Serenity AS Constitution?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 15:15
VIEWED: 6265
PAGE 2 of 8
Geezer, Auraptor
Quote:And the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure), First Amendment (freedom of speech) and habeas corpus (Constitution Section 9) -hating Bush Administration?
You mean like the 2nd Amendment-hating Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, et al? Yep. Evil Alliance bastards, every one.
Geezer, I agree with you on the Second Ammendment, but you are utterly blinded by your biases. I know you would say the same about me, except I voted AGAINST Clinton and I hate Feinstein.
Quote:Does this mean that just because we got f*cked over by the previous Adminsitration we should hand Bush the vaseline? Or are you really OK with the government snooping on your business and conversations with no oversight and detaining US citizens indefinitely w/o charges? I mean, whatever happened to the concepts of personal liberty, due process, checks and balances? I was not entirely thrilled about Waco- I thought at the time it was mishandled terribly. (I simply would have w/drawn all forces from around the compound area and let them simmer in their own paranioa. Instead, they fell right into acting just like Koresh's doomsday predictions and gave him credibility w/ his own people. Stupid, stupid, stupid.) AFA Elian Gonzales- Turn the situation around: A mom illegally takes her son from America to Venezuela on a trip in which she is killed. The dad on Seattle asks for him back. What would you say if Hugo Chavez refused to return him to Seattle?
As a conservative libertarian, and a Southerner too, I can identify w/ Mal's plight and the concept of letting folk do as they please, as long as they don't hinder or deprive anyone else of their freedom through force or fraud. Yet despite the yammerings of our personal freedoms being taken away, I simply don't see it. Well, not any more than I saw under the previous Administration( Waco, Elian Gonzalez, for example ) ...in fact, far less so now.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is why conversations with Auraptor tend to deteriorate. He just can't resist these little (ad hominem) zingers.
I think some folks need to take up a new hobby. Or get outside more.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Auraptor, I guess you're OK with the government snooping on your business and conversations with no oversight whatsoever? Also, you're OK with the government detaining US citizens indefinitely w/o charges? I mean, whatever happened to the concepts of personal liberty, due process, checks and balances? I was not entirely thrilled about Waco- I thought at the time it was mishandled terribly. (I simply would have w/drawn all forces from around the compound area and let them simmer in their own paranioa. Instead, they fell right into acting just like Koresh's doomsday predictions and gave him credibility w/ his own people. Stupid, stupid, stupid.)
Where do you get that idea, unless you're paranoid? Under no circumstances am I "OK" with the Gov't snooping me or any average Joe. But that isn't what they're doing. When they say they're monitoring KNOWN terrorist operatives, I have no delusions in thinking that means me. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that is what the Gov't is wasting its time w/ random searches of any/every American. That'd be ridiculous.
How Janet Reno wasn't at the very least sacked for the Waco debacle, I'll never know.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Did you believe everything Clinton "said"? I doubt it. So why would you believe Bush? If Bush was really monitoring "known terrorists" why didn't he just go and present his "reasons" for monitoring these people to FISA? Then he could have shown that it wasn't UNreasonable search and seizure and the Fourth Amemdment would have been upheld. As it is, we just have his "word" on the topic. So, I take that "word" and pose it against his OTHER public statements that searches and wiretaps would always be conducted with a warrant and I'm left with the impression his word doesn't mean much because of ingorance or mendacity.
When they say they're monitoring KNOWN terrorist operatives...
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Did you believe everything Clinton "said"? I doubt it. So why would you believe Bush? If Bush was really monitoring "known terrorists" why didn't he just go and present his "reasons" for monitoring these people to FISA? Then he could have shown that it wasn't UNreasonable search and seizure and the Fourth Amemdment would have been upheld. As it is, we just have his "word" on the topic. So, I take that "word" and pose it against his OTHER public statements that searches and wiretaps would always be conducted with a warrant and I'm left with the impression his word doesn't mean much because of ingorance or mendacity.
When they say they're monitoring KNOWN terrorist operatives...
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
Until I'm given a reason to believe otherwise... As Reagan said... "Trust....but verify".
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just gave you a reason- Bush's word contradicting Bush's word. Hey, when someone disagrees with themselves ONE of them is going to be wrong and BOTH of them lose credibility about their "word"! Clearly, you have a serious need to believe Bush and you hold him to a far lower standard than, say, Clinton.
And well... I REALLY need to get out. Not "more", just "get out" So I'll TTUL.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Where do you get that idea, unless you're paranoid? Under no circumstances am I "OK" with the Gov't snooping me or any average Joe. But that isn't what they're doing.
Yes it is.
It's called the PATRIOT Act, and it lets Law
Enforcement enter your home or business, search,
find, and NEVER have to tell you about it, all
without a court order.
Waah Waah Waah, they're not using it on ME so why
should I care? First they came for the Gypsies, then
they came for.... oh what's the use.
The fact is that it's ON THE BOOKS and IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and people we "elected" Right and Left want to keep it there........
Best we can do is VOTE the ISSUES, not the PARTIES
and keep our powder dry.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I just gave you a reason- Bush's word contradicting Bush's word. Hey, when someone disagrees with themselves ONE of them is going to be wrong and BOTH of them lose credibility about their "word"! Clearly, you have a serious need to believe Bush and you hold him to a far lower standard than, say, Clinton.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
I just don't see any reason to get all wrapped up in semantics here. The goal is to detect communications between those who would pull off another 9-11-01 type attack. And also, I'm not certain that you're not comparing apples and oranges here. Partial comments taken out of context don't really sound the alarm for me. Seems you have a serious need to NOT believe Bush. After the hollow cries of WOLF! from the far Left about the so called lies of Bush, I have become numb. Warrant, no warrant, I still support what The President is doing in regards to fighting terrorism and ' collecting the dots ', before another attack.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Where do you get that idea, unless you're paranoid? Under no circumstances am I "OK" with the Gov't snooping me or any average Joe. But that isn't what they're doing.
Yes it is.
It's called the PATRIOT Act, and it lets Law
Enforcement enter your home or business, search,
find, and NEVER have to tell you about it, all
without a court order.
Waah Waah Waah, they're not using it on ME so why
should I care? First they came for the Gypsies, then
they came for.... oh what's the use.
The fact is that it's ON THE BOOKS and IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and people we "elected" Right and Left want to keep it there........
Best we can do is VOTE the ISSUES, not the PARTIES
and keep our powder dry.
Sorry, but that is not an factual description of what the Patriot Act does.
Lincoln freeing the slaves was also 'UnConstitutional' but I'm not about to advocate we overturn the Emancipation Proclamation.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Warrant, no warrant, I still support what The President is doing in regards to fighting terrorism and ' collecting the dots ', before another attack.
You must be one of the ones who "deserves neither".
News flash: it ain't about intercepting
communications. It's about control. I promise you,
there are perfectly simple ways to comminucate
without any government intercepting it. You think
an Al Queda plan is going to be 'intercepted'?
What you are seeing, and what you purport to be
supporting is our government GRASPING AT STRAWS.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME