Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 10
Wait a minute....
Topic Started: Jan 3 2006, 06:39 PM (2,255 Views)
Brazy CK
Member Avatar
5 warnings=ban

You don't think that a what a person thinks and says actually belongs to him? Who does it belong to, praytell?

Oh, and by the way, that little note you made at the bottom of your post was completely irrelevent considering how illogical your argument was in that topic, anyway.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sephiroth667
Member Avatar
Nostalgia

When the fuck did this turn into a debate over what the word "search" means?

Bush is doing something MINOR compared to what Clinton did before him. Clinton authroized personal searches, near strip searches, without a warrant. Carter did similar before him. You are going to let someone feel up your genitals without resistance, sure that's fine, but God forbid the government hears about how Sally is a slut.

Those who don't believe in this make me sick. It is not like we are even using this on anyone, we are using this on suspected terrorists and those suspected to be in contact with terrorists. As much as you say the gov't want to pry in your life, I don't think they give a crap whether or not they know who your boyfriend is.

Oh and Reaver, there is nothing to hear at Democratic meetings. Generally it's just a bunch of farting and "duuuurrr"s with the occasional retarded idea to bounce around. Oh, and a whole lot of ketchup and Dean Screeming.
Quote:
 
Up here in Canada government officials have shoes thrown at them all of the time
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crysta
Member Avatar
wat

Quote:
 
Does that really belong in a debate forum?  I spell my screen name Sentenal, I don't give a shit that the actual word is Sentinel.


Not really, even if the singing actually had a relevant undertone.

Just asking, really. Maybe Sentenal was actually a name.

Quote:
 
True, this is one instance where one is searching for something thats not physical, but this is still not the same thing as listening in on a conversation.


No. A conscience doesn't have the same chemical composition as a phone call. Nothing ever will other than a phone call. However, it does mean you can search for something with something other than your eyes, like with your ears for example. It doesn't have to be a physical act like you claim.

Quote:
 
I don't consider things you say as a belonging, or a possession.


I think my house and the things I bought with my money are my possessions.

I think myself is my own possession too and I would like a valid reason as to why I'm being seized.

Quote:
 
And really, as was said very early in this topic, national security is a bit more important that privacy in conversations between you and someone outside the country.


It's a false sense of national security. If people want to blow us up, they're not going to tell us about it. Yeah, sure, they'll throw out empty threats... but the complex planning and the stuff we should worry more about will go unnoticed since no one is stupid enough (or at least shouldn't be) to contact us and explain themselves. Osama certainly wouldn't do that.

So either they're lying to us and actually are searching through conversations we're having within our nation (I have a feeling most people who complain about this already think this is true), or they're setting this up to fool us into thinking we're safe.

If the former is true there isn't any guarantee that the information won't be used against them in other issues (afterall, there ARE corrupt individuals in the government and investigation teams, believe it or not). Whether or not it is against the Constitution will always be debeatable because -- like the Bible -- it's been written a couple centuries ago and society has gone through some obvious changes. It'll be a battle of interpetation that should probably be left to the people who were entrusted to decide these things -- the courts, not forumites.

If the latter is true, then great, we're a tick safer from before and spared the wrath of the degenerates of the terrorist brood. I'm still in danger of being nuked by Korea and Iran is looking pretty hostile right now. Lets not even get into the terrorists running about in our own nation. They don't all wear turbans and worship Allah, you know. My boyfriend has had his stores only robbed twice, that's all. But I guess that's completely different as well.

Quote:
 
I don't want to hear anything from you about definitions, seeing as how you don't want to accept the definition of terrorism (see that other thread).


Lets not dredge up that dead horse.
~ Crysta, Zombie Queen
Posted Image
Trophy Case


GODonPCP
 
I always give frying pans to female survivors in Dead Rising. It's really the only thing I'm confident they know how to use.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brazy CK
Member Avatar
5 warnings=ban

Punishment Divine
Jan 20 2006, 08:02 PM
When the fuck did this turn into a debate over what the word "search" means?

Bush is doing something MINOR compared to what Clinton did before him. Clinton authroized personal searches, near strip searches, without a warrant. Carter did similar before him. You are going to let someone feel up your genitals without resistance, sure that's fine, but God forbid the government hears about how Sally is a slut.

Those who don't believe in this make me sick. It is not like we are even using this on anyone, we are using this on suspected terrorists and those suspected to be in contact with terrorists. As much as you say the gov't want to pry in your life, I don't think they give a crap whether or not they know who your boyfriend is.

Oh and Reaver, there is nothing to hear at Democratic meetings. Generally it's just a bunch of farting and "duuuurrr"s with the occasional retarded idea to bounce around. Oh, and a whole lot of ketchup and Dean Screeming.

Because being having a warrant is something that the law requires you to do in order to be able to search every half-assed threat that comes up?

The whole controversy is that there is no restriction as to WHO the government is able to listen to. And I don't believe any government is pure enough not to abuse this power.

Oh, and can we please leave the flaming of political parties out of this?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sephiroth667
Member Avatar
Nostalgia

Richie
Jan 21 2006, 02:13 AM
Punishment Divine
Jan 20 2006, 08:02 PM
When the fuck did this turn into a debate over what the word "search" means?

Bush is doing something MINOR compared to what Clinton did before him. Clinton authroized personal searches, near strip searches, without a warrant. Carter did similar before him. You are going to let someone feel up your genitals without resistance, sure that's fine, but God forbid the government hears about how Sally is a slut.

Those who don't believe in this make me sick. It is not like we are even using this on anyone, we are using this on suspected terrorists and those suspected to be in contact with terrorists. As much as you say the gov't want to pry in your life, I don't think they give a crap whether or not they know who your boyfriend is.

Oh and Reaver, there is nothing to hear at Democratic meetings. Generally it's just a bunch of farting and "duuuurrr"s with the occasional retarded idea to bounce around. Oh, and a whole lot of ketchup and Dean Screeming.

Because being having a warrant is something that the law requires you to do in order to be able to search every half-assed threat that comes up?

The whole controversy is that there is no restriction as to WHO the government is able to listen to. And I don't believe any government is pure enough not to abuse this power.

Oh, and can we please leave the flaming of political parties out of this?

The law may require that, but two presidents before Bush have implicated some form of this WITHOUT A WARRANT.

Sure, no government is pure enough to not abuse this power, so? I doubt the government is going to care, as I stated before, what you say or do if you have nothing to hide. Most like 96% of the time it will be used what it was meant for, which is a lot considering the so few amount of times we choose to use it.

And no, I will not, because that seems to be all I see in these topics- Bush Bashing and foolish liberal antics.

Richie, as much as I respect you, you are keeping the same argument over and over again and it is getting demolished from several different points. Just because the books say we are a democracy does not mean we are- we are capitalists before we are democratic. The people can not be expected to win every single fight, so I don't see why you choose to go against this now when the main idea of this is to HELP us.
Quote:
 
Up here in Canada government officials have shoes thrown at them all of the time
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brazy CK
Member Avatar
5 warnings=ban

Punishment Divine
Jan 20 2006, 08:32 PM
Richie
Jan 21 2006, 02:13 AM
Punishment Divine
Jan 20 2006, 08:02 PM
When the fuck did this turn into a debate over what the word "search" means?

Bush is doing something MINOR compared to what Clinton did before him. Clinton authroized personal searches, near strip searches, without a warrant. Carter did similar before him. You are going to let someone feel up your genitals without resistance, sure that's fine, but God forbid the government hears about how Sally is a slut.

Those who don't believe in this make me sick. It is not like we are even using this on anyone, we are using this on suspected terrorists and those suspected to be in contact with terrorists. As much as you say the gov't want to pry in your life, I don't think they give a crap whether or not they know who your boyfriend is.

Oh and Reaver, there is nothing to hear at Democratic meetings. Generally it's just a bunch of farting and "duuuurrr"s with the occasional retarded idea to bounce around. Oh, and a whole lot of ketchup and Dean Screeming.

Because being having a warrant is something that the law requires you to do in order to be able to search every half-assed threat that comes up?

The whole controversy is that there is no restriction as to WHO the government is able to listen to. And I don't believe any government is pure enough not to abuse this power.

Oh, and can we please leave the flaming of political parties out of this?

The law may require that, but two presidents before Bush have implicated some form of this WITHOUT A WARRANT.

Sure, no government is pure enough to not abuse this power, so? I doubt the government is going to care, as I stated before, what you say or do if you have nothing to hide. Most like 96% of the time it will be used what it was meant for, which is a lot considering the so few amount of times we choose to use it.

And no, I will not, because that seems to be all I see in these topics- Bush Bashing and foolish liberal antics.

Richie, as much as I respect you, you are keeping the same argument over and over again and it is getting demolished from several different points. Just because the books say we are a democracy does not mean we are- we are capitalists before we are democratic. The people can not be expected to win every single fight, so I don't see why you choose to go against this now when the main idea of this is to HELP us.

If only you had some proof to back that up.

You are ignoring pages of arguments stating how absolutely no terrorists would be retarded enough to shout out their plans of attack on an open telephone connection in an enemy country.

Liberal antics are one thing (one thing not deserving of the flaming you just did there, by the way), but I've yet to see one Bush-flaming statement not backed up with evidence... Unless I'm missing something? Seriously, point it out to me and I'll see your argument.

And as much as I respect you, you are ignoring pages of arguments contradicting everything you're saying. I don't see one post where my arguments were "demolished".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crysta
Member Avatar
wat

Quote:
 
The law may require that, but two presidents before Bush have implicated some form of this WITHOUT A WARRANT.


OHNOES. I guess that makes what he does perfectly okay, somehow.

Or perhaps it's because you're wondering why we're not griping about them. It may have something to do with THEM NOT BEING PRESIDENT ANY MORE.

Quote:
 
Sure, no government is pure enough to not abuse this power, so?


So expect people not to trust it, maybe?

Quote:
 
I doubt the government is going to care, as I stated before, what you say or do if you have nothing to hide.


Are you the government? Do you know what they think? Do you have any idea of the number of possible ways they can screw you over if they wanted to? Or namely, if certain individuals wanted to? How about if they somehow make you out to be a threat to national security because your great great great grandfather was a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Your vote of confidence doesn't necessarily make me leap for joy. You're a kid like the rest of us.

Quote:
 
Most like 96% of the time it will be used what it was meant for, which is a lot considering the so few amount of times we choose to use it.


Most statistics are inaccurate. Especially when they're made by questionable sources who have done little to no research.

Quote:
 
And no, I will not, because that seems to be all I see in these topics- Bush Bashing and foolish liberal antics.


Are you sure that's not just what you're willing to see? Bush has been mentioned very little in this thread.

The rest is specifically for Richie, so I won't comment. He seems to do fine himself.
~ Crysta, Zombie Queen
Posted Image
Trophy Case


GODonPCP
 
I always give frying pans to female survivors in Dead Rising. It's really the only thing I'm confident they know how to use.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wind Sword
Member Avatar
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY

I love how even though they gave the legal definition in the definition, they prefer the unrelated one that supports their ideas.

Supposing wiretaps still fall under the def of "searching", than so does leading a basic criminal investigation. In otherwards, any information you have about a suspect goes down the drain.

That part of my previous post was entirely ignored. Except for Crysta who said we should have seperate admendments for all of them. But not wiretapping?

If listening in on calls needs a warrant, than overhearing any basic conversation won't hold up in court. It's a mockery of the justice system.

Richie
 
It's the same as searching a house, except now they don't need a warrant, and it's via the phone.

... Ummmmm, OK? Thanks! :)

Quote:
 
The whole controversy is that there is no restriction as to WHO the government is able to listen to. And I don't believe any government is pure enough not to abuse this power.

Perish the thought that the not-actually-liberal media should bring only to light Republican antics. I didn't hear whining when Clinton claimed ultimate authority in all security matters.

Quote:
 

I think my house and the things I bought with my money are my possessions.

I think myself is my own possession too and I would like a valid reason as to why I'm being seized.

No one says you can search a home without a warrant. You're putting words into our mouths.

Quote:
 
  You don't think that a what a person thinks and says actually belongs to him? Who does it belong to, praytell?

Think? No. But the whole purpose of speaking is to communicate something you're thinking to another person. When you speak, you let your privacy down to say something.

Quote:
 
Oh and Reaver, there is nothing to hear at Democratic meetings. Generally it's just a bunch of farting and "duuuurrr"s with the occasional retarded idea to bounce around. Oh, and a whole lot of ketchup and Dean Screeming.

Now, now, kindly keep the political slurs out of this.

Quote:
 
If the latter is true, then great, we're a tick safer from before and spared the wrath of the degenerates of the terrorist brood. I'm still in danger of being nuked by Korea and Iran is looking pretty hostile right now. Lets not even get into the terrorists running about in our own nation. They don't all wear turbans and worship Allah, you know. My boyfriend has had his stores only robbed twice, that's all. But I guess that's completely different as well.

You don't think we're worried about them? We are. Currently there is only one nation who doesn't think Iran is a threat; Iran. France has promised to go to war with us if it comes to it. FRANCE! That says something! And Korea is, in all honesty, not a threat. People are all freaked because they have weapons, but they've never even threatened us. We just want to stop someone else being hurt. For terrorist at home, we have police.

@Richie-You might of misunderstood Senty's post. If I quote:
Quote:
 
For those of us who base our entire lives upon textbook definitions.

But now you base your entire arguement on three words on Dictionary.com. Do you get his point now?

and here's your proof:
National Review
 
In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

New York Times
 
An executive order issued by President Carter in January 1978 established the standard that governs the use of searches for intelligence purposes today. Such searches, it said, ‘’shall not be undertaken against a United States person without a judicial warrant, unless the President has authorized the type of activity involved and the Attorney General has both approved the particular activity and determined that there is probable cause to believe that the United States person is an agent of a foreign power.'’


Quote:
 
OHNOES. I guess that makes what he does perfectly okay, somehow.

Or perhaps it's because you're wondering why we're not griping about them. It may have something to do with THEM NOT BEING PRESIDENT ANY MORE.

Two Democrats? Um yeah.
And Clinton did it before he was elected a second time. And while they WEREN'T at war.

Quote:
 
Are you the government? Do you know what they think? Do you have any idea of the number of possible ways they can screw you over if they wanted to? Or namely, if certain individuals wanted to? How about if they somehow make you out to be a threat to national security because your great great great grandfather was a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Your vote of confidence doesn't necessarily make me leap for joy. You're a kid like the rest of us.

Actually, he's legally an adult. And can vote. And that's guilt by association, not allowed. It all comes down to whether you trust our President, and guess what? 51% did. We won. You lose. Get over it. Get an impeachment. Good luck with our New Supreme Court and our Republican dominated Senate.

Is it unfair? Guess how much I care? This is first. Abortion, Gay Marriage, and "Under God" are next. And there's nothing any Democrat can do about it. The sooner you admit that it's lost up top, the sooner you can convert the population to save yourselves.

Quote:
 
Most statistics are inaccurate. Especially when they're made by questionable sources who have done little to no research.

Pretty sure he made that up. By no means meant to be accurate.

You are right, there is little Bush-Bashing. But I fear this isn't about presidental power, but rather Bush's power. If Kerry made it, we probably wouldn't even be discussing this. Again, calm down, Sephiroth.
~~Wind Sword

Quote:
 
Please keep Christian bashing to a minimum. This is mainly the American South (and mainly Evangelical death cults), which is similar to Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Touching.

Scientology
Quote:
 
Clones are create and people can't bore a clone. Scientifically they are called born and not created. The only way to pre-determine their genes is if they are already out in the world usually in a pod that would resemble the sac in a mothers womb. Take Star Wars for example.

Smartest post ever made.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brazy CK
Member Avatar
5 warnings=ban

Quote:
 
If listening in on calls needs a warrant, than overhearing any basic conversation won't hold up in court. It's a mockery of the justice system.


Does the fact that they overheard it still make it moral? Does the fact that they're using it in a justice system make it any less an invasion of privacy? Besides, the private sector does not necessarily have an obligation to obey the law, that is, to 'search' and acquire information that was not intended to be public without first going through a process of evaluating the claim of whether or not the lead is worth it in the first place.

Quote:
 
... Ummmmm, OK? Thanks! :)


K.

Quote:
 
Perish the thought that the not-actually-liberal media should bring only to light Republican antics. I didn't hear whining when Clinton claimed ultimate authority in all security matters.


Hell, I'm sure there was some, although since it wasn't brought into the public eye so much (no doubt due to the excessive liberalness of the media, yes), it's a null point, because that's in the past. What we're discussing is actually putting through a bill to break an part of the constitution, and whether or not the media chooses to advertise it isn't really part of the argument.

Quote:
 
But now you base your entire arguement on three words on Dictionary.com. Do you get his point now?


Admittedly, yes, words can be interpreted in different fashions, but I'm talking about another use of the word that is absolutely supported by the English language, not one that is just used in context.

And the rest isn't addressed to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sephiroth667
Member Avatar
Nostalgia

Thank you Wind Sword, you summed everything up for me pretty much.

Richie, if I am expected to find proof for everything I suggest everyone on your side do the same. The Bush Bashing I have seen are bias comments with proof from bias sources.

Crysta, you say that terrorists are not stupid enough to use the phone, but guess what? If we DON'T tap the phones when we see necessary then they WILL use the phones, which is the most convenient way of communication next to email, and Lord knows we have that covered. So unless you have some alterior way of doing this, I suggest you drop that argument.

Yeah, they aren't president anymore, but they once WERE rpesidents, and my point was that no one bitched about that when THEY implicated search without warrant.

Your whole "how they could screw you" claim is canceled out by what WS said about privacy. The government could screw you, but so could little Jimmy from down the lane. Jimmy overhears you talking about how your middle name is Clarence. Oh Noes! Now he wants candy every day for a month so he won't tell. Sure, the government doesn't exactly want candy, but the argument is the same- You put yourself at risk every time you open your mouth.

I shall calm down, but this is seriously nerve racking.
Quote:
 
Up here in Canada government officials have shoes thrown at them all of the time
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sentenal
Member Avatar
Won the Impossible Debate (twice)

Quote:
 
If only you had some proof to back that up.(about former presidents doing it)

Richie, do some research yourself, Clinton did authorize wire tapping, and several other things worse than what is happening here.

Quote:
 
Are you the government? Do you know what they think? Do you have any idea of the number of possible ways they can screw you over if they wanted to? Or namely, if certain individuals wanted to? How about if they somehow make you out to be a threat to national security because your great great great grandfather was a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Your vote of confidence doesn't necessarily make me leap for joy. You're a kid like the rest of us.

Thats just paranoia there. Why the hell would the government want to screw over your everyday guy for no reason? Your distrust of the government to protect you (by doing what they need to) will prevent them from protecting you.

Quote:
 
I think my house and the things I bought with my money are my possessions.

I think myself is my own possession too and I would like a valid reason as to why I'm being seized.

I'm not following your logic here. Houses and things are possession. I guess you could consider yourself as a possession in some manner of the word, although thats an akward way of putting it. But are you saying that you yourself and what you say are the same thing?

When you say something, anyone is free to hear it. You don't get to decide who gets to hear what you say.

[edit]Windsword, your alot better at this than I am :)
Posted Image[/center]
Conquered FEFF Awards

Quote:
 
Laharl: 48/2(9+3)=36
Quote:
 
Laharl: Also, you can't multiply a number by one.
Quote:
 
Laharl: 1 cannot be used as a multiplier.
Quote:
 
Laharl: I wasn't good at math. That doesn't make me an idiot!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
invisobill
Member Avatar
<====[::(' . ')::]====>

Why does it matter if you're being listened in on? The only reason you should want to hide anything is if A) the person listening in on you knows you personally, which is insanely doubtful, or B) you are doing something unlawful that you need to hide.
Posted Image
Cor Noctur
Mounted Knight
Class: Lance Knight
HP: 14
STR: 3
SKL: 4
SPD: 3
LUK: 2
DEF: 5
RES: 3
Posted Image
Formerly linkz117.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crysta
Member Avatar
wat

Quote:
 
I love how even though they gave the legal definition in the definition, they prefer the unrelated one that supports their ideas.


Um. Right. It's a definition given in response to someone questioning it, so I don't see that.

Quote:
 
Supposing wiretaps still fall under the def of "searching", than so does leading a basic criminal investigation. In otherwards, any information you have about a suspect goes down the drain.


If done without a warrant, which usually isn't the case, then yes. It can be.

But in normal investigations a warrant is usually involved, unless I'm missing something here...

Quote:
 
That part of my previous post was entirely ignored. Except for Crysta who said we should have seperate admendments for all of them. But not wiretapping?


If you want to, go ahead. I think it's redundant. That was mostly done in sarcasm, since you seem to want to have every little thing outlined... well, when it's something you may not want to fall under the blanket definition, at least.

Quote:
 
If listening in on calls needs a warrant, than overhearing any basic conversation won't hold up in court. It's a mockery of the justice system.


Only the government needs warrants. If I hear you it doesn't really matter. You may wanna hurt me, though.

Quote:
 
Perish the thought that the not-actually-liberal media should bring only to light Republican antics. I didn't hear whining when Clinton claimed ultimate authority in all security matters.


Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of whining on Fox news.

I could be like you guys and go throughout the history of presidential violations of some of our best Republican presidents, but since that has no relevance to the actual issue at hand and serves as nothing more than a device to somehow make myself feel morally superior and justified when I'm really not, but it doesn't look very appealing.

And before someone brings up CNN and the liberal media again, I KNOW they're biased and shouldn't be regarded as reliable sources of information without first confronting that. So no problems there.

And I KNOW there's been Democratic douchebags in office before. What makes you think all of us are down with everything they do? THEY'RE POLITICIANS.

Quote:
 
No one says you can search a home without a warrant. You're putting words into our mouths.


I know you can't search a home without a warrant. That's not what I was saying. I was saying what I believed were and were not my belongings, thus whether or not they're protected from an unwarranted search.

You're not comprehending.

Quote:
 
Think? No. But the whole purpose of speaking is to communicate something you're thinking to another person. When you speak, you let your privacy down to say something.


You may not always say what you truly think. It's called lying. And that's not always the case anyway. You can be re-stateing a fact, for example. Simply communicating to someone doesn't warrant eavesdropping, anyway. You communicate through words in a journal, supposedly to the journal, but that doesn't make it any less private.

Communication is more of a device to aid in comprehension and clarification, in my opinion. It means different things to different people, like a good portion of this entire debate.

Quote:
 
You don't think we're worried about them? We are.


You may be, but I have doubts about the current administration. I think Iran was much more of a threat to us than Iraq, but it was a much tougher job (thus, Iraq came first). Now we're not getting our hands dirty when it may actually matter because of the political atmosphere. I don't think they want any more plummeting approval ratings and their term is almost up (thus shifting the responsibility to the next administration). I don't think the next administration is gonna wanna take aggressive action in time, either.

But that's just me and my cynicism. Maybe those sentiments will be somewhat subdued if McCain is elected instead of Hilary.

But that's a whole other debate.

Quote:
 
France has promised to go to war with us if it comes to it. FRANCE! That says something!


It's France. When's the last time they've actually won a military engagement? Only the most radical among us wouldn't know the reason why they're saying that...

Quote:
 
And Korea is, in all honesty, not a threat.


Not yet, but I wouldn't underestimate the small island that beat us in 'Nam. Even though that technically was... Vietnam.

They're still hostile, deceptive, and have weapons that could reach L.A. There may not be a whole lot of logic behind it, but I don't count on every other country being logical any more than I expect my own.

Quote:
 
People are all freaked because they have weapons, but they've never even threatened us.


Okay, I guess I'll just wait until they come out and officially say they're gonna bomb us.

Quote:
 
Two Democrats? Um yeah.
And Clinton did it before he was elected a second time. And while they WEREN'T at war.


IT DOESN'T MATTER. Okay, you want me to say the obvious. They were wrong, vicious, immoral and deserve to be devoured by a pack of rabid hyenas.

Geez.

Quote:
 
Actually, he's legally an adult. And can vote.


So am I. I still consider myself a kid, but fine. We're big people now.

Quote:
 
And that's guilt by association, not allowed.


Normally, hopefully, yes. But you know... our government HAS done that in the past. McCarthy anyone? Nutcases get in.

Quote:
 
It all comes down to whether you trust our President, and guess what? 51% did. We won. You lose. Get over it. Get an impeachment. Good luck with our New Supreme Court and our Republican dominated Senate.


We did get over it. I'm not entirely sure if you guys have. Given all the bragging, I don't see why you don't expect the liberals to be a little bit on the peeved side. You bring all that up and then you tag on "get over it". Makes a lot of sense, really.

If I was president I would have liked the elections to be a little more one-sided, anyway. That's a pretty big losing side.

Quote:
 
Crysta, you say that terrorists are not stupid enough to use the phone, but guess what? If we DON'T tap the phones when we see necessary then they WILL use the phones, which is the most convenient way of communication next to email, and Lord knows we have that covered. So unless you have some alterior way of doing this, I suggest you drop that argument.


I can suggest you go jump off a cliff, but I'm realistic enough not to get my hopes high.

I go back to my earlier statement: it's an attempt to make us think we're safe. We're not. Safer by a small measure, but not the safest we could be. If they don't use the phones, you're spending too much attention on something futile and probably could be investing it in more productive pursuits.

I'm not going to give you an alternative way to catch the terrorists, since obviously our own government can't figure one out. But if you want to think this makes you safe and sound because I can't, go ahead. It is of no consequence to me. I know better.

Quote:
 
Yeah, they aren't president anymore, but they once WERE rpesidents, and my point was that no one bitched about that when THEY implicated search without warrant.


No one was AWARE of it, otherwise I don't see why we wouldn't have made such a stink. Or at least I didn't know, and I don't think your main audience here did either.

You're crying over spilt milk. If it makes you feel better, give me their addresses and I'll lay a pile of flaming dog poop on their doorstep.

Quote:
 
Your whole "how they could screw you" claim is canceled out by what WS said about privacy.


How? They could still screw you over. It's just a matter of whether or not they're justified in their screwing, which I said will be debateable until the world ends.

Quote:
 
The government could screw you, but so could little Jimmy from down the lane. Jimmy overhears you talking about how your middle name is Clarence. Oh Noes! Now he wants candy every day for a month so he won't tell. Sure, the government doesn't exactly want candy, but the argument is the same- You put yourself at risk every time you open your mouth.


And little Jimmy is a prick and unjustified in his candy-stealing. You see, if you abadon all moral emphasis on such things, that's when it doesn't matter and you can do whatever you want. Unfortunately our country is a democracy and hasn't reached that stage, eh? We feel obligated to be morally right in what we do.

Quote:
 
I shall calm down, but this is seriously nerve racking.


We can only distress you with your permission.

Quote:
 
Thats just paranoia there. Why the hell would the government want to screw over your everyday guy for no reason? Your distrust of the government to protect you (by doing what they need to) will prevent them from protecting you.


Who said it wasn't for a reason?

Honestly, if they would tap me, I wouldn't really care. My life isn't interesting enough to worry about it, but others may, and it's not because they may be terrorists.

Here is where we differ in opinion: what they "need" to do. Did wire tapping prevent 9/11? No. It was even more preventable than wiretapping. All we really needed to do was investigate the warnings. Sorry, but the government isn't perfect, even if it's better than most of the others. Sometimes you need to protect yourself from it. That applies to all governments.

Quote:
 
I'm not following your logic here. Houses and things are possession. I guess you could consider yourself as a possession in some manner of the word, although thats an akward way of putting it. But are you saying that you yourself and what you say are the same thing?


Eh, something got lost in translation and I'm too lazy to scroll up and figure it out. I don't know who else would own my words, though.

Quote:
 
When you say something, anyone is free to hear it. You don't get to decide who gets to hear what you say.


I can take measures to limit the possibility of certain people from hearing to the point where it's near-impossible. And government secrets aren't "free" for anyone to hear most of the time, being secrets and all. I don't see why that doesn't apply to anyone else. You can hear it, but there are consequences, so it's only "free" in the monetary sense.
~ Crysta, Zombie Queen
Posted Image
Trophy Case


GODonPCP
 
I always give frying pans to female survivors in Dead Rising. It's really the only thing I'm confident they know how to use.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reaver
Troll

invisobill
Jan 20 2006, 10:57 PM
Why does it matter if you're being listened in on? The only reason you should want to hide anything is if A) the person listening in on you knows you personally, which is insanely doubtful, or B) you are doing something unlawful that you need to hide.

They could listen in on anyone without any sort of paperwork it happened. That means that the Republicans/Democrats can abuse this to learn political secrets by accusing the other party of having terrorist ties, even if it is false. That would create an America ruled by one party, therefore eliminating democracy.
Neon,June 8 2005
07:34 PM
@Reaver: Me grammer is better than ur post count newbie.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sentenal
Member Avatar
Won the Impossible Debate (twice)

I'm going to leave most of that for Windsword, since hes better at this than me, but I'll comment on some things here.

Quote:
 
I can take measures to limit the possibility of certain people from hearing to the point where it's near-impossible. And government secrets aren't "free" for anyone to hear most of the time, being secrets and all. I don't see why that doesn't apply to anyone else. You can hear it, but there are consequences, so it's only "free" in the monetary sense.

If someone in the government says something top-secret (he leaks it), its fair game for anyone. How exactly do you think we know about this?

Quote:
 
Here is where we differ in opinion: what they "need" to do. Did wire tapping prevent 9/11? No. It was even more preventable than wiretapping. All we really needed to do was investigate the warnings. Sorry, but the government isn't perfect, even if it's better than most of the others. Sometimes you need to protect yourself from it. That applies to all governments.

The government didn't do enough to prevent 9/11. There are alot of things that the government needs to do in order to protect us. Wire tapping suspected terrorist in order to possible get information about an attack is something we need to do. Thats not all we need to do, however. Quiet frankly, I believe you only need to protect yourself from the government in peace time. In wartime, they are trying to protect you. Protecting yourself from your protector is counter-productive.

And just a note: Remmber people, we arn't a democracy. We are a republic.
Posted Image[/center]
Conquered FEFF Awards

Quote:
 
Laharl: 48/2(9+3)=36
Quote:
 
Laharl: Also, you can't multiply a number by one.
Quote:
 
Laharl: 1 cannot be used as a multiplier.
Quote:
 
Laharl: I wasn't good at math. That doesn't make me an idiot!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 10



Theme by Lewis of the ZetaBoard Theme Zone, Outline and Talk Themes