| Welcome to Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you are registering with a Yahoo e-mail address, or if you are having trouble receiving your validation e-mail, please refer to this topic for assistance. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Wait a minute.... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 3 2006, 06:39 PM (2,252 Views) | |
| Wind Sword | Jan 3 2006, 06:39 PM Post #1 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
![]()
|
Who cares if the President can tap all our phones? The only ones he'll tap are those who are suspected terrorists. And even if they're wrong, so they don't hear anything. The government doesn't care if you're cheating on your wife or dissing your boss. The only thing they'll use against you is if you admit to a crime over the phone. And isn't that a good thing? Is it a violation of your rights? Probably. Should we care? I'm not so sure. Who does care? People with something to hide...
|
~~Wind Sword
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
![]() |
|
| (*Jman*) | Jan 3 2006, 06:47 PM Post #2 |
|
Kakatte Koi!
![]()
|
Riiiiiight. Maybe they don't care, but they shouldn't have that information. Especially if they get hacked. Then they get totally pwned for doing something that they shouldn't have done in the first place, and then YOU get totally pwned for something they shouldn't have done in the first place. Imagine there is a camera installed in your bathtub that you don't know about and people watch teh tapes. Sure, you have nothing to hide. But that doesn't mean that people should still be able to do that. |
![]() ![]() Formerly Omni, Rosa, Terra, Serra, Captain Star Falco, Minamimoto | |
![]() |
|
| Brazy CK | Jan 3 2006, 06:56 PM Post #3 |
![]()
5 warnings=ban
![]()
|
Because there's a little thing called freedom of speech... and tapping peoples' phones kind of makes a mockery of that...? |
![]() |
|
| Santi | Jan 3 2006, 07:01 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Da Niggaz Leader
![]()
|
I intercepted some people's phone conversations with some walkie talkie. I don't care if it's an invasion of privacy, but it's really fun. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Inui | Jan 3 2006, 07:19 PM Post #5 |
|
Power of Flower
![]()
|
National security > personal privacy. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Brazy CK | Jan 3 2006, 07:21 PM Post #6 |
![]()
5 warnings=ban
![]()
|
Then tell me good sir, what is the point of having a bill of rights if the government can side-step it that easily? =. |
![]() |
|
| Edgar | Jan 3 2006, 07:30 PM Post #7 |
![]()
|
I think it is a violation of are rights, but if they are not repeating or copying any of the conversations then I think it is ok. If you had a choice what would you pick? Your wife finding out that you are cheating on her, or someplace getting bombed and innocent people dying? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Inui | Jan 3 2006, 07:36 PM Post #8 |
|
Power of Flower
![]()
|
Would you prefer we take the risk of our nation being attacked again by terrorists? I prefer Alexander Hamilton's outlook on the national government. It should be able to address any problems with the neccessary and proper methods regardless of whether it is mentioned in the Constitution or not. |
| |
![]() |
|
| sephiroth667 | Jan 3 2006, 07:37 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Nostalgia
![]()
|
That is just plain dumb. I could easily counter it, but I have better things to do. Like Lucas said, National Security>Personal Privacy |
| |
![]() |
|
| Brazy CK | Jan 3 2006, 07:41 PM Post #10 |
![]()
5 warnings=ban
![]()
|
Let's give an "oorah" for unsupported flaming! I just don't like the idea of the government being able to listen to any conversation without having to consult anyone to decide the authenticity of the lead or, you know, being a democracy instead of a dictatorship? o_o; |
![]() |
|
| Cyrus | Jan 3 2006, 07:43 PM Post #11 |
![]()
|
Although it would feel a little creepy, I really wouldn't care. As stated in Locke's philosphy, in order to have a stable government, you'll have to give up some freedom and rights. And as Santi said, they must having one heck of a party. |
![]() |
|
| (*Jman*) | Jan 3 2006, 08:54 PM Post #12 |
|
Kakatte Koi!
![]()
|
Problem. You're a total n00b. Does that mean the government can take you and throw you in prison? Unfortunately, that isn't possible because the United States Government does not recognize that n00bs are an inferior species and thus should have less rights than trees. There's the flaw with Hamilton's idea. There are far too many important problems to solve for the government to do whatever is necessary. The reeducation of n00bs, and I'm being [size=6]entirely[/size] serious and unsarcastic here, should be far more important than invading Iraq. I mean, there are so many uneducated n00bs, and so many n00bs who are "educated" but are still total n00bs. But the reeducation of n00bs is a complete violation of the Constitution, as n00bs are considered human by the government. Which is why we can't reeducate n00bs. So why should they be able to tap phones and not reeducate n00bs? And unfortunately for us all, those terrorists...whoops, meant total n00bs, probably know the government taps phones. So unless they're complete n00bs, or the government officials tapping the phones can't understand n00bish, they probably wouldn't use phones to communicate. So really, we're just getting rid of privacy w/o helping national securtiy :angry: I don't use phones though, so the whole phone-tapping business doesn't matter much to me. Why bother? It's much more efficient to have multiple MSN/AIM windows open than 2 listen. But still, I'd have to agree with teh_pwnerer's view on politics.
|
![]() ![]() Formerly Omni, Rosa, Terra, Serra, Captain Star Falco, Minamimoto | |
![]() |
|
| sephiroth667 | Jan 3 2006, 09:12 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Nostalgia
![]()
|
If I wanted to flame you, Richie, I could've. Now to back my opposition of your foolishness up. Freedom isn't free- a commonly heard term, but one people seem to not take to heart. If you want to live freely, some things must be given up. Now I believe with OmniHax on part of this, that terrorists will probably realize the gov't is tapping the phones but is it really worth the risk? Back to the whole freedom isn't free concept, you must give up certain rights sometimes to keep all of your rights most of the time. When pricks like terrorists endanger not only our rights but our lives, people have to partly give up rights such as privacy to ensure safety. Now I know what someone is going to bring up, "W0mFg if w3 13t t3m take our r1ghyts d3n d3y wi11 take t3m 411 3nd d4 t3rr15t5 w1n" Well bull. I could go on, but I'm lazy. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Brazy CK | Jan 3 2006, 09:28 PM Post #14 |
![]()
5 warnings=ban
![]()
|
And I'd counter that, but Omni pretty much summed it up and I've got better things to do than to argue when there's no point in it. |
![]() |
|
| sephiroth667 | Jan 3 2006, 09:53 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Nostalgia
![]()
|
o o i c ur givin mee uh taste uh muh own medisen hyuk. Whatever. I have better things to do then play with foolish liberals My opinion summed up: The freedom isn't free theory explains it all. If you won't allow your country to do something necessary to safety at the minor cost of partial invasion of privacy, then you certainly wouldn't die for your country nor for what it stands for, and so you may as well go live in Russia where a potatoe costs more than a bottle of Vodka. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
3:16 AM Jul 11
|















3:16 AM Jul 11