4

8/17/2006 6:20:50 PM

Treetwista what happens when we end up in a 1984ish world because of the few liberties we let slide in the face of fear, or to expedite getting rid of the terrorist threat

if we let them do these things now because of a war, whats to stop them from continuing or doing worse infractions to liberty once the war is over. This generation is too apathetic to do anything about stopping it once it's happened so it needs to be nipped in the bud before it gets to that point

8/17/2006 6:27:06 PM

Quote :

"whats to stop them from continuing or doing worse infractions to liberty once the war is over"

There is a strong historical argument that simply being of english haritage will stop them from doing worse in the future. According to some observers of history there is an "anglo-saxon tradition of compromise," such that no sufficiently Anglo-Saxon people have ever formed a totalitarian state, dispite reasons for doing so.

Culture matters. And some cultures just don't go that way. We may burn witches once in awhile, but it is only a matter of time until Governor Phips wakes up and restores order.

Then again, America is a very diverse place, what is a insurmountable cultural tradition to one group of Americans may be perceived as a needless impediment to progress by others.

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 8:58 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/17/2006 8:57:19 PM

Yeah, and this decision is an example of how we do it

8/17/2006 9:00:12 PM

Have we learned nothing from the Star Wars prequels?

8/17/2006 9:00:37 PM

This is hilarious...

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: "

Yes, and allow me to demonstrate entirely, and precisely why. Nothing up my sleeve...

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: because we are at war and need to be able to keep track of new enemies with the quickness...we dont need some bureacratic shit to potentially fuck up our intel and allow an attack to occur...i mean the NSA seemed to do a pretty effective job of helping with the recent foiled plot in Britain"

Is there anything quicker than instan-fucking-tanenous?

i probably wont like your answer but thats my question

8/17/2006 9:03:31 PM

Quote :

"because we are at war and need to be able to keep track of new enemies with the quickness...we dont need some bureacratic shit to potentially fuck up our intel and allow an attack to occur"

We've got a 2323423 trillion dollar budget but paying the extra 40 people to file tose FISA warrents wouldnt be worth it huh?

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 9:38 PM. Reason : yea]

8/17/2006 9:37:48 PM

Whoops. Take 2...

---

This is hilarious...

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: you probably wont like that answer but thats my explanation"

Yes, and allow me to demonstrate entirely, and precisely why. Nothing up my sleeve...

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: because we are at war and need to be able to keep track of new enemies with the quickness...we dont need some bureacratic shit to potentially fuck up our intel and allow an attack to occur...i mean the NSA seemed to do a pretty effective job of helping with the recent foiled plot in Britain"

Is there anything quicker than instan-fucking-tanenous?

i probably wont like your answer but thats my question

8/17/2006 10:43:05 PM

treetwista: the very idea that bush's power needs oversight in some way could decrease it. we must grant him unqualified power if we are to survive.

8/17/2006 11:14:20 PM

its funny how pessimistic all of you are it makes me laugh...no faith in people...no faith in america...might as well just all kill yourselves before we get into a 1984-like society...give me liberty or give me death!111onn

8/18/2006 9:47:14 AM

Aren't you the one that carries a gun to protect yourself from people? And you are saying they have no faith in people?

8/18/2006 10:03:14 AM

and?

8/18/2006 10:04:02 AM

his trolling is fairly bad today

8/18/2006 10:21:31 AM

^^ He carries a gun to make sure it doesn't get that far.

He is saying you should trust him to do what he is already doing. Hell, perhaps you should join in?

8/18/2006 10:22:51 AM

Well I guess he does have faith in people then, well except for the fearmonger thing

8/18/2006 10:24:09 AM

no

i own weapons for protection from the small fraction of society that murders, robs, etc

you think the entire govt wants to take all freedoms away from the entire country

you have no faith in america as a whole...no faith in the general population's will...no faith in the human spirit

you just preach your pessimism like a zombie of all the pundits you follow blindly

josh## is the only troll on page 4 of this thread

8/18/2006 10:30:09 AM

warrantless wiretapping was taking away freedoms

8/18/2006 10:32:31 AM

man, if you liberals were this adamant about all of our rights this country would be a better place

hell if everyone was as adamant about ALL of our rights it would be alot better

8/18/2006 10:38:38 AM

the ACLU is pretty adamant about everyone's rights, and I doubt you are very fond of them

8/18/2006 10:41:13 AM

really


whats their take on being able to defend myself?


I don't have beef with them making sure people are treated equally

8/18/2006 10:42:32 AM

they will defend the 2nd amendmeant with the same zeal they defend the 4th

[Edited on August 18, 2006 at 10:44 AM. Reason : and no liberals are trying to take away your 2nd amendment rights]

8/18/2006 10:43:37 AM

bullshit

do I need to go through the list of names again

from their website

Quote :

"The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control"

I bet they would probably not send a team of lawyers to help me out if I used a gun in self defense against an armed criminal

8/18/2006 10:47:54 AM

WELL OBVIOUSLY THAT MEANS THEY'RE TRYING TO STEAL YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

8/18/2006 1:30:49 PM

Quote :

"Treetwista what happens when we end up in a 1984ish world because of the few liberties we let slide in the face of fear, or to expedite getting rid of the terrorist threat"

Defending this particular instance or not, this is the slippery-slope argument out the ass. Gamecat, aren't you the one always wiki-smacking people who employ these fallacies?

[Edited on August 18, 2006 at 1:53 PM. Reason : /]

8/18/2006 1:52:38 PM

my theory on guns control is...

should we have a 3 day holding period for a gun permit- (yes, unless you are trying to go shoot someone today why does it matter)

should citizens have to register their weapons- yes (same as above, u are not doing anything illegal then why does it matter. you have to register your vehicle, a lot of places require restering your dog, etc so what's the problem with guns)

should be allowed to have a pistol or shotgun to defend their home or a pistol collection- yes

should people be allowed to have rifles- yes

should people be allowed to have automatic pistols, smg's, assault rifles , etc.- No (these weapons serve no purpose but to kill as many people as possible. )

[Edited on August 18, 2006 at 2:04 PM. Reason : a]

8/18/2006 2:02:35 PM

^thats exactly how i feel

8/18/2006 2:10:02 PM

^^ You left out conceal carry permits, but otherwise that's fine.

8/18/2006 2:17:15 PM

^^^but you see...thats pretty much how it is now

the difference is registering guns, but thats STATE-by-STATE...in north carolina, its "permit-to-buy"...some other states have "permit-to-own" laws...but when you buy the gun with a permit in NC, they still know who bought the gun based on serial numbers and all your information they take

also with FULLY automatic weapons (which i'm sure you meant) you have to have a Class 3 firearms license which they dont just give to anybody...more to law enforcement, gun dealers, etc...thats an even more exhaustive background check

and i specified FULLY auto...cause i certainly dont think you meant semi automatic weapons

so you pretty much just listed all the current laws and regulations

8/18/2006 2:17:57 PM

Quote :

"my theory on guns control is..."

My theory is: this is the wrong thread

8/18/2006 2:25:16 PM

bgmims i was just giving an extreme case like everybody else in the thread

8/18/2006 2:35:53 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: Gamecat, aren't you the one always wiki-smacking people who employ these fallacies?"

Yes. But are you really going to expect me to get'em all? I don't think there are enough hours in a day.

I am pretty damned happy to see posters begin to recognize and point them out again, even if it's against someone who's point I agree with in principle. The only way the Soap Box is going to get out of this mess is by elevating the debate...

8/18/2006 3:00:41 PM

Quote :

"(a) Prohibited activities A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally— (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or (2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. (b) Defense It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction. (c) Penalties An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. (d) Federal jurisdiction There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed. "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.html

8/30/2006 6:22:05 PM

except that since 1947 all statutes are effectively null and void when the government says the magic words...






"national security"

8/30/2006 6:32:50 PM

^That was the purpose of FISA.

8/30/2006 7:39:13 PM

Created itself by statute...

Sad, huh?

8/30/2006 8:07:33 PM

Quote :

" There is a strong historical argument that simply being of english haritage will stop them from doing worse in the future. According to some observers of history there is an "anglo-saxon tradition of compromise," such that no sufficiently Anglo-Saxon people have ever formed a totalitarian state, dispite reasons for doing so. Culture matters. And some cultures just don't go that way. We may burn witches once in awhile, but it is only a matter of time until Governor Phips wakes up and restores order. Then again, America is a very diverse place, what is a insurmountable cultural tradition to one group of Americans may be perceived as a needless impediment to progress by others. "

So are you arguing that being warrantlessly wiretapped is "ok" because of the "War OnTerrorism"?

If so, then you should also support a military draft in order to win the "War On Terrorism".

9/13/2006 10:35:11 AM

I'm not arguing it's ok at all. Quite the opposite. I'm arguing that saying the magic words "national security" shouldn't equate to deferring carte blance political authority to our leaders. That's too absolutist for my tastes, a big absurd, and smacks of soft fascism.

9/13/2006 2:27:22 PM

My question was directed at Lonesnark, the author of the post I quoted.

9/13/2006 3:44:16 PM

LOL. That's waaaaay up there. Totally missed it.

I was wondering where the fuck that came from.

9/13/2006 4:18:12 PM

np. I had read Lonesnark's post in the "draft" thread where he stated,

Quote :

"I will still fight you to the death to preserve the liberties of me and my fellow country men. "

I wanted him to clarify as to whether he would "fight to the death" to preserve my 4th amendment right.

9/13/2006 11:51:50 PM

We're all POW's.

(Prisoners of W)

9/14/2006 12:26:54 AM

FUCK SKYPE/FACEBOOK/BLACKBERRY/BUSH/OBAMA/INTERNET

9/27/2010 7:31:47 PM

I think what you're forgetting is IOKIYAObama

9/27/2010 7:58:46 PM

it's IOKIYAR

or IOKIYO

[Edited on September 27, 2010 at 8:10 PM. Reason : ok

9/27/2010 8:10:13 PM

CHANGE we can BELIEVE in. riiiiight

9/27/2010 8:20:22 PM