Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hap on May 19, 2006, 08:13:46 AM
-
I think this matter has the chance to become the greatest constitutional challenge America has faced--excepting the Civil War.
What think you? It is by far the most important domestic matter that has ocurred in my lifetime, since 1957.
hap
-
I dont think so Tim........
:rofl
But perhaps.....depends alot on how the mid term elections turn out :rolleyes:
-
Just in case some needed a score card:
http://www.nsa.gov/
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Hap, the Nixon administration and Hoovers FBI presented one hell of a crisis that was downright ugly. Illegal wire tapping of Americans by the FBI. Use of federal agencies to block congressional investigations. Use of the power of the presidency for criminal intent.... senior white house officials went to prison.
A constitutional crisis of immense magnitude. The public outcry and intense scutinity of the FBI and the CIA lead to the creation of a new super secret agency... NSA.
The result is what we NOW have.. Constitutional Crisis part Duex. And already.. new Agencies are being proposed. Why is it everytime we catch the bastards red-handed they reorganize and burrow deeper under the guise of 'restructuring' or 'cleaning house'?
-
Hang, on the way to work, the HUAC matter came to mind. And Nixon also came to mind also.
I hope light gets put on all this.
hap
-
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
First thanks for posting this Hap. I fully agree with you!!
When first reading this, I stopped, went back and read it again, thinking to myself just WHAT does this really mean. Been a long time since high school civics. :cool:
So, I started up the search engine and began the enlightenment processes. :huh :lol
It seems I am now FOR gay marriage :O
This is an issue I had never even pondered for a minute, waste of time thinking about pole jockeys and a** pilots, right? right!
Why would the many states go to so much trouble to deny or disparage rights that others (heteros) freely have or "pursuit of happiness"? (not Hap's p*n*s) :rofl
This issue seems clear to me, if Steve loves Adam WHO CARES? They aren't at my house it effects me zero nada zilch. I think this is more proof of "religous" repression of rights.
Discuss please
Before you even post it, NOT gay ..... married 17 years happily :noid and 2 teenagers both hetero also.
Cthen
PS sorry i am not trying to highjack the thread. Trying to add to the scope!
-
I'm not sure which scares me more, the abuse of our rights by this administration or the lack of concern shown by huge swaths of the population... especially those watching Faux News.
BTW Hap, I was in Casper a couple weeks ago.
-
MT, generally speaking...if you find "huge swaths" of your population on a completely different page then you are on individually.....dont be so quick to diagnose the problem as one belonging entirely to that huge populated swath :rolleyes:
The constitutional system is designed to protect your rights...it has done so successfully for over 230 years and I have every confidence that this wonderful system will continue to protect your rights. In spite of your paranoia against such things.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
MT, generally speaking...if you find "huge swaths" of your population on a completely different page then you are on individually.....dont be so quick to diagnose the problem as one belonging entirely to that huge populated swath :rolleyes:
I think it's more a problem of huge swaths being more concerned with what’s going to happen on the next OC episode (don't watch it), then being concerned that their personal privacy is being compromised. Watch Jay Walking on the Tonight show sometime and you'll get a pretty good example of the "huge swath" mentality.
Yes, the constitutional system is designed to protect our rights, but it's those very rights that are under attack.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
the lack of concern shown by huge swaths of the population... especially those watching Faux News.
:aok :aok :aok Bingo!!!
also, drop me an email next time you in town.
hap
-
So you think there is something wrong with people who want to hear both sides of a story rather than the liberal side the MSM gives?
:noid
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The constitutional system is designed to protect your rights...it has done so successfully for over 230 years and I have every confidence that this wonderful system will continue to protect your rights.
I don't think you're right. I think the Constitution exists to make
"E Pluribus Unam" a reality. That IS MILES from protecting my my my, your, your, your, rights. What you wrote is absolutely contingent. It is a sidebar though.
To view the Constitution without understanding the rudiments of Calvinsim (I'm Catholic not a Calvinist) misses the reason the framers consituted our government so. Missing their point of view, which is so un-pc, throws the entire American Experiment into a solipsistic uck-ball.
Which is sorta what we have now. The question, purely in a political context, "Can Man Rule Himself?" is not a settled.
If someone demands that we've been at this long enough for it to be settled and would force me into an answer, I would say, "No." Man is incpable of self-rule unless it be at the expense of his fellows.
Our only hope is Grace.
hap
-
For any still out there,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Here's the self-stated 6 reasons the framers chose to consitutue our governemnt in n the manner which they detailed in our Constitution.
7 articles and 27 amendments.
hap
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/cartoons.htm
-
OK so I don't get it. Where exactly were my civil rights violated?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
OK so I don't get it. Where exactly were my civil rights violated?
SSSSSSHHHH!!!
Be quite before they take away more of your rights!
:noid
Damn there went another one!
At this rate we will be out by morning!
:huh
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Where exactly were my civil rights violated?
If you don't know, or don't care, you shouldn't have any, don't deserve any, and soon you won't have any...
-
i demand to have my rights restored, as soon as i find out which ones i have lost.
-
They will do what they want to do and there is nothing anyone can do about it. No point in even talking about it. Caring about will do not good. Not caring about it will do no good. Nothing we can say or do will do not good.
Call it apathy, call it pessimism, call it the truth. It will not change a thing. We are at the mercy of the political system we have created. The checks and balances do not exist which would allow any chance of correcting the situation.
So get all worked up about it. Yell and scream at others. Jump up and down and throw a hissy fit. In the end, it will not change a thing. Nothing will.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
So you think there is something wrong with people who want to hear both sides of a story rather than the liberal side the MSM gives?
:noid
The great MSM conspiracy theory was invented by bloggers that wanted people to think their opinion was the only one that mattered. ;)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
They will do what they want to do and there is nothing anyone can do about it. No point in even talking about it. Caring about will do not good. Not caring about it will do no good. Nothing we can say or do will do not good.
Call it apathy, call it pessimism, call it the truth. It will not change a thing. We are at the mercy of the political system we have created. The checks and balances do not exist which would allow any chance of correcting the situation.
So get all worked up about it. Yell and scream at others. Jump up and down and throw a hissy fit. In the end, it will not change a thing. Nothing will.
Just bend on over and let 'em have at yer sphincter, enh?
No point in struggling, might just as well get to likeing it, enh?
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
In the end, it will not change a thing. Nothing will.
If you are correct, then
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The irony is that we'd probably just return to the original Constitution and Bill of Rights with most of the Amendments thereto. Of course, we'd have to clarify the 2nd so that even the dolts understand that "the people" is.... duh... the people, us.
;)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
They will do what they want to do and there is nothing anyone can do about it. No point in even talking about it. Caring about will do not good. Not caring about it will do no good. Nothing we can say or do will do not good.
Call it apathy, call it pessimism, call it the truth. It will not change a thing. We are at the mercy of the political system we have created. The checks and balances do not exist which would allow any chance of correcting the situation.
So get all worked up about it. Yell and scream at others. Jump up and down and throw a hissy fit. In the end, it will not change a thing. Nothing will.
I rename you
Eeyore
(http://www.acc.umu.se/~coppelia/images/poohpics/eeyore/eeyore_sad.gif)
-
Toad, Hangtime, I am just saying you will not get the people of this country to band together and do anything about the situation. It ain't gonna happen. Think about it.
Nice words on a piece of paper are not going to make anything change. Politicians have no respect for the people of this country.
Yep, might as well bend over, because we do not have any other choice.
EDIT: Hehe MT. Yeah, I know I sound full of doom and gloom, but prove to me there is an alternative. I do not see one. All the talking and letter writting in the world will not do any good. I have wasted more time, ink, pencil lead, writing letter after letter. It does no good.
I dare say, most of you who think we can do something about it have never tried to get something changed on the political level.
-
Interesting that polls show a majority of American people would prefer to have their phones monitored rather than let terrorists operate and continue to commit acts of mass murder inside the USA.
Go figure.
-
Amen.
..and coming from an agnostic, that 'amen' means I'll not stand by and watch the struggle as an observer. Nor will I go quietly into the night when the time comes.
I'm gettin to be an old man.. made some mistakes. Be a good thing I think, to square the tally, finally make a difference.
I await the call.
-
The call has been SOUNDED! (http://www.dixierising.com/eLetterplay_dixie.htm)
-
Originally posted by Dago
Interesting that polls show a majority of American people would prefer to have their phones monitored rather than let terrorists operate and continue to commit acts of mass murder inside the USA.
Go figure.
oh that's just dismal. see what happens when civics isnt' taught anymore.
hap
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Be a good thing I think, to square the tally, finally make a difference.
I await the call.
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable _ and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace _ but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Here ya go hangtime. This sort of stuff used to be taught. hap
-
You mean it isn't anymore? :confused:
-
I can see it now, ".......The great revolution of 2006 was actually sparked by a bunch of Flight Sim Junkies on a Texas company BBS...."
-
Originally posted by Dago
Interesting that polls show a majority of American people would prefer to have their phones monitored rather than let terrorists operate and continue to commit acts of mass murder inside the USA.
Go figure.
I think the majority of Americans would quite calmly and quietly walk right into a police state if they thought it was safer.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i demand to have my rights restored, as soon as i find out which ones i have lost.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
-Martin Niemöller
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I think the majority of Americans would quite calmly and quietly walk right into a police state if they thought it was safer.
We stopped walking already..we are there..mostly.
Look at the govenrment real close...just about every right we have is circumvented in one way or another.
-
Free America!
For Years I have said this. We have a two party corrupt Goverment.
The Rich get Richer, The poor get poorer..American standards get tossed aside. No more Prayers in schools, no Pledge of Alligence, No more Nativity displays... The Ten Commandments are forbidden near a Courthouse.
Traveling this pace we will crumble...
What has Congress done for you lately?, Your Congressman? Your Senator?, Your Governor?, Your Mayor? Sit and collect $$$ without represitation?
Do you know where your tax dollars go? Why all the taxes? I shop and buy stuff and there's a State tax, yet at the end of the year I have to file State Taxes and pay more.
Congress Men don't have to pay Postal on a letter... yet I have to pay...And these are People living in a 6 figure life. Don't you think that they could afford a 32 cent stamp?
Wake up Americans and Take Back what was rightfully given to you! Those that died in Service to protect the Rights you have. Are you willing to lose them to a Corrupt Goverment? The two party political system is no more than voting for the lesser of the two evils. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, FDR must be spinning in their grave for what has became of this Country.
Things to think about.
Mac
-
I think the majority of Americans would quite calmly and quietly walk right into a police state if they thought it was safer.
====
your the pied piper? I could easily see liberals getting herded up and headed off to the farm but the guys with the guns, the right wing nutjobs...those 2nd amendment fools will be just fine.
Thanks for worrying about us :D
-
Not if they blow up another fed building they won't. Speaking of which, they may be as responsible for any loss of civil liberty in this nation as anyone else.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I think the majority of Americans would quite calmly and quietly walk right into a police state if they thought it was safer.
====
your the pied piper? I could easily see liberals getting herded up and headed off to the farm but the guys with the guns, the right wing nutjobs...those 2nd amendment fools will be just fine.
Thanks for worrying about us :D
Hehehe, well said.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
your the pied piper? I could easily see liberals getting herded up and headed off to the farm but the guys with the guns, the right wing nutjobs...those 2nd amendment fools will be just fine.
Thanks for worrying about us :D
Who's gonna lead 'em? Sedition is against the law. Can't lead from a jail cell. Who yah gonna shoot? Murder is Murder.
*sigh* As long as soccer moms can get gas and day trader dads can buy cold beer and watch nascar on sunday, the rights of free men are of no consequence. there will no doubt be individual acts of resistance when they stop by to collect your 'stuff'.. but resisting arrest and killing a federal officer is still murder.
*heavy sigh*
Not if they blow up another fed building they won't. Speaking of which, they may be as responsible for any loss of civil liberty in this nation as anyone else.
Recently, I've come to doubt the federal version of those events.. but not the results. And i wonder if the relationship between the two is the opposite of what most suppose it to be.
-
So NOW you guys are concerned about the burgeoning power of the Federal Government!?
How can you complain about the NSA using super-computers to search for threatening patterns in cell-phone traffic, with a straight face, after the years of supporting the growth of the federal government's intrusive powers when it suited your purpose?
It never bothered you before when the courts creatively interpreted the Constitution in new and imaginative ways...to grant rights to some and deny them to others.
The Patriot Act and the powers being employed by the NSA are mild compared to the draconian measures employed by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt during their administrations.
There has never been a war in American history when the federal government didn't impose limits on individual freedoms in the name of national security...and subsequently give them back when the crisis was over. Then, as now, there were those who whined about the restrictions...despite the danger facing the nation.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I think the majority of Americans would quite calmly and quietly walk right into a police state if they thought it was safer.
====
your the pied piper? I could easily see liberals getting herded up and headed off to the farm but the guys with the guns, the right wing nutjobs...those 2nd amendment fools will be just fine.
Thanks for worrying about us :D
Let's see how well the 2nd Amendment protects you from unwarranted surveillance.
-
Again... where's the fleets? the million man army? the will of a nation and it's leaders as one, bent to the task at hand? i don't see gas price caps, rationing, black outs and war bonds. I don't see the governments of hostile terror supporting nations trembling at the thought of an american army marching up their capitols streets... and we're 5 years into the 'war on terror and the nations that support it'.
i see 50 billion flushed down a rat hole, lives of our kids tossed in afterwards and talking heads. i see ports still unsecure, borders crossed by 3 million since the 'war' started and then.. more talking heads selling our rights down the hole.. for what? WHAT security? SHOW me... Osama is where ??
it's a phoney forever war. a war of 'bs' and 'talking points' and 'pc' patriot speak that colors the theft of american rights with a red white and blue handled brush spreading pure horsemanure; 24/7
-
Since when does the government need a warrant to monitor calls that originate overseas, or to trace calls being made in the U.S.?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only instances where a warrant would be necessary are those in which the feds actually monitored the conversation itself.
The NSA computer system is only tracking the patterns of the cell-phone calls, not the conversations themselves. Your "privacy" is only in danger of being violated it the government taps into the conversation itself.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only instances where a warrant would be necessary are those in which the feds actually monitored the conversation itself.
Your phone records are private too.
-
Roughly a billion cell-phone calls a day...and the feds have to get a warrant to monitor each and every one of them.
So, faced with such an immense and complicated task, the feds now have to worry about the legal stumbling blocks placed in their paths by those who insist that government security regulations are a greater threat to the nation than the designs of the terrorists.
How many bombings have you had in your home state in the last four years? How many airplane hi-jackings? Any buildings been the target of suicide attacks? Deadly gases released? Nuclear blasts leveled any of your citiies?
Of course not. And there is a very good reason why none of those things have come to happen: the federal government has taken off the gloves, rolled up its sleeves, and tackled the job of protecting the nation.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Since when does the government need a warrant to monitor calls that originate overseas, or to trace calls being made in the U.S.?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only instances where a warrant would be necessary are those in which the feds actually monitored the conversation itself.
The NSA computer system is only tracking the patterns of the cell-phone calls, not the conversations themselves. Your "privacy" is only in danger of being violated it the government taps into the conversation itself.
Horsepucky.
It's ok that they know and duly note, recorded for prosterity and the highest corporate bidder that I call the Hooters Hotline 4 times a week...... and my rights have not been violated because they didn't 'listen in'???
Worse, during the course of the coverstaion i happen to mention that her jubblies are 'the bomb'. Keyword, detected. recorder, ON.
Whups.. looks like one of Osamas 4th cousins calls the same number 4 times a week cause he likes titties too. Now, we're all labeled commie terrorist tittie bombers, they open a file.... dump the data..
This is making my nation safer? For who?
This is not a violation of my right to privacy?
Is this even the third planet anymore.... let alone america?
-
You call Hooters instead of going there in person?
Day-um! You OUGHT to be investigated!
Really a frightening scenario you just outlined there, my man. I'm gonna lose a lot of sleep worrying about the government monitoring my calls to Hooters. I'll have to give them up. I'd hate to spend 20 years in Leavenworth because the government found evidence of my unbridled lusts.
-
You don't get it. And, since you live such a princely life, I guess you have nothing to fear, because the government never makes mistakes, never ever acts on incorrect information and would never ever leak the incorrect info to your employer, who would never fire you because he knows, just like you do, that you live a princely life.
Of course, if your right to privacy was inviolate, all of the above does not apply. Remind yourself of than when you get canned for seditious behavior, Prince.
-
In a dozen years, these apologists will be scrambling for the hills, dodging behind any lame mound of an excuse they can find. It will be interesting, and pathetic, to note the tortured wording.
"We were...."...
and "We were...."
lmao.
You were nothing.
"Yes, I supported the betrayal of my country..... but!"...
I can chuckle now, because there is light at the end of the tunnel. Because the Christopaths are eating their young, and the 101'st aren't exactly that tough, go figure.
Implosion. Immolation.
The complete lack of any sense that these men ever had any idea how to actually govern.
All up in everyone's faces now.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
How many bombings have you had in your home state in the last four years? How many airplane hi-jackings? Any buildings been the target of suicide attacks? Deadly gases released? Nuclear blasts leveled any of your citiies?
Whoa there Nellie. I don't recall all that many before 911 either. Certainly no deadly gases released by terrorists. Only nukes ever blown up in this nation to date were by our own government. I hear the administration tooting it's own horn about how it's the only thing standing between us and certain destruction based on it's decision to bypass FISA at it's convenience and access my phone records without a warrant. Guess I'm not as easily impressed as you about it. Sorry.
-
Like it was pointed out earlier, a private company gets more information on your personal data than the federal govt does any day. Truth be told if you don't check the right box they have the right to sell that info to the highest bidder at whim.
I'm not concerned about the federal govt know who get's called from my number.
If I commit a criminal act and there is an investigation there will be a warrent issued to supeana my phone records. That is the only way they can be used against me in court.
NOW,
If Habib happend to call a certain number after aljazera played a new tape of some nut job and 10 other habib's called the SAME number after said tape than that is a pattern(even though according to information available the NSA did not know WHO was calling just that calls where made). If an attack happend arround the world after so many phone calls to a certain number happend and we could then issue warrents and monitor said phone calls and it prevented future attacks than I would say:
1. A pattern lead to an attack
2. We could exploit that pattern to prevent the attack
3. We could then use our court system to prosecute those that are in collusion with the attack
To top it off we have a court system that get's briefed and is providing oversight to all of this as it goes on in conjunction with our ways. If you want to continue to tie the federal govt's hands in reguards to protecting it's population that by all means do not complain when they fail to do so. I beleive in civil liberties but I do not think that the constitution is a death sentence.
We should not afford the enemies trying to destroy the same constitution that protects us, the oppertunity to exploit what means they can to destroy that said document that provides us the very liberties we mean to protect.
It's like allowing a car chase suspect a means of escape just because the speed limit allows it.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Whoa there Nellie. I don't recall all that many before 911 either. Certainly no deadly gases released by terrorists. Only nukes ever blown up in this nation to date were by our own government. I hear the administration tooting it's own horn about how it's the only thing standing between us and certain destruction based on it's decision to bypass FISA at it's convenience and access my phone records without a warrant. Guess I'm not as easily impressed as you about it. Sorry.
you seem like one of many people that are apart of the "wait for it" crowd. I just don't get it.
Terrorists did not come through the southern border so we should not be weary of them trying to do so yet.
Terrorists have yet to use deadly gas (in this country) so we don't need to worry bout that yet.
Terrorists have yet to use any type of radiological device to inflict harm so we don't need to worry bout that yet.
It just seems to me the same thing could have been said on Sept 10th:
Terrorists have yet to hijack planes and crash them into buildings.......So by that we shouldn't have prepared for that? I'm not saying we need to live in a prepetual state of fear but if you don't trust your federal govt to provide for your national security than WHO DO YOU TRUST???????
-
We should not afford the enemies trying to destroy the same constitution that protects us, the oppertunity to exploit what means they can to destroy that said document that provides us the very liberties we mean to protect.
*thunk*thunk*thunk*
it's hopeless. i suspect a woman could understand that logic. but; sadly, I just can't buy that one.
Sean Hannity., OTOH; would prolly put that one on the air.
Guns, the last time I checked, the islamist nutballs just want us dead. They don't even have a passing intrest in the constitution. They just wanna kill americans. hack off a head here, blow up a city there.. the more; the merrier, the bigger the block parties in towlie land.
It's the government that wants our rights.
-
And in this very microcosm, you see why we, as a nation, will never be able to thwart the government machine. Until the people of this nation, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of race or creed, regardless of religious preference, can stand up and with one resuonding voice scream, "WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!", nothing will change and we will continue to sink into the mire we have had a heavy hand in creating.
So Hang, yes, bend on over. It seems that is the only thing we will consciously, subconsciously, willingly, or with great stress, agree on, as a nation.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
They will do what they want to do and there is nothing anyone can do about it. No point in even talking about it. Caring about will do not good. Not caring about it will do no good. Nothing we can say or do will do not good.
Call it apathy, call it pessimism, call it the truth. It will not change a thing. We are at the mercy of the political system we have created. The checks and balances do not exist which would allow any chance of correcting the situation.
So get all worked up about it. Yell and scream at others. Jump up and down and throw a hissy fit. In the end, it will not change a thing. Nothing will.
which is worse, apathy or ignorance? when we (storch and company) build a wooden gate we are careful to select lumber that is tightly grained and has been air dried in our shop while bound. as the pieces are assembled care is taken to position each member in such a manner as to cause the pieces to warp oppositely of the adjacent pieces. since the nature of the wood is to bend we make those tendencies work against each other to create a net zero result. It doesn't work perfectly every time but therein lies the challenge and the charm. I think the framers of our constitution and the fathers of our great republic understood this concept very well. it's being played out every day. it is currently our generation's responsibility to see that it remains as it has in the past. we do indeed keep the necessary evil in check, we do it with our votes not with our rants.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
And in this very microcosm, you see why we, as a nation, will never be able to thwart the government machine. Until the people of this nation, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of race or creed, regardless of religious preference, can stand up and with one resuonding voice scream, "WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!", nothing will change and we will continue to sink into the mire we have had a heavy hand in creating.
There's been a few times during this century that gov't has somewhat turned on us. This is one of them. Executive branch obtaining phone records without the cooperation of the judicial and legislative branches. It's wrong. If USA Today has it's facts right.
I'm emailing my 2 senators and my representative to the house of representatives. And you're right Skuzzy. They won't get off the dime because I emailed them. If I don't do what little I can, then I will be doing wrong. Gotten old enough that I don't want to do wrong anymore.
hap
-
Raise up, make your voices heard!
There is a Time for a Change....
Free America!
Mac
-
Originally posted by Hap
There's been a few times during this century that gov't has somewhat turned on us. This is one of them. Executive branch obtaining phone records without the cooperation of the judicial and legislative branches. It's wrong. If USA Today has it's facts right.
I'm emailing my 2 senators and my representative to the house of representatives. And you're right Skuzzy. They won't get off the dime because I emailed them. If I don't do what little I can, then I will be doing wrong. Gotten old enough that I don't want to do wrong anymore.
hap
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah,
1. The phone companys gave the info to the NSA as requestion
2. If no private date was given, guess what, your privacy wasn't violated
hence no violation of the constitution. I do not buy into this erosion of rights. I do not buy into the "govt is out to get me" It all just seems like hysteria and paranoia.
If we were invaded by an actual army from an actual state would you be saying the same things? Would you want the invaders to enjoy your civil rights? Would you want them to have due process? Would you want the army to get a search warrent before going on patrol?
-
maybe I have allways just been paranoid but I have never considered anything that I said over the phone to be secure and private.
lazs
-
term limits
-
"When the Nazis came for the Communists, I wasn’t a Communist and so I did nothing. When they came for the Jews, I wasn’t a Jew and so I did nothing. When they came for the Catholics, I wasn’t a Catholic and so I did nothing. When they came for me, there was no one left to do anything."
.
Be Ever Vigilant friends!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
maybe I have allways just been paranoid but I have never considered anything that I said over the phone to be secure and private.
lazs
Smartest thing posted so far. In todays world, virtually all communications can be intercepted, and by a lot more eavesdroppers than the government.
-
Hey, I know. Let's take away everyone's gun so they can be even more oppressed by a governement that has no fear of it's citizens. Then we'll have very little chance of ever forcing a change if needed.
Isn't this the argument of those most loudly denouncing our current regime? :rolleyes:
7500
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
And in this very microcosm, you see why we, as a nation, will never be able to thwart the government machine. Until the people of this nation, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of race or creed, regardless of religious preference, can stand up and with one resuonding voice scream, "WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!", nothing will change and we will continue to sink into the mire we have had a heavy hand in creating.
So Hang, yes, bend on over. It seems that is the only thing we will consciously, subconsciously, willingly, or with great stress, agree on, as a nation.
'say, skuzzmeister; is that my soap, or yours?'
-
jeepers! hold on a tic...I need to run outside and see if the sky is falling!
BRB!!!
-
When I was growing up, I knew every person in a 4 block wide area. If I got hurt or needed help, I could call on anyone in that area and they would be there. There was no fear of lawsuits or some maniac taking you away.
We used to go 'trick or treat' on Halloween night, and the parents never thought twice about checking the goodies. We did not even need an adult to go with us. There was no fear of the night and the bad things that could happen.
We used to stop and offer aid to those who needed it, or might have needed it. There was no concern over being sued.
We used to be able to go to school and not worry about guns or knives or bombs, or even if our teacher would still be alive. Now we have metal detectors in elementary schools.
We used to be able to go into landmark buildings and not even think about it. Now, we have to wonder if it will be attacked next.
Slowly, but surely, we have lost freedoms. We have replaced those lost freedoms with fear. If you wait until the sky does fall, it will be too late.
The erosion of our liberties and freedoms have been happening for a very long time. If you do not see it, then you are not looking.
-
If you wait until the sky does fall, it will be too late.
'oh, so NOW we gotta chance? considering the current circumstances, this is a heluva time fer a semantics discussion, dontcha think?'
-
nope....sky is still there.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
'oh, so NOW we gotta chance? considering the current circumstances, this is a heluva time fer a semantics discussion, dontcha think?'
No semantics Hang. It is a metaphor. Sky falling, Earth blowing up, same thing.
Course, if Condolizard or the Billiard is what we have to chose from in 2008. I am leaving the country. This place will be in ruins. Probably will anyways. No one really gives a hoot about this country. Or the ones that do, have absolutely no say in how it is run. The founding fathers would be ashamed of us if they could see the state we have brought ourselves to.
And I have no clue who owns that bar of soap, but I would suspect it is someone holding a video camera on us waiting to see what would happen after they dropped it there.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
you seem like one of many people that are apart of the "wait for it" crowd. I just don't get it.
No, you obviously don't. I'm one of the of the "not easily impressed by unproven claims" types.
Terrorists did not come through the southern border so we should not be weary of them trying to do so yet.
You're apparently jumping ahead of both of us here. I suggested that claims of this administration doing such a great job at keeping us from being gassed or nuked since 911 based on it's policies to circumvent (for convenience sake) the existing system based on constitutional legality are not a proven fact and are most likely more than a bit exaggerated. The border issue is seperate though just as "panic based policy" related.
Terrorists have yet to use deadly gas (in this country) so we don't need to worry bout that yet.
Again not stated or implied. Check again. The administration using such a claim to promote it's policies of extreme measure isn't impressing me as much as it is you. *ShruG*
Terrorists have yet to use any type of radiological device to inflict harm so we don't need to worry bout that yet.
See above. :D
It just seems to me the same thing could have been said on Sept 10th:
Terrorists have yet to hijack planes and crash them into buildings.......So by that we shouldn't have prepared for that? I'm not saying we need to live in a prepetual state of fear but if you don't trust your federal govt to provide for your national security than WHO DO YOU TRUST???????
I think you're a might confused. I'm not challenging preparation. I'm challenging administrative policies that use the fears you're obviously feeling to grant the executive branch greater powers than the constitution allows. Who do you trust? ;)
-
Phone tracking legal, doesn't invade privacy
In the May 16 Viewpoints, several readers complained about the logging of phone records by the National Security Agency in an attempt to uncover terrorist activity within the U.S. Instead of a well-researched and thought-out presentation of the facts, the readers offer more of the anti-Bush administration paranoid rhetoric planted by the mainstream media and their cohorts in the Democratic Party, who since 9/11 have done nothing but undermine and hinder the country's efforts in the War on Terror.
A quick check of the facts would have revealed the following:
The program is not illegal. The Supreme Court has ruled the Fourth Amendment (protection from unreasonable search and seizure) does not include records of phone calls. The case is Smith v. Maryland (1979).
The program is not an invasion of privacy. All telephone record submissions to the NSA by the phone companies were done voluntarily and are anonymous. The callers' names and addresses are not identified. The substance of these calls is not monitored. To do that, the NSA states a warrant is required.
The program serves a necessary and useful purpose. The program was created to stop terrorism within the U.S. The information obtained could determine if a terrorist, once identified as within the borders, is working alone or is part of a cell. It helps us to connect the dots. If this program could have stopped almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens from being killed on 9/11, how many Americans would have been against it?
If the readers of the Press are relying on information provided by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party, they should realize both parties have a vested interest in our failure in the War on Terror. They believe any victory in the War on Terror is not in their best interest politically. And, sad to say, that is all they really care about.
During World War II, the country willingly made great sacrifices to defeat the enemy and preserve our way of life. Should we expect anything less of ourselves in the War on Terror?
William J. Dillon
Source (http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060519/OPINION/605190369/1030)
-
Clicked on the source link. Seems the author has a rather heated infatuation for Bush. Is there a chance that there could be something less biased? Thanks. :)
-
Good points dago, thanks for the post.
Again I equate this to a traffic study. If they are studying traffic patterns at a stop light and not writing down plate numbers there is nothing violating my privacy.
To me all this hoopla sounds like politics. Many asked why 9/11 happened and how could we have failed so miserably. No they are trying to connect the dots of future attacks and are themselves attacked for the means in wich they provide that very security we ask for.
"provide for the common defense" many of these so called "privacy advocates" willingly ignore this section of the constitution (if you want to make this a constitutional argument).
This very subject isn't new....it was brought up in the December NSA leak and just recently rehashed by USA today as somthing new.
Again I fail to see how my civil rights are being violated. I do not make the "nothing to hide" argument, it's more of a "where's the beef" statement.
-
That's because they are seperate portions of the constitution. It's not written that the citizen's right to privacy may be denied if required to provide for the common defense. There's the beef. ;)
-
During World War II, the country willingly made great sacrifices to defeat the enemy and preserve our way of life. Should we expect anything less of ourselves in the War on Terror?
this BS excuse pisses me off every time I hear it. WWII was a real war.. not in ANY way related to the scare mongering pile of dung 'Forever War" the administration uses as it's convienient for them to snatch rights and overide constitutional guarantees.
As soon as the 'War on Terror' finds a national entity to declare War on I'll hop in the boat and willingly TEMPORARILY surrender the rights they consider appropriate to achieve victory.
Since this 'war on terror' is no more a 'real' war than the 'war on drugs' they have no 'real' case for suspending forever my constitutional rights for their BS 'forever' war that does nothing to secure our ports, control our borders and in fact does NOTHING to actually 'win' their phoney 'war on terror'. And I've got news for yah all.. no matter how things come out in Iraq or Iran, this 'war on terror' will NOT ever be declared 'over'.
They've snatched 50 billion to date for this BS.. wonder how many years a national health care program that actually saves americans lives that could have funded. Pissing our resources down a BS hole is bad enough, wasting the lives of thousands of american service men and women for a people that despise us, don't respect us and are happy to see us die by the 10's and hundreds at a time in a poorly chosen 'occupation exercise' and using those failures to justify pissing away my rights is another.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
That's because they are seperate portions of the constitution. It's not written that the citizen's right to privacy may be denied if required to provide for the common defense. There's the beef. ;)
So you are saying that your right to privacy overides security even if it isn't being violated?
-
i get tired of asking this , exactly what "rights" have i lost?
and don't quote some poem from WW2, sandman.
except for security checks at airports, i live the same as i did before 9/11.
my phone records for last year might cover half a page, double spaced.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
So you are saying that your right to privacy overides security even if it isn't being violated?
Yes. My rights override the rights of the federal guvmint ... whether you personally think it's being violated or not. Get a bloody warrant. It's not a hard thing to do unless you're part of the current administration, it seems. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Yes. My rights override the rights of the federal guvmint ... whether you personally think it's being violated or not. Get a bloody warrant. It's not a hard thing to do unless you're part of the current administration, it seems. :D
Why don't you answer the question then and explain what rights you have lost!
Let me break it down for you before you even answer.
The phone company keeps record of all the calls you make. The fed. govt asks said phone company for these records. The company sees the govt isn't asking for billing or personal info (henc privacy) but they are asking for raw data. Phone company asks their inhouse lawyers if this violates privacy agreement, lawyers say no as long as personal info isn't released. They send the HUGE amount of data to the NSA who compiles it and looks for patterns. The NSA doesn't k now Arlo from the next guy they are just seeking patterns hence no privacy data is given hence no privacy laws are broken. If the NSA had all that extra data it would probably slow then down vrs. help them.
So again I ask what civil rights are being broken here. You are nothing more than a needle among a billion other needles in a global haystack that they are looking at. Warrent????? do we ask cops to get a warrent every time they search the fingerprint database? No we don't, it would be a waste of time and rescources.
and again I preface to you the fact that the phone company has the RIGHT to sell your calls PLUS your personal information if you fail to check the right box on the application reguardless of the federal govts involvment.
-
Relax. You're gettin' entirely way too worked up defending the NSA and stuff. Keeping our administrations and the agencies under them honest in regards to the constitution is a good thing. Don't .... you ... think? We should and hopefully shall continue to do so. Unless we decide a nation of sheeple is a good thing.
Repeat: My rights override the rights of the government. It's good to have watchdogs watching out for us. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Relax. You're gettin' entirely way too worked up defending the NSA and stuff. Keeping our administrations and the agencies under them honest in regards to the constitution is a good thing. Don't .... you ... think? We should and hopefully shall continue to do so. Unless we decide a nation of sheeple is a good thing.
Repeat: My rights override the rights of the government. It's good to have watchdogs watching out for us. :D
Based on what you say you are naturally assuming that the govt is violating your privacy rights.
-
Not really. That's like me saying based on what you're saying you automatically assume the government isn't. I'd like to think neither of us do that. :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Clicked on the source link. Seems the author has a rather heated infatuation for Bush. Is there a chance that there could be something less biased? Thanks. :)
Arlo,
I think you are referring to the next letter (I believe those to be letters from readers), and he (the next guy) is the guy referring to Bush, not the gentlemen I quoted.
-
Roger. Forgive. (But he sure had the hots, didn't he? ;))
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Roger. Forgive. (Bur he sure had the hots, didn't he? ;))
heheh yeah, but whats not to love? :D
-
Eye of the beholder. I've had beer goggles so I can't speak. :D
-
Originally posted by Hap
There's been a few times during this century that gov't has somewhat turned on us. This is one of them. Executive branch obtaining phone records without the cooperation of the judicial and legislative branches. It's wrong. If USA Today has it's facts right.
I'm emailing my 2 senators and my representative to the house of representatives. And you're right Skuzzy. They won't get off the dime because I emailed them. If I don't do what little I can, then I will be doing wrong. Gotten old enough that I don't want to do wrong anymore.
hap
Word I got was they ignore emails. Gotta snailmail em if you want to make em pay attention.
-
Nah, my father conducted an experiment. 30 people divided into 3 groups. 10 people called, 10 people wrote, 10 people e-mailed the same sentiments on an upcoming bill.
All 30 got the same "form letter" answer back.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nah, my father conducted an experiment. 30 people divided into 3 groups. 10 people called, 10 people wrote, 10 people e-mailed the same sentiments on an upcoming bill.
All 30 got the same "form letter" answer back.
Oh... OK my bad
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Roughly a billion cell-phone calls a day...and the feds have to get a warrant to monitor each and every one of them.
So, faced with such an immense and complicated task, the feds now have to worry about the legal stumbling blocks placed in their paths by those who insist that government security regulations are a greater threat to the nation than the designs of the terrorists.
How many bombings have you had in your home state in the last four years? How many airplane hi-jackings? Any buildings been the target of suicide attacks? Deadly gases released? Nuclear blasts leveled any of your citiies?
Of course not. And there is a very good reason why none of those things have come to happen: the federal government has taken off the gloves, rolled up its sleeves, and tackled the job of protecting the nation.
WOW someone actually believes this kind of crap. Tell me this, how many terorists events happened on US soil from 1992- sep. 11, 2000? How many has happened from Sep 12, 2000-current? Number should be about the same 0.
There has never been a war in American history when the federal government didn't impose limits on individual freedoms in the name of national security...and subsequently give them back when the crisis was over. Then, as now, there were those who whined about the restrictions...despite the danger facing the nation.
What happens when this turns into the War on Poverty, War on drugs, etc? They seem to declared war on something that will never go away so does that mean the get to take freedoms away and never need to give them back once the "War" is over?
For anyone who doesn't think anything can be done it can be summed up in one word, revolution.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
The great MSM conspiracy theory was invented by bloggers that wanted people to think their opinion was the only one that mattered. ;)
More like it was invented by people who paid attention to other sources of news besides Dan Rather. You know listen to everyone and form their own opinion. Not the normal sheep that think just because they say it on the news it must be true crowd.
-
The ultimate citizen action is to vote. I'll keep this issue in mind when I walk into the polling center.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
So you are saying that your right to privacy overides security even if it isn't being violated?
and you said re. phone records
That is the only way they can be used against me in court.
Privacy is more than about courts. Have you never heard of blackmail, of extortion ... or people like Cohn or McCarthy?
That is why privacy matters..... not courts.
But then agin the current excutive branch is systematicly attacking the rights of the judical system as well as the rights of the house, senate and common US citizen.
Lots of people bring up 1984..... but Huxley had a good book too.... and it was about safety and by association fear. Brave New World.
Well one thing about terrorists..... they want to make you afraid.....to create terror....
Are you afraid?
-
One thing I'll add about things and changeing them.
Propaganda works..... Mussolini should have taught us that.
Look at the state of our media.... Look at the corprate control.
Hillary Clinton bowed to Rupert Murdoch. Both Dem's and Rep's are bad.
One thing that might help is more parties. Nader, for this reason, would be better than McCain or Clinton or Condi or many others that might try in '08.
Progessives, Greens, or Libertarian's would all be better choices..... why because they aren't part of 'Clear Channels' or Rupert Murdoch's world.
The media is to blame for alot of our issues. We here with computers are elite simply by haveing one and an Internet connection. Most people in the US rely on these large corprate media giants for their 'news'.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0503-36.htm
The #1 broadcast news in the country, last I heard, is a defence contractor.
-
here is some good reading for those in the know...
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70944-0.html?tw=wn_index_2
and for your own copy of historical documents
http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/att_klein_wired.pdf
Funny thing about fiber optics is that if you can read the stream undetected; whats stopping you writing to the stream in question..
Thats where things get interesting. Thats where any congressional questioning should be directed...
Enjoy...
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
More like it was invented by people who paid attention to other sources of news besides Dan Rather. You know listen to everyone and form their own opinion. Not the normal sheep that think just because they say it on the news it must be true crowd.
Neh. Not seeing the self promotion of blogsites as their being less biased than the MSM as a reasonable form of open mindedness. ;)
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
and you said re. phone records
Privacy is more than about courts. Have you never heard of blackmail, of extortion ... or people like Cohn or McCarthy?
That is why privacy matters..... not courts.
But then agin the current excutive branch is systematicly attacking the rights of the judical system as well as the rights of the house, senate and common US citizen.
Lots of people bring up 1984..... but Huxley had a good book too.... and it was about safety and by association fear. Brave New World.
Well one thing about terrorists..... they want to make you afraid.....to create terror....
Are you afraid?
So you have proof that your privacy was violated?
-
yah got proof it wasn't?
The Government is NOT protected by 'innocent until proven guilty'. WE, THE PEOPLE are.
In fact, when challenged like this; the burden of proof is upon THEM. I believe it's called 'perponderence of evidence;.. in this case, the phone records.
The government will be forced to prove that our rights have not been violated.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
So you have proof that your privacy was violated?
So how would you get the proof?
The government would ignore a subpoena, claiming national security and then send a memo to any employees having access stating that reporters phone records as well as his own are being tracked and said employee will be fired, jailed if his number shows up on the record.
Pretty easy for a government with that type of power to keep secrets, but thats OK as long as you do no wrong.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
So how would you get the proof?
The government would ignore a subpoena, claiming national security...
shamus
Exactly. It's a pretty hard thing to do.
Usually, when companies do things that affect their value, the stockholders (rightly) want to know about it. When a company conceals their transactions and activities from the public, it constitues a violatation of securities law.
Sharing the phone records of their subscribers with the government would be one of those things, naturally. So what does the government do?
On May 5th, after it was learned that the telcos were indeed sharing their records with the government, Bush issued a presidential memorandum (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-4538.htm) that authorized Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence, to authorize a company to conceal it's activities from the shareholder, and by extension, the public at large. It took the the form of this. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000078---m000-.html)
Following this quick series of events, the telcos - AT&T, Bell South and Verizon - came out and denied any cooperation with the government.
Do you believe them?
-
There is a simple way to resolve this: you don't need PATRIOT Acts, or even UNPATRIOTS Acts, you just need a simple ammendment to the constitution that will clear up all the changes required to fight the War on Terror:
"Henceforth it shall be assumed that the following clause is appended and applies to all all previous and all future clauses and ammendments to the Constitution of the United State of America:
Unless the Goverment, it's officers and appointed delegates, decided to suspect one or more of the parties involved of being involved in terrorism (however they choose to define it), in which case all bets are off.
"
-
All 30 got the same "form letter" answer back.
====
they also got their names, addresses and vital stats culled and entered into a new database to monitor dissenters and whiney complainers. They are on the short list for the big round file Im afraid......it pays to be a non grata these days.
Just disappear.........just disappear :noid
-
nah, what they got on was the list of potential donors.
You get flooded with that crap after you write, call or e-mail. Ask me how I know.
-
used ta be you follwed the money.
now yah gotta follow the data.
problem is these guys got too MUCH data. It's leaking, bleeding out everywhere. Soon as I stuck my oar in on local politics, it started. Jury duty, fund drives, recycling weenies, building inspector, fire chief, every goofy acronym you can think of... they either stop by, call, email.. fer crissakes they wore out 2 fax cartridges with town hall BS.
Toad ain't kiddin.. they freaking deluge you through every orifice that'll get yer attention.
The government is hemoraging our data.. and we're gonna rubber stamp them gettin more?
-
I lived in the Washington DC suburbs from the early to mid 1960s. One day I decided to play hookey from high school and go for a stroll to the US Capitol. I just wandered around the place reading the plaques, watching the people and soaking in the atmosphere of power.
I discovered I could go to any Congressional or Senate hearing I wanted - just read the sign outside each of the rooms, decide whether it piqued my interest, walk in and sit right down and listen.
It was great. People talking to each other with decorum and deference. Serious questions and answers mixed with dashes of humor. There was no live TV coverage back then, so I suppose that would have explained the lack of grandstanding that is so commonplace now.
"So this is how adults act?" I thought to myself.
I discovered that I could visit the office of Congressmen and Senators. Some polite receptionist or aide would always ask if they could help me, and I discovered I could ask a question and someone would come out from an office to sit down and talk to me. I didn't have an appointment and they tried to answer the dumb, high school questions I had. Questions like, "What are the chances of me getting drafted after I turn 18?"
They treated me like a soon-to-be, potential voter, I suppose, since they were always polite. If someone didn't have an answer though, they asked for my address and I got many letters, signed by the Congessman or Senator, with a reply. I even got some straight-forward answers.
I recognized Senator Everett Dirkson (the Senate Republican Minority Leader) as he was walking down a hallway, and he stopped and shook my hand, even looking into, and not past, my eyes. He was one of the most visible senators in the new media of television. He is credited with the quote, "A billion dollars here, a billion dollars there; pretty soon we're talking about real money."
There is no record of him ever saying that, but the story goes that a newspaper reporter got the quote wrong, but it sounded so good that he couldn't deny it.
"Could I ask you a few questions?" I asked him.
He looked at his watch and said he was on his way to a hearing, but said, "Of course you can, if you don't mind walking with me to the hearing."
I started asking him some questions about the war in Vietnam - it looked like there was no end in sight. He waved me past the guards as we headed to the little subway. There is (or was) a small subway that only Congress can use to travel back and forth from either end of the capitol building. It looked like a Disney teacup ride. The cars were open and 4 people could sit 2 X 2 across from each other. The Disney reference certainly seems appropriate today...
He answered all my questions honestly, I think. He did love to talk, though... He didn't ask where I lived or if I would be a voter in his state. He didn't patronize me. If he didn't have a good answer, he said so.
His easily recognizable bass voice telling me, "I just don't have an answer for that right now."
When we got to the end of the line, he said he'd try to find an answer to a question I had about the budget, since he was always outspoken about government spending. He was an interesting guy, but his young assistant with the armful of papers in the tight skirt and high heels sitting next to him seemed more interesting at the time...
She took my name and address and I had more than a few 17 year-old fantasies about her writing me a letter, but it never happened. But, I did get a letter from Senator Dirkson answering my question about a week later.
Having that kind of experience during a time in our lives that we all remember so well still gives me hope that good men exist. Can we find them and convince them to run in the minefield of 'gotcha' politics and media now? I think I had a better chance of getting that fantasy letter from the assistant.
[added] I don't want you to burst a vein over this Hangtime, so please remember that I'm only the messenger... It isn't $50 billion spent. The total, long-term cost (most of which is off-budget now) is 50 billion $20 bills. So far, the total extended costs exceed $1 trillion.
-
Great anecdote, Rolex... I always love reading your stuff.
And, it's an interesting question:
"Having that kind of experience during a time in our lives that we all remember so well still gives me hope that good men exist. Can we find them and convince them to run in the minefield of 'gotcha' politics and media now?"
To me, it's kind of like a chicken and egg question. What comes first? The bad politician, or the good politician that only becomes "bad" through smearing and the polarizing effect of heightened partisan vitriol?
Because I believe that good men exist. I also happen to believe that some of them currently occupy seats in both the House and Senate.
It's not a matter of "finding" them.... because they sit before us.
And what new saviour of any political stripe would not be immediately reduced to charicature as a result of opposition smearing? Who would be immune to it?
A new and refreshing politician cannot emerge because people won't allow it.
Something else has to happen...
-
If you wait until the sky does fall, it will be too late.
The sky is actually our perception of the atmosphere which surrounds us and exists because the various constituant gasses are attracted toward the surface of the earth by the force of gravity.
Life on earth could not exist without a 'fallen' sky.
-
Rolex.. you have a gift. Thanks for wasting it on us.
Was an interesting era... I kinda doubt the politicians of the 50's and 60's would scarcely recognize the capitol crowd today... or if a Republican would even recognize a republican. Some things haven't changed... "My esteemed colleague" still means 'this blithering idiot".
Joe McCarthy had a cause. The cause was this Republic and its perpetuity. That was what impelled him onward. What he did was voluntary; he did not have to do it. He did not have to accept "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune," as Shakespeare has put it. He could have coasted; he could have been a conformist; he could have kept his eye always on his constituency and the next election. But he was not impelled to do that....
I have often wondered whether I would have done what Joe McCarthy did. I have some doubt about it. I think in moments I would have quailed. I am afraid that in moments when the load became so heavy and the fury so great, I might have faltered. He did not falter under any attack. He did not falter under any assault of character which was made upon him, day after day. He had the courage to withstand the attacks. He excelled in the human attributes of loyalty and devotion to his country, and had the courage to express and articulate his devotion in everyday life.
Senator Everett Dirksen
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Neh. Not seeing the self promotion of blogsites as their being less biased than the MSM as a reasonable form of open mindedness. ;)
I'm not talking about just blogs I mean I read or watch from multiple sources and form my opinion from that. I don't just watch the MSM and say they are telling the truth Just as I don't just watch Fox and agree with everything they say.
You have to hear all sides of a story before you can form a rational opinion.
*********************edit***************
ok after reading what I posted and seeing some of the comments here (not talking about you Arlo)I thought I should edit it to reflect that not everyone who sees both sides can form rational opinions. Just wanted to clarify that.
:p
-
Both Rolex and Hang brought forward some important matters, Rolex by way of anecdote, thanks, I too enjoyed reading it, and Hang directly with a quote by Dirkson, whom I also recall.
This "truth" stuff ain't for sissies. And the awful truth is many (most?) will sell their birth right for a mess of pottage. A movie, VERY MUCH to that point I saw last night. Paul Scofield in "Man for all Seasons. When the pack is going one way because either "that's the way we're going right now" or "that's the way the boss is going" standing on truth, St. Thomas More's postion, always comes with a price. In his case, it cost him his head.
I greatly admire (amongst many qualities) those who do not deviate from the truth and remain charitable (see More's writings published by Vintage Spiritual Classics. You'll be blown away). And those who miss the mark and later turn from action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life.
I too agree with Rolex or was it Hang who said "folks from 50 years ago would not recognize much our current political process & rebulican and democrats." When I emailed by 2 senators and 1 congressman stating my objection to the NSA's action's, I asked, "does no one take civics anymore."
Of course, the answer is either "no," or "not really" as these boards show. Do some posters exhibit knowledge of America's system of checks and balances, of course. The majority have not. Whether they "can not" I do not really know. I suspect such is the case.
That many could care less and relish more the occasion of discussion to mock is not merely a sign of the times. For wit, is very much part of the spice of life. When, however, (and this is probably an overstatement, at least I hope it is) better than a generation is largely ignorant of . . . the history of serious discussion (for lack of a better phrase) those methods appear "a joke." So jokes abound.
The good news is improvement is possible. Also, this bbs is a sample, but I don't know what we're a sample of, unless it be dweebry. I fear that "dweebery" has gone nationwide if not worldwide. Progress should be easy from this juncture. Right?
hap