Awww... poor republicans Options

[pebkac]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/...-gop-stage.html

Wow... the democrats finally stand up to the republicans and now they're acting like children.

[Dogmeat]

well at least the fucking republicans are doing everything they can do destroy islam in the midde east before that horse shit makes its way into our fucked up society even more than it already has and ruins whats left of freedom of speech and relegion.

[Psykopath]

well at least the fucking republicans are doing everything they can do destroy islam in the midde east before that horse shit makes its way into our fucked up society even more than it already has and ruins whats left of freedom of speech and religion.

Your political leanings make me sick if this is what you truly believe.

(and thought I'd fix that spelling...second time I've seen you put it that way, heh)

This post has been edited by Psykopath: Feb 14 2008, 09:49 PM

[Hartmann]

What's funny is that others have summoned the Democrats to walk out: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exe...ew.cgi/48/17144

And then of course there's the Texas Democrats that did walk out: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/...ture/index.html

So I guess there's childishness on both sides.

My question is, you're ok with Congress, yes Congress writing resolutions to hold people in contempt? Doesn't that overstep the bounds a bit?

[pebkac]

What's funny is that others have summoned the Democrats to walk out: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exe...ew.cgi/48/17144

And then of course there's the Texas Democrats that did walk out: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/...ture/index.html

So I guess there's childishness on both sides.

My question is, you're ok with Congress, yes Congress writing resolutions to hold people in contempt? Doesn't that overstep the bounds a bit?

I don't think I've ever come even close to claiming that the Democrats are perfect.

And no, that doesn't overlap bounds. I forget exactly where it is, but the Constitution does give Congress the ability to act as a tribunal inferior to the Supreme Court.

[impala454]

"They're more interested in a political witch hunt than in keeping America more secure before they leave Washington for a week," Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla.

Couldn't have said it better myself

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., says that when it comes to the surveillance bill, Republicans are engaged in the "politics of fear, unfounded fear."

Yeah, unfounded fear. There's really not any terrorists out there who want to kill us, no need to rush into legislation that's vital to our national security before we go on vacation for a week... just put it off, no big deal.

And pebkac, walking out is not acting like children. Acting like children is when people bring pillows and blankies and teddy bears and want to have a sleepover because they're not getting their way.

[Spectatrix]

All politicians suck. Some more than others, but all of them -- on BOTH sides -- suck to some extent.

[THECHICKEN]

What's funny is that others have summoned the Democrats to walk out: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exe...ew.cgi/48/17144

And then of course there's the Texas Democrats that did walk out: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/...ture/index.html

So I guess there's childishness on both sides.

My question is, you're ok with Congress, yes Congress writing resolutions to hold people in contempt? Doesn't that overstep the bounds a bit?

Supreme court has already ruled on something similar. Congress CAN hold someone in contempt.... but only people IN a congressional meeting and disrupting it in such a matter as to require them removed via contempt. And NO congress can't act as a judiciary... the very thought of that is a SCARY overstepping of enumerated powers.

[Hartmann]

Supreme court has already ruled on something similar. Congress CAN hold someone in contempt.... but only people IN a congressional meeting and disrupting it in such a matter as to require them removed via contempt. And NO congress can't act as a judiciary... the very thought of that is a SCARY overstepping of enumerated powers.

Thanks for the information. So they are overstepping their bounds with this move?

[pebkac]

Supreme court has already ruled on something similar. Congress CAN hold someone in contempt.... but only people IN a congressional meeting and disrupting it in such a matter as to require them removed via contempt. And NO congress can't act as a judiciary... the very thought of that is a SCARY overstepping of enumerated powers.

My understanding is that they can also vote for contempt for not complying with subpoenas that are issued by Congress. After researching this a little bit, the procedure is that once a person is voted to be held in contempt of Congress, the issue is referred over to the US Attorney for DC who is required by law to prosecute the case.

(And yes, you were right. I misinterpreted the clause that allows Congress to "constitute inferior tribunals.")

EDIT: Here's a source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7041000839.html

A subpoena is the first step in a long process that has rarely reached a clear legal conclusion in the past, experts say. If the administration refuses to comply with the subpoena, the Judiciary Committee could issue a citation for contempt of Congress, followed by a similar citation from the full Congress. That would then require the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia -- a former Gonzales aide -- to empanel a grand jury to consider criminal indictments.

In almost all cases, administrations have chosen to fully or substantially comply with such requests before they lead to criminal proceedings. In 1998, for example, a GOP-led House committee issued a contempt citation to then-Attorney General Janet Reno for refusing to turn over internal Justice Department memos. Justice offered a staff briefing on the documents, and the full House never acted on the citation.

"I'm not sure how the administration could win on this claim, in terms of keeping those documents," said Martin S. Lederman, a visiting law professor at Georgetown University who worked in Justice's Office of Legal Counsel from 1994 to 2002.

This post has been edited by pebkac: Feb 15 2008, 10:12 AM

[woody]

what sucks is all this high school cheerleader fighting and nothing getting done, and they're still getting paid by our tax dollars

what a fucking waste

[impala454]

Well they're not paid by number of bills passed. Bickering and disagreeing is fundamental to our system of government. If they were agreeing on every issue that came up, they wouldn't be very representative of their respective citizens.

[Spectatrix]

Well, I agree, but sometimes I wish they'd just sit down and say "ok, let's hash something out that works for both sides."

[woody]

Well they're not paid by number of bills passed. Bickering and disagreeing is fundamental to our system of government. If they were agreeing on every issue that came up, they wouldn't be very representative of their respective citizens.

Walks outs are neither bickering nor disagreeing

it's walking out

last i checked that's not a form of debate

[Testm0nkey]

THEY ARE SPENDING HOW MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INVESTIGATED THE PATRIOTS CHEATING SCANDAL WHEN FED. ORGANIZATIONS LIKE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES - CPS etc GET BUDGETED LESS THAN WHAT THEY SPEND ON THAT IN A WEEK!?

i hate america and their belief in "families" because its untrue


did you also know domestic violence, incest, child abuse is become more and more common and widespread? its also spread equally between all races and SES. its not a "oh its only poor minorities so they dont count as people"


america has no priorities

[FORSAKENR320]

did you also know domestic violence, incest, child abuse is become more and more common and widespread? its also spread equally between all races and SES. its not a "oh its only poor minorities so they dont count as people"
america has no priorities

i'd like to see documentation of this please. i don't disagree, i see pretty much the same ting you said at work

[rabble]

Couldn't have said it better myself
Yeah, unfounded fear. There's really not any terrorists out there who want to kill us, no need to rush into legislation that's vital to our national security before we go on vacation for a week... just put it off, no big deal.

THE TURRISTS WILL GET US!

Shut the fuck up and go live under a fucking rock if you're so fucking scared of an attack. This legislation IS NOT vital to our security, in fact, the FISA court has been enacted for 30 fucking years. There is no reason that any corporation should be given a free pass to spy on anyone at the government's ILLEGITIMATE request. If you are tracking a threat its damn easy to go get a warrant...because you already know they are a threat. Anything else is a fishing expedition and has no merit in a court of law.
I don't pay my hard earned money in taxes so they can turn around and spy on me, fuck that. But hey, someone is out there, just waiting to get me, so why don't I let the government install a camera in my house so they can make sure I'm safe! HELL YEA!

I thought republicans were for smaller government and less taxes...hmmm

(another fun fact, the only foreign terrorist attack on our soil happened with a republican president and a republican congress. Seems kind of odd that they are the only ones who can protect us, especially when they ignored vital intelligence about the very attack they claimed not to know anything about."

[Dogmeat]

Your political leanings make me sick if this is what you truly believe.

(and thought I'd fix that spelling...second time I've seen you put it that way, heh)

How does that make you sick?

I'd like to be able to have my avatar on here be Allah with the bomb for a turbine without getting killed by the ruling fascist islamic regime that seems to be hell-bent on eventually taking over our country.

We must destroy Islam ..... AGAIN.

We need to elect King Arthur or whoever that guy was....

[impala454]

THE TURRISTS WILL GET US!

Shut the fuck up and go live under a fucking rock if you're so fucking scared of an attack. This legislation IS NOT vital to our security, in fact, the FISA court has been enacted for 30 fucking years. There is no reason that any corporation should be given a free pass to spy on anyone at the government's ILLEGITIMATE request. If you are tracking a threat its damn easy to go get a warrant...because you already know they are a threat. Anything else is a fishing expedition and has no merit in a court of law.
I don't pay my hard earned money in taxes so they can turn around and spy on me, fuck that. But hey, someone is out there, just waiting to get me, so why don't I let the government install a camera in my house so they can make sure I'm safe! HELL YEA!

Yeah you're right, we don't have anything to worry about. Nobody wants to kill us or anything. Let's just not ever investigate anything, because I'm sure if someone wants to come kill us they'll come with fighter jets and in tanks right? I mean nobody would quietly infiltrate our country and organize attacks from within would they? And no, I'm not that worried about an attack, so long as the government has the leadway to investigate things they should. And also no, the government isn't listening to your 900# phone calls.

I thought republicans were for smaller government and less taxes...hmmm

Don't use buzz words you don't understand. "Big government" refers to wanting a committee/department for everything possible that happens in your everyday life under control of the federal government. This bill is talking about letting existing government programs properly investigate leads. This bill also is not raising taxes. I dunno where the hell you got that idea.

(another fun fact, the only foreign terrorist attack on our soil happened with a republican president and a republican congress. Seems kind of odd that they are the only ones who can protect us, especially when they ignored vital intelligence about the very attack they claimed not to know anything about."

Well while you're checking fun facts and blaming events on a certain group of people, perhaps you should look beyond the tinfoil hat sites that Lance pastes. The 911 attacks were planned and intelligence ignored during the Clinton presidency. Have you also forgotten that Clinton had operatives with crosshairs on Osama and he wouldn't give them the order? Everything I've read shows that the planning went back as far as 1998.

Walks outs are neither bickering nor disagreeing

it's walking out

last i checked that's not a form of debate

Last I checked I wasn't calling it a form of debate.

[rabble]

oh god, you're totally right!

Hay guys don't get on the/enter the (insert anything ever) because it isn't safe. I hope you get arrested for voicing your opinion one day because that's where you're heading. If you actually bothered to read anything, the sunset provisions on domestic spying don't enact for six more months. But you're right, the govt should be able to enter my house without a reason and tear eveything apart because they have to protect me from the unknown threat, because that's also where you are headed.

I drew the line at domestic spying, where do you draw yours?

Additionally, I don't have a tinfoil hat on and I know they don't care about me. That's not the point, I don't even want them to have the option...ever...that's the point.

Dumbass

[impala454]

oh god, you're totally right!

Hay guys don't get on the/enter the (insert anything ever) because it isn't safe. I hope you get arrested for voicing your opinion one day because that's where you're heading.

Haha ok... ability to investigate possible terrorists threat = having freedom of speech revoked. And you're calling me paranoid?

If you actually bothered to read anything, the sunset provisions on domestic spying don't enact for six more months.

What did you read that made you think this bill revokes your right to free speech and allows the government to break into your home and tear everything apart?

But you're right, the govt should be able to enter my house without a reason and tear eveything apart because they have to protect me from the unknown threat, because that's also where you are headed.

Again... who's the paranoid one now?

I drew the line at domestic spying, where do you draw yours?

Well by your thinking then, what's to stop anybody who wants to from coming into the country and pulling another 911?

Additionally, I don't have a tinfoil hat on and I know they don't care about me. That's not the point, I don't even want them to have the option...ever...that's the point.

Dumbass

Yeah, you don't have a tinfoil hat on, you just think the government is out to get you and everyone else . Call me the dumbass though

[blaarg]

I am also curious, where do you draw the line Impala?
When does the government enacting measures to protect us border with uncomfortable intrusion into our personal lives?
It seems that rabble thinks wiretapping is it for him, what about you?

I'm just curious (I don't believe there is anything that I've written that would elicit your dreaded emoticons...).

[Dogmeat]

See, if we'd just nuke islams in the middle east we wouldn't have to worry about them coming over here so the guvment wouldn't have to spy on ol' us! HAW!

[rabble]

nothing is going to stop a determined enemy. The system that has been I'm place for 30 years has seemed to do the job well enough. I don't see why stripping away the protections our forefathers fought and died for to bring an unmeasureable amount of security is a good thing.

My line is the line that has been in place since I've been alive, and I'm not willing to trade any of it because I am afraid of an unknown threat, everyone will die oneday, that is a fact of life. I'd rather go in a coffeshop while I'm happy, than go in a governmemt gulaug because a disagreed with popular opinion. It really is a slippery slope, so your line might be farther down than mine, but when they reach yours, you might not be able to say anything at all, right winston?

[rabble]

Yeah, you don't have a tinfoil hat on, you just think the government is out to get you and everyone else . Call me the dumbass though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came....

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

[pebkac]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came....

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

LERN2LINK

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm..._Niemoeller.jpg

This post has been edited by pebkac: Feb 17 2008, 09:16 PM

[impala454]

I am also curious, where do you draw the line Impala?
When does the government enacting measures to protect us border with uncomfortable intrusion into our personal lives?
It seems that rabble thinks wiretapping is it for him, what about you?

I'm just curious (I don't believe there is anything that I've written that would elicit your dreaded emoticons...).

There's not a line to draw IMHO. It's not a black and white issue, as is typically made on these boards. Will some people be wrongly wiretapped? Sure. Will some plans to kill Americans be foiled? Yep. Let's be frank, in matters of national security, the NSA/CIA/FBI will do whatever the hell they want to try to get to the bottom of it. In a nuclear world, I see nothing wrong with getting the information they need.

[impala454]

nothing is going to stop a determined enemy.

This is wrong. There are plenty of people out there determined to kill us all. And yet we're still here.

The system that has been I'm place for 30 years has seemed to do the job well enough. I don't see why stripping away the protections our forefathers fought and died for to bring an unmeasureable amount of security is a good thing.

Our forefathers didn't live in a world where attacks could be coordinated with cell phones. They also didn't live in a world where five dudes with boxcutters could cripple our nation's biggest financial center and kill multiple thousands of people on a whim.

My line is the line that has been in place since I've been alive, and I'm not willing to trade any of it because I am afraid of an unknown threat, everyone will die oneday, that is a fact of life. I'd rather go in a coffeshop while I'm happy, than go in a governmemt gulaug because a disagreed with popular opinion. It really is a slippery slope, so your line might be farther down than mine, but when they reach yours, you might not be able to say anything at all, right winston?

So if some judge (who's part of the evil government) says its ok for them to tap your line, that makes you feel fine with it, and not be upset that your rights given to you by our forefathers are being curtailed?

[impala454]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came....

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

WTF does this have to do with anything? What "group" is the government after? Everyone? And you were trying to use this to prove that you're not paranoid about the government?!?!?

[Oasis]

THEY ARE SPENDING HOW MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INVESTIGATED THE PATRIOTS CHEATING SCANDAL WHEN FED. ORGANIZATIONS LIKE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES - CPS etc GET BUDGETED LESS THAN WHAT THEY SPEND ON THAT IN A WEEK!?

i hate america and their belief in "families" because its untrue
did you also know domestic violence, incest, child abuse is become more and more common and widespread? its also spread equally between all races and SES. its not a "oh its only poor minorities so they dont count as people"
america has no priorities

Are you saying wasting millions in tax dollars investigating cheating and using using drugs in the entertainment industry is a waste of time?

If so I agree and it makes me sick to my fucking stomach

[Dogmeat]

yeah I think they could find a hell of a lot better things to spend money on than steroid hearings and shit like that.

that should be up to the MLB, NFL, etc, not the fucking government to control.

[rabble]

WTF does this have to do with anything? What "group" is the government after? Everyone? And you were trying to use this to prove that you're not paranoid about the government?!?!?

Naw dude, its ok, they are only after the terrorists. If I'm not a terrorist then I have nothing to worry about. Whats that, now they are questioning and detaining people who publicly protest, thats ok, I don't publicly protest. Whats that, now they are questioning people who "don't look right," thats ok, I'm not an emofag/goth/whatever. Whats that, now they are coming after me? Well where is everyone else?

I was illustrating that when you sit around and let the government scare you into surrendering your rights, they won't stop until its too late. This is not tin foil hat paranoia, this is proven through history time and again. Sitting back and saying "It'll never happen here, we have rights/this is a different situation" is delusional bullshit. (once they take away your rights by giving you a label, all they have to do is call you a communist...i mean terrorist) But hey, I'm the tinfoil hatted idiot afraid of getting blown up by a terrorist, oh wait, thats you! I'm the tinfoil hatted idiot afraid of giving up even a sliver of my rights and then "hoping" that they won't abuse their power...which they will...because they always do (History, remember!)

[Spectatrix]

yeah I think they could find a hell of a lot better things to spend money on than steroid hearings and shit like that.

that should be up to the MLB, NFL, etc, not the fucking government to control.

Agreed. If it's not illegal, why is the government getting involved at all? It should be a matter of internal affairs within the NFL, etc.

[impala454]

Agreed. If it's not illegal, why is the government getting involved at all? It should be a matter of internal affairs within the NFL, etc.

Trafficking steroids is illegal.

[Spectatrix]

Trafficking steroids is illegal.

Well I don't know all the details. Anabolic steroids are a controlled substance, but they can be legally administered by doctors. If they're being provided illegally, then yeah that's a legal issue (though not one that warrants congressional hearings).

[impala454]

Naw dude, its ok, they are only after the terrorists. [1] If I'm not a terrorist then I have nothing to worry about. [2] Whats that, now they are questioning and detaining people who publicly protest, thats ok, I don't publicly protest. Whats that, now they are questioning people who "don't look right," thats ok, I'm not an emofag/goth/whatever. Whats that, now they are coming after me? Well where is everyone else?

This is the problem with paranoia. You're taking sentence [1] and immediately assuming it results in sentence [2].

I was illustrating that when you sit around and let the government scare you into surrendering your rights, they won't stop until its too late.

And which of your rights is being surrendered in this case?

This is not tin foil hat paranoia, this is proven through history time and again.

Where in the history of the United States has this happened "time and again"?

Sitting back and saying "It'll never happen here, we have rights/this is a different situation" is delusional bullshit.

I don't know why you think this. That's exactly how it's been. Our country is different. In some Countries you'd be shot for typing what you just typed.

(once they take away your rights by giving you a label, all they have to do is call you a communist...i mean terrorist) But hey, I'm the tinfoil hatted idiot afraid of getting blown up by a terrorist, oh wait, thats you! I'm the tinfoil hatted idiot afraid of giving up even a sliver of my rights and then "hoping" that they won't abuse their power...which they will...because they always do (History, remember!)

And what would be their motives for doing so? And once again you use the buzzwords wrong... perhaps we should get you a buzzword dictionary. "Tin foil hat" is the term given to conspiracy theorists such as yourself. That doesn't apply to my insinuation that terrorists want to attack us, because it's already happened. It's not much of a stretch to assume they want to do it again.

You seem to think this bill is not intended for use in foiling legitimate threats to our country, but instead a plot by the government to... well... to do what? Take the greatest capitalist society on the planet and turn it into a dictatorship? What is the evil turrible government's overal plan of domination here?

[blaarg]

Where in the history of the United States has this happened "time and again"?

Playing Devil's Advocate and say the Japanese American internment during WWII.
That was pretty fucked up.
Taking a lot of civil liberties away from American citizens for more security.

Oh yeah and the whole McCarthy thing...
(at least one could argue)

[rabble]

This is the problem with paranoia. You're taking sentence [1] and immediately assuming it results in sentence [2].

If you had read the link I posted (which I am assuming you didn't) the whole point is that you don't think something is bad UNTIL it happens to you, and by that time, there may be no one left to help you. So yes, I am thinking sentence 1 results in sentence 2, because thats the fucking point.

And which of your rights is being surrendered in this case?

unreasonable searches and seizures

Where in the history of the United States has this happened "time and again"?

Replace United States with Human History and you have your answer. The "it'll never happen in America" argument is flawed because it is only America when people don't succumb to fear and let others chip away at their constitutional rights. This time its wiretapping without warrants, whats the next step?

I don't know why you think this. That's exactly how it's been. Our country is different. In some Countries you'd be shot for typing what you just typed.

You are absolutely right, so I'm going to keep wearing my tin foil hat so that you and I will continue to have the right to not be detained for the private communications we have with others. (but lets let them spy on us anyway, right?)

And what would be their motives for doing so? And once again you use the buzzwords wrong... perhaps we should get you a buzzword dictionary. "Tin foil hat" is the term given to conspiracy theorists such as yourself. That doesn't apply to my insinuation that terrorists want to attack us, because it's already happened. It's not much of a stretch to assume they want to do it again.

You are paranoid of a conspiracy of another attack, I am paranoid of a conspiracy to take away my rights little by little. We are both wearing tin foil hats. I never said that there aren't extremists, I said there was no way to measure the success of any measures to stop them. I am not afraid of a terrorist, you will not make me afraid of them (maybe its a jewish thing), why are you so afraid of them, why are they out to get you?

You seem to think this bill is not intended for use in foiling legitimate threats to our country, but instead a plot by the government to... well... to do what? Take the greatest capitalist society on the planet and turn it into a dictatorship? What is the evil turrible government's overal plan of domination here?

I am an American citizen, I do not want to "hand the keys" over to Muhammad. I cannot understand why you think this is what I want to do. I want to make sure that the protections that are granted to me by the constitution are not stripped away in the pursuit of security. I do not want to be in danger, but I do not want my private communications to be invaded my a 3rd party.

I asked you earlier where your line was, I feel you need to answer this question. At what point does your personal privacy outweigh public security? When is "enough is enough" for you?

[pebkac]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007

I'm a bit torn on what to think about the act. Though I can see the act as being constitutional and within the spirit of our legal system as it only authorizes wiretaps against foreign targets, I'm a bit skeptical about the abuse potential of it.

At any rate, I feel that the Republicans are exaggerating the need to pass the act RIGHT THIS MINUTE. The government can still (gasp) get a warrant to do a wiretap.

And I also feel that the matter the democrats are discussing is a valid issue as well.

[impala454]

Playing Devil's Advocate and say the Japanese American internment during WWII.
That was pretty fucked up.
Taking a lot of civil liberties away from American citizens for more security.

Easy to see that in hindsight though. And what civil liberties do Japanese people living in the US not have today?

[pebkac]

Easy to see that in hindsight though. And what civil liberties do Japanese people living in the US not have today?

I think rabble and blaarg were more making the point of history repeating itself (although I'll agree that that isn't the best example).

[FORSAKENR320]

looks like i get to post this again.....



http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y196/FORS...R320/impala.jpg - NSFW

This post has been edited by pebkac: Feb 18 2008, 03:45 PM

[impala454]

unreasonable searches and seizures

So again, allowing a judge who's appointed by a politician to make this decision makes the searches reasonable?

Replace United States with Human History and you have your answer.

Well no shit sherlock, that wasn't the question.

The "it'll never happen in America" argument is flawed because it is only America when people don't succumb to fear and let others chip away at their constitutional rights.

Bingo, so do you think if the government started knocking down an even remotely high number of doors, we wouldn't stand for it and would do something about it.

This time its wiretapping without warrants, whats the next step?

It's not wiretapping without warrants. It's wiretapping suspected national security threats without warrants. You're the one assuming they're going to wiretap the entire country, and that the "next step" is some form of hostile government takeover of the entire population.

You are absolutely right, so I'm going to keep wearing my tin foil hat so that you and I will continue to have the right to not be detained for the private communications we have with others. (but lets let them spy on us anyway, right?)

Uh.. whatever you say. You're doing so much to preserve my rights by bitching on a message board about something you don't have a f'n clue about.

You are paranoid of a conspiracy of another attack,

How the fuck am I paranoid? It's already fuckin happened!! You might wanna look up the word paranoid after you finish looking up those buzzwords.

I am paranoid of a conspiracy to take away my rights little by little.

Yep

We are both wearing tin foil hats.

Again, I'm not paranoid, I just think it's reasonable to let government agencies assess legitimate threats without having to go through miles of red tape.

I never said that there aren't extremists, I said there was no way to measure the success of any measures to stop them.

So the how come you're measuring it? You're telling me they don't need unwarranted wiretaps. How do you know if you can't "measure the success".

I am not afraid of a terrorist, you will not make me afraid of them (maybe its a jewish thing),

Never said you were, and not trying to.

why are you so afraid of them,

I'm not particularly afraid of them personally. But they did manage to kill 5000+ people without a whole lot of effort. IMHO that makes them a legit threat. I'm sure you wouldn't have been afraid though if you'd been inside that building as it collapsed, since you're Jewish.

why are they out to get you?

Beats me. I think it's pretty silly myself.

I am an American citizen, I do not want to "hand the keys" over to Muhammad. I cannot understand why you think this is what I want to do.

"Hand the keys to muhammad?" I must have missed wtf you were attempting to say here.

I want to make sure that the protections that are granted to me by the constitution are not stripped away in the pursuit of security. I do not want to be in danger, but I do not want my private communications to be invaded my a 3rd party.

So how exactly do you achieve this? Liberal conversation at it's finest. You want your cake and to eat it too.

I asked you earlier where your line was, I feel you need to answer this question.?

Then I feel you should read the whole thread and not just my responses to you
http://www.techsans.net/forums/index.php?s...st&p=102176


Here's a question for you. The same question I ask Lance every time he posts some conspiracy bullshit. Conspiracies do happen, but only when there's a motive or someone has something to gain. What does anybody at all have to gain by slowly wittling down your right to "unreasonable" searches?

[Oasis]

Trafficking steroids is illegal.

They aren't really going after traffickers, only individual players.

What does this accomplish? Absolutely nothing, other than cheap publicity for dipshit politicians who have reelection campaigns coming up. That's all they care about - taking a public anti-steroids stance to make themselves look like good guys who care about our nation's youth. I doubt any of them even have a clue as to how steroids helps you gain a competitive advantage. Seriously, did anyone watch the Clemens/McNamee hearings? It made me sick to my stomach. A bunch of crooked politicians grilling an athlete and a trainer and treating them like mass murderers. I found it hilarious how the main guy who was trying to crucify McNamee and playing holier-than-thou moralist (a Republican from Indiana, I don't remember his name) fathered a child with a state employee out of wedlock. This is the same assfuck who tried to get Clinton impeached for cheating on his wife. God damned hypocrite. Nevermind the fact that most of the congressmen were hanging out with Clemens and getting autographs the day before the trial. What kind of message does that send?

I'm well aware that steroids are illegal. I don't care. It isn't Congress' business to get involved. It's a Major League baseball internal issue between the player's union and the owners. Where was Congress during the 80's when half the players were coked up? Where were they in the 60's when nearly every player was eating greenies like they were M&M's? Taking an anti-steroid stance is a feel good issue because it involves protecting the precious youth of America. Nevermind the fact they turn a complete blind eye to performance enhancing drugs in other entertainment industries. If anyone seriously thinks all those no name actors in 300 weren't juiced on HGH you're an ignorant moron. They're using HGH for the same reason athletes are - to gain a competitive advantage. I didn't see anyone who looked like Napoleon Dynamite in 300.

Steroids are a hot button issue that once word gets out that the MLB might have a problem with them, dumbass politicians flock to the cause like sheep and take an "America won't stand for drugs ruining our national pasttime!" stance to make themselves look like good guys and dipshit Americans eat it up. Oh, and steroids have been around in baseball long before the 2005 congressional hearings. Only after Canseco published his book did idiot politicians get clued in that they could use it to their advantage.

In the grand scheme of everything that is wrong with our country, performance enhancing drugs in sports ranks somewhere around people molesting chickens in terms of national importance of things that need to be dealt with. Instead of focusing on actual important problems facing our country, they're wasting time. But at least they're making themselves look good.


Oh, and don't get me started about Arlen Specter going after Roger Godell for destroying videotape evidence of a football team taping other teams' practices. Talk about an issue that is of absolutely zero concern to politicians. Fuck off, Specter. Don't be a cunt and wait till the Super Bowl to bring this up. And try not to be so painfully obvious that you waited till right before your reelection campaign to stick your nose in a matter that doesn't fucking concern you. The ONLY thing that could or should concern the government is that the Patriots videotaping other teams might have had some effect on the outcome of games and gambling. I'm sure that's what Specter was insinuating, even though he's too much of a chickenshit to come out and publicly say it because it would have been political suicide. Because everyone knows sports betting is morally wrong.

[pebkac]

So again, allowing a judge who's appointed by a politician to make this decision makes the searches reasonable?

Yes.

[blaarg]

I think rabble and blaarg were more making the point of history repeating itself (although I'll agree that that isn't the best example).

Well Impala asked

Where in the history of the United States has this happened "time and again"?

And I responded with cases in American history where Civil Liberties were grossly curtailed to provide security. I don't see how this is irrelevant and if anything makes rabble "less paranoid" because there has been occasions where this has happened (to use Impalas defense when rabble claimed Impala was paranoid about another attack Impala states:

How the fuck am I paranoid? It's already fuckin happened!!

, I surely think that rabble can make the same argument).

I also was intrigued about Impala's response and I think is the main difference between rabble and Impala:

Easy to see that in hindsight though. And what civil liberties do Japanese people living in the US not have today?

It's easy to see during the present why these intrusions are necessary for security, but in hindsight, misjudgments do occur and measures are needed to be corrected (the reason why Japanese Americans have all the rights as any other citizen nowadays).

I guess Impala thinks that in the future we won't label wiretapping as a governmental misjudgment while rabble does.

Oh and about the line in the stand argument. I think everyone does, regardless of how extreme. If something similar to the internment happened today, I would like to think that everyone (Impala included) would stand up to this injustice, shrug*

Hopefully I won't get every sentence I wrote (and sometimes clause) parsed and commented with some sort of sarcastic/borderline condescending phrase with an appropriate smilee (usually of the type or ).
<fingers crossed>

[rabble]

I'm on my phone so I can't do the quote stuff but I need to respond to this point in perticular, i know it won't change your mind because it is already set, but I feel it highlights where you are wrong.

You posted something to this effect: "its not wiretapping without warrants, its wiretapping suspected national security threats without warrants"

The key word here is suspect, why does the national security part modify the fact that its still wiretapping a suspect without a warrant, and if he IS a suspect then it should be easy enough to get a warrant. In fact, The FISA act allows for leeway for immediate wiretapping when a warrant is still in the process of being issued. So imediate action can be taken as long as a warrant is secured within a reasonable time.

The only logical explanation for the need for warrantless wiretaps is so that the government can wiretap everyone, run it through a computer looking for keywords (which I beleive they already do) and then be able to take that information and use it in a court of law against citizens. They cannot do this now because the unwarranted wiretaps would be thrown out, so they are trying to change the law. Stopping a terrorist is one thing, because they are more than likely not a citizen and therefore considered enemy combatants and sent to Cuba, but this sounds too much like trying to quell dissent in the citizen population by being able to charge joe blow in a court of law with whatever he talks about on the phone, and I am not comfortable with that.

[blaarg]

The only logical explanation for the need for warrantless wiretaps is so that the government can wiretap everyone, run it through a computer looking for keywords (which I beleive they already do)

dude, they CAN do that. Haven't you seen "The Bourne Supremacy"!

[rabble]

dude, they CAN do that. Haven't you seen "The Bourne Supremacy"!

No I haven't seen that movie. I guess that in itself is a little extreme, but the potential for abuse is still there and I don't like it. I guess I'm paranoid afterall, but just because its paranoia doesn't make it less true.

[FORSAKENR320]

I guess I'm paranoid afterall, but just because its paranoia doesn't make it less true.

here's your membership card. we are having the monthly meeting at Maxi park, BBQ and hotdogs. Cupcake is bringing the shotguns, i'm bringing the canned food, Lance is bringing the TinFoil Party Hats!


you're in charge of ice!

[Spectatrix]

here's your membership card. we are having the monthly meeting at Maxi park, BBQ and hotdogs. Cupcake is bringing the shotguns, i'm bringing the canned food, Lance is bringing the TinFoil Party Hats!
you're in charge of ice!

What can I bring?!?!







































(And I swear to god, if you say "titties" or similar, I will personally hunt you down and castrate you. )

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Feb 19 2008, 04:20 PM

[rabble]

"boobies!"

Hmm, bring the paper plates and the football.

[impala454]

The only logical explanation for the need for warrantless wiretaps is so that the government can wiretap everyone, run it through a computer looking for keywords (which I beleive they already do) and then be able to take that information and use it in a court of law against citizens.

And this is where the tinfoil hat party starts. Not to mention paranoia that defies all logic. I told you already, you can't have a conspiracy without a motive. What's the motive for the government to do something like this? What does it accomplish for them? Does George Bush make more money or something by wrongfully accusing & arresting some burkha wearing exchange student? I don't jump on the conspiracy bandwagon easily, but I will consider them if, and only if there is a motive. There simply isn't one in this discussion.

Second, this is physically impossible. It cannot happen. There is not a computer on this planet that can do what you're talking about. You could take over all of google and yahoo and every other giant server farm out there, and it's not possible. You could take over all the telecoms and every piece of equipment people use to communicate, and it still wouldn't be possible. I have worked in the telecom industry for nearly four years now, in working with everything from old switches to VoIP and everything in between, not to mention actual call recording software. We've set up call recording for centers as small as 100 stations, taking approx. 40,000 calls/day and they eat up 10TB hd arrays in less than a month. That's 100 phones. Do you have any clue how many people in our country are talking on the phone right this second, or the amount of storage space and processing power you'd have to have to analyze every word???

[FORSAKENR320]

What can I bring?!?!
(And I swear to god, if you say "titties" or similar, I will personally hunt you down and castrate you. )

as ira said. paper plates and football.


















and your titties

[FORSAKENR320]

Second, this is physically impossible. It cannot happen. There is not a computer on this planet that can do what you're talking about.

that YOU know about.....

[rabble]

And this is where the tinfoil hat party starts. Not to mention paranoia that defies all logic. I told you already, you can't have a conspiracy without a motive. What's the motive for the government to do something like this? What does it accomplish for them? Does George Bush make more money or something by wrongfully accusing & arresting some burkha wearing exchange student? I don't jump on the conspiracy bandwagon easily, but I will consider them if, and only if there is a motive. There simply isn't one in this discussion.

Second, this is physically impossible. It cannot happen. There is not a computer on this planet that can do what you're talking about. You could take over all of google and yahoo and every other giant server farm out there, and it's not possible. You could take over all the telecoms and every piece of equipment people use to communicate, and it still wouldn't be possible. I have worked in the telecom industry for nearly four years now, in working with everything from old switches to VoIP and everything in between, not to mention actual call recording software. We've set up call recording for centers as small as 100 stations, taking approx. 40,000 calls/day and they eat up 10TB hd arrays in less than a month. That's 100 phones. Do you have any clue how many people in our country are talking on the phone right this second, or the amount of storage space and processing power you'd have to have to analyze every word???

way to completely ignore the rest of the post dumbass... Ignoring the bullshit paranoia crap you keep spewing to completely ignore the rest of the valid argument, it IS possible that in order to do an end run around the legal system, prosecutors could simply label ordinary citizens as national security risks and not have to worry about pesky things like evidence or probably cause. Hey, this guy has a koran in his car, lets wiretap him even though we have no other credible evidence that he is doing anything wrong!

you cannot argue this point without saying "they wouldn't do this, it isn't right, it isn't legal, they would never do it to me!" And the reason you can't use your "they wouldn't do this" argument is because thats exactly what this bill does, it makes warrantless wiretaps legal, it makes them right, it lets them snoop on anyone they want to by giving them a label.

It's not wiretapping without warrants. It's wiretapping suspected national security threats without warrants.

Bingo, so do you think if the government started knocking down an even remotely high number of doors, we wouldn't stand for it and would do something about it.

Apparently not when they are given a label, I hope you stay on the right side of politics in the future, you wouldn't want to get the wrong kind of label.

[impala454]

way to completely ignore the rest of the post dumbass...

I didn't ignore the rest of your post, I just didn't quote all of it. And adding "dumbass" to the end of each sentence doesn't help your debate.

it IS possible that in order to do an end run around the legal system, prosecutors could simply label ordinary citizens as national security risks and not have to worry about pesky things like evidence or probably cause. Hey, this guy has a koran in his car, lets wiretap him even though we have no other credible evidence that he is doing anything wrong!

I didn't say it wasn't possible for this to happen. I said it's unlikely, because there is no motive. I've asked you several times now what you thought the government would gain from doing things like this. What's their motive in doing such a thing?

you cannot argue this point without saying "they wouldn't do this, it isn't right, it isn't legal, they would never do it to me!" And the reason you can't use your "they wouldn't do this" argument is because thats exactly what this bill does, it makes warrantless wiretaps legal, it makes them right, it lets them snoop on anyone they want to by giving them a label.
Apparently not when they are given a label, I hope you stay on the right side of politics in the future, you wouldn't want to get the wrong kind of label.

Again, same thing. I know that the government could do what you're saying. They could also bring in the army and declare martial law and abolish all rights, but have they? No. The point here isn't what's possible, it's what's probable. For the umpteenth time, for a conspiracy theory to be true, there absolutely must be a motive of some sort. And in all this ranting and calling me a dumbass, you still have not given me any motive for such a conspiracy to exist.

[rabble]

And so because there isn't a motive today means there will never be an opportunity for this to be used on ordinary citizens in the future.

You are right, there isn't a rational reason why anyone would ever need to tap my phone or log my computer as of today, but the possibility that, if anyone felt like it, they could is what worries me. I'm not exactly sure how it is bullshit paranoia to objectively look at a situation and say " the potential of abuse is too great, therefore I do not like it and feel it is a violation of my rights." In fact, by your own admission you agree that they could do such a thing.

So the argument boils down to the fact that we both agree that they could wiretap anyone if they wanted and my argument is that there is too much risk of abuse while your argument is that they have mo reason to abuse it. Right, so I'm paranoid and you're living in a fantasy land where the government has never abused its power, I guess we are both totally nuts

[blaarg]

So the argument boils down to the fact that we both agree that they could wiretap anyone if they wanted and my argument is that there is too much risk of abuse while your argument is that they have mo reason to abuse it.

mo' reason mo' problems as Biggie would say...

[impala454]

I'm not saying I completely trust the government. I just don't see a problem with letting them do what they say they're going to do, and don't really feel my rights are curtailed because [A] government person decides its ok vs [B] government person. [A] being some CIA investigator vs [B] being some judge. It's possible for them to abuse it any way you slice it. But I just can't get worked up over them abusing it if they don't really have much to gain out of it.