promote it the right way, having him in your country can give you something of a boost.

He wasn't much of an icon, though, until after it was decided that, despite his very public messeges saying that he wasn't responsible and that he mourns with those families who lost their loved ones, he was the 'mastermind' of 9/11. Before then he was a very wealthy professional jihadist.

As much as I dislike Bush, he was correct in saying that Muslim fundamentalists hate our very way of life.Sir, the religion of any fundamentalist is incidental. Christian fundamentalists are as much a threat to my way of life as those that whorship Islam.
Those three thousand became a sacrifice to freedom the instant the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law. Do you have a problem with me trying to out-nationalist the ultra-nationalists like Man in Black? What's wrong with me using his own rhetoric to shame him?
My point. And Man in Black support those bastards.If you mean by a sacrifice to freedom that freedom was sacrificed, then you may be correct, otherwise signing a law doesn't change the circumstances of an incident. Change the name of a turd to a rose, it'll still smell the same.

I don't support Man in Black, but be careful about slinging the same shit he does.

You're bound to get some on you...

Sir, the religion of any fundamentalist is incidental. Christian fundamentalists are as much a threat to my way of life as those that whorship Islam.

My point.

If you mean by a sacrifice to freedom that freedom was sacrificed, then you may be correct, otherwise signing a law doesn't change the circumstances of an incident. Change the name of a turd to a rose, it'll still smell the same.

The [insert religion] fundamentalists who flew those planes into those towers, who hate our political freedoms, made it one. I was trying to get to that, but 'twould have been a wee bit awkward. It wouldn't be any less of a sacrifice if Adolf Hitler flew the damn things into the buildings, or in the Aryan Brotherhood managed to detonate some sort of high-yield bomb with the same net effect. They are as much martyrs because of who slaughtered them, the same as abortion doctors killed in bombings and shootings by anti-choicers.

The three thousand are martyrs because they were enjoying and excercising freedoms that their murdurers hated.

I don't support Man in Black, but be careful about slinging the same shit he does.

You're bound to get some on you...

Oh, trust me, sir, my sanity is quite far gone. Were I to get any on me, I doubt it would have any appreciable affect on me what-so-ever.

Ok, so America is catching all this heat over wiretaps of suspected terrorists, with people saying that "Big Brother" is getting out of control, yet THIS (http://srs.targetpoint.com/external.htm?url=http%3A//news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece&nw=0&uid=236980$181&cid=6411,7250,7251,7252,7201,7200,1600&tp=1&ps=2!1!8$$3!1!13$$3!4!12$$3!6!1$$4!1!0$$4!4!12$$5!1!0$$6!3!%23808080$$6!4!%23CCCC99$$6!6!16$$7!1!0$$ 7!4!11$$7!5!0$$8!1!8$$&wd=760&hg=78&lo=http%3A//thelostlinks.com/&tpq=britain%20will%20be%20first%20country%20to%20monitor%20every%20car%20journey#exit)is ok?

This, ladies and gents, is the type of Big Brother stuff you should be worried about!

I don't even know what to say! Did this face any opposition at all?

I was under the impression that city streets are public domain. And thus, all that happens on there is 100% recordable anyways.

What george bush did was ILLEGAL and unconstitutional. Recording what happens on public roads? Totally legal.

Wiretaps without court orders are invasion of privacy. Recording the roadways is just recording what could have been easily obtained otherwise.

Theres a big difference between recording private conversations and recording something that is already public.

I was under the impression that city streets are public domain. And thus, all that happens on there is 100% recordable anyways.

What george bush did was ILLEGAL and unconstitutional. Recording what happens on public roads? Totally legal.

Wiretaps without court orders are invasion of privacy. Recording the roadways is just recording what could have been easily obtained otherwise.

Theres a big difference between recording private conversations and recording something that is already public.

Not only are those roads public, they're also property of the government. Telephone lines do not, however, belong to the government. Nor do satteleite signals.

As a libertarian I am shocked that we are arguing about legal or illegal ways for our government to deny its citizens their constitutionally protected rights. The government only exists with the consent of the people, not the other way around.

As a libertarian I am shocked that we are arguing about legal or illegal ways for our government to deny its citizens their constitutionally protected rights. The government only exists with the consent of the people, not the other way around.

Ideally, yes. But this government, in case you hadn't noticed, doesn't give a rip about the consent of the people. And the people don't give a rip that the government doesn't give a rip.

But frankly, I am of the opin that anyone can do whatever they want on their own property. So long as it is not 'immoral' according to my own moral code (for instance, orgy=OK, plotting world domination=OK, building a pipe bomb=nuh-huh). The streets belong to the government and since they license us to use them, they have the right to surveille the vehicle while it is on government property. They should not, however, have the right to surveille the occupants of the vehicle.

As a libertarian I am shocked that we are arguing about legal or illegal ways for our government to deny its citizens their constitutionally protected rights. The government only exists with the consent of the people, not the other way around. Maybe no one told you.. but by going on public property you immediately consent to be videotaped.

While I am 100% for having every civil liberty.. I must argue for the british governments position. How is being videotaped on PUBLIC PROPERTY an invasion of your privacy?

Maybe no one told you.. but by going on public property you immediately consent to be videotaped.

While I am 100% for having every civil liberty.. I must argue for the british governments position. How is being videotaped on PUBLIC PROPERTY an invasion of your privacy?

The people are blurred out in the background of 'The Real World' episodes because they did not consent to being videotaped. Why does our government automatically have our consent and the private sector does not?

The people are blurred out in the background of 'The Real World' episodes because they did not consent to being videotaped. Why does our government automatically have our consent and the private sector does not?

If they showed faces, MTV might be obliged to pay those people for their likenesses. Police standing in the street don't need to pay to observe our likenesses. Neither do cameras for non-commercial purposes.

The people are blurred out in the background of 'The Real World' episodes because they did not consent to being videotaped. Why does our government automatically have our consent and the private sector does not?

Because the private sector is out to make money, the government to lose it. It is generally held by the People that the State is operating for the good of the People and by the Will of the People. A corporation, however, is generally held to operate for its own ends.

That may not be the truth, but that is how people view it.

If they showed faces, MTV might be obliged to pay those people for their likenesses. Police standing in the street don't need to pay to observe our likenesses. Neither do cameras for non-commercial purposes.

Right.

Besides, the police arent going to show tapes of your car driving around on (inter)national television. The Real World is.

Your comparison would be equal to Wire Taps and the Radio.

You cant put 2 unlike things together and decalare them equal.

The problem is the Pres has already admitted to ignoring the need to get a warrant. The ends justify the means. And he alone determines the ends and the means.

Some of us are old enough to see de Ja vou (sp) all over again. The Pres is beginning to look more and more like Nixon. How do we know if our rights have been violated? Haven't seen the "enemies list" yet.

Some of us are also old enough to remember J. Edgar Hoover, former head of the FBI. He had a file on nearly everyone. He controlled the government through blackmail of anyone with any power. Only after he died did we learn even a small amount about a man that thought he was protecting the safety and freedom of the country by ignoring the rights of the people.

History has shown that you can be safe or you can be free. That is the choice. In Saddam's Iraq, if you weren't a criminal or traitor or a family member of a criminal or traiter, you were perfectly safe. You could walk any street at any time of the day. No one had locks on the doors. Children could play unsupervised. That was complete safety. Now the US is becoming the shadow of the enemy. We are selling freedom for safety.

It matters not if I personally am on the Bush enemies list. It matters not if they have a file on me. What matters is Do they have a file on ANYONE that is un "warranted". The answer to that is an admitted YES. Am I one of those people? Are YOU one of those people? The answer to those questions is unimportant. When any American loses rights and freedom--we ALL lose rights and freedom. Where is the line? Complete safety? Then why did we take out Saddam?

Isn't it amazing that those who say they want judges that read the constitution and don't interpret it are the ones that are in favor of scrapping the first and 4th for safety? How do they justify that cognitive dissonance?

The problem with the "talk radio" arguements is as Aristotle said, "The first person to speak always sounds correct, until someone is allowed to stand and challenge him." If all you listen to is talk radio, your arguements are foolish because you have not heard any challenges. Yes I know they pretend to take challenges, but they cut them off when they even start to get backed up.

Im assuming you are talking about Lipbalm and the other conservative hosts. You confused me for a minute.. All I ever listen to is NPR, and they are usually pretty good about being non-partisan.

I love listening to LipBalm. If anyone calls up saying something REMOTELY liberal (IE: Remotely smart) he immediately shoots them down with more rhetoric than what I use in my posts.

What really annoys me is how much restrictive-rights people flaunt about their "patriotism". I was under the impression that the USA was the Land of the Free; How is restricting civil rights patriotic?

"In England, patriotism is generally considered 'Love of ones country' rather than 'Love of the Republican party'."

Im assuming you are talking about Lipbalm and the other conservative hosts. You confused me for a minute.. All I ever listen to is NPR, and they are usually pretty good about being non-partisan.

I love listening to LipBalm. If anyone calls up saying something REMOTELY liberal (IE: Remotely smart) he immediately shoots them down with more rhetoric than what I use in my posts.

What really annoys me is how much restrictive-rights people flaunt about their "patriotism". I was under the impression that the USA was the Land of the Free; How is restricting civil rights patriotic?

"In England, patriotism is generally considered 'Love of ones country' rather than 'Love of the Republican party'."

Land of the cowards,
And home of the slaves.

Or, at least that's what it should say for them folk.

Thanks for the laugh. You just fully contradicted yourself.

Why are you afraid of the UK government monitoring cars but not the US gov't monitoring phone calls? Makes no sense at all.

The rest is just a bunch of dick waving on your part.
I think what MiB was trying to show is that the US WANTS TO monitor domestic phones and measure Radiation from Public Streets and getting this flak while the UK, those that here on this board proclaim themselve a now stronger bastion of FREEDOM and CIVIL LIBERTIES are actually going to be monitoring the movement of cars (and thus, the people who drive/own them) and as far, no one, from any country, has been giving the Brits any flak about unwarrented surveyllence, record keeping and other such tactics that the US wants to do.

Basically calling those who are against the domestic US Survelance hypocrits.

(Sorry for the poor spelling... but it's late here.)

however, Cat-Tribe, seeing that the first three pages of this thread (as well as the majority of the rest of the posts) are just personal attacks from almost all parties, I would rather just sit back and enjoy the flamefest and not join in.

Ok, so America is catching all this heat over wiretaps of suspected terrorists, with people saying that "Big Brother" is getting out of control, yet THIS (http://srs.targetpoint.com/external.htm?url=http%3A//news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece&nw=0&uid=236980$181&cid=6411,7250,7251,7252,7201,7200,1600&tp=1&ps=2!1!8$$3!1!13$$3!4!12$$3!6!1$$4!1!0$$4!4!12$$5!1!0$$6!3!%23808080$$6!4!%23CCCC99$$6!6!16$$7!1!0$$ 7!4!11$$7!5!0$$8!1!8$$&wd=760&hg=78&lo=http%3A//thelostlinks.com/&tpq=britain%20will%20be%20first%20country%20to%20monitor%20every%20car%20journey#exit)is ok?

This, ladies and gents, is the type of Big Brother stuff you should be worried about!

I don't even know what to say! Did this face any opposition at all?


STILL glad to be an American! ;)


I don't live in the UK, nor do I own a car, nor do I travel by car in any regular way. So, I really couldn't care less.

If the British public is happy with this measure, I see no reason why they shouldn't do it. If they are unhappy, they have plenty of possibilities to protest against it and force the government to take that decision back.

No Brit I ever met went round all day shouting his head of about how free and liberated he was, and how much freer ans more libarated than any other country on the planet. They have all their political freedoms, same as any other democracy, and don't really feel the need to flaunt it all the time.
In turn, the rest of the world leaves them more or less alone when it comes to their interior affairs.
The USA has this unfortunate tendency to declare, no, to proclaim itself the freest of the free, so there's little surprise that the world will have a close eye on whatever is going on internally, if only to try and see if those claims are true.
If they find them to be lies, why blame them for confronting the liar?

Land of the cowards,
And home of the slaves.

Or, at least that's what it should say for them folk.
I believe you are reffering to the SOUTHERN United States... In which case, the rest of the US agrees with you.

We do not pretend to feign interest in the south. Trust me. Being from the north (the crazy uncle state of Minnesota), I can honestly say that no one in the world wants the South wiped off the face of the earth more than the rest of the USA.

I believe you are reffering to the SOUTHERN United States... In which case, the rest of the US agrees with you.

We do not pretend to feign interest in the south. Trust me. Being from the north (the crazy uncle state of Minnesota), I can honestly say that no one in the world wants the South wiped off the face of the earth more than the rest of the USA.

And people thought Lincoln was a good man... as I say, he shoulda let the US crumble. Woulda kept it more decentralized. And though the Union would be so liberal as to be nigh indifferent from Canada, at least we wouldn't be at each other's throats. And the Confederacy... that's a nightmare. The Confederate Theocracies of America, anyone?

The Confederate Theocracies of America, anyone?

My guess is, they would by now be virtually indistinguishable from any other South or Middle American state....

My guess is, they would by now be virtually indistinguishable from any other South or Middle American state....

Except poor and Protestant, instead of poor and Catholic. And we'd probably still have to build a wall to keep them out....

You, sir, are a coward. Nay, you are a malodorous coward. Were the Canadians to invade tomorrow, you'd kill yourself trying to drop your rifle and run to Mexico.

For while you may not have a problem sacrificing your own rights, you show equal comfort with destroying the rights of others. Rather than trying to get us to give up our rights to allow you to sleep at night, perhaps you should move to a nation that better suits your ideal. How does Iran sound? Or perhaps, sir prefers a more domestic locale. You have a number of prisons to select from, just commit a crime, and be prepared to be taken care of for life in one of the world's most secure and safest locations. Perhaps Riker's Island is to your liking, then?

The simple fact is, sir, that millions of American patriots have lost their lives to defend rights which you so eagerly surrender at the first sign of trouble. On 9/11, 3000 martyrs were lain at the alter of freedom. Your politics do naught but despoil their blood.

Prithee, GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY.
Excellent post. *bows*

there are crazy fucks out there who want us all dead
Perhaps, but apart from Bin Laden (whose whereabouts are unknown) thewy're all in the Middle East.
and have vowed to use any means necessary to destroy us.
No they haven't.

Im assuming you are talking about Lipbalm and the other conservative hosts. You confused me for a minute.. All I ever listen to is NPR, and they are usually pretty good about being non-partisan.

I love listening to LipBalm. If anyone calls up saying something REMOTELY liberal (IE: Remotely smart) he immediately shoots them down with more rhetoric than what I use in my posts.

What really annoys me is how much restrictive-rights people flaunt about their "patriotism". I was under the impression that the USA was the Land of the Free; How is restricting civil rights patriotic?

"In England, patriotism is generally considered 'Love of ones country' rather than 'Love of the Republican party'."
Glad to meet another NPR listener. I drive for a PT job. I would go crazy without NPR. When I need a laugh I tune to Sean Henady (sp?). His thing is to take the smallest bit from the opposition that is negative and make it the whole arguement. 99% of the opposition arguement may be unchallengable so he will take the 1% and pound on it for an hour. Then when someone tries to do the same thing with his position, he ignores their arguements and goes on the attack of their 1% weakness. Or he cuts them off and repeats his top arguement over and over.

The other thing that amazes me is that ALL of the talk radio people have exactly the same arguement in less than 24 hrs. Obviously they are trading arguements beforehand. i remember that within 24 hrs of Katrina, ALL of them said that it was the mayor and governor's fault not the Pres. Boy, if the Pres's people were as good at getting help to people as they are getting the arguing points out to talk radio they wouldn't need to be defended by these set up arguements.

Glad to meet another NPR listener. I drive for a PT job. I would go crazy without NPR. When I need a laugh I tune to Sean Henady (sp?). His thing is to take the smallest bit from the opposition that is negative and make it the whole arguement. 99% of the opposition arguement may be unchallengable so he will take the 1% and pound on it for an hour. Then when someone tries to do the same thing with his position, he ignores their arguements and goes on the attack of their 1% weakness. Or he cuts them off and repeats his top arguement over and over.

The other thing that amazes me is that ALL of the talk radio people have exactly the same arguement in less than 24 hrs. Obviously they are trading arguements beforehand. i remember that within 24 hrs of Katrina, ALL of them said that it was the mayor and governor's fault not the Pres. Boy, if the Pres's people were as good at getting help to people as they are getting the arguing points out to talk radio they wouldn't need to be defended by these set up arguements.
To me, the most offensive thing (of MANY) about Sean Hannity is his lack of fashion sense. If i don't stick to that one then i'll be bitching about him for a half-hour.

The other thing that amazes me is that ALL of the talk radio people have exactly the same arguement in less than 24 hrs. Obviously they are trading arguements beforehand. i remember that within 24 hrs of Katrina, ALL of them said that it was the mayor and governor's fault not the Pres. Boy, if the Pres's people were as good at getting help to people as they are getting the arguing points out to talk radio they wouldn't need to be defended by these set up arguements.
That's exactly the thing with the Republican propaganda machines: they create a "message of the day." With FOX News and virtually all the talk radio shows (as the majority are conservative) repeating the same mantra all day, it just has to be true, doesn't it? That's all covered better in Outfoxed. Watch it ;) .

That's all covered better in Outfoxed. Watch it ;) .
Props!! *bows*

I possess it, of course. I've gotten a few people to watch it, worth it.
As is The Yes Men, as well as the collections of video segments on the two Rock Against Bush albums, preferentially the second one.

Good post on talking points, too.

Britain's turning into a fucking police state. Glad I don't live there.

Britain's turning into a fucking police state. Glad I don't live there.
Everywhere is turning into a fucking police state. The terrorists have already won, and we can thank our politicians and our media for it.

And people thought Lincoln was a good man... as I say, he shoulda let the US crumble. Woulda kept it more decentralized. And though the Union would be so liberal as to be nigh indifferent from Canada, at least we wouldn't be at each other's throats. And the Confederacy... that's a nightmare. The Confederate Theocracies of America, anyone?


And you typed this post after your big ranting bullshit post earlier calling someone else a coward for not having the same political slant you do? Balderdash bullshit, hypocrite.

Why the hell would anyone be proud to be a libertarian? A libertarian plugs his ears as he justifies letting the children in his neighbor’s house to the left starve so long as he’s not bothered about not feeding his own kids, and then covers his eyes to the wife beating going on in the neighbor house to the right so long as he doesn’t have to answer to beating his own wife, and says nothing about the slave keeping in the house behind him so long has he can low ball the wages of those that work for him...

Freedom defender my ass, you think Lincoln should have let the south separate because you like the idea of ruling your own house with a whip and not having a government that has enough power to stop you. :rolleyes:

And you typed this post after your big ranting bullshit post earlier calling someone else a coward for not having the same political slant you do? Balderdash bullshit, hypocrite.

Why the hell would anyone be proud to be a libertarian? A libertarian plugs his ears as he justifies letting the children in his neighbor’s house to the left starve so long as he’s not bothered about not feeding his own kids, and then covers his eyes to the wife beating going on in the neighbor house to the right so long as he doesn’t have to answer to beating his own wife, and says nothing about the slave keeping in the house behind him so long has he can low ball the wages of those that work for him...

Freedom defender my ass, you think Lincoln should have let the south separate because you like the idea of ruling your own house with a whip and not having a government that has enough power to stop you. :rolleyes:

Lol seeing all the hate in that rant makes me even more proud to be a libertarian

Amazing

But you are welcome to think what you want about us ... you have the freedom and LIBERTY to do so :p

Lol seeing all the hate in that rant makes me even more proud to be a libertarian

Amazing

But you are welcome to think what you want about us ... you have the freedom and LIBERTY to do so :p


Good for you, not.. Name one libertarian country in the history of the world that meets your credentials of freedom and liberty for the rich and healthy while protecting the right to life of the poor and the weak?


In the meantime: The topic at hand and wiretaps. I have yet the hear the official reason why’s and why not’s, but it is easy enough to fathom a reason why warrants take too long (even with 3 days afterwards).

Perhaps the NSA technology wiretap issue is in fact simply some kind of high-volume, automated voice recognition and pattern matching system. All international calls could be monitored with such a system, or something like it, that the NSA would use to narrow down the amount of suspicious phone traffic that they would have to get a warrant for. Which would then be a vastly much smaller fraction of the total international calls checked through the system that sparked some sort of filtering processes warnings/alarms. To make that work though they would have to monitor all calls to anywhere on the globe, or to a particular country of interest, for a more thorough search.

Then, with the results that were captured and marked as suspicious, they'd only need the ability then to sample those conversation that set off the filtering process with a trained listener/interpreter of the roving sample calls, and if it was still then suspicious, requiring only then a warrant to proceed further. Eliminating hundreds of thousands of warrants from being approved, and potentially discovering suspects that would otherwise have eluded all attention.

Even before 9/11, the year after the CALEA [Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994] passed, the FBI revealed a desire to require the phone companies to build into their infrastructure the capacity to simultaneously wiretap at least 1 percent of all phone calls in all major U.S. cities. That would have been a thousand-fold increase over previous abilities. The only plausible way of processing that amount of traffic would be a massive server/automation application and/or voice recognition technology, to listening for key word usage or searching for a particular speaker's voice.

The roving search would be continuous, if the government doesn't find a target in the first 1 percent sample of all calls, the wiretaps would automatically shift over to another 1 percent of all calls until a target is found and marked and recorded (automatically at this point without a listener), or until, conceivably, everyone's phone line has been checked for subversive traffic several times and the search would never end.

Since it has been revealed to us that the FBI thought this ability was possible in the 90’s, and that they thought that capacity was important to them even then in simple crime fighting abilities, and planning for future crime detecting abilities, how much more so would it be now?

This plan was defeated in Congress then, but the fact that the FBI asked for it then in the nineties suggests to us now that the NSA would be even more capable of roving automation wiretaps today than it would have been then and it would be entirely impossible to ask for hundreds of millions of warrants per day, endlessly today.

This plan was defeated in Congress then, but the fact that the FBI asked for it in the nineties suggests that the NSA would be even more capable of roving automation wiretaps today that would be entirely impossible to ask for hundreds of millions of warrants per day today.
Which begs the question who these hundreds of millions of terrorists actually are.

Which begs the question who these hundreds of millions of terrorists actually are.

It doesn't beg any such question. It would be like an automated camera system looking at everyone's face and fingerprints walking past it on the street, looking for a match of the ten most wanted criminals it has recorded. No different than a cop in years gone by being handed a most wanted picture at the begining of his day and told to be on the look out for that suspect. Except now it's automated, and impossible to get a warrant for each person it sees, before comparing it to the sample that it is looking for.

It doesn't beg any such question. It would be like an automated camera system looking at everyone's face and fingerprints walking past it on the street, looking for a match of the ten most wanted criminals it has recorded. No different than a cop in years gone by being handed a most wanted picture at the begining of his day and told to be on the look out for that suspect. Except now it's automated, and impossible to get a warrant for each person it sees, before comparing it to the sample that it is looking for.
So you're not really talking about it simply being impractical to do warrants. You are talking about a supervision system that will explicitly target innocent people without reason, a sort of blanket coverage.

Which is precisely what we are arguing against, considering that there is no need for it, that it is none of the government's business what I do (unless I break a law - therefore the need for a warrant) and simply out of principle (and the constitution).

Supervision is already a form of punishment, an invasion of someone's privacy, and what you are proposing is to hand out that punishment to innocent people.

It would be like an automated camera system looking at everyone's face and fingerprints walking past it on the street, looking for a match of the ten most wanted criminals it has recorded.

Except in this case, the camera is walking into your house.

Except in this case, the camera is walking into your house.

No, only when you walk OUT of your house, be it on the internet, or on the cell phone, or on your land line... Only when you left your house in person or in communication, and then in in the public domain at large, then you might be identified by an automated sentry, yes.

So you're not really talking about it simply being impractical to do warrants. You are talking about a supervision system that will explicitly target innocent people without reason, a sort of blanket coverage.

Which is precisely what we are arguing against, considering that there is no need for it, that it is none of the government's business what I do (unless I break a law - therefore the need for a warrant) and simply out of principle (and the constitution).

Supervision is already a form of punishment, an invasion of someone's privacy, and what you are proposing is to hand out that punishment to innocent people.


Which is precisely why you are wrong. IF you are out in the public world, you are liable to being identified. You can't wear a mask into a bank because you don't want to be looked at...

Which is precisely why you are wrong. IF you are out in the public world, you are liable to being identified. You can't wear a mask into a bank because you don't want to be looked at...
I'd disagree. We have privacy laws, and I personally value my privacy.
If someone walks along and looks at me, that's okay.
If someone starts taking my picture and puts it into databases, be it for commercial (don't think large-scale info like this wouldn't be sold to businesses at some point) or political reasons, then that is no longer okay.

A government has no rights, it only has responsibilites.
And since neither you, nor anyone else has so far given any reason at all why it would be necessary to supervise the populace, there is no case to be made.
In other words: The damage done is large (presumably other people value their privacy as well), the potential for misuse is even larger, and the benefits are minute.

Good for you, not.. Name one libertarian country in the history of the world that meets your credentials of freedom and liberty for the rich and healthy while protecting the right to life of the poor and the weak?


snip
Name one country period that has managed to compleatly protect the right of the poor and the week lol

The topic at hand and wiretaps. I have yet the hear the official reason why’s and why not’s, but it is easy enough to fathom a reason why warrants take too long (even with 3 days afterwards)...

This plan was defeated in Congress then, but the fact that the FBI asked for it then in the nineties suggests to us now that the NSA would be even more capable of roving automation wiretaps today than it would have been then and it would be entirely impossible to ask for hundreds of millions of warrants per day, endlessly today.

Alright, warrants 'take too long' as you say, we can imagine how so without going into extreme possibilities such as the one you cited here. Of course, the point is whether or not we should tolerate any system that cannot operate within the limitations set down in our modern state.

Warrants aren't a hurdle to overcome, they are a barrier to law enforcement and that is not a problem. When a warrant stops the cops from catching a bad guy that isn't entirely a loss. Sure we would all rather be safer in general, but the problem is not only safer from the criminals/terrorists but also safe from our own guardians.

I'm going out on a limb here and figure you are the type to condone most government action as long as it doesn't prevent you from owning a firearm, presumably because if you are ever threatened by the U.S. government you can take your shotgun and go Neo on everyone taking down the U.S. Army single-handedly. Well whatever kind of fantasies you entertain you can surely understand that it is better to generally limit government power, especially when combating a threat, as has been pointed out before, that places U.S. citizens in far less of a risk than the ambient hazards of modern life.

No, only when you walk OUT of your house, be it on the internet, or on the cell phone, or on your land line... Only when you left your house in person or in communication, and then in in the public domain at large, then you might be identified by an automated sentry, yes.

Hmmm, private telephone conversations are public domain now? I suppose that in your thinking, the only way to have a private conversation via telecommunications would be to lay your own cable and telephone exchange hmmm?

And mail marked as private and confidential too. That goes through government mailing services. I suppose you would have no problem with people opening up any and all mail they would like?

Sir, you would have been at home in the Soviet Union. Under Stalin.

Everywhere is turning into a fucking police state. The terrorists have already won, and we can thank our politicians and our media for it.

hey, it's not like you lot were using your liberty anyway. you'll never miss it. and those that do will be taken out and shown the error of their ways.

Hmmm, private telephone conversations are public domain now? I suppose that in your thinking, the only way to have a private conversation via telecommunications would be to lay your own cable and telephone exchange hmmm?

And mail marked as private and confidential too. That goes through government mailing services. I suppose you would have no problem with people opening up any and all mail they would like?

Sir, you would have been at home in the Soviet Union. Under Stalin.

Oh grow up. Intercepting messages has been a part of war since the first rocks were thrown with the timing of a group.

Cell phones, cordless phones, satellite phones all use air space, even over seas land line phones use satellite air space now. Anyone can intercept them. You want to protect your identity, use a scrambler and hope for the best. Never in the history of phones have there been a time that someone somewhere (even if just the old fashioned operator or line repairman) was able to listen whenever they wanted.

The discussion is really about what evidence can be used in a court of law, your privacy in a phone conversation or an internet communication is not guaranteed and never was, the very idea that you could have privacy there is a fantasy.

Many of us see this as the slippery slope to authoritarianism - the old "only those who have something to hide, need fear the autorities".

How many countries have had restrictive laws under the guise of 'protection of national security' and the public told that once the 'danger' has gone, the restrictions would be lifted - how many of these governments have volunteerily rolled back those restrictions once the 'danger' had lifted; or better yet, how many invented a new enemy to justify either the status quo or expanding the legislation further?!

Governments by their very nature love power, love control and nothing gives them more statisfaction, as a cancerous entity than expanding their power either through taxation and expanding bureaucracy under the guise of 'providing services' or pass legislation to restrict the actions of its citizens for no good reason.

I just remembered something (Cat-Tribes probably will too ;) )
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.

When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Oh grow up. Intercepting messages has been a part of war since the first rocks were thrown with the timing of a group.

Cell phones, cordless phones, satellite phones all use air space, even over seas land line phones use satellite air space now. Anyone can intercept them. You want to protect your identity, use a scrambler and hope for the best. Never in the history of phones have there been a time that someone somewhere (even if just the old fashioned operator or line repairman) was able to listen whenever they wanted.

The discussion is really about what evidence can be used in a court of law, your privacy in a phone conversation or an internet communication is not guaranteed and never was, the very idea that you could have privacy there is a fantasy.

Once again, this is not about what can be done but what should be done. It is inappropriate for the U.S. government to intercept private communications without a system to check their use. Otherwise we have no protection from our protectors other than whatever fantasy an armed mob provides.

Communications over the air may be intercepted, but this does not make them public domain. Even though they are broadcasted over public and private property they are not at all public as they are not freely transmited to everyone and are meant to have a limited audience.

With your standard of 'whatever that can be learned of is not private' then nothing at all can be protected, a private conversation can be recorded with a bionic ear, writing in a private journal can be taken and read, and so on. At what point do you recongnize that people have a right to keep things secret?

Oh grow up. Intercepting messages has been a part of war since the first rocks were thrown with the timing of a group.

Cell phones, cordless phones, satellite phones all use air space, even over seas land line phones use satellite air space now. Anyone can intercept them. You want to protect your identity, use a scrambler and hope for the best. Never in the history of phones have there been a time that someone somewhere (even if just the old fashioned operator or line repairman) was able to listen whenever they wanted.

The discussion is really about what evidence can be used in a court of law, your privacy in a phone conversation or an internet communication is not guaranteed and never was, the very idea that you could have privacy there is a fantasy.
Yeah except now by american civial law any use of encryption in datacommunication can be viewed as a reflection of intent

Fucking rediculous

What we desperately need is a way to hold politicans accountable for their mistakes. If a politican wants to illegally monitor a private citizen, fine. Let them. If it ends up being justified, then they are exonerated. However, if they end up being wrong, they are punished with jail time, fines, etc.

Murray Rothbard established this brilliant plan to solve corruption in the bureaucracy. Essentially it holds public officials just as accountable as private citizens, which is how it should be.

*snip*

You do nothing to detract the impression that you would have no problems living in a police state.

Furthermore, to argue that anything over aerial transmission mediums is public domain is nothing more than pure sophistry if the argument was to be used against government facilities.

For example. Since the military uses many forms of airborne communication mediums, it should thus be entirely legal for ANYONE, to thereby intercept, and read said informationn on the network. After all, privacy is a concept you do not think anyone really can have when communicating.

Are you fine with this? Should I be able to tap into NASA communications channels without any repurcussions?

If privacy cannot be accorded to private citizens, it should not be accorded to governments who consist of private citizens.

Furthermore, I move to say that the use of police scanners and other such communication interception tools should not be illegal then as they only intercept communications over public domain airwaves.

Now then. I shall wait to see how you prove to be when the coin is on the other side.

You do nothing to detract the impression that you would have no problems living in a police state.

And you do nothing to detract the impression that you believe we live in Never Never Land with the lost boys and Peter Pan and the only things we have to do is 'believe in Tinkerbelle' really really hard to make everything alright in the end...

We attempt to intercept messages because it's the right thing to do. You can go cry foul that we aren’t hiding our eyes while the bad guys play hide and seek with us all you want, but the truth is, it's not a game, peeking is allowed.

A self managing/automatic camera placed in the public domain with operations to continuously be on the lookout for suspicious activity is no different than scanning all suspicious activity on the internet or cell phones or international calls etc.



EDIT: to your edit:
It is already possible to use an airwave scanner in your house to listen to official government radio traffic... And it has been for ages. http://www.oregonlive.com/policescanner/

We attempt to intercept messages because it's the right thing to do. You can go cry foul that we aren’t hiding our eyes while the bad guys play hide and seek with us all you want, but the truth is, it's not a game, peeking is allowed.

And who are these bad guys hmmm? Who are these threats that the government uses as the literal boogeyman under the bed to strip away your rights? You're blind trust in the government is very touching so far as the faith goes. Just like believing Santa Claus would never come down your chimney with nothing more than good intentions.


A self managing/automatic camera placed in the public domain with operations to continuously be on the lookout for suspicious activity is no different than scanning all suspicious activity on the internet or cell phones or international calls etc.

And a police scanner monitoring police frequencies should not be illegal either. One should be able to drive around town listening to all the calls being made by both military, civil service and whatever intelligence units that make such broadcasts.

...

And a police scanner monitoring police frequencies should not be illegal either. One should be able to drive around town listening to all the calls being made by both military, civil service and whatever intelligence units that make such broadcasts.

It's not illegal. Use it in your house or online.
http://www.cleveland.com/policescanner/

http://www.police-scanner.info/

You do nothing to detract the impression that you would have no problems living in a police state.

Furthermore, to argue that anything over aerial transmission mediums is public domain is nothing more than pure sophistry if the argument was to be used against government facilities.

For example. Since the military uses many forms of airborne communication mediums, it should thus be entirely legal for ANYONE, to thereby intercept, and read said informationn on the network. After all, privacy is a concept you do not think anyone really can have when communicating.

Are you fine with this? Should I be able to tap into NASA communications channels without any repurcussions?

If privacy cannot be accorded to private citizens, it should not be accorded to governments who consist of private citizens.

Furthermore, I move to say that the use of police scanners and other such communication interception tools should not be illegal then as they only intercept communications over public domain airwaves.

Now then. I shall wait to see how you prove to be when the coin is on the other side.
Good post!! *bows*

Good post!! *bows*

:rolleyes:

It's not illegal. Use it in your house or online.
http://www.cleveland.com/policescanner/

http://www.police-scanner.info/

Are you telling me that it is legal to acquire broadcast scanners, aim them at local military bases and use whatever decryption tools I have to decode whatever transmissions I come across?

If so, I believe that it would be fairly interesting to see what missile launch codes I can acquire at missile sites whenever they have a launch drill.

Are you telling me that it is legal to acquire broadcast scanners, aim them at local military bases and use whatever decryption tools I have to decode whatever transmissions I come across?

Did I say that was legal? You lost your point, now you're trying to make a quick cover up and change it to something else...

Did I say that was legal? You lost your point, now you're trying to make a quick cover up and change it to something else...

You have mentioned that it is legal to use scanners to detect government broadcasts. Are the military not part of the government? Or do you mean only certain branches of the government have their communications open to interception?

If so, why should such branches enjoy protection when the citizenry receive blanket monitoring? Are not the people who run these facilities also part of the citizenry? Why not monitor everything they say when it is broadcast as well?

Security reasons you say. But these security reasons are used to monitor the citizenry. In fact, such people in places of potentially much greater power projection should recieve doubly more scrutiny using your argument.

You have mentioned that it is legal to use scanners to detect government broadcasts. Are the military not part of the government?

You can listen to government broadcast... You can listen with your scanner all you want. You can't change your scanner to listen to your competitors taxi cabs calls (for example) and rush over and steal his fares.

Your point is moot, get over it. You can legally listen to the airwaves. You can't have illegal equipment like lock picking tools or decoding cell phone scanners unless you have a permit (like needing a drivers license).

You lost, get a new point. I’ll go to bed, you can take your time trying to figure out how you confused yourself.

Ok, so America is catching all this heat over wiretaps of suspected terrorists, with people saying that "Big Brother" is getting out of control, yet THIS (http://srs.targetpoint.com/external.htm?url=http%3A//news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece&nw=0&uid=236980$181&cid=6411,7250,7251,7252,7201,7200,1600&tp=1&ps=2!1!8$$3!1!13$$3!4!12$$3!6!1$$4!1!0$$4!4!12$$5!1!0$$6!3!%23808080$$6!4!%23CCCC99$$6!6!16$$7!1!0$$ 7!4!11$$7!5!0$$8!1!8$$&wd=760&hg=78&lo=http%3A//thelostlinks.com/&tpq=britain%20will%20be%20first%20country%20to%20monitor%20every%20car%20journey#exit)is ok?

This, ladies and gents, is the type of Big Brother stuff you should be worried about!

I don't even know what to say! Did this face any opposition at all?


STILL glad to be an American! ;)

:confused:

Um, yeah. It's totally hypocritical of all us American liberals to criticize Bush's skidmarks all over the Constitution, but yet we just voted Tony Blair back into office?

:rolleyes:
Verily, your smilie woundeth me.
But it's good to know your wit hasn't dulled.

You can listen to government broadcast... You can listen with your scanner all you want. You can't change your scanner to listen to your competitors taxi cabs calls (for example) and rush over and steal his fares.

Your point is moot, get over it. You can legally listen to the airwaves. You can't have illegal equipment like lock picking tools or decoding cell phone scanners unless you have a permit (like needing a drivers license).

You lost, get a new point. I’ll go to bed, you can take your time trying to figure out how you confused yourself.

You just don't get it do you? You mention things like it being illegal to have lock picking tools and decoding cell phones unless you have a permit than turn around and say that the government can do any and all of these things without having a need for a permit. In this case, the permit would be a warrant.

Warrants are given if there is reasonable grounds to need the wiretapping. But as it stands, the government is not acting with these warrants. So why is it not illegal for them to operate the very tools that would be illegal for non-permit holding citizens? Whatever excuse you use, be it national security or the boogeyman, it does not excuse illegal activities that infringe on rights protected by the very laws that were used to found the country.

If it is illegal for a citizen to listen into private government channels, why is it not true for the converse? Why should I not be able to listen into military broadcasts on encrypted channels when the government can listen in onto me on a whim?

Is slavery illegal? In most places, it is. But that is because of the law. But how much water would that law hold if the government itself employed laws? The government can create law, but it cannot be above law. Once you get there, you might as well have a rule by fiat for all the difference it will make.

First, it is not illegal to have lock picking tools. They are available and easy to buy. What is illegal is if you use them to do something illegal.

What amazes me is those who consider themselves super-patriotic, are totally willing to live without rights for safety. The whole point of the constitution, especially the amendments, is to take power away from the government. The only amendment to give more power to the government was prohibition. If you want safety, don't be an American or a citizen of any country that offers freedom. Freedom is dangerous. Freedom can kill you.

If you want total safety, go to a dictatorship. There is virtually no crime in any country that offers no freedom. Just let the govenment do what it wants without complaint and you will be totally safe. Travel the world and you will find the place with no locks, with no street crime, with no fear of safety are those where you let the government have all power and keep your mouth shut.

Which system do you want, freedom or safety?

Freedom or Safety? Oh blah.

This isn't a freedom or safety issue, the question doesn't even arise with this issue, despite what the democrats and the NYTimes would have you believe.

In 2002, the FISA review court upheld the president's warrantless search powers, referencing a 1980 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That court held that the president did have the inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information...

“We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power," wrote the court.

The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority.

Also of note: many already convicted or on trial terrorists suspects over the last few years, are clamoring to find out if they were spotted by these roving wire taps.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/28/news/spy.php

They are hoping to get the evidence used against them thrown out simply because they might have been, at first, found out by what they hope turns out to be impermissible wiretaps that can’t be used against them. They aren’t claiming innocence, they’re hoping for a technicality to get the evidence used against them thrown out. But that won’t happen, the wiretaps work AND (provided they are used on international calls etc., and blanket coverage or roving) they will be found out to be perfectly legal.


EDIT: and of course, the ultimate disgrace is that the terrorists already in America would like nothing more than to find out exactly how they are being discovered so that they can avoid those things in the future.

The NYPost might be right, the NYTimes is a disgrace and a traitor.

In 2002, the FISA review court upheld the president's warrantless search powers, referencing a 1980 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That court held that the president did have the inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information...

“We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power," wrote the court.

The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority.

If this is accurate then you'd be saving a lot of smarter people a lot of time.
So go ahead and post where you got it.

And as for this ...
The NYPost might be right, the NYTimes is a disgrace and a traitor.
Roll a D20 and stick that fascist bullsh*t wherever the roll leads, somewhere on your person.
1 rolls a mishap, and 20 rolls a mishap w/double damage.

EDIT: Never mind, i found where you got it.
FOXNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179323,00.html
Surprise, Fox again.
So guess what i got when i clicked on the link entitled, upheld?

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.
Tsk.
The quote you used specifically is followed up by,
That's a pretty good argument," Bryan Cunningham, former National Security Council legal adviser, told FOX News.
It is *SO* f*cking tasty that you had the LACK OF INTEGRITY to actually post this:
despite what the democrats and the NYTimes would have you believe.

How wonderfully, ironically sagacious!
This is one of your tops. Hopefully it'll be included in a list or two that another poster or two might keep and post on you, as your greatest hits??

I said it once before and I'll say it again.

Show me someone on this board who asks if anyone is losing their civil liberties in the United States and I will show you a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant who thanks God he or she is not a dirty brown-skinned Muslim.

Good for you, not.. Name one libertarian country in the history of the world that meets your credentials of freedom and liberty for the rich and healthy while protecting the right to life of the poor and the weak?

Right to life? Right to life? Excuse me, but unless you're reading from a page of the anti-choicers, you shouldn't use that line, lest ye be confused for one.

As for the earlier comments you made, I will ignore them. My forefathers fought and died for the rights I presently enjoy. I do not enjoy cowards, yes cowards sullying the blood of my family by taking those rights away in the name of my ancestors and theirs'.

I suppose, though, that you're one of those people who are all for giving the man of the house a giant paddle and telling the police not to answer any calls from that house about abuse?

The simple fact is that the Civil War was not fought over slavery, it was fought over the rights of the states versus the rights of the Union. Slavery was simply another tool from the playbook. The Union won. The end result, though unforseeable over so long a time period, is today's ersosion of civil liberties in the names of our ancestors and in the name of Holy God, Who would not condone such a thing.

Of course, I suppose that I should appologize.

I appologize for believing that there are other rights that people have, other than the right to life. I appologize for believing that without those rights, the so-called "right to life" is so meaningless and hollow that it ceases to be a right and becomes slavery. Lastly, I appologize for allowing you to so broadly paint an image of me. There is nothing hypocritical about my political beliefs and so I am sorry that you got that impression.

Or, perhaps it is you who should be appologizing? For, among the least of things, deciding to slap a label on someone and then scream to high hell about how hypocritical they are. My beliefs are not those of a libertarian any more than there are those of a communist. They are, and remain, my own, and no one else's.

Right to life? Right to life? Excuse me, but unless you're reading from a page of the anti-choicers, you shouldn't use that line, lest ye be confused for one.
:D :D :D
I'd like to introduce you to a set that I shall call..."The Best of Greenlander"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445239
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429391
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=460213
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428935
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433552
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445821

Have fun! ;)

Did I say that was legal? You lost your point, now you're trying to make a quick cover up and change it to something else...

No, he's making the same point as before. You must have missed someone. Other than the marbles that you lost a while ago....

:D :D :D
I'd like to introduce you to a set that I shall call..."The Best of Greenlander"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445239
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429391
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=460213
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428935
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433552
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445821

Have fun! ;)

I see. So he's a coward who hides his bigotry behind his religion and family, is he? Of course, I'm sure that if he were to bring them out, he'd see that none of the things he proposes hold any water, unless they are perversions of something else.

:D :D :D
I'd like to introduce you to a set that I shall call..."The Best of Greenlander"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445239
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429391
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=460213
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428935
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433552
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445821

Have fun! ;)
Amen to that!! :D

I see. So he's a coward who hides his bigotry behind his religion and family, is he? Of course, I'm sure that if he were to bring them out, he'd see that none of the things he proposes hold any water, unless they are perversions of something else.
Well, perhaps that's a bit harsh, I'm sure he believes that he does the right thing. But then, everyone does.

But he wants the nuclear family, opposes gay rights, opposes divorce, opposes the exclusive teaching of evolution (spending much time and effort on attacking it), argues against other religions (occasionally), criticises the division between church and state, and considers both that division as well as political correctness symptoms of the way the Reds rule the world.

Pretty much your run-of-the-mill Christian fundamentalist. I just thought you'd need to know that when you argue with him - might save you from a few misunderstandings. :)

...As for the earlier comments you made, I will ignore them. My forefathers fought and died for the rights I presently enjoy. I do not enjoy cowards, yes cowards sullying the blood of my family by taking those rights away in the name of my ancestors and theirs'.

*snipped assinine off-topic ramblings*

What are you saying, that you are personally nothing but the spoiled brat child who is living off the coat tails of his family’s patriarchs? Like a leech you don’t actually do anything useful yourself but you gloat and ask for favoritism because of what others have done before you? Mwahahahaha, what a ninny, a regular nincompoop. Any time you’re ready to be considered an adult who stands up for himself you just let us know and we’ll strike that ‘honor me because of what my daddy and grandpa did’ crap, this isn’t a monarchy you know, we don’t have ‘birth rights’ and we don’t confer aristocracy by progeny anymore. You want honor, go serve yourself, until then, STHU about what your daddy did. It’s no different than what any one else’s Daddies did. Calling me a coward and then posting recital of what your ancestors did in previous days-gone-by, what a pusillanimous comment to make in the first place :rolleyes: cockamamie even.

:D :D :D
I'd like to introduce you to a set that I shall call..."The Best of Greenlander"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445239
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429391
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=460213
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428935
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433552
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445821

Have fun! ;)

Nice list, copying and saving that for future reference. Thanks for the leg work ;)

:rolleyes:
EDIT: Never mind, i found where you got it.
FOXNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179323,00.html
Surprise, Fox again.
So guess what i got when i clicked on the link entitled, upheld?

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.
Tsk.
The quote you used specifically is followed up by,
That's a pretty good argument," Bryan Cunningham, former National Security Council legal adviser, told FOX News.
It is *SO* f*cking tasty that you had the LACK OF INTEGRITY to actually post this:


How wonderfully, ironically sagacious!
This is one of your tops. Hopefully it'll be included in a list or two that another poster or two might keep and post on you, as your greatest hits??




The links don't work there, why would I post a link to links that don't work? :rolleyes:

If you are adamant about wanting to read it and can't do a google search yourself, I'll give you the link you doubt, now you can read it yourself here.

United States Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court of Review
Argued September 9, 2002 Decided November 18, 2002

Page 48 (bottom of the page)
We reiterate that Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance based on the President’s constitutional responsibility to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States. 629 F.2d at 914. Although Truong suggested the line it drew was a constitutional minimum that would apply to a FISA surveillance, see id. at 914 n.4, it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute carefully. The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf#search='2002%2C%20that%20FISA%20review%20court'

The links don't work there, why would I post a link to links that don't work? :rolleyes:

If you are adamant about wanting to read it and can't do a google search yourself, I'll give you the link you doubt, now you can read it yourself here.

United States Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court of Review
Argued September 9, 2002 Decided November 18, 2002

Page 48 (bottom of the page)
We reiterate that Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance based on the President’s constitutional responsibility to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States. 629 F.2d at 914. Although Truong suggested the line it drew was a constitutional minimum that would apply to a FISA surveillance, see id. at 914 n.4, it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute carefully. The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf#search='2002%2C%20that%20FISA%20review%20court'
I bypassed the malfunctioning FOX link. I read it myself. Have you tried it?
Good thing you pointed out that part about it being taken for GRANTED, and the ASSUMING part.

Care to include the rest of it? Also care to rebut about your sources of "integrity"? You really deserved that, it must be said.

I bypassed the malfunctioning FOX link. I read it myself. Have you tried it?
Good thing you pointed out that part about it being taken for GRANTED, and the ASSUMING part.

Care to include the rest of it? Also care to rebut about your sources of "integrity"? You really deserved that, it must be said.

The rest of what? Go read that post again if you want... My statement still stands as entirely truthful.

You're the one that finds a bad link on a website not referenced, then you bitch about it's links not working properly here and imply that FOX made it up because their links don’t work, and THEN, in secret, you actually DO read the ruling but you do so without providing a link for us, and not bother yourself to tell everyone that the ruling is in fact real and that my post isn’t in error and your implication of falsehood is in fact in error.

But instead, you leave your mock discovery of a falsehood you know to be a truth unaltered just so you can leave the impression to other readers that the ruling might be made up... Then you assault my integrity? Best go look in the mirror missy, your slip is showing.

I didn't link to your FOX story because it is broken. Instead, I checked the references and made the statement myself. My post isn't broken, and my quotes are factually based on the ruling I've linked to above. Your argument is broken though, perhaps you should deal with that eh?

You're the one that finds a bad link on a website not referenced, then you bitch about it's links not working properly here and imply that FOX made it up because their links don’t work, and THEN, in secret, you actually DO read the ruling but you do so without providing a link for us, and not bother yourself to tell everyone that the ruling is in fact real and that my post isn’t in error and your implication of falsehood is in fact in error.
Grammar police, anyone? Sheesh you like to blow air.

But instead, you leave your mock discovery of a falsehood you know to be a truth unaltered just so you can leave the impression to other readers that the ruling might be made up... Then you assault my integrity?
Ah, ya got me. I made the mistake of implying you had integrity:
"The Best of Greenlander"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445239
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429391
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=460213
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428935
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433552
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445821

My bad. I gave too much credit for a right-wing blowhard talking-point parrot.
I didn't link to your FOX story because it is broken. Instead, I checked the references and made the statement myself. Well it's a good thing you're not losing any grace in the view of the other posters here for your plagiarism.

You do think a lot of yourself, indeed.
I posted the next line in the paragraph you clipped. Look back, clever guy.
It's highly doubtful that you didn't clip it, since the paragraph is VERBATIM and was SPECIFICALLY to FOXNews. Good thing i pointed that out. *tag*

"The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority. That's a pretty good argument," Bryan Cunningham, former National Security Council legal adviser, told FOX News.


So you wrote it yourself, Greenlander?

EDIT: Yep, double-checked and verified.
So is it too much to assume you're somewhat embarrassed as well as embarrassing?
I think, after reading the posts following this one, that you might be sharing a little too much of yourself and "your" "opinion" with people not of your caliber. Perhaps a right-wing blog suits you better ... oh wait, even they're sick of you. :(

What are you saying, that you are personally nothing but the spoiled brat child who is living off the coat tails of his family’s patriarchs? Like a leech you don’t actually do anything useful yourself but you gloat and ask for favoritism because of what others have done before you? Mwahahahaha, what a ninny, a regular nincompoop. Any time you’re ready to be considered an adult who stands up for himself you just let us know and we’ll strike that ‘honor me because of what my daddy and grandpa did’ crap, this isn’t a monarchy you know, we don’t have ‘birth rights’ and we don’t confer aristocracy by progeny anymore. You want honor, go serve yourself, until then, STHU about what your daddy did. It’s no different than what any one else’s Daddies did. Calling me a coward and then posting recital of what your ancestors did in previous days-gone-by, what a pusillanimous comment to make in the first place :rolleyes: cockamamie even.

Why are you living in a nation that was built by others then if this is your attitude? Go find some island in the middle of nowhere and call it the Island of Greenlander or something. You're obviously leeching off the labors of other people as well.

What are you saying, that you are personally nothing but the spoiled brat child who is living off the coat tails of his family’s patriarchs?

I think you've confused me for you.

Like a leech you don’t actually do anything useful yourself but you gloat and ask for favoritism because of what others have done before you?

Of course I'm a leech. I'm in college. Of course, I don't recall asking for favors. I do recall asking for my rights. You know. Those things written in that silly document those idiots wrote a long time ago? Oh, wait, that's the document that founded our nation! Oops!

Mwahahahaha, what a ninny, a regular nincompoop. Any time you’re ready to be considered an adult who stands up for himself you just let us know and we’ll strike that ‘honor me because of what my daddy and grandpa did’ crap, this isn’t a monarchy you know, we don’t have ‘birth rights’ and we don’t confer aristocracy by progeny anymore.

I don't recall asking for any of those things. I think you're engaging in behavior commonly referred to as 'projection'. You're projecting your feelings and desires onto me, so that you can hate them, with out hating yourself.

You want honor, go serve yourself, until then, STHU about what your daddy did. It’s no different than what any one else’s Daddies did. Calling me a coward and then posting recital of what your ancestors did in previous days-gone-by, what a pusillanimous comment to make in the first place :rolleyes: cockamamie even.

So... you want to give up your rights, fine. Move out of the US.

Want a theocracy? Try Iran. Want to feel safe? Japan sounds like a good fit. Want freedom and rights? That's what the US is supposed to be.

The simple fact is that my ancestors died, your ancestors died, every one who has the gall to claim to be an American, has someone who died to give us our certain, inalienable rights, as they're called. Rights which you and your ilk would see thrown away.

And for what? Men living thousands of miles away who hate us? Your Invisible Friend?

The United States was not intended to be your personal theocracy or anyone else's. If you try to make it thus, you will find that I am much more of a man than you claim that I am, for I would sooner die for my rights, for your rights, than live under the shelter the United Theocracies of America. And you will also find, that I will sooner kill for them than die for them.

"Just as God has given the hand many fingers, so, too, has he given man many religions."
-Mongke Khan

*snip*
The simple fact is that my ancestors died, your ancestors died, every one who has the gall to claim to be an American, has someone who died to give us our certain, inalienable rights, as they're called. Rights which you and your ilk would see thrown away.
*snip*

Since when did the DoI's (the inalienable rights stuff) grant you an inalienable right to call Osama Bin Laden (or any other active enemy of the US Government) on your satellite phone without fear of someone listening in, and report whatever you want?

The court case is already cited, and linked to in full in this thread, and you've never had the right to private conversations with hostile foreign bodies, get over yourself with the "my fathers died to give me this right" bullshit. I think Soldiers in WWII (or any other war) would be quite surprised that you think they were fighting for the right of spies and others on America soil to be able to have private phone calls with the enemies of the US. :rolleyes:

Why are you living in a nation that was built by others then if this is your attitude? Go find some island in the middle of nowhere and call it the Island of Greenlander or something. You're obviously leeching off the labors of other people as well.


Why are you living under a rock?

...

So is it too much to assume you're somewhat embarrassed as well as embarrassing?
I think, after reading the posts following this one, that you might be sharing a little too much of yourself and "your" "opinion" with people not of your caliber. Perhaps a right-wing blog suits you better ... oh wait, even they're sick of you. :(

Embarrassed about what? That the ruling says what it says? The court case ruled as it did, and I quoted it truthfully, you can be as pissy about it as you want, like a little girl who’s dropped her sucker, but it doesn't change the fact that the ruling, and my quote of it, are what they are and I quoted them accurately. Whether or not FOX news quoted someone else who was himself also quoting the ruling is entirely irrelevant because I didn't refer to them as my proof, I referred directly to the ruling itself.

Embarrassed about what? That the ruling says what it says? The court case ruled as it did, and I quoted it truthfully, you can be as pissy about it as you want, like a little girl who’s dropped her sucker, but it doesn't change the fact that the ruling, and my quote of it, are what they are and I quoted them accurately. Whether or not FOX news quoted someone else who was himself also quoting the ruling is entirely irrelevant because I didn't refer to them as my proof, I referred directly to the ruling itself.
You referred to your post, and i asked you to qualify where you got it, and you wussed out, so i posted it, and you acted like you didn't get your info from FOXNews, so i posted it ABSOLUTELY from its source, and you STILL argued in an oblivious fashion, and i responded again in this post. Not really irrelevant.
But you can talk about girls and suckers if ya want, since your posts certainly infer a fellatio-type mentality, and frankly, it makes your posts the littlest iota more interesting.
You were prwned, now adjust your hips.
As far as you being embarrassed, again, that would imply a sense of self-criticism, and thankfully a littany of posts rep'ing your personal integrity pretty much put the question to a dirt nap.

Since when did the DoI's (the inalienable rights stuff) grant you an inalienable right to call Osama Bin Laden (or any other active enemy of the US Government) on your satellite phone without fear of someone listening in, and report whatever you want?

Why should we listen to you when you don't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Indepenence?

(Hint: One is law, the other is a notice to King George III that we weren't gonna put up with his shit anymore.)

This has been a presentation of embarrassingly simply history.

Why should we listen to you when you don't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Indepenence?

(Hint: One is law, the other is a notice to King George III that we weren't gonna put up with his shit anymore.)

This has been a presentation of embarrassingly simply history.
The funny part is Greenlander doesn't know what to be embarrassed about.
Certainly knows how to liven up a post somewhat, though.

Why are you living under a rock?

I'm not the one cowering under his bed from the big bad boogeyman while throwing up my valuables to the lion in hopes that it will eat him and not me.

Why should we listen to you when you don't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Indepenence?

(Hint: One is law, the other is a notice to King George III that we weren't gonna put up with his shit anymore.)

This has been a presentation of embarrassingly simply history.

Hey nincompoop, he referred to unalienable rights and that comes from the Declaration of Independence, it is the document that used the phrase "unalienable rights" NOT the Constitution. Go check for yourself and then when you find out that I’m right, feel free to come back and tell us again why your “embarrassingly simply history lessons” should first be read by you before you try to give them to other people...:rolleyes:

You referred to your post, and i asked you to qualify where you got it, and you wussed out, so i posted it, and you acted like you didn't get your info from FOXNews, so i posted it ABSOLUTELY from its source, and you STILL argued in an oblivious fashion, and i responded again in this post. Not really irrelevant.
But you can talk about girls and suckers if ya want, since your posts certainly infer a fellatio-type mentality, and frankly, it makes your posts the littlest iota more interesting.
You were prwned, now adjust your hips.
As far as you being embarrassed, again, that would imply a sense of self-criticism, and thankfully a littany of posts rep'ing your personal integrity pretty much put the question to a dirt nap.


You forgot to put a point in there anywhere, you know, a reason for existing in this thread sort of thing, there is no objective in your post in regards to the topic on hand. Nice flame though, perhaps you were able to use the flames coming from your backside to get it started eh, it must still be smoldering still huh?

The funny part is Greenlander doesn't know what to be embarrassed about.
Certainly knows how to liven up a post somewhat, though.

You didn't know that it says "unalienable rights" in the DoI and not the constitution either? Oh my gosh, what DO they teach kids in school these days :rolleyes:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
The 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

But I suppose your going to bitch that I'm plagerizing because I read that somewhere else before writing it myself here :p

Hey nincompoop, he referred to inalienable right and the Declaration of Independence is the one that used the phrase "inalienable rights" NOT the constitution. Go check for yourself and then when you find out that I’m right, feel free to come back and tell us again why your “embarrassingly simply history lessons” should first be read by you before you try to give them to other people...:rolleyes:
Here's your sign ... ;)
One, it's UN-alienable. Go read it and adjust your hips again.
Two, you're apparently too daft to understand what is qualified as a CONSTITUTIONAL right and what your incorporation of UN-alienable rights as per your post. It was quite simply over your head, and what you probably think is a shameful act, a good laugh was had at your expense.

As per your response, it would seem i shall oblige to state the following, OBVIOUS reply:
Your attention span is apparently too short to consider my posts rationally. You're barking at shadows.

But you did garner a snicker at the flaming fart reference. Kudos for that.

You didn't know that it says "unalienable rights" in the DoI and not the constitution either? Oh my gosh, what DO they teach kids in school these days :rolleyes:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
The 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

But I suppose your going to bitch that I'm plagerizing because I read that somewhere else before writing it myself here :p

So you're attacking ME for your issue with Gymoor? You really do have your polarities kinda askew.
I'll refresh your memory here as to who posted what ....

Originally Posted by Greenlander
Since when did the DoI's (the inalienable rights stuff) grant you an inalienable right to call Osama Bin Laden (or any other active enemy of the US Government) on your satellite phone without fear of someone listening in, and report whatever you want?
---
Yes, you sure did a smooth job of not looking like you're a dupe of some sort.

Here's your sign ... ;)
One, it's UN-alienable. Go read it and adjust your hips again.
Two, you're apparently too daft to understand what is qualified as a CONSTITUTIONAL right and what your incorporation of UN-alienable rights as per your post. It was quite simply over your head, and what you probably think is a shameful act, a good laugh was had at your expense.
*snip*

Here's the post I responded to... Obviously it is referring to Thomas Jefferson's DoI, even if he meant it to mean all of what the founding fathers did in mass, it refers to the DoI, not the Constitution
Originally Posted by New Rafnaland
*snip*

The simple fact is that my ancestors died, your ancestors died, every one who has the gall to claim to be an American, has someone who died to give us our certain, inalienable rights, as they're called. Rights which you and your ilk would see thrown away.

Here's the post I responded to... Obviously it is refereeing to Thomas Jefferson's DoI, even if he meant it to mean all of what the founding fathers did in mass, it refers to the DoI, not the Constitution
Originally Posted by New Rafnaland
*snip*
The simple fact is that my ancestors died, your ancestors died, every one who has the gall to claim to be an American, has someone who died to give us our certain, inalienable rights, as they're called. Rights which you and your ilk would see thrown away.
And now i have to explain to you what Gymoor was posting about?
You're mixed up. This is kinda tiresome. Did you get enough sleep or are you shooting for "meth-mouth"?

And now i have to explain to you what Gymoor was posting about?
You're mixed up. This is kinda tiresome. Did you get enough sleep or are you shooting for "meth-mouth"?

You have to re-read the thread apparently, you're running around screaming like lost like a child at the grocery store...

The topic, of 'inalienable rights' came from NR, the I mentioned the DoI because it must be referring to the DoI and meant unalienable rights because there is nothing in the Constitution that says inalienable OR unalienable rights. They Gymoor pissed about me saying DoI, and you backed him up. But it IS the DoI, not the Constitution.

Yawn.
BTW, Gymoor has an interesting new thread up about censoring the internet.

Waiting for the lock? What? Did some DFL mascot pissant report something?

You have to re-read the thread apparently, you're running around screaming like lost like a child at the grocery store...

The topic, of 'inalienable rights' came from NR, the I mentioned the DoI because it must be referring to the DoI and meant unalienable rights because there is nothing in the Constitution that says inalienable OR unalienable rights. They Gymoor pissed about me saying DoI, and you backed him up. But it IS the DoI, not the Constitution.
I didn't do either. I'd say you should mark a few IQ points off your character sheet but it would appear you need all the help you can get.
I VERY CLEARLY posted that you don't seem to understand what "embarrassed" means.
But after this series of tempestuous, infantile posts on your part (that you laughingly PROJECT on me), i'm forced to conclude that i can't possibly continue a serious conversation with you. I will, however, post now and then edit with my post, and then WITH YOUR GOD'S HELP you'll finally get it.

EDIT:
Originally Posted by Straughn
The funny part is Greenlander doesn't know what to be embarrassed about.
Certainly knows how to liven up a post somewhat, though.

So is it poor internet tact to use my own posts to prove you wrong about my own posts? Ah, who gives a sh*t.

Yes you did.


Why should we listen to you when you don't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Indepenence?

(Hint: One is law, the other is a notice to King George III that we weren't gonna put up with his shit anymore.)

This has been a presentation of embarrassingly simply history.
The funny part is Greenlander doesn't know what to be embarrassed about.
Certainly knows how to liven up a post somewhat, though.

See, you endorsed the very post that I said you did.

Waiting for the lock? What? Did some DFL mascot pissant report something?
Just keep up the good work. Someone who doesn't get the joke will probably do it.

Yes you did.



See, you endorsed the very post that I said you did.
You're amazing!
I have to ask. Are you having me on? Because it's certainly amusing at times.
If not, i'm going to recommend that you acquire a counselor or translator for this thread.

I'm getting bored with some posters' concepts of brevity so i'm gonna move on to some other threads and some food. Perhaps the berating will continue in my absence.

You have to re-read the thread apparently, you're running around screaming like lost like a child at the grocery store...

The topic, of 'inalienable rights' came from NR, the I mentioned the DoI because it must be referring to the DoI and meant unalienable rights because there is nothing in the Constitution that says inalienable OR unalienable rights. They Gymoor pissed about me saying DoI, and you backed him up. But it IS the DoI, not the Constitution.

The reason I brought it up is because you apparently don't know the difference between writing about a right while thumbing your nose at a Monarch and a document that puts those rights into Law actual law.

the DoI does not grant ANY rights to ANY American citizen because it is not a document that establishes law. It TALKS about rights.

Hell, we're talking about rights right now. And quoting you or I is about at significant, legally, as quoting the DoI.

Get it yet? Hello? Ground control to Major Dipshit?

The reason I brought it up is because you apparently don't know the difference between writing about a right while thumbing your nose at a Monarch and a document that puts those rights into Law actual law.

Because I apparenlty don't know the difference between ...? :rolleyes:

Let's see, shall we.

*snip*
The simple fact is that my ancestors died, your ancestors died, every one who has the gall to claim to be an American, has someone who died to give us our certain, inalienable rights, as they're called. Rights which you and your ilk would see thrown away.
*snip*

Since when did the DoI's (the inalienable rights stuff) grant you an inalienable right to call Osama Bin Laden (or any other active enemy of the US Government) on your satellite phone without fear of someone listening in, and report whatever you want?
*snip*

Bolded the part that showed WHY I said DoI, before you decided to pick your nose and pretend to teach history to me... :rolleyes:

You're the one that apparently can't read.

Get it yet? Hello? Ground control to Major Dipshit?

I get it, you're half-baked accusation came back and slapped you in the face and now you’re pissed. Dumbass.

I'm back. Doesn't appear that i've missed much of anything, either.

Why would anyone want a government in which you have no real say anyway? USA government, France or German or Japanese or whatever government it's all the same. Bring them all down. They are all inherently corrupted.

Bolded the part that showed WHY I said DoI, before you decided to pick your nose and pretend to teach history to me... :rolleyes:

You're the one that apparently can't read.

If you want to live entirely on the basis of the DOI, I could very well rob you and you wouldn't have a single legal recourse to stand on. I could also run you over with my car repeatedly without worrying about the government. I could also put you in chains and turn you into a slave for the rest of your existence.

The constitution and all the laws and rights enshrined within however, are a different story.

So. Do you want to live with only the DOI and not the constitution? Shall we see which unalienable rights you would do without?

If you want to live entirely on the basis of the DOI, I could very well rob you and you wouldn't have a single legal recourse to stand on. I could also run you over with my car repeatedly without worrying about the government. I could also put you in chains and turn you into a slave for the rest of your existence.

The constitution and all the laws and rights enshrined within however, are a different story.

So. Do you want to live with only the DOI and not the constitution? Shall we see which unalienable rights you would do without?
It would appear that's what Greenlander's shootin' for, indeed.
:(

If you want to live entirely on the basis of the DOI, I could very well rob you and you wouldn't have a single legal recourse to stand on. I could also run you over with my car repeatedly without worrying about the government. I could also put you in chains and turn you into a slave for the rest of your existence.

The constitution and all the laws and rights enshrined within however, are a different story.

So. Do you want to live with only the DOI and not the constitution? Shall we see which unalienable rights you would do without?


Oh for crying out loud :rolleyes:

My post was not about comparing the DoI to the Constitution, but methinks that you all do protest too much, like the shrew to be exact (unless someone should claim that I plagiarized that too saying that I might have read it somewhere else before posting it here first, I freely admit that it is from Shakespeare :rolleyes: ) . But now that you are all on a anti-DoI kick, I’ll defend the DoI for a bit.

The printed versions of the Declaration were distributed around the country and to ships heading to England and Europe. Newspapers published it. General Washington had it read to his troops. Most people heard it read aloud and it is still better heard than read.

In Garry Wills’ terms, the Declaration of Independence invented America. The date on top of the Declaration of Independence is the proper beginning of the United States because the United States is not just a political unit with a GNP rating. America is an idea; more than just an idea, it is an abstraction of what we want to mean to the rest of the world. The Declaration of Independence invented America in the minds of its citizens and the citizens of other nations. Nobody cared then or should care now about the exact wording of the June 7 resolution passed on July 2nd. That resolution is boring and does not tell Americans what they are about. The troops under Washington rallied to the July 4th Declaration not the July 2nd resolution.
~~~~~

The Declaration’s major premise stated more succinctly and forcefully than ever before an assumption that people increasing felt was true: Individuals are equal, do have unalienable rights, and governments should protect those rights. French revolutionaries and the progressive revolutionaries in Latin America and Europe that later followed America’s example were inspired by the Declaration of Independence, not because the ideas were new, but because, as one Frenchman wrote: “America has given us this example. The act which declares its independence is a simple and sublime exposition of those rights so sacred and so long forgotten.” The revolutionaries did not think the Declaration told them anything new; rather, the Declaration reminded them of what God had already written on their hearts. After the war, George Washington declared that in the American Revolution “the rights of mankind were better understood” and “are [now] laid open for our use.”

Even later Thomas Jefferson wrote : “The Revolution of America, by recognizing those rights which every man is entitled to by the laws of God and Nature, seems to have broken off all those devious trammels of ignorance, prejudice, and superstition which have long depressed the human mind….Every door is now open to the sons of genius and science.”

If , as Adams knew, the Declaration was born out of colonial American commonplace ideas, Jefferson should be credited with the feat of distilling those commonplaces into words and phrases that not only affirm what was already assumed but also inspired further development. The Declaration transcended its own context. The two key sentences ceased to be part of a flawed document and became a cornerstone, a motto, a maxim for modern society.
http://www.ptloma.edu/HistPolSci/faculty/R_Kennedy/assigned_readings/declaration_of_independence.htm

Now get over your stupid anti-DoI shit posts and try to stay on topic, the court ruling that says the President doesn’t need a warrant for wiretapping foreign nations eavesdropping on who calls them with national and security secrets.

And you too Straughn, endorsing another nonsensical, balderdash post :rolleyes: That roll eye is just for your last post there :p

And you too Straughn, endorsing another nonsensical, balderdash post :rolleyes: That roll eye is just for your last post there :p
Credit for your syllables, i guess. :(
Not much to say other than, for honorable mention, see
Post #169.
Some things are timeless classics.

My post was not about comparing the DoI to the Constitution.

Oh? And what of your allegation that inalienable rights in the constitution are not so inalienable because the wording of the DoI is the only one with the term inalienable hmmm?


but methinks that you all do protest too much, like the shrew to be exact

Do you enjoy delivering these barbs of yours along with your poorly constructed arguments? To be honest, they are rather pathetic, and not a sign of a very mature mind. I am certain however, that you will somehow twist this to be some kind of infantile rant while projecting whatever bile you have to throw at me.


But now that you are all on a anti-DoI kick

Only in your imagination. Do point out just exactly where any of us have done anything that can remotely resemble anti-DoI sentiment. I await your stunning relevations.


America is an idea; more than just an idea, it is an abstraction of what we want to mean to the rest of the world. The Declaration of Independence invented America in the minds of its citizens and the citizens of other nations.

The DoI did not exactly invent America. It only planted the idea of America as an independent nation. What that nation was to be however, is written in the constitution. Done differently, you might have been looking at King Washington the first. Or a military dictatorship. The DoI defines America as a nation. The constitution says what kind of nation America is supposed to be.


That resolution is boring and does not tell Americans what they are about.

Just like any number of rights and legislations which are supposed to protect people are often ignored and easily passed off. Because understanding it is too boring and difficult to the layman. Thus stripping him of these protective laws becomes easier. In fact, repressive laws can be enacted in their place, and so long as the common man does not understand the import of it, he will ignore it as superfluous to his existence.

That is until he is lined up and shot that is.


The Declaration’s major premise stated more succinctly and forcefully than ever before an assumption that people increasing felt was true: Individuals are equal, do have unalienable rights, and governments should protect those rights.

And what rights are these? What rights are the governments supposed to protect? The DoI simply does not provide a clear message that can be interpreted in exact terms by even those with legal experience. The constitution is supposed to do that.

the court ruling that says the President doesn’t need a warrant for wiretapping foreign nations eavesdropping on who calls them with national and security secrets.

The court ruling however, does not say that the President can conduct blanket wiretapping of it's OWN citizens without warrants and reasonable grounds to gain said warrants with. Without the legal structure to restrict a president's powers, or if he ignores it whenever it becomes inconvenient, he is no different from a dictator or king who rules from high.

Much like how the original DoI was meant to severe ties with such a king in the first place.

The point is, Greenlander, no matter how much you or anyone else utters in- or unalienable rights, the rights guranteed to us are in the Constitution, not the DoI.

You referenced Shakespeare, does that mean that you are trying to make a case that warrentless wiretapping is granted as a power to the President by The Taming of the Shrew? Of course not. So stop taking crap out of context and making irrelevant arguments, mmmmkay? Just because someone used a phrase from a document does not mean they are using that document as evidence. Unalienable rights is just a handy phrase.

IT'S ALIVE! ALIIIVE!

Oh? And what of your allegation that inalienable rights in the constitution are not so inalienable because the wording of the DoI is the only one with the term inalienable hmmm?



Do you enjoy delivering these barbs of yours along with your poorly constructed arguments? To be honest, they are rather pathetic, and not a sign of a very mature mind. I am certain however, that you will somehow twist this to be some kind of infantile rant while projecting whatever bile you have to throw at me.



Only in your imagination. Do point out just exactly where any of us have done anything that can remotely resemble anti-DoI sentiment. I await your stunning relevations.



The DoI did not exactly invent America. It only planted the idea of America as an independent nation. What that nation was to be however, is written in the constitution. Done differently, you might have been looking at King Washington the first. Or a military dictatorship. The DoI defines America as a nation. The constitution says what kind of nation America is supposed to be.



Just like any number of rights and legislations which are supposed to protect people are often ignored and easily passed off. Because understanding it is too boring and difficult to the layman. Thus stripping him of these protective laws becomes easier. In fact, repressive laws can be enacted in their place, and so long as the common man does not understand the import of it, he will ignore it as superfluous to his existence.

That is until he is lined up and shot that is.



And what rights are these? What rights are the governments supposed to protect? The DoI simply does not provide a clear message that can be interpreted in exact terms by even those with legal experience. The constitution is supposed to do that.



The court ruling however, does not say that the President can conduct blanket wiretapping of it's OWN citizens without warrants and reasonable grounds to gain said warrants with. Without the legal structure to restrict a president's powers, or if he ignores it whenever it becomes inconvenient, he is no different from a dictator or king who rules from high.

Much like how the original DoI was meant to severe ties with such a king in the first place.

At the risk of "earning" another one of these ...

---
Originally Posted by Greenlander
And you too Straughn, endorsing another nonsensical, balderdash post :rolleyes:
That roll eye is just for your last post there :razz:
---

I must say this post absolutely ROCKS.
*bows*