Awww... poor republicans Options

[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.