Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by clevin, Jan 4, 2007.
You know its coming...
here's my favorite bit from this piece about it:
i'm not convinced that exigent jives with longstanding.
This person in DC and Texas is simply amazing. 2 more years and he would be outa office. I don't think that plan will fly in now Democrat-controlled Congress.
I hope the history will judge him as "not a good President." I think he has it in his bag as he walks out in 2 years.
Soon they'll be searching our underwear drawers for WMD's.
As a silly, ignorant foreigner, unfamiliar with the niceties of your fine democracy, with its carefully balanced powers and all its checks and balances, I have to ask: why bother with Congress or the Senate? Your President doesn't seem to need them.
it's a fair question. i'm waiting for the SCOTUS to weigh in.
It reminds me of when I was a child, my school teachers would explain to us the differences between liberties in Communists countries and Democracies. Where's the difference?
"Is that a biological weapon in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?"
Damn activist judges, don't need them either.
I doubt GWB writes too much. So, he may not be using US Mail, which might mean he does not understand what that idiotic executive initiative might mean to many folks who pay his salary via god awful taxes. Maybe he does not realize many people write and use mail some letters in addition to regular billing mails.
Can you imagine what would happen if USA is going to have another TSA who screens the mail? Now, we have more lost mail, tampered mail, and what not.
Could be both, I suppose.
So Bush is now opening mail without a warrant?, reading everyones email and listening to everyones phone but but he ignores millions of illegals walking in from Mexico and any country in the world? in the world? after his war of terror? and his reaction to our borders is Speeches & Spin? then add to Iraq 20,000- 40,000 men & women? No WMDs? time to go home. Just develop our own Energy and control our own borders. Bring home our troops that are in the middle of a war thats at least a thousand years old.
Oh man, conservatives are giving away the mantle of smaller, less-intrusive government. By their own actions, they make liberals the favorites of small-government folks every day.
Bush has damaged, and will continue to damage, the reputation of conservatives for at least a generation.
Have you talked with any neocons who recite the mantra, "I've nothing to hide, so I don't mind the scrutiny"? I'm baffled by the carte blanc concession of rights as well as the innuendo that anyone who sees it as a violation of privacy is guilty of wrongdoing either by or without association.
Does anybody ever wonder why other countries are able to find terrorists, yet here in the USA we can't. Ever wonder how the Canadians were able to foil a plot to blow up major buildings in Quebec? The USA has too many damn laws when it comes to privacy. We need to get rid of some of these laws to be able to bust terrorists. I could care less if someone reads my mail. I could care less if someone hears me talking sweet talk to my girlfriend. I am not doing anything that is against the law. I really don't think the FBI cares about about a birthday card I send to my mom. We as a nation need to understand that this is done to protect us. Great Britain has relaxed laws on searches and privacy. Wow, they are able to bust people and organizations that are out to hurt people. We need that in this country. We Americans need to shut up and let our military and government do their jobs which is protect us. I am afraid that another 911 could someday happen and we will all sit back and wonder why didn't our government do anything. Hello, they tried. Too many people were afraid to have their mail read. And no I am not a Republican, I am an Independent with views of both sides.
you're the type of person who i think should stay away from the polls.
Fine. Which part of the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights would you be willing to dispose of?
"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."
We seem to be honing in on the semantics and interpretation of what constitutes "unreasonable". I'd have to take issue with the position that alluding to "other countries" and using Canada as the sole example satisfies the assertion that "other countries, because of their abuse of human rights and invasion of privacy have proved more effective in sifting out the bad guys. Pretty much the whole of South America would argue against that position.
Are you arguing for a military state?
You sir, deserve neither liberty nor security.
I suppose it carries to the logical conclusion that the Patagonian Toothfish (Chilean Sea Bass) is on the endangered list, thanks to relaxed laws of protection. There's gotta be a pony in there, somewhere.
Oh, mactastic. You and your Franklinisms.
We can still bust terrorists. They just need warrants first. Warrants that are easy to get, even after the fact. Law enforcement does it all the time for all sorts of crimes.
You're missing the point. This type of thinking is what leads to a police state where you lose all of your rights in the name of temporary, perceived safety. You don't want that. Way too open for abuse. Even if you aren't doing anything illegal. The Founding Fathers knew this, which is why they made a big deal about it. So King George just couldn't call you a criminal and bust down your door and take all your stuff. So there's oversight first, so they have to prove why they're watching you.
Freedom is what makes us what we are. If you can't see that, or why this is a bad idea, I don't know what to tell you. Or people like you who are letting this type of thing happen.
In Soviet Russia, Government spies on you.
Wait, that's not funny.
So Stalin's back eh? Except ici!
Seabass069, have you ever misunderstood a post on the Internet, where all you had to go by for interpretation was the printed word? Ever had anybody misunderstand you?
So there you are, pure as the driven snow, and somebody reads your mail and interprets some innocuous statement as having evil intent. This reader then passes on the information about an Evil Person to elsewhere within the hierarchy, and the next thing you know you're under investigation for being some sort of terrorist.
And THAT's merely a PART of why we talk about Probable Cause and Warrants and Civil Liberties.
I could add in bits and pieces about your having to prove your innocence, or the problem of an overzealous prosecutor or the cost of legal fees...
Welcome to the other side of the fence, 'Rat! Are you a lefty now?
Last I heard, civil rights were for everybody. Me, I'm as anti-statist as I ever wuz.
That's why I offered the comment in the Pelosi thread about any possibility of "cleaning up" such horribles as the Patriot Act and all the other NeoCon garbage. What's her view? Pro civil rights? Or not?
When it comes to polyticks, "I ain't no bigot; I hate ever'body equal!"