Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Justice Department to declare warrantless wiretaps legal

If the government really wants to listen to me discuss my oh so dramatic life with my gals pals and gent friends, so be it.

I think it's virtually impossible to have my privacy invaded, I'm not that private.
 
Since I never receive calls from known or suspected Al Queda members, I doubt anyone really gives a shit what I'm talking about on the phone.
 
What if Miss Manners is Usama bin Laden and we're all his lackeys!

DUM-DUM-DUUUUMMMMM!!!

Hi guys. Just dropped in for a sec, carry on with your non-rubbish conversation.
 
Laker_Girl said:
If the government really wants to listen to me discuss my oh so dramatic life with my gals pals and gent friends, so be it.

I think it's virtually impossible to have my privacy invaded, I'm not that private.
Click to expand...

Well, that all well and good for you, but I don't want them listening to mine.

Not because I have anything to hide, but because I just DON'T WANT THEM LISTENING. That's the whole point of privacy, it isn't about hiding something, it's about having some things be PRIVATE.

I'm not hiding when I go to the bathroom, but I'd rather do my business in private if you don't mind. No one is unaware of what I'm doing, I mean everyone does the same things in the bathroom. I still want my privacy.

Same with walking around my house nude. I'm not hiding my body, but I'd rather the windows had blinds on them.. [well maybe not all the time.. *snicker*]

It's about privacy, not having something to hide. The argument that 'if you don't have something to hide, you won't mind the intrusion' is bull shit. I do mind.
 
Confession time: I AM hiding when I go to the bathroom.

Agree that the government needs to be wicked protective of our privacies. That crap that went on in the 60s and 70s was ridiculous and should never be allowed to happen again.
 
Fourth Amendment:

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.
Click to expand...

For all of his talk about freedom and liberty and patriotism, Bush is willing to ignore the U.S. constitution. He's anti-American.
 
Agreed and disagreed.

He is anti-constitutionalist, and against the principles of the founding fathers, and therefore "anti-American." If there are any ideals that American stands for, he has betrayed them long since.

He is, however, highly nationalistic, and thus also "pro-American" - in favor of pax Americana, and in favor of an American Empire.
 
Number_6 said:
Since I never receive calls from known or suspected Al Queda members, I doubt anyone really gives a shit what I'm talking about on the phone.
Click to expand...

We've seen how well the governments no fly list has worked to date when it came to who they've decided is a threat to US security and shouldn't be allowed to fly.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/01/06/terror.list.preschooler.ap/?section=cnn_travel

'Edward Allen's reaction to being on the government's "no-fly" list should have been the tip-off that he is no terrorist.

"I don't want to be on the list. I want to fly and see my grandma," the 4-year-old boy said, according to his mother.

But I'm sure the government isn't making the same mistake when it comes to who they choose to eavesdrop on. ;)
 
For those who express indignation toward Bush's warrantless wiretaps...and btw...no one taps wires anymore; communication is monitored via Echelon satellites...did you express the same indignation when Clinton did the exact same thing back in 1995? How about when he took it a step further with warrantless home searchs?
 
Do two wrongs make a right... hmm. Well, let's say you catch a chomo in the middle of a dirty deed with some angelic wee tyke. Will killing the depraved sonofabitch without letting him enjoy due process be a second wrong at all?

Maybe we ought to examine more closely what we think of as wrongs to see if the evil they put a stop to outweighs the evil they start before we ask that question.
 
CoyoteUgly said:
No, instead they set a legal precedent.
Click to expand...

While I'm not inclined to sing the praises of the current administration's encroachments into our collective privacy, you are correct about legal precedent.

It's always amusing to hear looney lefties doing their chicken little impression about possible threats to our liberties during the Bush administration, while those same people were rolling their eyes when civil libertarians where bitching and moaning about the Janet Reno Department of Justice when it was engaged in paving the way for "The Sky is Falling - 2006".
 
Sardonica said:
Threats to our civil liberties are unnacceptable, no matter when or where or what administration. Has nothing to do with "lefties", "righties", etc. :(
Click to expand...


I agree, completely.

I wasn't commenting on the threat to civil liberties as much as I was commenting on how, after Ruby Ridge and Waco, as well as some of the initiatives which Reno and the DEA had introduced back then, that the concerns of those who took issue were dismissed by many left-wingers.

You do know, of course, that a great number of the provisions written into the Patriot Act which could do the most potential damage to our liberties were already written into the laws governing the investigation and prosecution of drug dealers and users authored during the Clinton years (the whole precedent thing).

You didn't hear the Sarandons squawking when the Clinton administration's drug arrest and incarceration statistics soared above any previous regime's since the begining of the 'war on drugs' while employing constitutionally questionable means, did you?
 
CoyoteUgly said:
For those who express indignation toward Bush's warrantless wiretaps...and btw...no one taps wires anymore; communication is monitored via Echelon satellites...did you express the same indignation when Clinton did the exact same thing back in 1995? How about when he took it a step further with warrantless home searchs?
Click to expand...

There's always this assumption that there weren't complaints thenor that people now are only seeing *one* side as being at fault. Or that because no one complained then, they somehow gave up the right to take exception now. Neither happens to be true.
 
Caitriona said:
There's always this assumption that there weren't complaints then or that people now are only seeing *one* side as being at fault. Or that because no one complained then, they somehow gave up the right to take exception now. Neither happens to be true.
Click to expand...

Actually, people did complain then. The Republicans did. The Libertarians did. People also complained about Janet Reno and the heavyhandedness of the FBI. But brother Bill was working for a better America, so it all went in one ear and out the other.

Let me tell you what I think: I think Congress wrote Bush a blank check back in 2001, and now there are those who don't like what figure he's written in the little box and how he's spending the cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top