where did i say that "majority opinion is always correct"?
its amazing that you can tie your shoes.

so here we both are.. amazing each other. what a great way to begin the day!

either

1) the entire system of government does not work

or

2) the current administration is acting outside the law

which is it?[/b][/quote]
And where in my post did I say that you were saying it is always correct? I only said that is a VERY WEAK arguement to use, period. Especially as your closing say-so on the matter.

You made your arguement and then basically say it's "right" because the majority of the people agree with you. No matter whether you are right or wrong on something using that as a method of convincing people is a very weak tactic.

Also, please show me where I said ANYTHING on your actual position itself in this thread. I only commented on Bush having a penchant for appointing known criminals to important posts and the repubs call these criminals heroes. And then I commentated on your arguements TACTICS and not the arguement itself.

Just curious. Who has read Orwell's "1984"? .. and who hasn't?



Last edited by Colin at Dec 16 2002, 03:10 PM

What could be better than making the majority of people happy? Making everyone kinda happy? Making a few people very happy and the rest miserable? What is the correct equation?[/b][/quote]
There isn't an equation for that Colin, otherwise you might be president!!! :blink:

There isn't an equation for that Colin, otherwise you might be president!!! :blink:[/b][/quote]
Laugh. I think I used the wrong word.

"What could be better than making the majority of people happy? Making everyone kinda happy? Making a few people very happy and the rest miserable? What is the goal?"

If I remember correctly isn't that something from Russias past? Or do i have the wrong country?

Apparently because you follow the same websites that Alex does:

Remember http://www.presidentmoron.com/arch0211.html ? You can read that phrase there.





Last edited by Colin at Dec 16 2002, 03:17 PM

If I remember correctly isn't that something from Russias past? Or do i have the wrong country?[/b][/quote]
It has much more of a Germanic ring to it, I think ....

It has much more of a Germanic ring to it, I think ....[/b][/quote]
Der Vaterland :heil:

I really do think the division of power that exists in the legislative, executive, democratic, and judiciary branches of government does an amazing job of keeping such concerns in check. By democratic, I mean the voice of the people as far as their ability to elect such officials and vote on referendums. I include that too.

I think there are some inherent weaknesses in the system too. For example, no one is responsible for the US budget deficit because the executive and legislative branches both decide on budget items. No responsibility in financial concerns is bad business. If no one is to blame, no one has to do the right thing. Each administration runs a deficit budget and then blames it on the other branch of the government. On the other hand, would you want the president to be solely responsible? Too much power in one-hand. How about Congress? Division of reponsibility among too many people. Conundrum.

Wow... I don't think I've ever seen a single more convincing argument to switch to Linux on the Desktop, ever....

Microsoft will be able delete things from my hard drive remotely if they don't like the content of them? And of course, Microsoft will have access to read all of the material on all of the computers using their OS.

And where in my post did I say that you were saying it is always correct? I only said that is a VERY WEAK arguement to use, period. Especially as your closing say-so on the matter.

You made your arguement and then basically say it's "right" because the majority of the people agree with you. No matter whether you are right or wrong on something using that as a method of convincing people is a very weak tactic.

Also, please show me where I said ANYTHING on your actual position itself in this thread. I only commented on Bush having a penchant for appointing known criminals to important posts and the repubs call these criminals heroes. And then I commentated on your arguements TACTICS and not the arguement itself.[/b][/quote]
i said the system itself works quite well and in spite of all the rhetoric, no one has proven otherwise. no one has proven that anyones rights are being violated or that the Constitution is being ignored.

why would i need to convince people of that TE? i dont care to convince people of anything because it wont change anything.

you guys are missunderstanding me or i am doing a poor job in making my point.

let me say it another way.

First, we have a Constitution and laws and a system of government in place

Second, we have a democracy that allows people to choose those who will represent them in government

third, those people in government make laws and those laws also represent the will of the majority of people or they get repealed.

fourth, LISTEN CAREFULLY... there will always be a Bush, Ashcroft or Freddy Kruger. We have a system of government that recognizes this fact and puts considerable constraints as well as a massively redundant system of checks and balances to keep them under control.

so let me say it like this....

Why would anyone reasonably expect that John Ashcroft, Bush or anyone else will be the last persons in the History of the United States of America to try to infringe upon your rights in some way?

They are not rogue generals coming to work everyday in a BlackHawk. They are people, who represent others and work within the framework of the Constitution and democratic process. If there is a problem.. then it seems to me that the problem must be with the very system of government itself and not the individuals.

... but, aside from rhetoric, no one can talk specifics about how the Administration is doing anything that the system itself does not allow. If they are, then they are breaking the law. If they are not, then it seems that people would be more concerned with changing the laws that allow a government to take away your rights as citizens.

There's a Let Them Eat Apple Pie in there somewhere lol :heil:

Convert? What's Windoze ... ?

It has much more of a Germanic ring to it, I think ....[/b][/quote]
That's right.. my bad

Russia is often referred to as "mother russia"

That's right.. my bad

Russia is often referred to as "mother russia"[/b][/quote]
And Japan was the "Empire of the Son"

:bjump:

Why would anyone reasonably expect that John Ashcroft, Bush or anyone else will be the last persons in the History of the United States of America to try to infringe upon your rights in some way?

They are not rogue generals coming to work everyday in a BlackHawk. They are people, who represent others and work within the framework of the Constitution and democratic process. If there is a problem.. then it seems to me that the problem must be with the very system of government itself and not the individuals.

... but, aside from rhetoric, no one can talk specifics about how the Administration is doing anything that the system itself does not allow. If they are, then they are breaking the law. If they are not, then it seems that people would be more concerned with changing the laws that allow a government to take away your rights as citizens.
************************************************** *******
Specifics...

The portions of the act that allow the eavesdropping on your personal communications across the net are in direct opposition to both the spirit and the letter of the fourth amendment and parts of the fifth amendment of our constitution. That people aren't jumping up and shouting about it is because people are scared. People want the security that was grabbed out from under their feet on 9/11. They think, well, it's a good thing because thety (the government) will only use it to find terrorists and terrorist supporters, they aren't going to watch little old me. Well, DEFINE terrorist. I saw a commercial last night that basically said that if you smoke pot, you are supporting terrorists. Hmm.. wonder how many folks would be investigated under that definition. Ashcroft has made numerous remarks that basically state that if you don't agree with George W, then you are unpatriotic... How far is it from UNPATRIOTIC to TERRORIST or TERRORISM SUPPORTER. Want to know, ask some of the folks who had to go before Joe McCarthy's committee back in the fifties. Many are still alive and many still are fighting the communist label, although it was in no way illegal to be a member of the communist party or to preach communist ideas. These folks were ruined because they spoke their mind or more often then not, someone ACCUSED them of speaking their mind.

As far as working within the constitution, history proves you wrong... In addition to McCarthyism, there is the Internment of the Japansese at the beginning of WWII and the one I will elaborate on a bit which is COINTELPRO.

COINTELPRO was a program by the FBI in the 60's and 70's that allowed the FBI to "investigate terrorist organizations". It was used to spy on the Black Panthers, AIM, The Chicago seven and various other "DOMESTIC" groups. Most of whom it was later found were in violation of NOTHING. The simple fact that they were in opposition to the current administration's viewpoint made them "dangerous" and therefore under the program's guidelines, the FBI was allowed to harass the members, infiltrate, CREATE evidence, all sorts of good stuff.... They even murdered U.S. citizens within the U.S. borders. Look up COINTELPRO, read about it, you will see what I mean.

Many of the administrations in the executive office (both republican and democrats) have used various domestic organizations to harass and intimidate their political opponents. They have used the IRS, FBI, INS, basically, any department they can to investigate folks just to get political dirt on them and destroy their careers.

Do I think that Ashcroft, Bush, et al will be the last to try... No Way... Do I think that we should give them THE RIGHT to investigate anyone freely, without reasonable cause, without any form of due process... again.. No FUCKING WAY....

Power corrupts.. and absolute power corrupts absolutely... Those powers must be kept in check and it is a much more reasonable proposition that "if you do not want them to have the power, don't give it to them" rather than "Well, they won't abuse it, they said so".

They ARE .. or you think they are?

What about wire-tapping? How about surveillance outside a suspected drug dealer's house? What is the difference?

Yeah its like a PGP media Player, with government rights.

But hey, this has been coming for years now...

They ARE .. or you think they are?

What about wire-tapping? How about surveillance outside a suspected drug dealer's house? What is the difference?[/b][/quote]
Wire tapping is legal (supposedly) only when it has been run past a judge that authorizes a warrant allowing it. The judge is SUPPOSED to require some kind of probable cause. This is to stop it from being abused by the agencies that have shown a great eagerness to abuse it.

As far as eavesdropping, outside the drug dealers house. Depends on if it is electronic eavesdropping or not. If they just park out front and listen without any electronic aide, then they are totally legal. Being in a public place and overhearing stuff is totally legal... If what they hear is enough to establish probable cause then they are free to enter. BUT... If they needed to use electronic aids to overhear the conversation, then they need the warrant once again, otherwise, nothing they get can be used in court to either prosecute or establish probable cause.

The fourth amendment does not say that you cannot be searched. It says that you are free from unreasonable searches. Legislation and interpretation has established that a search is reasonable if it is backed up by reasonable cause. It has also been established in many cases that electronic eavesdropping is a form of search.

Editing because I forgot to address the fifth anmendment issues...

The fifth amendment says that you may not be forced to incriminate yourself.... Once again, if you make a statement willingly to an authority, that statement can be used against you... If they (they being the authorities) overhear a statement that incriminates, at that point it depends once again on whether they had their propers in order before listening in.





Last edited by sarettah at Dec 16 2002, 06:13 PM

I agree with Saretta...

They are not rogue generals coming to work everyday in a BlackHawk. They are people, who represent others and work within the framework of the Constitution and democratic process. If there is a problem.. then it seems to me that the problem must be with the very system of government itself and not the individuals.

... but, aside from rhetoric, no one can talk specifics about how the Administration is doing anything that the system itself does not allow. If they are, then they are breaking the law. If they are not, then it seems that people would be more concerned with changing the laws that allow a government to take away your rights as citizens.
==============================================
Sarettah,
Hatteras spelled backwards - i always meant to ask if that was that coincidence or do you own one?
i love boats.


again is what i posted above. being are expressing a big concern about being afraid of their government of government powers and so on.

but two things exactly are not happening in these conversations throughout the United States

first, the issue (or "excuse" if you want to call it that) is fighting terrorism
no one is suggesting solutions... just expressing fear, paranoia and opposition to the solutions that are being realized.

second, i understand the Joe McCarthey did one thing, that the FBI did another and that Japanese were held in internment camps etc.
AND THATS BEEN MY POINT!

if what we are discussing is illegal, lets discuss the legal or Constitutional issues.

- if Bush is acting within the law, then Homeland Security and a massive infringement of your personal rights is a SYMPTOM of the greater problem that Federal Law and Constitution made it possible.

you mentioned "specifics" and still said nothing about the topic... just made the typical vague arguement with historical referrences. i am talking about the topic at hand. not why the Titanic sunk or how fire was invented. We are talking specifically about a pilot program being developed by the Pentagon to store and analyze data. People have no trouble stating that they are against it.... but dont feel the need to explain if it is legal, illegal, Constitutional, UnConstitutional etc etc etc. Those are the issues that allow these things to happen.

That is where the focus should be if people are so deathly afraid of government storm troopers kicking in their doors at night to steal the liver of their youngest daughter.

Otherwise, people are just criticising the President and his spiritual advisor or the Republicans for being out to get them... but keep forgetting to acknoweledge that they are acting within the law. If i was really worried about it, i would be more worried about changing the system that makes it possible for them to arbitrarily stop you on the freeway one day and suck your brain from your skull.

everything passes through the House and Senate before it comes law. the entire government is participating in the creation of these programs




Last edited by -= JR =- at Dec 17 2002, 04:52 AM

Sarettah,
Hatteras spelled backwards - i always meant to ask if that was that coincidence or do you own one?
i love boats.
************************************************** *

Not coincidence :) But not boats either...(althought they are fine boats...would love to have one).. I lived in Cape Hatteras for about 4 years back when... Wish I had never left :) When I needed a unique nick for the net back ion n94-95, I typed it in backwards, saw I could still pronounce it and said "what the hack"...used it since :)

Now, on to the ongoing topic....

JR you ignorant slut......... :) Just kidding (used to love when Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtin did their point-counterpoint..lol)

************************************************** ****
Specifics...

The portions of the act that allow the eavesdropping on your personal communications across the net are in direct opposition to both the spirit and the letter of the fourth amendment and parts of the fifth amendment of our constitution.

************************************************** ******

Ok, so that wasn't specific enough ?? I don't know what to tell you then..lol.. I can detail how it is in violation , but I did that in a subsequent post answering that...

anyway, I was not tryiingo to "raise the alarm" so to speak... I don't know how to convey what is wrong with giving the government this kind of authority without citing past abuses... It is what has been done in the past with these types of powers that should keep us wary of giving them in the present.. We need to learn from history and history says that if you give the government (or any other "Authority") far reaching powers, they will abuse them....

The old screw me once, shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me attitude in a nutshell actually....

The federal government exists first and foremost to perpetuate itself... It's first priority is the survival of the government, as it should be... Because of this, any administration will seek far-reaching power to accomplish this goal. Clinton and FBIgate for example, Nixon and Watergate, the list goes on. These were all abuses of power with the ultimate goal being perpetuity of the administration and it's goals... If we afford the government the right to to eavesdrop on whatever they want, whenever they want, it will eventually come back and bite us on the ass........

Now, is the government going to do it anyway...probably.. But for the most part it will be worthless information because it won't stand up in a courtroom... Does the government actually have to right to do these things without it being run be a unique department? Probably... That is where grey areas come in... Because of the nature of the internet, transactions can go through any number of servers before they get to their destination.. Many of these will be government owned servers.. Does ANY organization have the right (responsibility too) to monitor what goes across their servers.... by all means.......

So, the case could be made that whether we put it into actual legislation or not that the government already has the right to look at certain transactions, those that go across their servers....... Do they have the right to watch what goes across other servers? If the owners of those servers allow them too, then by all means they have that right.......


lol... I have now lost my entire train of thought on this and I have a big ass database project yelling in my ear that my deadline is less than 14 days... so I need to get to work....

Later