vg

 

When my boyfriend told me years ago that america would one day be "Big Brother" I did not believed him...........

 

..........and now I'm seeing it happen with my own eyes (so subtle and disguised)

 

--Animal Farm by George Orwell is a great book---you should read it--

BTW, Reilly, you seem to have some anger issues. Perhaps you need a hobby to help you relax....like listening to Coldplay.

 

Wooow! Well arent you slick. I happen to like discussing politics, especially when I can do it on this forum. I dont really see where the anger comes in, I was just going on with my point (With each post considering the points made by others). I can agree a lot more with your point's then the one's that Camille stated.

 

No, living a 'free' life (whatever that means) doesn't make you happier. That's up to you. But protecting civil liberties does help create an environment that encourages creativity, openness and prosperity. Plus it's a whole lot more fun than living in one of those pesky dictatorships.

 

I still think the basic fundamentals of protection which is what every country runs by is way more important. Without the FBI and CIA listening in on America's phone calls, the mob would be in existance, the neo-nazi's might still be a force, etc. I understand that protecting Civil Liberties is important, but it's done so un-evenly throughout the world (Not just America) that I dont see the point on focussing on one of the most vital aspects that protect your country.

 

Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the government? I guess it depends on what you see as it's role. If the purpose of governemnt is to protect the liberties of its citizens (as the founding fathers seemed to believe), then granting the CIA (or any other acronymn bureau) carte blanche seems like a pretty serious breach.

 

I find anyone still believing in the Founding Fathers, who arent only worm food, but worm crap, turned into worm dust, is a little silly. I see the primary role of the government to protect it's citizens, that's kind of the first role of the Democratic/Capitalist textbook- for the state to protect it's inhabitants. If anyone thinks that Bush is the first person to bring this in, then you'd have to be insane. Whether we knew of it or not (And we probably did, I wont bother to look it up) the government has been basically tracking everything for much longer then the Bush administration (Current OR 90's).

 

Don't mean to go off on too much of a tangent here, but your remark about smuggling cocaine made me think about the futility of the other war the government is waging (the drug war). Seems to me that by making so-called "recreational" drugs illegal, the government is actually encouraging crime, much the way prohibition helped promote organized crime in the 20's.

 

Yep, you are completely right actually. But I was using it as an example, and do not think that in defending the government in listening in on phonecalls that I am defending the entire work of the government.

 

I don't think "sloppy ammendments" is the issue here. That's just the nature of language. There's an encoding process, a transmission process, and a decoding process. So there's always going to be room for interpretation. That's why there's a system of checks and balances built into the American government.

 

The Checks and Balances, while we're on it, are becoming more worthless everyday. Especially the Judiciary's power over Executive (Of which, there isn't any). When Bush takes the military to war without approval of the senate or 50% of state government's, so doing it illegally, nothing happens of it.

 

But I do get what you said in your paragraph, because its a conservative version of what I said.

 

Are individual rights and soldiers dying mutually exclusive? Aren't soldiers supposed to be fighting to protect our rights?

 

Well, arent they? They certainly aren't doing that right now.

 

See drug comments above. As for "child-porn downloaders" (you mean like Pete Townshend?), I think the best prevention against child predators is an informed an aware society (ie. parents, teachers, neighbors) in cooperation with local law enforcement. And again, are individual privacy and the FBI/CIA's activities mutually exclusive? Do you really need to give up one for the other?

 

How is an informed and aware society going to knowin the first place? Anyone could be a paedophile, and the best indication for knowing if they are going to screw up a child's life traumatically is by knowing what's on their computer. It will be all very well for catching one after they have commited their crime.

 

I still believe in arguing for your civil liberties and against this undercover form of protection is a way of arguing for criminals. It's going to happen under any and every society, everyone is being watched. I live in the most watched and monitored area of Europe, we're used to it.

 

So now we're on to JFK conspiracy theories? And don't get me started on Andrew Johnson! Sure Bush may not be the worst, but he's certainly provided more goofy soundbites (to use as fodder) than any other president!

 

This is where I feel a little bit sorry, because he is such an idiot. I mean he is, really, really dumb. And it's so unfortunate that the first presidential run to be so closely monitored and recorded by the media (Not even Clinton released a daily voice recording in some form or other) happens to be the same run that an absolute idiot is being recorded, every stupid thing he says everyday is heard by millions.

 

As for JFK, I think it would be silly to argue something I dont truely know about. So I'll say no more then, that when a president is killed and the explanation the government leaves you with makes absolutely no sense and could not have happened, as well as how they have refused to release ANY files over it, my gut, yes, my gut instinct, says that they had to have killed him.

BTW, Reilly, you seem to have some anger issues. Perhaps you need a hobby to help you relax....like listening to Coldplay.

 

Wooow! Well arent you slick. I happen to like discussing politics, especially when I can do it on this forum. I dont really see where the anger comes in, I was just going on with my point (With each post considering the points made by others). I can agree a lot more with your point's then the one's that Camille stated.

 

That was just my lame attempt at humor based on the observation that you seem to have some pretty strongly held (and strongly worded) opinions. Hence the little smiley face at the end (which you omitted from the quote). Didn't mean anything by it.

 

I still think the basic fundamentals of protection which is what every country runs by is way more important. Without the FBI and CIA listening in on America's phone calls, the mob would be in existance, the neo-nazi's might still be a force, etc. I understand that protecting Civil Liberties is important, but it's done so un-evenly throughout the world (Not just America) that I dont see the point on focussing on one of the most vital aspects that protect your country.

 

Well, I think there are plenty of countries that go well beyond just the "basic fundamentals of protection." And while defense is fine, I guess I just don't see the world as a fundamentally hostile place.

 

Your comment about the unevenness of civil liberties protection is well-taken, but do you really think neo-nazis would be a force without the FBI/CIA? That group lies so far on the periphery of the social spectrum that there's just no real public sympathy for them. Sure there'll always be a few bigots, but I don't really ever see them becoming a force in America. And as for the mob, their loss of influence (outside of Hollywood, anyway) has more to do with the younger generation getting sloppy, I think. Also, see my earlier comments on prohibition and organized crime. The government helped put them in power to begin with.

 

I find anyone still believing in the Founding Fathers, who arent only worm food, but worm crap, turned into worm dust, is a little silly.

 

While the "Founding Fathers" may be over-idealized to some degree, the basic tenets of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are the foundation that the U.S. was built on. If people want to move away from that, that's fine, but I think it's an ideal worth defending. And yes, I realize that a lot has been done even from this nation's inception that has gone in direct opposition of that ideal, but that's why it's an ideal.

 

I see the primary role of the government to protect it's citizens, that's kind of the first role of the Democratic/Capitalist textbook- for the state to protect it's inhabitants. If anyone thinks that Bush is the first person to bring this in, then you'd have to be insane. Whether we knew of it or not (And we probably did, I wont bother to look it up) the government has been basically tracking everything for much longer then the Bush administration (Current OR 90's).

 

No one's saying Bush was the first, but he's certainly taken things to extremes (particularly with the Patriot Act). And personally, I think that in taking such an agressive attitude, the government has actually done more to put it's citizens in danger than to protect them - chiefly by becoming involved in "entangling alliances" which Washington specifically warned against in his farewell address (yes, yes, worm food, I know). The U.S. government has put plenty of dictators into power out of sheer short-sightedness, and then acts all surprised when things literally blow up in their faces. If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. helped put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place, back when Iran was the "enemy," and helped set the stage for bin Laden by arming Afghans in their fight against the Soviet Union, then abrubtly pulling out.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying terrorism in any way, but you don't go sticking your hand in a hornet's nest, expecting not to get stung. That's just what hornets do when they feel threatened. And you don't go fucking around in the Middle East without expecting some attempts at retribution. That's just what angry fundamentalist religious zealots do. (And yes, by extension, you don't go running planes into buildings full of civilians without expecting some form of retaliation in return.) Much as the government would like you to believe that the U.S. was entirely unprovoked, the fact is that it did help set the stage for the situation we're in now. If protection is your concern, sometimes it's not always what you do, but what you don't do.

 

The Checks and Balances, while we're on it, are becoming more worthless everyday. Especially the Judiciary's power over Executive (Of which, there isn't any). When Bush takes the military to war without approval of the senate or 50% of state government's, so doing it illegally, nothing happens of it.

 

True, only Congress can declare war. This is just an "armed conflict." ;)

 

Are individual rights and soldiers dying mutually exclusive? Aren't soldiers supposed to be fighting to protect our rights?

 

Well, arent they? They certainly aren't doing that right now.

 

I'm not sure which question you're answering there, but I just don't see how giving up certain privacy rights is going to end the war in Iraq. Maybe there's a connection somewhere, but I just don't see it.

 

How is an informed and aware society going to knowin the first place? Anyone could be a paedophile, and the best indication for knowing if they are going to screw up a child's life traumatically is by knowing what's on their computer. It will be all very well for catching one after they have commited their crime.

 

Well, parents can monitor what's on their children's computer and can take steps to know where their children are and who they associate with, but it's true that they can only do so much. But still, you need probable cause to go searching someone else's computer. You can't just go searching *everyone* just because they *might* be a predator. Aside from privacy issues, it's just not practical.

 

I still believe in arguing for your civil liberties and against this undercover form of protection is a way of arguing for criminals. It's going to happen under any and every society, everyone is being watched. I live in the most watched and monitored area of Europe, we're used to it.

 

Sorry, but I just don't think you have to give up your privacy or civil liberties to feel safe. And, incidentally, I don't have anything against the government monitoring phone calls per se, as long as they do it legally (or are at least smart enough to do it without getting caught red-handed).

Re: vg

 

When my boyfriend told me years ago that america would one day be "Big Brother" I did not believed him...........

 

..........and now I'm seeing it happen with my own eyes (so subtle and disguised)

 

--Animal Farm by George Orwell is a great book---you should read it--

 

More socialist-leaning perhaps, but I think we're still a long way from Big Brother (that's from 1984, not Animal Farm, btw). And while Orwell is good, I think Huxley's Brave New World is more on target.

 

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety

deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklyn

 

Good quote, but there's no 'y' in Franklin. ;)

too much shit flying in this thread for me to even read all of your replies lol

 

 

But here are a few cents based on what I did read..

 

Reilly- who gives a fuck? Americans.. thats who. Maybe because you don't live here.. you don't fully understand the role that this entirely plays. Sure.. go ahead.. wire tap all you want ON SUSUPECTED TERRORISTS.. I'm all for that... but the govt is trying to justify tapping on civilians who have NO terrorist ties nor suspision.. as I said before.. its the principle. Would it make me feel better.. hell yes.. if I knew who was listening in and when... not because I have anything to hide... but because its MY CIVIL LIBERTY to do so. If we give into this.. where is our 'free country'????? Where are my rights??

 

AND Bush is 'under' any administration... he runs the administration... and on what basis would you say JFK was running a bad admin.?? I'm not such an authority his admin. lol however.. I'm not as bullheaded as other who believe one party is better than the other. Dems are just as crooked as Rep....

 

like you said Reillio.. its all politics.. lol