How to Foster Anti-War Sentiment among Americans

I'm confused as to how privacy is related to freedom in the US. You can burn efigy's of soldiers in plain view of the world in the streets of America and not have to worry about going to prison.

All the Bush administration is doing is chipping away at our "privacy" where it allows criminals to roam free. The paranoid left still can't figure out that the Bush administration is not out to get them; the terrorists are.

The "freedoms" the left speaks of are not being taken from citizens. They're been taken from non-citizens who don't have the rights of citizens to begin with. If terrorists wanted all the rights of citizens so they can avoid being waterboarded and made to listen to offensive music, they need to become citizens first.

 

What do you mean by that? What kind of propaganda? And what has that to do with what they stand for?

Is that not the same when at the beginning of the war fox showed Bagdad Bob with his propaganda? Has that something to do with what they stand for?

Or should they just give at least an idea what the "other side" might be and what story about "99 virgins in heaven" they want to tell the world?
Do you just want to see the Pentagon spokesman? Saying everything is fine, we are making progress, and there are no dead soldiers because we do not allow them to be showed on tv?
I think reports should be without bias, illustrating many aspects of a conflict rather than siding with one. And reporting a story should be with a balance between objectivity and skepticism. That does not mean they have to show beheadings or a humwees being blown up, like those vids on youtube. But they need to report at least something, since they are mostly too scared to leave their Bagdad hotel or being embeded.

 

I mean exactly what I said. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

well freakin said.....

 

Pardon. He is attempting to slowly insinuate into our rights, and violate them.

History has shown time and time again that the freedoms of Speech and Expression are inexorably tied to the rights against search and seizure, which electronic surveillance falls under. If your conversations are being monitored by the government, how much more likely is the average citizen to self-censor themselves, in order to keep the government from hearing them say things they don't want the government to hear?

And yes, the rights against search and seizure of people IN THIS COUNTRY are being violated. The electronic surveillance does indeed include people here in the US, when someone outside the US calls them, or is called by them.

 

That's the great thing about freedom. It doesn't matter who is listening or watching, you're still free to do it.

So I still fail to see your point. The censorship you describe is self-imposed paranoia. That has nothing to do with any actual restriction of rights.

And?

Here in the US if you have any "devious" plans about overthrowing the government you don't need privacy to do it. In fact you need all the publicity you can get. Otherwise you aren't going to get enough people out there to vote out the old government. If you plan on a violent overthrow then you should be outted and tossed in jail. A violent overthrow is the minority deciding what is best for the majority which is a violation of the rights and freedoms of everyone else.

Name one thing you should be able to say that you can only say in complete secrecy without fear of punishment?

Now, tell me why you think it is that the majority of people don't care to vote to change that law?

 

The fact is, that we have the right to be free from searches and seizures without a warrant. If the government infringes upon that right, that freedom, that is, it's self, one 'freedom', one right that has been assaulted by the government.

That right is the basis of many others. If the government can search my premises whenever they want, and do so, then my right to assemble peaceably is impacted, as people will be less likely to assemble. If the government can listen in on my conversations, people will be less likely to speak to me.

The ability to search, or seize has been abused time and time again by governments in the past, even our own, which is one reason why it was protected by the bill of rights, stating that a warrant is required.

In the past, actions which were illegal to forbid were forbidden. If the government could search a person's premises, this would strip away another protection for protected action.

Let's suppose for a moment that tomorrow congress passed a bill making it illegal to criticize congress for anything. That unconstitutional (and thus void) law would take time to fight. Well, if we've already allowed our right against search and seizure to be degraded to the point that the government can listen to any electronic conversation they like without a warrant, it becomes much harder to fight the government on this other illegal law.

The right to be free from search and seizure (including having bugs planted in your house, or having your communications monitored) without a warrant is vital to the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and even the simple ability of a person to converse with their legal council privately.

You were saying that the search and seizure issue wasn't even impacting Americans, or at least that's what I understood you to be saying. So I addressed that misconception.

 

When conversing with foreign entities you lose your right to privacy because that foreign entity has no such right. They're monitoring them which is legal. They get you as well because you put yourself in that position.

It's no different than losing your right to privacy because you go out in public.

What if tomorrow a big giant lizard destroys Tokyo?

You didn't answer my questions.

 

sometimes i wonder if our freedoms are more in jeopardy from the terrorists or the right wing loonies

 

I disagree with this idea. First of all, a government does not bestow rights, they are 'endowed by one's creator'. A government's role is to protect the rights of it's citizens. The foreign national still has those rights, but the government has no obligation to protect them. The government DOES have a obligation to protect the rights of it's citizens where it can, rather than violate them.

Even if we suppose that the foreign national has no right against search or seizure of their information by the government, the US citizen still does. A citizen in their home has a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' so if they are on the phone, in their home, the government has no legal ability to tap their calls without a warrant.

Well that question about Tokyo is the first one you've asked. Before now they've all been statements I've been disagreeing with.

If a giant lizard destroyed Tokyo tomorrow, there would be strike forces sent in to kill it, then a scientific analysis would begin while Tokyo refugees flooded nearby cities, and various nations and the international red cross would quickly render aid to said refugees.

 

I am trying to understand you point about Bagdad Bob. He is something would should all remember. It was always fun to watch his reports because they were as looney as something AGS would say. The more he sounded like they were winning the more they were losing.

Are you trying to say the Fox put him on because they believed him and wanted to scare people?

 

this coming from a John Edwards supporter!!! LMFAO!!! Let me guess, now "Flush the John" is going to get the sympathy vote, right? (It is sad that his wife's cancer is back, I don't wish that on anyone....but I bet he uses this to his advantage)

 

No that was just a respond to that statement from G-tech. Sorry for my bad english

 

I await an answer. Not silly hypotheticals.

 

I've asked before, I'll ask again. What right(s) have you personally lost?

This is not a violation. If you can show otherwise, do so.

Notice the commonality above? IF

Nothing more than speculative scenarios and arguments. Scenarios that are not backed up by evidence at all.

If tuna were extinct, we could not make tuna fish sandwhiches. That does NOT mean we cannot have them today, because the IF has no basis in reality.

 

Looks like I was right on the money with Briant too!

 

You may be in a better position to view the political game in the US than those of us who live here. It's the old "you can't see the forest because of the trees" situation. We may, on the other hand, be able to see some of the political idiocy in your country better than you.

When you get a country the size of the US, or the UK, people develop a very short memory. An example is our own Sen. Kennedy when back years ago he killed a young lady and didn't report it until the next morning after he sobered up. He, of course, got away with it because he was a Kennedy. People still vote him back into office every time he runs. Name recognition is still the king when it comes to running for public office and it doesn't matter how badly a candidate looks in the beginning of the race because he can still snow the hell out of most voters by the time they step into the voting booth.

You are absolutely correct about politicans lying. They will tell the voters what the voters want to hear and then do whatever they want to do after that. The voters won't remember what they were told before the election anyway. It just goes on and on. We won't ever be able to correct this kind of stupidity until we can somehow get term limits into place. Of course, we have to get the lying politicans to put those term limits into place don't we? Fat frigging chance of that happening. The founding fathers are spinning in their graves.

I guess that I end up doing what a lot of people in this country does when it comes to choosing who to vote for. I most often vote against someone because, most of the time, the choices can be, shall we say, less than ideal.

I had better hopes for our current president when he was voted into office however, he has turned out to be a disappointment. I'm afraid that the Democrats will get back into office next and my opinion of Hillary is about like yours. God, I hope she doesn't win.

 

I'm afraid she will buddy and the shit cycle will continue.

We think that the people we elect actually care for the people but it's obvious that they don't, yet we are stuck in a system where we have to choose between 3 parties of idiots (that is here in the UK, the Americans only have to choose between 2 parties of idiots but the task is not made any easier for being so.)

With all the people with all the many skills in the country the size of the USA population around 260 million (approx) and it has been run by just 2 families since 1981 (I include pappy Bush who was the real person calling the shots as Vice President to Reagan.)

That is no democracy, it's sheer lunacy.

When Hillary gets in you can add at least another 8 years so it will be basically run by just 2 families for 35 years.

No wonder we are heading towards disaster.

 

so now you are admitting that we elect them....I thought they were already chosen by the illuminati??? you really are a true liberal...flip flopping on every single issue.....you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

 

Dude, don't get ahead of yourself here by trying to be a smart arse.

Why do you reckon I used the word think?

Don't make me pwn your ass again d16man just because you jumped in without thinking.

And I'm not a liberal so stop saying that I am, as I have told you hundreds of times before I have no political slant at all, I'm here to wake up the damn sheeple.