No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

[maineman]

I want to deny US Constitutionla right to terrorists

you want to deny constitutional rights to citizens. you are already on record as supporting that. Just like the gulags.

 

[red states rule]

you want to deny constitutional rights to citizens. you are already on record as supporting that. Just like the gulags.

When unable to counter an argument you fall back on lies and distortions

 

[maineman]

When unable to counter an argument you fall back on lies and distortions

you most certainly do. there is no lie there. you support denying constitutional rights to citizens.

 

[red states rule]

you most certainly do. there is no lie there. you support denying constitutional rights to citizens.

I want to lock terrorists up - you want to appease and surrender to them

 

[maineman]

I want to lock terrorists up - you want to appease and surrender to them

I most certainly do want to lock up the bad guys.

you, on the other hand, want to deny constitutional rights to citizens. Ben Franklin would be disappointed with your willingness to give up liberty for security.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I most certainly do want to lock up the bad guys.

you, on the other hand, want to deny constitutional rights to citizens. Ben Franklin would be disappointed with your willingness to give up liberty for security.

Already covered. When Ben was around there were no WMD, no suicide bombers, no phones and internet and radios and satalites to instantly communicate to some on the other side of the world. There were no world wide terror organizations bent on the destruction through terror of the United States. There were no Countries hiding behind terrorists to attack the US, the closest to that would be England using Indians and England seizing Americans off ships at sea. BOTH were open knowledge that England was doing it.

 

[maineman]

Already covered. When Ben was around there were no WMD, no suicide bombers, no phones and internet and radios and satalites to instantly communicate to some on the other side of the world. There were no world wide terror organizations bent on the destruction through terror of the United States. There were no Countries hiding behind terrorists to attack the US, the closest to that would be England using Indians and England seizing Americans off ships at sea. BOTH were open knowledge that England was doing it.

so...let me get this straight: you ARE supportive of denying constitutional rights to citizens? you ARE supportive of giving up liberty for security? Have I got that right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

so...let me get this straight: you ARE supportive of denying constitutional rights to citizens? you ARE supportive of giving up liberty for security? Have I got that right?

Now YOUR putting words in people's mouths. I neither said that nor implied it. I am pointing out that your constant quoting of a MAN dead for over 200 ( or close at least if not) years would not necassarily agree with HOW your using his quote. He could not even begin to fathom the situation of today.

He DID how ever agree that Governments HAD the right to make laws and create reasonable restrictions on freedoms ( or are you now going to argue he thought the first amendment had no limits?) And THAT would be the whole point of this issue.

RSR is guilty of several errors, BUT that doesn't equate to me supporting his whole position nor of me supporting the idea that laws passed and acted on against this threat, are violations of our rights under the Constitution. IT also means I DO NOT agree your quote has any meaning in this argument.

 

[Shogun]

did you read the very words of Ben Franklin above?


im not sure that it is accurate to assume that colonial americans were ignorant of violent threats in accordance with how we feel about terrorism just because they didnt have cell phones and airplanes..


also, if youve ever given the NYTimes gruff about their choice to push a particular agenda Ill remind you of how Ben, in fact, used his..

 

[maineman]

Now YOUR putting words in people's mouths. I neither said that nor implied it. I am pointing out that your constant quoting of a MAN dead for over 200 ( or close at least if not) years would not necassarily agree with HOW your using his quote. He could not even begin to fathom the situation of today.

He DID how ever agree that Governments HAD the right to make laws and create reasonable restrictions on freedoms ( or are you now going to argue he thought the first amendment had no limits?) And THAT would be the whole point of this issue.

RSR is guilty of several errors, BUT that doesn't equate to me supporting his whole position nor of me supporting the idea that laws passed and acted on against this threat, are violations of our rights under the Constitution. IT also means I DO NOT agree your quote has any meaning in this argument.

so...let me get this straight. Even though FISA gives government the right to eavesdrop on foreign and domestic phone conversations without having to get a warrant before the fact, and even though FISA gives the government 36 hours AFTER THE FACT to make their case for why a citizen's phone conversations ought to be eavesdropped upon, you are supportive of ignoring FISA and ignoring the rights of citizens and allowing government to eavesdrop on any and all foreign and domestic conversations WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO EXPLAIN TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM WHY THEY ARE DOING SO? Because if you allow Big Brother to listen in to phone conversations and all Big Brother has to do is "promise" that they will only listen in to conversations that originate overseas from telephones that they know belong to terrorists, you are giving tacit approval for government to listen to anybody talk to anybody because there will be NO oversight...no checks and balances.... and that is a reduction of our liberties as citizens. But you are all for that..... have I gotten that right?

 

[Gunny]

so...let me get this straight. Even though FISA gives government the right to eavesdrop on foreign and domestic phone conversations without having to get a warrant before the fact, and even though FISA gives the government 36 hours AFTER THE FACT to make their case for why a citizen's phone conversations ought to be eavesdropped upon, you are supportive of ignoring FISA and ignoring the rights of citizens and allowing government to eavesdrop on any and all foreign and domestic conversations WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO EXPLAIN TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM WHY THEY ARE DOING SO? Because if you allow Big Brother to listen in to phone conversations and all Big Brother has to do is "promise" that they will only listen in to conversations that originate overseas from telephones that they know belong to terrorists, you are giving tacit approval for government to listen to anybody talk to anybody because there will be NO oversight...no checks and balances.... and that is a reduction of our liberties as citizens. But you are all for that..... have I gotten that right?

I'm actually surprised that as a vet, this bothers you. The three of us spent entire careers knowing our phone conversations were monitored. I've always treated the phone and/or internet as if someone else was listening/reading.

IMO, it's just not that big a deal. If they want to listen to me get the "honey-do" list from mamma, power to them. I'd say they must be completely devoid of all other forms of entertainment.

IMO, those who aren't doing anything wrong have nothing to fear. If and when I see or hear otherwise, THEN I will be concerned. As it stands now, I think stopping a possible terrorist attack against the society trumps my individual right to privacy.

 

[Care4all]

WISE QUOTES to ponder!

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.

Benjamin Franklin



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791. ME 8:276



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.

Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers.

Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp
Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What county can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance.

Thomas Jefferson



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The true barriers of our liberty in this country are our state governments...

Thomas Jefferson



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce: with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

Publius (Madison)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much ... to forget it.

James Madison

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The listening without a judges order can NOT be used in a court of law. And as was pointed out, the only people that would need to worry are those engaged in illegal activities. The Government has a responsibility to protect the public, these "wiretaps" are nothing more than a tool to ensure our safety.

Get back to me when or if someone is charged with or prosecuted with one of these taps.

How many agents shall we hire who will have the sole duty of running tap requests to Judges? How many Judges shall we hire who have the sole duty of hearing those requests?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I do love this one...

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce: with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

Publius (Madison)

Democrats have been stretching the implied powers and the "enumerated" powers and rights of this document so far past its intent it is unrecognizable in some instances.

As to the 4th Amendment, it does not apply since no legal action can be taken by information gained solely by these taps. So the rights granted still are preserved.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ahh yes and then there is this GEM....

I find it telling you would use it to DEFEND your LAWS you like.


Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson

I would submit the "Equal rights" of others applies. We have a RIGHT to be protected from terrorist attacks against self and property. All the taps do is allow the Government to possibly find a threat. The taps are NOT admissable in a court so can not be used on their own against anyone, thus no violation of the 4th Amendment.

 

[red states rule]

I most certainly do want to lock up the bad guys.

you, on the other hand, want to deny constitutional rights to citizens. Ben Franklin would be disappointed with your willingness to give up liberty for security.

You and your party are now the party of appeasement and surrender. The voters know it and so do our enemies

Libs have always been soft on crime - you are continuing to live down to everything I expect from the left

 

[maineman]

I'm actually surprised that as a vet, this bothers you. The three of us spent entire careers knowing our phone conversations were monitored. I've always treated the phone and/or internet as if someone else was listening/reading.

IMO, it's just not that big a deal. If they want to listen to me get the "honey-do" list from mamma, power to them. I'd say they must be completely devoid of all other forms of entertainment.

IMO, those who aren't doing anything wrong have nothing to fear. If and when I see or hear otherwise, THEN I will be concerned. As it stands now, I think stopping a possible terrorist attack against the society trumps my individual right to privacy.

I may be a vet, but my Dad was a trial defense lawyer who instilled in me a real fondness for the Bill of Rights. The point is "if and when you see or hear otherwise", will be long after the rights of citizens have been routinely and repeatedly violated.. and without any oversight from the courts, you may NEVER be made aware of what the administration is doing vis a vis monitoring the lives of citizens. Please tell me why following FISA is such an onerous burden.

 

[red states rule]

I may be a vet, but my Dad was a trial defense lawyer who instilled in me a real fondness for the Bill of Rights. The point is "if and when you see or hear otherwise", will be long after the rights of citizens have been routinely and repeatedly violated.. and without any oversight from the courts, you may NEVER be made aware of what the administration is doing vis a vis monitoring the lives of citizens. Please tell me why following FISA is such an onerous burden.

It sop funny

Libs will bend over backwards to spre the life of a convicted murderer; give other criminals every benefit of every doubt, but fight like hell for a women to murder her unborn baby

 

[maineman]

You and your party are now the party of appeasement and surrender. The voters know it and so do our enemies

Libs have always been soft on crime - you are continuing to live down to everything I expect from the left

you are like a broken record. this "appease and surrender" shit is old and lame. How do you account for the fact that, in the most recent Rasmussen poll, the public trust the democrats more than republicans with all ten of the key issues of governing: Nat'l Security, Taxes, Abortion, Economy, Ethics & Corruption, War in Iraq , Immigration, Education, Soc. Security, and Healthcare? ALL TEN! YOUR party loses in ALL TEN... and you keep saying you know what the voters know? gimme a break!

 

[maineman]

It sop funny

Libs will bend over backwards to spre the life of a convicted murderer; give other criminals every benefit of every doubt, but fight like hell for a women to murder her unborn baby

and that RSR soundbite has WHAT, exactly, do to with FISA?