Author Topic: I'm with Congress  (Read 2393 times)

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
I'm with Congress
« Reply #60 on: February 24, 2008, 09:43:43 AM »
Ok, One of the Mods I kinda get.
But the other Im scratching my head over.

How does stating that there is no single reason why blacks fought and then providing reasons why blacks might have fought during WWII consitute reason for moderation?

Oh well, so be it
My arms are too short to box with god LOL

I'll rephrase the second then


rich,

Rather the just post opinion
I came up with sources easily through using a quick and simple google search.
But I did come up with a source to back my statement

I challange you to do the same.
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
I'm with Congress
« Reply #61 on: February 24, 2008, 09:44:45 AM »
See Rule #2
« Last Edit: February 24, 2008, 09:51:36 AM by Skuzzy »
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
I'm with Congress
« Reply #62 on: February 24, 2008, 10:16:50 AM »
anyone who thinks their phone calls are all private is pretty dumb.   Anyone who says things on a phone that would get em imprisoned is even dumber.

lazs

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
I'm with Congress
« Reply #63 on: February 24, 2008, 10:37:37 AM »
I think that's sort of the point of why allowing warrantless wiretapping is a BAD thing, and why it's WRONG for telecommunications companies to be immune to accountability for capitulating with the government on something that is a BLATANT violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Maybe it starts as a way to monitor suspected terrorists and foreign agents, but that's just one step closer to honest citizens being arrested for speaking their beliefs. This system, if left unchecked, could EASILY evolve into a method for the government to quash dissent.

Yeah, maybe using a phone to talk about planning a bank heist or murder is one thing, but how EASY would it be for this same system to put an end to discussions like THIS, the open criticism and debate of the current administration's policies? That's EXACTLY where we're heading if our government isn't put back on its leash and not held accountable for disregard of the core liberties guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably...The first time any man's freedom is trodden on we’re all damaged."
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
I'm with Congress
« Reply #64 on: February 24, 2008, 10:44:09 AM »
I think that warrentless wire tapping is wrong but see no reason a company that co operated with the government should be held accountable.   If....

If it can be proven that the government told them it was legal.

lazs

Offline bj229r

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6735
I'm with Congress
« Reply #65 on: February 24, 2008, 11:21:14 AM »
Anyone who thinks the current debate in Congress is about rights is being delusional-- summation of topic at hand:
Quote

MCCONNELL:....Foreigners communicating in a foreign country — more than likely the communications would pass through the United States. Therefore, the court said if it touches a wire, consistent with the law, you have to have a warrant.

Now, a warrant means probable cause, which is a very time- consuming process to go through. So we were in that situation last summer. We passed the new act to make it — improve our situation. That act has now expired.
link


The biggest thing going on now isn't about right and wrong, or people's privacy---it's about effing money--24 of the 29 Dem senators who voted against the FISA renewal took chitloads money from trial lawyers, who look upon suing Verizon, et al, as the latest incarnation of the tobacco settlement of the '90's. . The ONLY point of debate is about immunity from lawsuits, something far less grandiose than the rights of someone in Yemen being able to call someone in Jordan

Quote
The Protect America Act updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to exempt surveillance of communications between persons located outside of the United States when the communications happen to pass through domestic networks, a type of communications to which Congress never intended FISA to apply. A 15-day extension is not good enough, because it puts intelligence-gatherers in an impossible situation: They must either try to guess what sort of legislation Congress will pass and act accordingly or assume that FISA will apply and begin the arduous task--at the cost of hundreds of hours of work per FISA application and potentially weeks or months of delay--of bringing this surveillance within the FISA regime.

Quote
The Protect America Act was intended to correct an erroneous FISA Court decision seeking to extend that court's power to control foreign surveillance that was never intended to be covered under FISA and never had been. The decision was based, according to those who have seen it, on the irrelevant details of recent changes in technology that do not implicate the core concerns behind FISA. Congress never intended FISA to apply to wholly international communications that do not involve persons in the United States, but instead recognized that surveillance of wholly international communications is an inherent power of the President and part of his solemn responsibility to protect America's security.

Quote
The risks to national security of bringing communications between persons located outside of the United States that happen to pass through domestic networks inside the FISA process are great. Just preparing to present an application to the FISA Court, which grants orders for classified surveillance programs, takes hundreds of hours of lawyer and intelligence analyst time. Though critics are quick to point out that the FISA Court rejects few applications, this is due to the immense time and effort Justice Department officials dedicate to preparing FISA applications, which are over 100 pages on average,[/i] and the back-and-fourth process entailed in FISA Court review. Potentially delaying crucial foreign intelligence-gathering operations by weeks or months, as temporary extensions threaten to do, simply endangers national security.

Quote
its major provision concerns persons not on U.S. soil. Constitutional protections were never intended to extend to cover wholly foreign intelligence gathering for national security purposes. Further, this surveillance relies on the same minimization procedures that have always applied to reduce the intrusion on the privacy interests of Americans who (whether wittingly or unwittingly) communicate with suspected terrorists or other enemy soldiers.

The act also wisely extended prospective immunity to communications providers that have worked with U.S. intelligence services to facilitate intelligence gathering for national security. With 40 or more civil lawsuits already filed against these providers for their cooperation,[/i] Congress should take the logical, fair step and provide retroactive immunity as well.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm1791.cfm
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers

http://www.flamewarriors.net/forum/

Offline DYNAMITE

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1350
      • http://www.texasaircav.com/
I'm with Congress
« Reply #66 on: February 24, 2008, 11:39:11 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Saxman
"Those who desire security at the expense of liberty deserve NEITHER."

Not the exact wording, but more or less. This comes from a very smart man, maybe some of you have heard of him:

Benjamin Franklin


I agree 1000000000%

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
I'm with Congress
« Reply #67 on: February 24, 2008, 11:58:00 AM »
The onus was on you. It was you who first made statements about "all the Democracies that turned into fascist states. It was you who called American Policeman the "SS".

                   And it was I who said the instances of Democracy destroying itself was so rare in history the point is moot and irrelevant. However the list of countries formerly ruled by fascist type governments, and now turning towards Democracy and human rights is growing and growing. I dont need to type all of them out because they are littered across all the continents and the point is obvious.

                 Anyone who thinks this bill being passed is going to destroy our Democracy just hasn't thought it out properly. There's just no reason to think this way. We have to be able to protect ourselves. I myself have been scared of all this since my Cold War days when I wore a full chem suit at my side everyday.

             I have a huge rail juncture that I patrol. Man you dont even want to know whats rolling along on those trains or on the highways. The truth is I could think of dozens of ways these terrorists can murder us and hamstring Police. And If I can think it then so can they.

             We have to be able to monitor their phone calls and to do so in a secret manner. We cant be going to average Judges and have to deal with all the paperwork and PC needed for domestic wire surveillance. Im sorry but the world changed on 9/11 and of all the bad options this one is the best. There is still oversight by Federal judges and still accountability. This program has been managed responsibly and we need it to continue.


Quote
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Ok, One of the Mods I kinda get.
But the other Im scratching my head over.

How does stating that there is no single reason why blacks fought and then providing reasons why blacks might have fought during WWII consitute reason for moderation?

Oh well, so be it
My arms are too short to box with god LOL

I'll rephrase the second then


rich,

Rather the just post opinion
I came up with sources easily through using a quick and simple google search.
But I did come up with a source to back my statement

I challange you to do the same.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10167
I'm with Congress
« Reply #68 on: February 24, 2008, 12:10:55 PM »
I am definitely wary of congress.  They will get us killed with their idiocy.
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline bj229r

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6735
I'm with Congress
« Reply #69 on: February 24, 2008, 12:18:47 PM »
Just remember the main point---the libs in Congress (both sides of aisle) aren't arguing the bill for anyone's RIGHTS---they are trying to make it possible for the telecom companies to get sued for cooperating with the gov't
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers

http://www.flamewarriors.net/forum/

Offline Trell

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 693
I'm with Congress
« Reply #70 on: February 24, 2008, 12:29:49 PM »
Companies should fear doing something illegal,  They should fear people suing them.  If they are not afraid of the government or the people then they will do anything they want.
We see that over and over again,  If you limit damages or protect companies from people ,  All that it leads to is the companies taking advantage of everything.
Companies would rather pay fines then follow the law.  Or they will offer to settle claims against them for much lower than they should because laws have been written to protect them.

Tort reform is just a way for companies to remove anything citizens can do to them.
If they quit protecting companies from people  I Believe that  All the laws that the demarcates pass to “help” people would be unnessarry.

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
I'm with Congress
« Reply #71 on: February 24, 2008, 12:41:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rich46yo
The onus was on you. It was you who first made statements about "all the Democracies that turned into fascist states. It was you who called American Policeman the "SS".


It was??

I DID??

LOL I suggest you scroll back
On point 1
 Though you for some reason seem to think I did.
I never said anything of the sort. Let alone "first made those statements."
And I defy you to show where I did in any thread.

On point 2 I never called the police SS units
Since when does the police monitor phone traffic outside the USA?

I was talking of a secret police force that probably exists.
Why not?
If we have "secret courts. What makes us beleive we dont have a secret police force?
Probably part of the Dept of Homeland Security.
Course we the general public wouldnt know about that because its  secret.
Kinda ruins the whole point of having something secret if everyone knows about it.


The points I did make were that such laws tend to be expended to include.
In this case it could very well at some point be expanded to include the gerneral polulace,. For any nuymber of reasons.

What I did say is that security types tend to be all for gettign more power and control for themselves.  While taking away or infringing on the rights of the people.

And what I will say now is the more power given to a security force. the more they tend to be corrupted by it and abuse it.

And as the saying goes. Absolute power currupts absolutely.

There are better ways of doig it then with "secret" Courts.
Who oversee's these secret courts and secret forces besides other equally secret entities?

And isnt this the job of the CIA anyway?

Set aside a non secret court made up of publically known people to whom warrants can be petitioned for on short notice.

Have that court monitored by other judges and members of congress all the names  of which should all be publically known.

I agree smoe things must be done in secrecy.
but nothing should be so secret that nobody knows who is responcable for what,when and where except for other secret people that nobody knows about.

And I am not for giving these forces all the power they want.
Bcause life experience has taught  me that be it a little rinky dink security firm guarding a business or the (yes) police, Or the government.
the more they tend to want to take.
And it becomes a never ending hunger for power and control
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
I'm with Congress
« Reply #72 on: February 24, 2008, 12:44:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Im sorry but the world changed on 9/11 and of all the bad options this one is the best.


Bullchit.

As pointed out, the security we had in the country prior to 9/11 WAS sufficient to have prevented it. The failure was in the people MANAGING that system. There was bunch of stupid mistakes made at all levels that allowed this to slip through. It happened before with Oklahoma City, but where was the big outcry then?

The Arab world hated us before 9/11. They STILL hate us.

The United States was being criticized for interventionist policies before 9/11, and are STILL being criticized.

The capabilities of the terrorists have NOT changed. Chemical, biological and nuclear/dirty bomb attacks were as much of a threat BEFORE 9/11 as they are now. We just weren't so psychotically paranoid about it that we're seeing WMDs everywhere we look.

The only changes in the world after 9/11 were ones that we MANUFACTURED through the bungling and mismanagement by the Bush administration. And before the entrenched holier-than-thou Conservatives start sniping away to blame the Left, remember that all this began under a REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress where strict Party Line voting allowed Bush to pretty much do whatever the hell he wanted.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
I'm with Congress
« Reply #73 on: February 24, 2008, 12:51:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Saxman
Bullchit.

As pointed out, the security we had in the country prior to 9/11 WAS sufficient to have prevented it. The failure was in the people MANAGING that system. There was bunch of stupid mistakes made at all levels that allowed this to slip through. It happened before with Oklahoma City, but where was the big outcry then?

The Arab world hated us before 9/11. They STILL hate us.

The United States was being criticized for interventionist policies before 9/11, and are STILL being criticized.

The capabilities of the terrorists have NOT changed. Chemical, biological and nuclear/dirty bomb attacks were as much of a threat BEFORE 9/11 as they are now. We just weren't so psychotically paranoid about it that we're seeing WMDs everywhere we look.

 


And what has been repeatedly pointed out was that if ORIGINALLY EXISTING LAWS already in place before 9/11 had simply been enforced.
9/11 would not have happened.

Even after 9/11
We didnt need new laws. Or new oganisations. or secret courts.
All we needed to do was emphasize  enforcement of the old laws already in place.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2008, 12:58:19 PM by DREDIOCK »
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline bsdaddict

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1108
I'm with Congress
« Reply #74 on: February 24, 2008, 12:51:57 PM »
yup, imo the only thing that 9/11 changed was American's willingness to allow fear run their lives.  What used to be the "land of the free, home of the brave" is now the "land of the frightful, home of the compliant."