| 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 (2,253 Views) | |
| Wind Sword | Jan 21 2006, 09:48 AM Post #151 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
![]()
|
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.
We're a democratic republic. XD But now that you mention it, I wouldn't say no to a constitutional monarchy.
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.
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.
Okay, that makes sense. But regardless, the search your applying isn't the legal definition. Here you are.
Woops I get it now. Topic Dropped.
You said that wiretaps don't need warrants. That helps.
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.
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.
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
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
![]() |
|
| (*Jman*) | Jan 21 2006, 10:31 AM Post #152 |
|
Kakatte Koi!
![]()
|
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. |
![]() ![]() Formerly Omni, Rosa, Terra, Serra, Captain Star Falco, Minamimoto | |
![]() |
|
| Crysta | Jan 21 2006, 12:52 PM Post #153 |
|
wat
![]()
|
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.
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.
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.
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. :|
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.
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.
A democratic republic.
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.
Here's a good idea: why don't you write angry letters to him?
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.
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.
Never said it was. It was just an attempt to disprove that "searching" is always a physical action. But, for dissection:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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![]() Trophy Case
| |
![]() |
|
| Inui | Jan 21 2006, 01:45 PM Post #154 |
|
Power of Flower
![]()
|
You're just too sexy for me, Jenni.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Wind Sword | Jan 21 2006, 04:47 PM Post #155 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
![]()
|
What about? You seem to have the same views? Baiting is not apreciated Marcus. Post edited.
But when we fight pre-emptive wars, Liberals whine.
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'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.
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.
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.
Warrants don't apply only to cops, the drunk would need a warrant.
Okay. So it all comes down to interpretation, in which never are about to budge. This is getting annoying.
Agreed.
You did nicely then.
*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.
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.
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.
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.
That's true.
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.
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.
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
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
![]() |
|
| Sentenal | Jan 21 2006, 05:47 PM Post #156 |
|
Won the Impossible Debate (twice)
![]()
|
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.
Well, I guess we will just disagree here, then.
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
Seems I'm just more trusting of the current adminstration than you are. |
[/center]Conquered FEFF Awards
| |
![]() |
|
| Crysta | Jan 22 2006, 10:09 AM Post #157 |
|
wat
![]()
|
Hopefully this will finally kill off the thread. Or at least help.
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
People whine, really. We're becoming increasingly anti-war as a whole. WWII didn't have any massive protests.
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.
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.
Assuming is not knowing.
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.
You've said it three or four times already. We've been informed.
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.
HE SEES THE LIGHT.
They generally have conflicting viewpoints and are as stubborn as hell, so yeah...
That's good, but you're still biased.
Someone who isn't biased wouldn't favor one party over the other. I'm not even that open-minded.
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.
O RLY? YA RLY.
It's not liberal, I just find it stupid.
That wouldn't be a problem if it was legal to do so.
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![]() Trophy Case
| |
![]() |
|
| sephiroth667 | Jan 23 2006, 05:04 PM Post #158 |
![]()
Nostalgia
![]()
|
Hope you don't mind if I take some of this on Windy.
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.
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.
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]
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?
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. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
3:16 AM Jul 11
|



you are doing something unlawful that you need to hide.
















[/center]










3:16 AM Jul 11