Guest Guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 Hmmm,...Illegal wiretapping comes to mind. 77716[/snapback] Really, are you that afraid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 300 million americans, probably more than a billion phone calls being made and received daily, and you think someone is listening in on all of them ?? You maywant to increase the meds. 77734[/snapback] In this digital age, we can archive it for later retrieval. An example would also be the internet. There are the backbone servers or pipes through which all messages flow. Messages are saved for a certain time span. I don't have to go to the owner of this site to find out who you are. I simply scan for your above text (it can be broken into different messages but we can put them together), which when found will give me your IP address. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 What is that supposed to mean ?? Read the question again, Doofus. 77739[/snapback] It means we have a misleader who thinks his wants supercede the Constitution you stupid twit, pay attention! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 Really, are you that afraid? 77768[/snapback] Gerald Ford, a Republican president, was fond of saying that a government powerful enough to give you anything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have. The entirety of human history is replete with governments that became too powerful and oppressed the people. If you had any sense, you'd understand the importance of this history, and be afraid of what is happening now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 300 million americans, probably more than a billion phone calls being made and received daily, and you think someone is listening in on all of them ?? You maywant to increase the meds. 77734[/snapback] No, that's not the point. The point is that they can listen to whomever they choose. Whom will devious and powerful people choose to listen to? Why, the people who disagree with them, of course. Once a nation allows that to happen, it has cleared the path for the emergence of tyranny. They don't have to listen to everyone. Once they have the dissenters and the intellectuals in line, they have dictatorial control, partly by suppressing all opposing views and partly by showing the people what happens to those who dissent or even merely disagree. That's exactly how Stalin and Hitler did it. They didn't have to kill off their entire population. A few million imprisoned, killed and tortured did the job just fine. And yes, it can happen here, and it is. The question is whether we the people will insist on its being stopped before it reaches the point where we can no longer stop it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 Lets talk about three.Article IV: The rights of the people to be protected from unreasonalbe searches and seizures. These searches must be based on probable cause. Today, the Government, through the NSA searches through phone conversations, and e-mails are routed through the wireless internet providers and phone companies. Since this Article guarantees your right and hasn't been amended it is still in effect but has been ignored. Then, using your own definition, isn't that a right that appears and disappears periodically? Search and seizure (arguably unreasonable) has taken place off and on throughout U.S. history. Article V: The right to due process. Once you decide to give up your rights contained in Article IV, you essentially have waived this amendment since you obviously believe you have nothing to hide and therefore don't care. If he decided to give up his Fourth Amendment rights, then wouldn't he have noticed? Article VI: The right to a speedy and public trial, and to be judged by a jury of your peers. Under this Administration, they can hold you indefinately, so long as you are not charged with a crime. The language is deliberately ambiguous and can be broadly interpreted to mean any thing they choose to have it mean from peaceful protest to even writing a letter criticizing the Government, so that in essence, you can be held indefinately as an enemy combatant whether you are a citizen or not. And further, they don't even have to tell your family that you've been arrested. Kind of like Roosevelt did during WW2 (and Lincoln during the Civil War). Why didn't we impeach those guys, again? Now, none of this will probably interest you since you feel you have an unfettered right to speak your mind and trust this Administration to protect you, but I have listed three amendments that they are violating in the name of keeping you safe. If it were clear (for example) that a U.S. citizen at war with the United States of America maintained his right to a speedy and public trial. Do you honestly think that the Union provided a speedy and public trial for Confederate soldiers, still considered citizens of the United States, when they were taken prisoner? Lincoln knew that the Constitution was not intended as a suicide pact. Liberals are lined up to turn it into exactly that, probably owing to Bush Derangement Syndrome. However, being a patriot, you should know this already but in case you don't, the Constitution was written to protect the people from abuses by the Government not the other way around. Remember it was written by the people, for the people and no one person or persons can change that regardless of the reason unless the majority decides. If you tie your government's hands to the point that it cannot protect you from extra-governmental threats to your liberty, don't be too surprised if life, liberty, etc. are taken from you by those threats. I know it's hard for some BDS types to comprehend, but there are bigger threats to your liberty than the U.S. government. If you take the time to research what I've written you will find it all true. I am not a lawyer and so am giving you an interpretatiuon as I understand it and as it's been written.So, now you have something to ponder, however I am sure your mind is already made up. But at-least I try to educate you. Remember What Jefferseon wrote. "Those who would give up even one freedon deserve none". 77712[/snapback] I don't know who that "Jefferseon" guy is, but Thomas Jefferson probably didn't say or write that. See the "Misattributed" section: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson Thanks for trying to educate us with bad information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 What is that supposed to mean ?? Read the question again, Doofus. 77739[/snapback] I thinks it's pretty obvious. What part don't you understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marsahll,Mo. Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 Really, are you that afraid? 77768[/snapback] Concerned. very very concerned. Am I worried that my phone conversations my reveal something Illegal? No. but no one seems to care about precedent. Where does it end? If not kept in check it doesn't, it just gets worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest a proud american Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 Concerned. very very concerned. Am I worried that my phone conversations my reveal something Illegal? No. but no one seems to care about precedent. Where does it end? If not kept in check it doesn't, it just gets worse. 77795[/snapback] I love this guy Bryan. I was asked by Patriot to sight examples and what do we get? He's like a guy that doesn't use his cruise control and then can't understand why he's given a speeding ticket. You are having these rights taken away and the best we come up with is WWII. Of course if he actually read my response he would understand that under this administration you can be jailed indefinately and not be charged. So there is no way of knowing how many have been effected by this or will be in the future. And the last time I checked there were no e-mails in WWII. I know that I was born at the beginning of the Cold War, remembered the Cuban Missle crisis, the Berlin wall being built , and don't remember a single right being curtailed or modified. And the stunner. Jefferson did say that. And unless I have forgotten, the southern states ceceded from the Union and didn't recognize our Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 Concerned. very very concerned. Am I worried that my phone conversations my reveal something Illegal? No. but no one seems to care about precedent. Where does it end? If not kept in check it doesn't, it just gets worse. 77795[/snapback] These people kind of remind me of when I was growing up in Kearny during the early 70's. My next door neighbor used to complain about all of the kids hanging out on the Avenue and how they should pass an ordinance prohibiting kids from congregating. He was so happy when the Town Council did pass an ordinance. That is, until he had to go to Police Headquarters and pick up his daughter for congregating. Then it wasn't such a good idea. As long as it didn't effect him or his family it was ok and thats the point that these dunder heads won't or can't understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 Concerned. very very concerned. Am I worried that my phone conversations my reveal something Illegal? No. but no one seems to care about precedent. Where does it end? If not kept in check it doesn't, it just gets worse. 77795[/snapback] Worse, like the people in government making things up just because you don't agree with them. It has happened many times, all over the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billydee4 Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 Concerned. very very concerned. Am I worried that my phone conversations my reveal something Illegal? No. but no one seems to care about precedent. Where does it end? If not kept in check it doesn't, it just gets worse. 77795[/snapback] I wonder what the conservatives will say when the Democrats are in charge and they are the ones who do the wiretapping? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamK Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 300 million americans, probably more than a billion phone calls being made and received daily, and you think someone is listening in on all of them ?? You maywant to increase the meds. 77734[/snapback] By what leap of profound illogic did you go from "illegal wiretapping" to "listening in on all of them"? No one other than you has suggested such a ridiculous thing. But, since you brought it up, do you believe that all conversations have to be tapped in order for illegal wiretapping to be a problem? If not, then what, exactly, were you trying to imply? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Really, are you that afraid? 77768[/snapback] It sets a bad precedent. Freedom isn't usually blasted away in one shot, but eroded little by little over time. If the government wants to listen in on someone's phone calls, let them get a damned warrant first. Whatever happened to probable cause? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Then, using your own definition, isn't that a right that appears and disappears periodically? Search and seizure (arguably unreasonable) has taken place off and on throughout U.S. history. If he decided to give up his Fourth Amendment rights, then wouldn't he have noticed? Kind of like Roosevelt did during WW2 (and Lincoln during the Civil War). Why didn't we impeach those guys, again? If it were clear (for example) that a U.S. citizen at war with the United States of America maintained his right to a speedy and public trial. Do you honestly think that the Union provided a speedy and public trial for Confederate soldiers, still considered citizens of the United States, when they were taken prisoner? Lincoln knew that the Constitution was not intended as a suicide pact. Liberals are lined up to turn it into exactly that, probably owing to Bush Derangement Syndrome. If you tie your government's hands to the point that it cannot protect you from extra-governmental threats to your liberty, don't be too surprised if life, liberty, etc. are taken from you by those threats. I know it's hard for some BDS types to comprehend, but there are bigger threats to your liberty than the U.S. government. I don't know who that "Jefferseon" guy is, but Thomas Jefferson probably didn't say or write that. See the "Misattributed" section: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson Thanks for trying to educate us with bad information. 77793[/snapback] You gotta love the way these liberal loonies fabricate quotes and attribute them to whoever comes to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 In this digital age, we can archive it for later retrieval.An example would also be the internet. There are the backbone servers or pipes through which all messages flow. Messages are saved for a certain time span. I don't have to go to the owner of this site to find out who you are. I simply scan for your above text (it can be broken into different messages but we can put them together), which when found will give me your IP address. 77780[/snapback] Archive a billion phone calls daily, right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 It means we have a misleader who thinks his wants supercede the Constitution you stupid twit, pay attention! 77789[/snapback] misleader ? speak english. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Gerald Ford, a Republican president, was fond of saying that a government powerful enough to give you anything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have. The entirety of human history is replete with governments that became too powerful and oppressed the people. If you had any sense, you'd understand the importance of this history, and be afraid of what is happening now. 77790[/snapback] ANOTHER fabricated quote !! You loonies are hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 No, that's not the point. The point is that they can listen to whomever they choose. Whom will devious and powerful people choose to listen to? Why, the people who disagree with them, of course. Once a nation allows that to happen, it has cleared the path for the emergence of tyranny. They don't have to listen to everyone. Once they have the dissenters and the intellectuals in line, they have dictatorial control, partly by suppressing all opposing views and partly by showing the people what happens to those who dissent or even merely disagree. That's exactly how Stalin and Hitler did it. They didn't have to kill off their entire population. A few million imprisoned, killed and tortured did the job just fine. And yes, it can happen here, and it is. The question is whether we the people will insist on its being stopped before it reaches the point where we can no longer stop it. 77791[/snapback] I think you're right. You better turn all your lights out. Watch out your window and if you see a bunch of black SUV's pull up to your house, get out the back door quick. In exactly 7 minutes this post will self-destruct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 By what leap of profound illogic did you go from "illegal wiretapping" to "listening in on all of them"? No one other than you has suggested such a ridiculous thing. But, since you brought it up, do you believe that all conversations have to be tapped in order for illegal wiretapping to be a problem? If not, then what, exactly, were you trying to imply? 77844[/snapback] Fresh evidence has emerged that the US government's warrantless wiretapping program predates the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Secret surveillance operations that enabled the National Security Agency (NSA) to access telecommunications traffic data have been in place since the 1990s, according to the New York Times. In an attempt to gain intelligence on narcotics traffickingThe NSA forged an uneasy alliance with telcos to gather data on phone calls and emails from the US to Latin America. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/18/wa...tapping_latest/ Huh. They forgot to mention how Clinton put a stop to it while he was in office! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 I wonder what the conservatives will say when the Democrats are in charge and they are the ones who do the wiretapping? 77828[/snapback] They feel safe because they think the Democrats are wimps. I almost wish it was true, but just watch what happens if Democrats gain the political leverage Republicans have had recently. Let's hope they won't behave as the Republicans have. They may not, but on the other hand, power does funny things to people. It would almost be worth it just to see the looks on the Republicans' faces as they're carted off to prisons in undisclosed locations. (I don't really believe that, but I do like the thought after the way Republicans have abused power.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 ANOTHER fabricated quote !! You loonies are hilarious. 77858[/snapback] “What is it, in a few words, that all Republicans believe? We believe - along with millions of Democrats and Independents - that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” - Gerald Ford, Republican National Convention, 1996 But then what do the people in charge of his Presidential library and museum know? http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/grf/quotes.asp See also: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1426190 http://www.quotiki.com/quote.aspx?id=9472 http://www.tristram-shandy.com/2006/12/gov...o-give-you.html http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ss..._gr_quotes.html It’s one of the most famous and remarkable things he ever said. I won't even bother with your next post, except to say that reasonable people would act to prevent this from happening. You’re not just stupid. You’re a complete, raving idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamK Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 ANOTHER fabricated quote !! You loonies are hilarious. 77858[/snapback] http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/grf/quotes.asp Search for the words "big enough". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Archive a billion phone calls daily, right. 77855[/snapback] Google archives greater amounts of data daily. It's not like it's a physical impossibility. But what would probably be more likely is using automated speech recognition software to pick up certain 'suspect words' or phrases and then focus on those lines, not archiving anything else. The bad thing is that no one knows (that's talking) what's being done or not done. And when it comes to something like this, that is a Very Bad Thing. This administration hasn't exactly created a reputation of trustworthiness is all I'm saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 misleader ? speak english. 77857[/snapback] http://www.onelook.com/?w=misleader I don't know what English you speak, but there it is, goofball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.