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
  • 11
Wait a minute....
Topic Started: Jan 3 2006, 06:39 PM (2,253 Views)
Wind Sword
Member Avatar
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY

Reaver
Jan 21 2006, 04:25 AM
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.

That's kinda what we got right now. Of course, it all goes back to whether you trust our President. And if you do, why not the others that did it?

There is a common fact in all this. Even if there is no Bush-bashing, the man is the backbone of this debate.

The Clinton thing is really important, since he criticized him PERSONALLY. Jerk.


Quote:
 
And just a note: Remmber people, we arn't a democracy. We are a republic.

We're a democratic republic. XD But now that you mention it, I wouldn't say no to a constitutional monarchy.

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

So the POLICE need warrants, but some drunk down the street with a 1st grade education doesn't? Back in the day, it was the POLICE who had more priveleges.

Quote:
 
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...

Yes, generally when they have a hunch you can get a warrant from a judge to search their home, office, car, or space belonging to them. I'm saying if your searching for information, yopu'd need a warrant to investigate anything, not just physical searches. Judges would be horribly overworked.

Quote:
 

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

Okay, that makes sense. But regardless, the search your applying isn't the legal definition.
Here you are.

Quote:
 
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.

Woops I get it now. Topic Dropped.

Quote:
 
QUOTE
... Ummmmm, OK? Thanks! smile.gif


K.

You said that wiretaps don't need warrants. That helps.

Quote:
 
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.

There will be a vote in the UN I think. There's a catch to the France thing. They'll vote to go to war, but if the propatition fails, they wouldn't help. Britian, I think would follow us to the end of the earth. But not so sure about the other countries. And we have all avalible units in there, one more war could mean the draft.

Quote:
 
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.

You've made you point, but I wasn't reffering to you. But there are idiots out there who follow political parties to the end of the earth. I don't think of myself as a Republican, mostly just a Conservative. Plenty Republican stances I don't like.

Unfortunately those going into politics know they need affiliation, and Democrats and Republicans are the ones to go to. Unfortunately, with this Republican constrict on Washington, I find the need to associate with them, because they'll bring what I want. Not economics or wars, but the Christian ideals they stand for. As such, when an entire group offers opposition to a president because of his political party, I find the need to shock them into reality.

Kudos for being one of the few to admit the liberal bias. I hate it when people deny a bias in the media. Black_Knight thought there was a Republican bias. :huh:

Quote:
 
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.

Comprehension complete.
Listening into phones is not, as you put it, siezing a person. If a person divulges information to someone they are passing along information. If it's intercerted, tough cookie. Comunication is the divulging of information. You divulge, anyone hears, who cares?

Not to mention a police officer can obtain phone records easily. Isn't that an infraction of privacy?

I'll type more later.
~~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
 
(*Jman*)
Member Avatar
Kakatte Koi!

Sentenal
Jan 21 2006, 04:41 AM
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.

So now we're in a war? ROFLMAO. No, we aren't. Terrorism will never go away. We can go on a supposed "war", invade a country, and pillage oil, but will there still be terrorists? Yes. We're not going to catch them all, Pokéterrorists! Unless they decide to be retarded and just surrender, roflz.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Formerly Omni, Rosa, Terra, Serra, Captain Star Falco, Minamimoto
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crysta
Member Avatar
wat

Quote:
 
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.


Well, I give you kudos for at least trying. I have a tendency to intimidate people, even though I enjoy debate (perhaps a little too much). Marcus / Lucas runs away from me. Or just gives up. :(

Quote:
 
The government didn't do enough to prevent 9/11.


Okay. At least you acknowledge that much.

The government doesn't do enough to prevent many disasters, to tell you the truth. We have a habit of not fixing the roof while the sun is shining. A rainstorm must call our attention to it first.

Quote:
 
There are alot of things that the government needs to do in order to protect us.


We could just nuke the other half of the world and solve all of our problems (okay, not really, but we seem to like focusing on that half more than on our own), but that's obviously crossing our boundaries. People believe this Patriot Act is, but to a much lesser extent (... I hope). I think the reason this entire debate was brought up is because Windy and you folks couldn't possibly understand why people don't put their unyielding trust in a government that has been known to abuse in it the past before. Well, you now have your answer, but I guess you're not content until you invalidate it with ruthless vigor?

There ARE a lot of things we need to do. Whether or not this is any more effective than jaywalking laws is debateable. I've made my sentiments known and have stated that I wish we would invest our attention to other less controversial and more effective ways to combat terrorism. I'm not going to fight to the death for something as strong as plywood that may not be legal to begin with (I don't care so much about that part, truthfully, but I understand why others would), that doesn't actually do much leveling up in the protection department to begin with.

Quote:
 
Wire tapping suspected terrorist in order to possible get information about an attack is something we need to do.


No.

I'm not inclined to repeat myself when that's what I've been saying all along. Your arguments didn't sway me last time, don't think they will now. If you're just going to do that again you may as well just leave it be. My beliefs shouldn't keep you up long hours into the night, afterall. :|

Quote:
 
Quiet frankly, I believe you only need to protect yourself from the government in peace time.


I dunno if the people who remember Vietnam will agree with you, but since I'm not them and this is the first war time I've been through, I don't believe I'm experienced enough to try to invalidate your opinion.

Quote:
 
Protecting yourself from your protector is counter-productive.


If the protector isn't out to get me in the first place, why would it matter and be counter-productive? Okay, so I prevent controversial laws that may be abused now or in the future from passing. So I don't think the protector is flawless in it's protecting and wish to be prepared if it screws up again. Nationalism is also counterproductive.

I compared it to plywood, so I think it's obvious there's a difference in opinion here.

Quote:
 
And just a note: Remmber people, we arn't a democracy. We are a republic.


A democratic republic.

Quote:
 
There is a common fact in all this. Even if there is no Bush-bashing, the man is the backbone of this debate.


I think you would like to think that. It's much easier to think this is an assault on your political party than it is to think that it may be an argument concerning the government as a whole and what it should and should not do. We've mentioned past presidents and incidents more than we have mentioned the current president and incidents.

So stop taking personal offense. It'll make arguing with clarity much more easier, and it's not about you anyway.

Quote:
 
The Clinton thing is really important, since he criticized him PERSONALLY. Jerk.


Here's a good idea: why don't you write angry letters to him?

Quote:
 
So the POLICE need warrants, but some drunk down the street with a 1st grade education doesn't? Back in the day, it was the POLICE who had more priveleges.


If that drunk is persistant enough, then no, because he doesn't think he needs one. He's not legally bound to ask for permission. Trespassing is against the law and will end in an arrest, though... so I guess in a sense he IS.

Quote:
 
I'm saying if your searching for information, yopu'd need a warrant to investigate anything, not just physical searches. Judges would be horribly overworked.


If your searching for information when it's in violation of what is considered a right, then yes. Again, this is revolving whether or not this is a right in this case and both sides aren't giving an inch and thinks the other are a bunch of sick dogs or something... or at least that's the drift I got from you guys. I'm tempted to just let you guys re-state why you think it isn't a right, how the government should do everything it needs to do (in their opinion, of course), and how everything we say is just our own interpetation and yet yours is somehow regarded as fact... and I won't follow suit because it's like trying to punch a hole through a steel wall.

In other words, I'm getting bored and I don't see the point any more.

Quote:
 
Okay, that makes sense. But regardless, the search your applying isn't the legal definition. Here you are.


Never said it was. It was just an attempt to disprove that "searching" is always a physical action.

But, for dissection:

Quote:
 
v. 1) to examine another's premises (including a vehicle) to look for evidence of criminal activity. It is unconstitutional under the 4th and 14th Amendments for law enforcement officers to conduct a search without a "search warrant" issued by a judge or without facts which give the officer "probable cause" to believe evidence of a specific crime is on the premises and there is not enough time to obtain a search warrant. 2) to trace the records of ownership of real property in what is commonly called a "title search."


Vagueness + Open to personal interpetation (what qualifies as "premises", "facts", "probable cause") = Opinionated political debates on forums and increase in asprin O.Ds which have little to no effect on the outside world

Quote:
 
There will be a vote in the UN I think. There's a catch to the France thing. They'll vote to go to war, but if the propatition fails, they wouldn't help. Britian, I think would follow us to the end of the earth. But not so sure about the other countries. And we have all avalible units in there, one more war could mean the draft.


It's French bravado at it's worst. They're not gonna go to war with us. They'll pick on smaller countries and still get their ass kicked.

Quote:
 
You've made you point, but I wasn't reffering to you. But there are idiots out there who follow political parties to the end of the earth. I don't think of myself as a Republican, mostly just a Conservative. Plenty Republican stances I don't like.


Eh. I'm a liberal democrat but I'm registered as an independant. The stances don't bother me as much as some of the people, so I don't wanna feel obligated to vote for them.

Quote:
 
Unfortunately those going into politics know they need affiliation, and Democrats and Republicans are the ones to go to. Unfortunately, with this Republican constrict on Washington, I find the need to associate with them, because they'll bring what I want. Not economics or wars, but the Christian ideals they stand for. As such, when an entire group offers opposition to a president because of his political party, I find the need to shock them into reality.


By... going with the party you obviously are inclined to join and are biased for anyway?

Not very shocking. What would be shocking is you actually not bashing in the brains of the nearest Democrat because they may disagree with you and may speak ill of your party.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were Democrats actually in support of wiretapping. I don't see why it's a Republican versus Democrat thing. I'm against it because I don't think it's as necessary and effective as you guys do, not because I'm a democrat.

Quote:
 
Kudos for being one of the few to admit the liberal bias. I hate it when people deny a bias in the media. Black_Knight thought there was a Republican bias.


I'm sure my inevitable verbal battles with them will be just as fun as this one.

I have little respect for people who report on what Jennifer Aniston is wearing today. The conservatives have a hold on the political talk shows, but everything else is overwhelmingly liberal.

Quote:
 
Listening into phones is not, as you put it, siezing a person. If a person divulges information to someone they are passing along information. If it's intercerted, tough cookie. Comunication is the divulging of information. You divulge, anyone hears, who cares?


Eh, I'll just drop this one. I just know you wouldn't like it if say, someone hacked into your computer to they can find a whole bunch of nasty stuff to use against you, and I more or less consider someone wiretapping the same thing. You don't because it's a phone conversation and entirely different (somehow), and you think the government is out just for information about possible terrorist plans and won't possibly use other stuff they find against you for their own political benefit.

I don't. Yay.

Quote:
 
So now we're in a war? ROFLMAO. No, we aren't. Terrorism will never go away. We can go on a supposed "war", invade a country, and pillage oil, but will there still be terrorists? Yes. We're not going to catch them all, Pokéterrorists! Unless they decide to be retarded and just surrender, roflz.


He has a point, sadly. Declaring war on <insert abstract concept here> is about as idealistic as when Wilson said we're having a war to end all wars. It's a war of protection and self-defense.
~ 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
 
Inui
Member Avatar
Power of Flower

Crysta
Jan 21 2006, 12:52 PM
Quote:
 
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.


Well, I give you kudos for at least trying. I have a tendency to intimidate people, even though I enjoy debate (perhaps a little too much). Marcus / Lucas runs away from me. Or just gives up. :(

You're just too sexy for me, Jenni. :(
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wind Sword
Member Avatar
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY

Quote:
 
Well, I give you kudos for at least trying. I have a tendency to intimidate people, even though I enjoy debate (perhaps a little too much). Marcus / Lucas runs away from me. Or just gives up. :(

What about? You seem to have the same views?

Baiting is not apreciated Marcus. Post edited.
Quote:
 
Okay. At least you acknowledge that much.

The government doesn't do enough to prevent many disasters, to tell you the truth. We have a habit of not fixing the roof while the sun is shining. A rainstorm must call our attention to it first.

But when we fight pre-emptive wars, Liberals whine.
Quote:
 
We could just nuke the other half of the world and solve all of our problems (okay, not really, but we seem to like focusing on that half more than on our own), but that's obviously crossing our boundaries. People believe this Patriot Act is, but to a much lesser extent (... I hope). I think the reason this entire debate was brought up is because Windy and you folks couldn't possibly understand why people don't put their unyielding trust in a government that has been known to abuse in it the past before. Well, you now have your answer, but I guess you're not content until you invalidate it with ruthless vigor?

I brought it up because I couldn't understand why they were making a big deal out of it. Reaver made a good point about Watergate, that might be what's freaking them out. But you're right, the main problem is people just don't trust our government.

Quote:
 
There ARE a lot of things we need to do. Whether or not this is any more effective than jaywalking laws is debateable. I've made my sentiments known and have stated that I wish we would invest our attention to other less controversial and more effective ways to combat terrorism. I'm not going to fight to the death for something as strong as plywood that may not be legal to begin with (I don't care so much about that part, truthfully, but I understand why others would), that doesn't actually do much leveling up in the protection department to begin with.

I'm open for suggestions. Police have been doing this effectively for year, it's how the Lackawanna Six got put away. So we must be tapping the right people, and effectively. Even if it's only 15% effective, that's still okay odds. Assuming they only tap terrorists, it's a good deal.

Quote:
 
I think you would like to think that. It's much easier to think this is an assault on your political party than it is to think that it may be an argument concerning the government as a whole and what it should and should not do. We've mentioned past presidents and incidents more than we have mentioned the current president and incidents.

So stop taking personal offense. It'll make arguing with clarity much more easier, and it's not about you anyway.

Okay, I'm not taking personal offense, those guys are.

We brought up previous presidents doing it to justify Bush's actions. I made this topic to defend Bush. It is about Bush.Bush is the reason so many people don't trust the phone taps. If peple trusted Bush, this wouldn't even be a problem.

Quote:
 
Here's a good idea: why don't you write angry letters to him?

How many of those do you think he gets a day? I'm calling him a jerk so people reading this will be informed of his hypocracy? I mean no offense to any here.

Quote:
 
If that drunk is persistant enough, then no, because he doesn't think he needs one. He's not legally bound to ask for permission. Trespassing is against the law and will end in an arrest, though... so I guess in a sense he IS.

Warrants don't apply only to cops, the drunk would need a warrant.

Quote:
 
If your searching for information when it's in violation of what is considered a right, then yes. Again, this is revolving whether or not this is a right in this case and both sides aren't giving an inch and thinks the other are a bunch of sick dogs or something... or at least that's the drift I got from you guys. I'm tempted to just let you guys re-state why you think it isn't a right, how the government should do everything it needs to do (in their opinion, of course), and how everything we say is just our own interpetation and yet yours is somehow regarded as fact... and I won't follow suit because it's like trying to punch a hole through a steel wall.

Okay. So it all comes down to interpretation, in which never are about to budge. This is getting annoying.
Quote:
 
In other words, I'm getting bored and I don't see the point any more.

Agreed.
Quote:
 
Never said it was. It was just an attempt to disprove that "searching" is always a physical action.

You did nicely then.
Quote:
 

Vagueness + Open to personal interpetation (what qualifies as "premises", "facts", "probable cause") = Opinionated political debates on forums and increase in asprin O.Ds which have little to no effect on the outside world

*Chokes on his asprin*
True, but I'd prefer law.com to dictionary.com in this interpretation.
And the Supreme Court stands highest for interpretation, and once Alito is confirmed, meh. But I'll save that for another day.

Quote:
 
It's French bravado at it's worst. They're not gonna go to war with us. They'll pick on smaller countries and still get their ass kicked.

I don't expect them to be 1337 warriors, just a small help. Just like Poland. And as rude and proud as France is, I don't think they'd make an offer they plan to squelch on, if it means bringing us into war.
Quote:
 
By... going with the party you obviously are inclined to join and are biased for anyway?

I wouldn't say biased is the right word. Democrats are biased towards Republicans and vice versa. I despise the Republican economic ideals, want our soldiers back, spoke against torture on this same site, agree with stem cell research, and I want to give gays civil unions. I'm more moderate. I support Republicans because they will protect what I care about most: Abortions, Christian ideas, preservation of my religion. My priority is to God first.

Kindly do not make idiotic accusations after knowing me for about one day. I didn't become Debate Forum Moderator by being biased.

Quote:
 

Not very shocking. What would be shocking is you actually not bashing in the brains of the nearest Democrat because they may disagree with you and may speak ill of your party.

I may very well switch Democrat with Republican and have a formidable answer.

I'll let this one go, since I think all Republicans might learn something from it, and it wasn't directed entirely at me.
Quote:
 
I wouldn't be surprised if there were Democrats actually in support of wiretapping. I don't see why it's a Republican versus Democrat thing. I'm against it because I don't think it's as necessary and effective as you guys do, not because I'm a democrat.

That's true.
Quote:
 
I have little respect for people who report on what Jennifer Aniston is wearing today. The conservatives have a hold on the political talk shows, but everything else is overwhelmingly liberal.

I don't see how celebrity coverage can be liberal, but I think you have it right. I think the talk shows are pretty conservative, but news is pretty liberal. Of course, it all depends on channels.

Quote:
 
Eh, I'll just drop this one. I just know you wouldn't like it if say, someone hacked into your computer to they can find a whole bunch of nasty stuff to use against you, and I more or less consider someone wiretapping the same thing. You don't because it's a phone conversation and entirely different (somehow), and you think the government is out just for information about possible terrorist plans and won't possibly use other stuff they find against you for their own political benefit.

I would be mad, I guess. But I'd realize the probability of someone using it against me would be pretty bad. And it's not like I have anything to hide. I'd just be mad someone got past my firewall.

But if I was Michael Moore, I'd be mad. But problem is, if they did use it against me, they'd first have to admit they tapped me.
Quote:
 
He has a point, sadly. Declaring war on <insert abstract concept here> is about as idealistic as when Wilson said we're having a war to end all wars. It's a war of protection and self-defense.

It's pretty symolic or something. It's trying to say we're waging a war on Iraq FOR Iraq. I think.
And Osama offered a truce, providing we pull out. So actually, they will surrender evanutally.

I'm getting tired of this.
~~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
 
Sentenal
Member Avatar
Won the Impossible Debate (twice)

Quote:
 
So now we're in a war? ROFLMAO. No, we aren't. Terrorism will never go away. We can go on a supposed "war", invade a country, and pillage oil, but will there still be terrorists? Yes. We're not going to catch them all, Pokéterrorists! Unless they decide to be retarded and just surrender, roflz.

What the hell are you talking about? I was talking about what the government needs to do, and you go on some anti-war tangent.

Quote:
 
No.

I'm not inclined to repeat myself when that's what I've been saying all along. Your arguments didn't sway me last time, don't think they will now. If you're just going to do that again you may as well just leave it be. My beliefs shouldn't keep you up long hours into the night, afterall. :|

Well, I guess we will just disagree here, then.

Quote:
 
I dunno if the people who remember Vietnam will agree with you, but since I'm not them and this is the first war time I've been through, I don't believe I'm experienced enough to try to invalidate your opinion.

Are you refering to the reason we went into Vietnam being flawed? At the time, it seemed like a good reason (the region may fall to communism) to go to war, and it was probable, but time showed them to be wrong. I still think it was a worthy cause to aid an allied nation agianst

Quote:
 
If the protector isn't out to get me in the first place, why would it matter and be counter-productive? Okay, so I prevent controversial laws that may be abused now or in the future from passing. So I don't think the protector is flawless in it's protecting and wish to be prepared if it screws up again. Nationalism is also counterproductive.

Seems I'm just more trusting of the current adminstration than you are.
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
 
Crysta
Member Avatar
wat

Hopefully this will finally kill off the thread. Or at least help.

Quote:
 
What about? You seem to have the same views?


Not really. He worships Bush liek whoa... for reasons I still haven't figured out other than "he's cool". I wouldn't mind if there was something a little more solid behind it, even if I disagreed.

I've been telling him off more often than not. We're not even agreeing on this. XD

Quote:
 
But when we fight pre-emptive wars, Liberals whine.


People whine, really. We're becoming increasingly anti-war as a whole. WWII didn't have any massive protests.

Quote:
 
I brought it up because I couldn't understand why they were making a big deal out of it. Reaver made a good point about Watergate, that might be what's freaking them out. But you're right, the main problem is people just don't trust our government.


I don't consider it a problem, unless it's obviously baseless. Most of the time it isn't, sadly enough. If you were in any other country you'd probably understand more.

Our government is still leagues better than most. It's just important that we don't forget that it makes mistakes as well.

Quote:
 
So we must be tapping the right people, and effectively.


I don't think they would publicize the wrong people. If we found out they're wiretapping a grandma who spends most of her time talking on the phone with her son about her cat, it just makes them look ridiculous. The government regulates the flow of information to the people.

Quote:
 
Even if it's only 15% effective, that's still okay odds. Assuming they only tap terrorists, it's a good deal.


Assuming is not knowing.

Quote:
 
We brought up previous presidents doing it to justify Bush's actions. I made this topic to defend Bush. It is about Bush.Bush is the reason so many people don't trust the phone taps. If peple trusted Bush, this wouldn't even be a problem.


No. Political parties and personal agendas are what people don't trust. If it was a Democrat, this would just be you guys harping about something else and how he isn't doing enough to protect the good people of America and how his pro-gay pro-abortion views are destroying the moral fiber of this country and we're all going to hell blah blah blah... who actually sits in that seat doesn't matter.

And doing a wrong doesn't make a right just because the other guy before you did it also.

Quote:
 
How many of those do you think he gets a day? I'm calling him a jerk so people reading this will be informed of his hypocracy? I mean no offense to any here.


You've said it three or four times already. We've been informed.

Quote:
 
Warrants don't apply only to cops, the drunk would need a warrant.


Typically drunk guys don't randomly seize you or search your house, and if they want to they usually don't have the coherency to figure out they may need a warrant. They get arrested.

Quote:
 
Okay. So it all comes down to interpretation, in which never are about to budge. This is getting annoying.


HE SEES THE LIGHT.

Quote:
 
I wouldn't say biased is the right word. Democrats are biased towards Republicans and vice versa.


They generally have conflicting viewpoints and are as stubborn as hell, so yeah...

Quote:
 
I despise the Republican economic ideals, want our soldiers back, spoke against torture on this same site, agree with stem cell research, and I want to give gays civil unions. I'm more moderate. I support Republicans because they will protect what I care about most: Abortions, Christian ideas, preservation of my religion. My priority is to God first.


That's good, but you're still biased.

Quote:
 
biased

adj 1: favoring one person or side over another; "a biased account of the trial"; "a decision that was partial to the defendant" [syn: colored, coloured, one-sided, slanted] 2: excessively devoted to one faction [syn: one-sided]


Someone who isn't biased wouldn't favor one party over the other. I'm not even that open-minded.

Quote:
 
Kindly do not make idiotic accusations after knowing me for about one day. I didn't become Debate Forum Moderator by being biased.


Thank you for flamebaiting while telling me not to make hasty accusations, Mr. Mod Man.

I didn't say I knew you. I said you were biased.

I've met plenty of biased moderators in my lifetime. You may not have been elected (if you were even elected) for your biasedness, but I still argue it's nonetheless there. As long as you don't ban me for my view or anything like that, however, you haven't actually done anything wrong.

Quote:
 
I may very well switch Democrat with Republican and have a formidable answer


O RLY?

YA RLY.

Quote:
 
I don't see how celebrity coverage can be liberal, but I think you have it right. I think the talk shows are pretty conservative, but news is pretty liberal. Of course, it all depends on channels.


It's not liberal, I just find it stupid.

Quote:
 
But if I was Michael Moore, I'd be mad. But problem is, if they did use it against me, they'd first have to admit they tapped me.


That wouldn't be a problem if it was legal to do so.

Quote:
 
Are you refering to the reason we went into Vietnam being flawed? At the time, it seemed like a good reason (the region may fall to communism) to go to war, and it was probable, but time showed them to be wrong. I still think it was a worthy cause to aid an allied nation agianst.


The Vietnamese just wanted freedom and a different form of government than our own; one we were incredibly prejudice against at the time through rampant paranoia.

It's not comparable to Iraq because they train terrorists to actually harm us. The Vietnamese had... grass huts. Yes, there was the Viet Cong, but they were just trying to keep us out. They didn't pursue us overseas.

So yeah, it was pretty flawed. Ideas that appear to be good ideas are not always actually good ideas.

The rest is either stuff I agree with or stuff that doesn't really need an answer.
~ 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
 
sephiroth667
Member Avatar
Nostalgia

Hope you don't mind if I take some of this on Windy.

Quote:
 
People whine, really. We're becoming increasingly anti-war as a whole. WWII didn't have any massive protests.


WWII had no protests because there was EXTREME bias towards Germans, so much so that mobs would lynch German Americans. We only become extremely bias towards Bush and his choices because we have liberal media cramming "Bush sucks burn him mofo!" down our throats from anywhere from music to Comedy Central to talk shows. Back then we didn't have that, and everyone supported the president's decissions. Anti-War as a whole? No, it is neccessary to be a liberal to hate the war these days, or else the republicans kick you in the nuts.

Quote:
 
Our government is still leagues better than most. It's just important that we don't forget that it makes mistakes as well.


Yes that is neccessary, but I don't see why you are so against THIS if you believe that. ANY terrorism is bad terrorism, and if we can stop even one terrorist from doing something by tapping the phones, then so be it. It would come up eventually even if we held off until we got more efficient ways.

Quote:
 
Assuming is not knowing.


True, but many assumptions have led to victory, and in reality we can assume with this and not have to lose since we lose nothing by not being victorious.[/confuseness]

Quote:
 
No. Political parties and personal agendas are what people don't trust. If it was a Democrat, this would just be you guys harping about something else and how he isn't doing enough to protect the good people of America and how his pro-gay pro-abortion views are destroying the moral fiber of this country and we're all going to hell blah blah blah... who actually sits in that seat doesn't matter.

And doing a wrong doesn't make a right just because the other guy before you did it also.


First, I'm Independent. Second, I wouldn't be harping becuase I go on issues, not parties for my opinions. Two wrongs may not make a right just because the other guy did it, but it does prove how no one complained when they, two democrats, applied the same methods and got nothing. But Bush, someone Democrats hate and love to point out every mistake on, does the same thing and gets the whole fucking east and west coast on his ass about it. If no one had a problem with it then, why should they now?

Quote:
 
It's not comparable to Iraq because they train terrorists to actually harm us. The Vietnamese had... grass huts. Yes, there was the Viet Cong, but they were just trying to keep us out. They didn't pursue us overseas.


So why have you, and coountless liberals before you, compared Vietnam to Iraq?


I'll close up with this- There are many Terror Cells Living across all 5 buroughs, near me even, that are armed and dangerous. They have already caught some with Wire Tapping, and I honestly don't give a crap if they hear me on my phone or not, that is a few less terrorists I don't have to worry about.

Quote:
 
Up here in Canada government officials have shoes thrown at them all of the time
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 11



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