Anti-War 100,000 - Pro-War 400

I will glady and proudly use that phrase or one similiar in any case I feel someone is going for safety, their agenda, or any reason over the freedoms and rights afforded to us in the constitution....

 

if they are spying on anti-war protesters

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

why do think that they are only listening in on "terrorists"

 

I'll gladly point it out when someone uses it to express their disappointment in our leader's obligation to go after terrorists. In which case, is exactly what the NSA was and should have been doing. Who would have thought that following up on terrorist related information was such a bad thing?

 

Because I read the article from the NYT and took the time to pull out the meat of the article, amongst all the hype/fluff and bold it. Have you read it yet?

 

I didn't ask what the article said, I said

If our government is spying on anti-war groups, why do you think they would only wire tap "suspected" terrorists?

 

Apparently, to some, fighting terrorism and following up on leads is against the Constitution

 

My statement was for a generalized statement overall of the discussion..In the NSA case I am waiting to see some more info before I comment on it to much. If it was only for specific terrorist threats/non us citizens I will not have a real problem with it. If it however turns out to be US citizens then it's a clear case of safety over the constitution.........................

 

And now I can say, because I read the article you posted as well. Not a hint at wire-tapping.

 

My statement was for a generalized statement overall as well.

I think the article clearly shows what the NSA was doing, of which I've highlighted several times. It's buried, in hype, fluff and book sales pitching.

 

Isn't that done via a wire tap?

http://www.google.com/search?num=10...a:en-US:official&q=define:wiretap&btnG=Search

 

I understood that, just had to bring that phrase out and say in the right circumstance I myself would be proud of it

 

From the NYT article, it sure is! Not from the article you posted though. Legal wire tapping of freshly captured intel from terrorists to protect the American people. I think they need a pay raise! No wonder a few are so dismayed

 

Alexander Hamilton told Ben to put “email spying and wire taps” as rights protected under the constitution, but Ben was in a crappy mood and forgot to have it as part of the constitution. Little did been realize that he would be helping future terrorist who exploit modern technology that would expose this on a global scale. If only Ben new there was going to be another Ben that would change the world, he could of made it easier for a one-world government by making sure no one reads terrorist emails.

P.S. We have relative freedom in this country just like many other countries. I can’t speed down a residential neighborhood, forget to pay taxis and keep my home, have sex in public, yell fire in a crowded theatre, make death threats against president, shoot my neighbors barking dog, have sex with minors, and the list goes on.

I do not believe someone reading my emails to determine if I was a pedophile or looking at kiddy porn, creating a bomb, or other acts against society, is against my rights.

Hypocrisy can be on both sides of the isle. Some will kill an unborn child and yet at the same time, not eat meat because of being an activist vegetarian.

Some nut lefties will put crushed glass in dog food and place it on trails were hunters bring their dogs to hunt.

They slam ships into other vessels to stop whaling or fishing while not having regard for human life that resides on the ship.

And the list goes on………….


D

 

Hey bd, get a clue privacy, freedom of speach and every other item for the most part in the constitution can be interpreted and put forth into modern times. Just because it goes from a hand written letter to email does not change the meaning does it?

 

Doug, I think you are pretty clued in. The same nutjobs wouldn't hesitate to pull the feeding tube and watch a young lady die in pain when all she (and many others around the world need) is a feeding tube because they can't swallow. These same nutjobs are for killing babies, but saving murders, rapists, child molesters and terrorists. Such irony.

Some pretend there are no tradeoffs, no costs, to putting legal absolutism over national security. And yet others are simply outraged the NSA did it's job, of which a terrorist plot was uncovered and prevented. Oh, the outrage! Who would have thought a select few were so disappointed in the NSA followiing up on fresh terrorist intel to do their duty to their country and act upon the intelligence. Never ceases to amaze me how many flavors are in a box of Fruit Loops.

 

bigdoug. are you serious or just forum trolling,

I have to say you forgot people who kill abortion doctors because killing is wrong, and the people who execute people to show that killing is wrong, and about a million other BS right wing and religious hypocrisies

What is that like a total of a hundred people in world that do those things?

Gtech

The keyword there is "legal" tapiing someones phone without due process, and no warrant isn't "legal".

 

Is it the keyword? Just regular old "someone" not just regular old "terrorists" as the book sales article references?

So in summary, it's safe to say when the NSA gets fresh intel from terrorists and they can legally monitor international phone calls and emails of terrorists to capture them, you are against it. And when they legally get the warrant they need from FISA, as they did, you are against it. Perhaps you would just like to build a special airport and hotel for terrorists and invite them in for tea and crumpets while we're at it?

 

Terry shivio was a vegatable and the law says the final decesion is her husbands, whether you like that decision or not. If you wife became a vegtible would you want the government telling you what you have to do?

I thought you conservatives were for smaller government? Geez, now you want the government to take away the legal right of someones husband to decide wether to keep her on life support.

 

Everything is subject to interpretation in our nut case world we live in today! After all, what does the word “is “ mean? Marriage isn’t for just a man and a women, even though God made the plumbing that way?

Homosexuals can try to re-write what is so painfully obvious; that marriage is for a man and a women. But liberals will try to change that constitution of man, while trying to protect emails by way of the constitution.

Liberals question everything - Rightist resolve everything

D

 

uh huh....

So then you honestly have no problem with the government reading citizens of the United States emails, and other communication with no warrant at all? Is this what you're saying? If that's the case, yet again get a clue... Get out the constitution and do some reading.

Wackos like this are not even realy worth debating, IMO...

the liberal versus rightist crap is realy just that crap, realy annoying and one fo the main reasons I've been trying to stay out of this thread.

Both of your groups have some great ideas, both of your groups have some terrible ones, when either of you gets down to Liberals are this, Rights are this it just makes it so childish it's not even worth looking at...................


For now that's what it's going to be for me, not even worth looking at.