Anti-War 100,000 - Pro-War 400

Guys with a beard growing on thier throat but not thier chin with a half grown pre puberty moustache, dont matter much either...An if they happen to be a "White-American-Christian-Male..." a laugh maybe inorder....Sometimes...

 

Could you rewrite that in a way to make sense? I don't understand what you are trying to say to him?

 

I just think its sweet that she doesn't think that I look 36.

 

What the hell is obstructionist judges ?

Do you mean, judges who have integrity and do not rubber stamp everything that this administration puts in from of them?

You claim that Bush and NSA can do anything in like in the name of security but this question has been already looked at it by supreme court and the answer is they can't.

"Bush said his decision was "fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities." And the president's lawyers have maintained that the commander in chief has the "inherent" authority to act in the interest of national security, even if he overrides the law.

But the Supreme Court did not accept that claim when it was tested in the past.

In 1972, the justices unanimously rejected President Nixon's contention that he had the power to order wiretapping without a warrant to protect national security. The decision came in the case of three men who had allegedly plotted to bomb a CIA facility in Michigan. After the ruling, charges in the case were dismissed.

The 4th Amendment protects Americans from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government, said then-Justice Lewis F. Powell, a Nixon appointee, delivering the court's ruling, and such freedoms "cannot be properly guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the executive branch."

He said Nixon's lawyer should have obtained a search warrant from a judge before the government tapped the telephones of the alleged plotters.

"We recognize, as we have before, the constitutional basis of the president's domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a manner compatible with the 4th Amendment," Powell said."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-legal18dec18,0,4928162.story?coll=la-home-headlines

 

Your whole copy/paste argument is invalid gworld. Read the article again, most notably what I posted and highlighted. Your assumption is that they are just out randomly fishing people for info. What info was gathered through intel? Phone numbers and other information from laptops and cell phones. Who was it captured from? Terrorists. What does that consititute? A threat. What is established? Probable cause.

An obstructionist judge would be a judge, in this case, that was presented information through the proper channels for a warrant, based upon intel that was indeed accurate, but refuses to act upon it. In which case, the terrorist would have continued planning and ultimately carried out his terrorist plot killing Americans. Fortunately, he was caught, stopped and American lives were spared. That disappoints you, doesn't it?

Who was under surveillance? Terrorist suspects with direct and indirect ties to known terrorists. Remind me again what part of that is bad? (That's a rhetorical question...I already know how you feel about terrorist's rights.)

You might also want to take a look at USC Title 50, 1802. Remember, not everyone is disappointed the NSA is doing their job and capturing terrorists.

 

What NSA is doing is 100% opposite what real conservatives believe.

Why don't we just have the government install gps chips in everyone, I'm sure that would save some lives too, Big doug and Mia would probably go right alone with that , they have nothing to hide.

We don't know who they are really listening too, unless they get the warrants, thats the whole freaking point, not everyone trusts big government or wants to live in a totaltarian state. Some people are for less government, they don't government to spy on their own citizens without some oversight. probable cause, dure process etc.

There are lots of groups considered "terrorists"

Are considered terrorists, and they don't even kill people, they are just vandals and burglers, so if you go to pro envirmental protest and the ELF is there and you talk to them the government should be able to listen to your phone conversations?

So if someone goes to a punkrock show, or oktoberfest, and talks to some skinheads they should be able to listen to your phone conversations?

If I go to a anti world trade protest, because I think we should keep manfacturing jobs in the US, and the WWP is there, and Ie talk to them my right to privacy should be gone?

I imagine you guys think all this right? Free speech , right to protest and privacy are way over rated right?

 

Ok why is this? Maybe I missed something in the article, but with the info I've read so far I'm not seeing the huge problem 'as of yet'...

I agree with you 100% here, but I didn't see this in the article. The article to me looked like just a scratch on the surface and didn't give me enough info to decide one way or the other at this time....

Well that of course would depend on the conversation, and especially if there was probable cause and a warrant issued...W/O a warrant, no I would not support it against a US citizen. If that someone had talked about building a huge bomb to kill hundreds of people, there was proof of it and a judge ruled there was enough info for a warrant, yes I would hope the convo's would be listened to.

Just for simply attending, of course not.

Of course not it's the American Way

Ferret, I 100% support upholding free speach but in the instances you have listed I could easily see a legitimate reason for the justice department to take an interest and seak a warrant.

 

Hey, this is a great idea that the United Nations will soon implement. I hate carrying credit cards anyway. Imagine a cashless system, where thieves, terrorist, and modern thugs will have great difficulty operating. Imagine a ban on all religion for the protection of society. Imagine a one-world government that will soon control all the nations in the interest of human survival.

If they put the chip in my wrist, I wonder if my magnetic bracelet would interfere with the radio waves. I guess they will have to ban them to.

On the bright side, you won’t have to deal with Bush and his wars anymore, will you Ferret?

D

 

Why should a judge refuse a warrant if he/she is presented with accurate and credible information? It doesn't make sense and you know it.
What you really mean that if a judge does not approve a warrant just because NSA wants it for no reason or because they want to do something illegal like limiting free speech then that judge is "obstructionist".
I have a news for you, it is not a judge duty to be a rubber stamp for government agencies, it is a job duty to be "obstructionist" and deny any request that does not merit a warrant.

The case that I quoted and supreme court decision exactly signifies this point:

The 4th Amendment protects Americans from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government, said then-Justice Lewis F. Powell, a Nixon appointee, delivering the court's ruling, and such freedoms "cannot be properly guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the executive branch."

I suppose like other previous discussions such as WMD, patriot act, torture,.... you will never admit that this was wrong until Bush administration gives up and admits to it's mistakes and only then you will stop posting anything about this subject as you have done regarding the other discussions.

 

hrblcantra, I am not talking specifically about the article I am talking about the idea behind it, government over stepping it stated powers and trampling on the bill of rights in the name of security

The idea that governemnt should have more unfettered access into peoples persnal lives, with no supervision, just vague promises that they won't spy on non-terrorists,

I didn't realize the whole discussion had to specifically relate to the NYT article, I thought the principals underneath the presidents actions where also subject to debate.

Of course, if there is proof of criminal intent, or anything , by all means and get a warrant and listen away, but not just because someone somewhere where says so.

Yeah if they seek a warrent its fine, someone is accountable, and a reason is documented on why the spying is done.

As long as there is gold and the barter system , people wll still do business without governement intervention, no one is going to ban religion, there is no one trying to ban religion, all the anti- religion stuff is just stirred up by right wing spin doctors to get religious people to vote for them.

 

It is not anti-religious groups that want to ban religion since there is no need for it. Educate the people and the religion will fade and disappear without any ban.
On the other hand, the religious nuts would like to ban all science that can enlighten the people and force their ideas and crazy fantasies of religion and will of God on everybody else in the society.

 

I'm your age and hear you loud and clear, buddy!

 

This statement is inaccurate.

Please refer to Post 3474.

You do know that judges are "the government", right?

Perhaps a good middle ground would be the creation of a legal definition of "terrorist".

Of course, we then wouldn't necessarily know who was or wasn't a "terrorist", because we probably wouldn't know until we listened to them -- we we can't do until they have already been legally labeled a terrorist -- which we can't do until we listen to them -- which we can't do until... You get the idea. (I hope.)

Whoa, whoa, whoa there.

Let's not get this all confused into one big ball of emotional energy.

Freedom of Speech is not equal to a right to protest or to privacy.

The supposed "right to protest" is used by the left as the "right to vandalize" and a "right to annoy the hell out of people". These idiots are blocking roads that people use to get to work and to home. Screw those people -- that is not their right.

The theoretical "right to privacy" is not documented in the Constitution. Restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures are far far far from a "right to privacy."

Freedom of Speech can exist just fine without either of these two hangers-on.

This is clearly not what I am seeing.

I am your friendly (sort of...) neighborhood Athiest and I am seeing massive attacks on the Christian religion.

I am seeing a return of volley fire from the Christians, but it has thus far been weak and ineffective.

If we continue to persecute the Christians, we will have trouble -- because they do hold a strong simple majority in America.

The Christians have not seriously utilized their political muscle. But, if things keep going the way they are -- the Christians will.

IMNSHO, the statists had better back off of persecuting the Christians, or they are going to get beat down.

 

Are conservatives for more goverment reach into personal lives or not?

Yeah but judges are a differenet branch of the goverment then people who want to listen, I think it creates this thing call "checks and balances",

you can read about it here http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0777009.html

I am not positive but I think out government was set up that way, to protect our rights, limit over reaching by the government.

The freedom to speech along with the right to assembly together is pretty much the right to protest

Well the supreme court seems to think differently

maybe you do not care about your privacy, will but alot of people do.

 

Read the bloody post you stupid squirrel.

 

Ferret, I actually did agree with much of what you said...was trying to get some clarification...Thank you for doing so

 

Don't worry, the United Nations will soon ban religion and you won't have to deal with us nuts that believe in a creator.

Then science can be used to keep people in line since there won't be some nutcase preaching about what is right and what is wrong.

Just think, if it comes to the theory of the survival of the fittest, and no one has to believe there is a God any more, we can reach down to our most animalistic, depraved, selfish desires and act at will.

Science will not need to cure venereal disease that comes from the “no rules society” because it will be up to the fittest to survive.

What a world it will be. Vetrofertilization for two mommies, gay marriage, legal pedophilia; like the days of Rome, public orgies, bestiality with your favorite pet, movie ratings disappear (why would you need them), children demonstrating the latest version of vibrators at there science fair, drugs for all (crank it till you die, Mr. Fittest!), and science will help them all with the consequences of their actions.

Think of the drugs that scientist will come up with to help two loving men cope as they die from aids. Psychiatrist for young ones who have been ravaged since early childhood, pet hospitals for animals who’s master went to far with Sparky, ant-depressants for those who loose their loved ones to drugs, and science kits to help mommy do a better job at prostituting herself.

Once this gets boring for society in general (and it will), we can truly put science to the test with a real survival of the fittest experiment. Really, there should be no rules on anything, like the beginning of man. Man used to dominate women, rape them at will, and take whatever prize comes with being the toughest. Since there is no God for people to fear, the sky is the limit on how far we can see man go.

Science has been at the forefront of some great weapons and diseases and it will be kool to see these released for population control. With higher thinking and modern science, one will be able to clone themselves to harvest organs, grow small children in incubators for needed skin and cells, and put old ones to death with a tiny pill so they are no longer a burden on society.

So, very soon Gworld, you will have your wish. No religion, no Bush, and absolute freedom from us nut cases.

Enjoy your world of science as long as it last…


D

 

Feel free to disagree with me all you want, because if you say something I disagree with I will definitety point it out.

I am not going to sit by quietly if you say something of the wall that I totally disagree with, because of some perceived debate alliance on some other issue, like some people.

So, Will tell me what you think about some of BIgDoug's posts, where do you stand on the whole end of the world mark of the beast thing?

I just want to hear directly from you Will.

 

BigDoug I freaking love these posts, there is so much to work with, so where are we on that whole 7 empires thing?

You know, where the mongolian empire, doesn't count and some how the british and american empire are the same thing.

The white people empire right? non white empires don't get to counted in the whole doomsday thing apparently.

Just curious but where are the instances of pedhilia becomeing more legal, I don't you see the specials with cops posing as kids online, did you guys see the one where that army guy took of all his clothes in the garage, in front of a hidden camera, before he walked in the "kids" house, funny as hell when he saw the cameras and the guy from msnbc standing in the kitchen.

 

I wouldn't want it any other way.....