Yay - intelligence bill passes - we lose more freedoms

[moldyhands]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/12/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3821504.shtml

key turds in this bill:

- extends warrantless wire tappings;
- provides retroactive immunity to telecom companies that have broken the law.

mccain voted for the bill;
obama voted against the bill;
hillary didn't vote.

so if you're interested in civil liberties - out of the big three, i don't see how you can vote someone other than obama.

[25psi]

Is it really is too much to ask these days for a viable candidate that stands for both personal and economic freedom.

Shitty bill.

[Topless T/A]

you all can thank your Republicans for that.

[rainmkr]

Is it really is too much to ask these days for a viable candidate that stands for both personal and economic freedom.

Shitty bill.

-cough-ronpaul-cough-

[Topless T/A]

-cough-ronpaul-cough-

you'll be coughing for a while......

[25psi]

you all can thank your Republicans for that.
And then thank the Democrats when they shower us with Social Programs to hold our hand from cradle to grave?



It's pick your poison these days.

[moldyhands]

And then thank the Democrats when they shower us with Social Programs to hold our hand from cradle to grave?



It's pick your poison these days.
i'll take freedom and socialism for 1000 alex.

i'd prefer to pay a higher taxes to live in a country with more freedoms any day of the week. anyone that thinks these laws are about safety are blind sheep.

bush's speech defending the new intelligence bill literally started out, "Good morning, right now there are terrorists somewhere in the world..."

what a crock of shit.

[BAMF]

Goddamn it. Thanks a lot, McCain. You'd figure YOU of all people would support freedoms.

Ugh. Just another bite taken out of our freedoms by the powerhungry, increasingly totalitarian government we're electing. Congratulations, America.


By the way. I'll take freedom and socialism for 1,000, Bob.

[Scott]

I'll take about anything but socialism for $1,000,000 ! Because the end result will be the same but with socialism the government will be in every aspect of your life.

[SilentBob86]

god...im so surprised!!!!!!!!!!

/sarcasm

giant douche/turd sammich for $1,438,837 alex?

[25psi]

freedom and socialism



Oil and Water.

[BAMF]

Oil and Water.

False.

[25psi]

False.

Equality is NOT freedom.

[BAMF]

Equality is NOT freedom.

Socialism does not require the surrender of freedom.

[25psi]

Socialism does not require the surrender of freedom.

In my book it does. Freedom doesn't stop at ones wallet, or ones personal belongings.

[Scott]

Socialism does not require the surrender of freedom.


Uh please explain.

[moldyhands]

socialism is an economic system. it has nothing to do with freedoms such as that of speech, religion, privacy, etc.

so you guys would rather have a totalitarian regime with limited freedoms as long as you can make money and be safe? there's a word for that, fascism.

[25psi]

socialism is an economic system. it has nothing to do with freedoms such as that of speech, religion, privacy, etc.

so you guys would rather have a totalitarian regime with limited freedoms as long as you can make money and be safe? there's a word for that, fascism.

I view economic transactions without government interference as a freedom. This freedom, much like our personal freedoms is also being erroded through excessive government size,spending, and regulation.

Socialism gives government more control offer ones personal affairs, giving government the power to "do good" and "level the playing field" through socialism is also the power to harm, being that you are on the governments payroll, the government now has a vested interest in your life.

Socialism and Fascism are equally undesirable, neither works well because they both limit different freedoms.

[Topless T/A]

I think some of you need to read up on socialism, and then read up on the ideals of the democratic party...using the two interchangeably is just ring-wing rhetoric...and moldy's right about the economic aspect of it.

[Scott]

socialism is an economic system. it has nothing to do with freedoms such as that of speech, religion, privacy, etc.

so you guys would rather have a totalitarian regime with limited freedoms as long as you can make money and be safe? there's a word for that, fascism.


Socialisim is far more than a economic system. They just sneek in the back door instead of opening one for you to walk through.

Totalitarian regime ? :lol:

Did you hear where Billary called herself a modern day progressive ? Want to talk about scary. :crack:

[BAMF]

Socialisim is far more than a economic system. They just sneek in the back door instead of opening one for you to walk through.

Totalitarian regime ? :lol:

Did you hear where Billary called herself a modern day progressive ? Want to talk about scary. :crack:

Okay, you're starting to piss me off with your digressing and question dodging.


Its simple. would you rather have Mussolini or Hillary?

[PPGMD]

you all can thank your Republicans for that.

I'm trying to remember which party has the majority in congress at the moment? I forget, but I could have sworn it started with a 'D'.

Anyways this is the analytics program, no phone calls were listened to under this program, just records of calls were analyzed to track down potential cell networks in the US.

You don't have an expectation of privacy of who you called since those records are in the hands of a private company. You want anonymous calling, use a pay phone, because they it still requires a warrant to listen into the phone call (unless it's a overseas call.)

[BAMF]

^ Seriously? Name a recent law. Any law. I'll show you how people voted on it. Republicans overwhelmingly vote against personal freedoms more than Democrats. But don't take my word for it, name a recent law.

[Topless T/A]

I'm trying to remember which party has the majority in congress at the moment? I forget, but I could have sworn it started with a 'D'.

Anyways this is the analytics program, no phone calls were listened to under this program, just records of calls were analyzed to track down potential cell networks in the US.

You don't have an expectation of privacy of who you called since those records are in the hands of a private company. You want anonymous calling, use a pay phone, because they it still requires a warrant to listen into the phone call (unless it's a overseas call.)

what BAMF said....and there wasn't a single republican that voted against this...not a single one.

[PPGMD]

^ Seriously? Name a recent law. Any law. I'll show you how people voted on it. Republicans overwhelmingly vote against personal freedoms more than Democrats. But don't take my word for it, name a recent law.

If the Democrats were so against these laws they could have easily prevented it's passage, they have a majority. What this shows is that this bill doesn't have the doom and gloom that most people think it does.

As a private citizen I can use PI tools to pull up many of the phone records for people. This is nothing more then the government taking that same data compiling a large database and playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon linking calls from overseas from sources likely to be terrorist and see how the calls bounce.

None of it is admissible in court because they aren't listening into the calls, so they don't know who exactly is making the call.

[Scott]

I'm trying to remember which party has the majority in congress at the moment? I forget, but I could have sworn it started with a 'D'.

Anyways this is the analytics program, no phone calls were listened to under this program, just records of calls were analyzed to track down potential cell networks in the US.

You don't have an expectation of privacy of who you called since those records are in the hands of a private company. You want anonymous calling, use a pay phone, because they it still requires a warrant to listen into the phone call (unless it's a overseas call.)



Stop with the facts will you ! ;)

Some additional back page news about this that the people against have usually not heard about. I even used a liberal rag as the source to keep the bias comments to a minimum.

Basically it was a concession made to keep the very important program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011701256.html

This is from the first page of the article written about a month ago:

The Bush administration said yesterday that it has agreed to disband a controversial warrantless surveillance program run by the National Security Agency, replacing it with a new effort that will be overseen by the secret court that governs clandestine spying in the United States.

The change -- revealed by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- marks an abrupt reversal by the administration, which for more than a year has aggressively defended the legality of the NSA surveillance program and disputed court authority to oversee it.

Under the new plan, Gonzales said, the secret court that administers the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, will oversee eavesdropping on telephone calls and e-mails to and from the United States when "there is probable cause to believe" that one of the parties is a member of al-Qaeda or an associated terrorist group.

Under the previous approach, such intercepts were authorized by intelligence officers without the involvement of any court or judge -- prompting objections from privacy advocates and many Democrats that the program was illegal.

Administration officials suggested that the move was aimed in part at quelling persistent objections to the NSA spying by Democrats who now control Congress and that it is intended to slow or even derail challenges making their way through the federal courts. The Justice Department immediately filed a notice with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit yesterday informing the panel of the new program and promising to file papers "addressing the implications of this development" on pending litigation.

Some Justice officials also said that receiving approval from the secret court will enable authorities to more easily use the information they obtain in future criminal prosecutions

[BAMF]

If the Democrats were so against these laws they could have easily prevented it's passage, they have a majority. What this shows is that this bill doesn't have the doom and gloom that most people think it does.

As a private citizen I can use PI tools to pull up many of the phone records for people. This is nothing more then the government taking that same data compiling a large database and playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon linking calls from overseas from sources likely to be terrorist and see how the calls bounce.

None of it is admissible in court because they aren't listening into the calls, so they don't know who exactly is making the call.

They voted "No" on them. What the hell else do you want? :lol:

I noticed you didn't ask me to provide any proof. That says it all.

[PPGMD]

They voted "No" on them. What the hell else do you want? :lol:

I noticed you didn't ask me to provide any proof. That says it all.

If they wanted it to fail, that's all they would have had to do since they have a majority in both houses. But since it passed it seems that some voted yes, might be because not all go after the wacko fringe, instead go for educated voters that actually read the program details and realize that it doesn't involve any loss in freedom.

[BAMF]

If they wanted it to fail, that's all they would have had to do since they have a majority in both houses. But since it passed it seems that some voted yes, might be because not all go after the wacko fringe, instead go for educated voters that actually read the program details and realize that it doesn't involve any loss in freedom.

They don't control EITHER portion by that many votes - and that isn't so say that some Democrats don't vote to take away our freedoms as well. And just about all of the Democrats who vote yes on those types of bills always happen to be in small areas that are dominated by Republicans anyways.

Again, I invite you to provide a mobern bill for me to back my statements with.

[Zealot]

They voted "No" on them. What the hell else do you want? :lol:


Mathematics with percentages wasn't you best subject, eh?

[BAMF]

Mathematics with percentages wasn't you best subject, eh?

See above post. Insert foot in mouth. Come back when you have a bill for me to show you the voting spread on.

[PPGMD]

The Patriot Act comes to mind, nearly universal support. The Democrats are only pro-freedom when it supports them, if a Democrat was in office they would be for this bill, while the Republican would be luke warm to it.

The only reason that this bill is reported so negatively is because the Media universally hates it, they are afraid that the database can be used to track down informants (also known as leakers of classified Information, traitors).

[Topless T/A]

this is kind of funny...in every other thread on earth that talks about taking away freedoms, and government taking too much responsibility, you republicans are the first to storm in and start mouthing off about how liberals are out to get us all. Now though when a bill goes through that accomplishes those same exact things, at the same time not being voted against by one single republican, the same crowd now shows up support it.......no wonder you all are so confused about politics.

[PPGMD]

I've said it numerous times before what some people expect from privacy is vastly different then what is reality. For example if Billy wanted to, he could post your IP address up for all to see, when you posted here, you no longer have any expectation of privacy for that IP address. Billy can also willingly give it to the Feds, along with all your post activity. A warrant is only required to compel a company to give it, they can give it freely if they want.

That is what this program is, it's giving activity logs to the Feds for cataloging, to listen in to the conversation requires a warrant. They made a change to the program though requires a FISA warrant to ask for the activity logs, but the FISA warrants have a much lower bar then normal legal warrants since it pertains directly to terrorism activities.

[Scott]

this is kind of funny...in every other thread on earth that talks about taking away freedoms, and government taking too much responsibility, you republicans are the first to storm in and start mouthing off about how liberals are out to get us all. Now though when a bill goes through that accomplishes those same exact things, at the same time not being voted against by one single republican, the same crowd now shows up support it.......no wonder you all are so confused about politics.


Big difference between socialist type programs, policies, and government and a spy bill. This is where you libs get confused.

BTW a spy bill that the Dem controlled house and senate did not shoot down. Strange isn't it ?

But now that some relative facts have been posted about it, ( not self analysis) it is time to talk about someting else. We get it.

[Scott]

Some more of that factual stuffs for you guys.

Voting record from when they had to extend the timeline on the FISA bill to keep it active.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00435

I see a lot of yea's from people with D's after their name. :wtf:

Today's vote is not available yet but I am willing to bet it mirrors this one.

So now what ?

[BAMF]

The Patriot Act comes to mind, nearly universal support. The Democrats are only pro-freedom when it supports them, if a Democrat was in office they would be for this bill, while the Republican would be luke warm to it.

The only reason that this bill is reported so negatively is because the Media universally hates it, they are afraid that the database can be used to track down informants (also known as leakers of classified Information, traitors).

Still looking for the original act, but here is the reauthorization act:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll627.xml


H R 3199 YEA-AND-NAY 14-Dec-2005 2:07 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Conference Report
BILL TITLE: USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act


...............Yeas........Nays........PRES NV
Republican 207...........18............6
Democratic 44............155...........3

I'm not wrong on this one, so I have no reservationsa bout searching for anything you want.

[Zealot]

See above post. Insert foot in mouth.

No need to. You made a hasty generalization that all Dems voted no on it, and were proved wrong through the use of simple percentages.

[BAMF]

No need to. You made a hasty generalization that all Dems voted no on it, and were proved wrong through the use of simple percentages.

I never said ALL Dems voted anything. So again. Insert foot in mouth.

[PPGMD]

Still looking for the original act, but here is the reauthorization act:

I'm not wrong on this one, so I have no reservationsa bout searching for anything you want.

If it would have helped them get votes they would have voted yes on it.

But the original Act
House: Y:367 N:66
Senate: Y:98 N:1

Don't kid yourself if you think that they wouldn't abridge freedoms if it gets them re-elected or a bigger majority. They just use a different wording, for them it's to "Prevent hate crimes," or "For the children." Hell if it meant getting the security vote they would use terrorism also, but that would boost the Republicans because it's in the Democrats best interest to down play terrorism.

[25psi]

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Images/Chicago/9780226320557.jpeg


Excellent read, I recommend it to everyone. Particularly to those of the big govmunt persuasion.;)

[Zealot]

I never said ALL Dems voted anything. So again. Insert foot in mouth.

Your original quote was "They voted no to it". Your use of the word "they" implies the democrats voted as a single unit, but in fact they didn't. I wouldn't think it would be that hard to grasp, but maybe I overrated your intelligence level

[BAMF]

Your original quote was "They voted no to it". Your use of the word "they" implies the democrats voted as a single unit, but in fact they didn't. I wouldn't think it would be that hard to grasp, but maybe I overrated your intelligence level

Maybe. Now chow down on that foot.

[moldyhands]

first, i wasn't trying to make this a dem vs. rep debate. unfortunately, the telecom industry is one of the biggest lobbies, so this was bound to pass.

PPGMD - instead of talking about one aspect of the spying, why don't you discuss more important matters.

such as the retroactive immunity for spying on americans through warrantless wiretapping... that doesn't sound like normal collection of call data. that sounds like people/companies broke laws and we're giving them a get out of jail free card.

or that this could continue.

[moldyhands]

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Images/Chicago/9780226320557.jpeg


Excellent read, I recommend it to everyone. Particularly to those of the big govmunt persuasion.;)
once we see western europe and their socialistic gov'ts fall, i'll listen.

[PPGMD]

People sue over anything, immunity has often been granted when lawsuits that are baseless are pursued and in some cases won. For example general aviation, Cessna and others got sued because morons crashed their planes, latter it was the gun industry getting sued for murders, and now it's the telcos cooperating with the government.

The telcos are a little too large for their britches, but these law suits do nothing but cost normal consumers money, and make lawyers richer. If you didn't want this program to happen you should lobby your congress critters.

[whitebread]

Socialism does not require the surrender of freedom.
What is freedom? Is it not being able to do as we wish, or in other words, use one's body as one wishes, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the right of others to do the same? What is the basis of being free to use ones body except ownership of one’s self? In essence, we are the property of ourselves. We are not the property of the state or a group. Since we have the ownership of our body, we have the ownership of its productive capacity, or labor.

If that is not the case, if the state owns our labor, what is the basis for this? It seems to me that it could only be justified if the state owns us.

So if the state owns us, which would have to be the basis of a socialist system for it to be just, then why would we have the right to freedom of speech, practice of religion, ect? They are are derived from the use of our bodies. If the state has the right to the use of our bodies, those things we call rights, in addition to our labor, would be included in its ownership. Therefore, we could only practice them if the state granted them to us as a privilege. How long is the state likely to let the privileges stand if they are against its interests? Would it make sense to let your property work against you? Would one really be free to speak against the state in a system such as that? Is a privilege that can be revoked by the state at its whim really a freedom? I don’t think it is, and neither did the Founding Fathers. That is why they believed in inalienable rights that the state couldn’t deprive us of.

In a socialist system, one is dependent upon the government for shelter, food, medicine, ect. The government owns or produces all the essentials of life. How can man be free when he is completely dependent on the government for his existence? Just look at what Trotsky said:
In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. Who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by: who does not obey shall not eat.

Socialism can also be seen as the abrogation of choice. People are different, if they are allowed to make the choices governing their own lives, they will end up at different stations in life. Socialism requires depriving people of choice in order to force them into material equality.

Following from all this, we can look at the topic of this thread, privacy. How much privacy would a socialist system allow? Why would we have the right to privacy within the place we live when it is owned by the government? Why would we have the right to privacy of our communications when the government owns the means of communication (and really even our bodies that are producing the communications)?

Freedom is being secure in one's property. Socialism is the antithesis of that.

[whitebread]

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Images/Chicago/9780226320557.jpeg

rep for that and the friedman quote

[25psi]

What is freedom? Is it not being able to do as we wish, or in other words, use one's body as one wishes, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the right of others to do the same? What is the basis of being free to use ones body except ownership of one’s self? In essence, we are the property of ourselves. We are not the property of the state or a group. Since we have the ownership of our body, we have the ownership of its productive capacity, or labor.

If this is not the case, if the state owns our labor, what is the basis for this? It seems to me that it could only be justified if the state owns us.

So if the state owns us, which would have to be the basis of a socialist system for it to be just, then why would we have the right to freedom of speech, practice of religion, ect? They are are derived from the use of our bodies. If the state has the right to the use of our bodies, they, in addition to our labor, would be included in its ownership. Therefore, we could only practice them if the state granted them to us as a privilege. How long is the state likely to let the privileges stand if they are against its interests? Would it make sense to let your property work against you? Would one really be free to speak against the state in a system such as that? Is a privilege that can be revoked by the state at its whim really a freedom? I don’t think it is, and neither did the Founding Fathers. That is why they believed in inalienable rights that the state couldn’t deprive us of.

In a socialist system, one is dependent upon the government for shelter, food, medicine, ect. The government owns or produces all the essentials of life. How can man be free when he is completely dependent on the government for his existence? Just look at what Trotsky said:

Socialism can also be seen as the abrogation of choice. People are different, if they are allowed to make the choices governing their own lives, they will end up at different stations in life. Socialism requires depriving people of choice in order to force them into material equality.

Following from all this, we can look at the topic of this thread, privacy. How much privacy would a socialist system allow? Why would we have the right to privacy within the place we live when it is owned by the government? Why would we have the right to privacy of our communications when the government owns the means of communication (and really even our bodies that are producing the communications)?

Freedom is being secure in one's property. Socialism is the antithesis of that.

Excellent post. Good too see I'm not the only one who believes economic freedom is of huge importance.

[Scott]

Great post whitebread.

I came across this on another board, have you read it ?

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_66.htm

[jabtay]

I cannot believe all the people that openly want Socialism.

someone please explain how socialism allows freedoms...also how does it encourage work, and not laziness? Just looking at the social programs now, it would seem this country would cease to operate.

[whitebread]

Great post whitebread.

I came across this on another board, have you read it ?

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_66.htm
Thanks. No, I hadn’t read it before. It fit into what I would expect, in that it points out where he perceived Stalin was right and wrong in engineering a Socialist paradise, and basically says that while the Chinese and Soviets hadn’t met with success yet, they only needed to continue their work. More planning, better planning! Haha. It reminded me of this description of socialist theoriests by Bastiat 100 years before Mao wrote that:

They assume that people are susceptible to being shaped -- by the will and hand of another person -- into an infinite variety of forms, more or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected.

Moreover, not one of these writers on governmental affairs hesitates to imagine that he himself -- under the title of organizer, discoverer, legislator, or founder -- is this will and hand, this universal motivating force, this creative power whose sublime mission is to mold these scattered materials -- persons -- into a society.

These socialist writers look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms, just so does the socialist writer whimsically shape human beings into groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor corps, and other variations. And just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape his trees, just so does the socialist writer need the force that he can find only in law to shape human beings.
I also found this statement by Mao to be quite comical: Now we still have to have patience, to wait for Taiwan’s liberation, to wait for socialist construction to be going well. Don’t hope for early victories! If only he didn’t include the word “early” before the word “victories,” it would have been good advice.

His criticism of Stalin for Stalin’s negative view of peasants is tragically ironic, as Mao’s policies were responsible for the deaths of likely tens of millions of peasants from 1959 to 1963 alone, beneficiaries of socialist planning no doubt.

[Scott]

I cannot believe all the people that openly want Socialism.

someone please explain how socialism allows freedoms...also how does it encourage work, and not laziness? Just looking at the social programs now, it would seem this country would cease to operate.



Look at how well it worked in countries than cease to exist as they once did or at all to tell you how well it works(ed).

As much as some think the conservative / Republican plan is to meddle in everyones lives with FISA type laws that is really a counter intel program I to find it quite disturbing as well as odd how anyone could think socialism and especially a modern progressive like Billary is a good thing. It is a back door program to make everyone dependent upon government and spreads wealth like Robin Hood. I guess maybe many socialists do not like some people to be overly prosperous and think we all need to be alike. Scary.

[adric]

Freedom from choice, freedom from responsibility when you are powerless.

It encourages work because you will be put in the gulag otherwise.

Read the manifesto, "progressive" is right there regarding the income tax. As are the planks that the U.S. seems to be adopting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto#10_Planks_of_the_Communist _Manifesto

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.[4]

According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism (but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage[5]).

All government is paternal/maternal in nature.

Liberals make liberal interpretations of the Constitution to treat us like toddlers keeping us from making our own decisions by removing our ability to choose and coddling us.

Conservative interpretations treat us as young adults giving no coddling but much fewer rules which also means more freedom.

Some people are too meek to want to make their own way and will give up essential individual rights for a promise of fiscal security and freedom from responsibility.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

you all can thank your Republicans for that.

How about thanking the fucking Muslims for putting us in a defensive position where our liberties are compromised in the first place?

Keep your eye on the real problem folks. None of this shit, airport security, phone taps, etc. and the trillions of dollars spent globally on it all would never be an issue if it weren't for a particular religion and their global jihad.

Take your pick...
A. sacrificing freedoms
B. carpet bombing

[KuJoe]

Freedom or Security... freedom doesn't mean ish when you're buried under a pile of rubble that used to be your home/work.

[BAMF]

How about thanking the fucking Muslims for putting us in a defensive position where our liberties are compromised in the first place?

Keep your eye on the real problem folks. None of this shit, airport security, phone taps, etc. and the trillions of dollars spent globally on it all would never be an issue if it weren't for a particular religion and their global jihad.

Take your pick...
A. sacrificing freedoms
B. carpet bombing

B! B! Sign me up for B, goddammit!

[Scott]

How about thanking the fucking Muslims for putting us in a defensive position where our liberties are compromised in the first place?

Keep your eye on the real problem folks. None of this shit, airport security, phone taps, etc. and the trillions of dollars spent globally on it all would never be an issue if it weren't for a particular religion and their global jihad.

Take your pick...
A. sacrificing freedoms
B. carpet bombing



Well made point Chuck and at the same time while so many people hat GWB he is/was the first President to have to deal with all of this. It will be interesting to see how the next few Presidents deal with it. The prior one to Bush had to on a lesser scale and did not do so good.

And how about another option:

C. Non radical Muslims stand up against the radicals and run them from their religion.

I would be full of shit to say all of the mare nuts because I have several as customers and they are some of the more respectful customers I have.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

And how about another option:

C. Non radical Muslims stand up against the radicals and run them from their religion.


That hasn't happened in 1500 years so I don't even consider it a possibility anymore.

[DSG]

What is freedom? Is it not being able to do as we wish, or in other words, use one's body as one wishes, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the right of others to do the same? What is the basis of being free to use ones body except ownership of one’s self? In essence, we are the property of ourselves. We are not the property of the state or a group. Since we have the ownership of our body, we have the ownership of its productive capacity, or labor.

If that is not the case, if the state owns our labor, what is the basis for this? It seems to me that it could only be justified if the state owns us.

So if the state owns us, which would have to be the basis of a socialist system for it to be just, then why would we have the right to freedom of speech, practice of religion, ect? They are are derived from the use of our bodies. If the state has the right to the use of our bodies, those things we call rights, in addition to our labor, would be included in its ownership. Therefore, we could only practice them if the state granted them to us as a privilege. How long is the state likely to let the privileges stand if they are against its interests? Would it make sense to let your property work against you? Would one really be free to speak against the state in a system such as that? Is a privilege that can be revoked by the state at its whim really a freedom? I don’t think it is, and neither did the Founding Fathers. That is why they believed in inalienable rights that the state couldn’t deprive us of.

In a socialist system, one is dependent upon the government for shelter, food, medicine, ect. The government owns or produces all the essentials of life. How can man be free when he is completely dependent on the government for his existence? Just look at what Trotsky said:

Socialism can also be seen as the abrogation of choice. People are different, if they are allowed to make the choices governing their own lives, they will end up at different stations in life. Socialism requires depriving people of choice in order to force them into material equality.

Following from all this, we can look at the topic of this thread, privacy. How much privacy would a socialist system allow? Why would we have the right to privacy within the place we live when it is owned by the government? Why would we have the right to privacy of our communications when the government owns the means of communication (and really even our bodies that are producing the communications)?

Freedom is being secure in one's property. Socialism is the antithesis of that.

Post of the year.

[DSG]

I've said it numerous times before what some people expect from privacy is vastly different then what is reality. For example if Billy wanted to, he could post your IP address up for all to see, when you posted here, you no longer have any expectation of privacy for that IP address. Billy can also willingly give it to the Feds, along with all your post activity. A warrant is only required to compel a company to give it, they can give it freely if they want.

That is what this program is, it's giving activity logs to the Feds for cataloging, to listen in to the conversation requires a warrant. They made a change to the program though requires a FISA warrant to ask for the activity logs, but the FISA warrants have a much lower bar then normal legal warrants since it pertains directly to terrorism activities.


Great explanation.

[whitebread]

Post of the year.
thanks