Hunger strike for impeachment!!
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, as I said, the US government reserves the right to go through my most personal financial papers any time they please in flagrant disregard for my fourth amendment rights in order to ensure I am taxed. To worry about phone calls and emails while that is going on borders on insanity.
This 'one without the other' mentality makes no sense to me. In a world of infinite resources and infinite time, it could actually be possible to worry about every possible problem at the same time. That is not reality. We have to pick and choose which battles we fight. The IRS is an ingrained institution that would be VERY VERY HARD, if not impossible to dislodge because it has been around so long and very few people are even AWARE that there are legal challenges to the existence of the income tax. This new issue of wiretaps and 4th amendment rights is not nearly so solid in its foundations and is much easier to deal with while it's still new. Frankly, the real problem in both cases is that the vast - vast - majority of Americans a) don't even know about these issues and if they do, b) don't give a shit because it doesn't affect their everyday lives. The second a politician does something that impacts someone's grocery, gas, or entertainment bill (or right and/or access to those things), you can be damn sure people will fight tooth and nail. But for ephemeral things like 'rights to privacy' or 'due process', few people even care until they're the one in the interrogation room. Americans are no longer willing to fight for the freedoms that are theirs. I will not speculate here as to why.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Americans are no longer willing to fight for the freedoms that are theirs. I will not speculate here as to why.
By your definition, they never have been.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Americans are no longer willing to fight for the freedoms that are theirs. I will not speculate here as to why.
By your definition, they never have been.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
By your definition, they never have been.
What in the world are you talking about?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Then you agree with me about the IRS?
I don't like the IRS, but agree with you? No.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And you also believe that the commander in chief should put more concern into protecting phone calls than in protecting life?
More concern? No. But I see no reason why you can't protect both.
oilFactotum wrote:
More concern? No. But I see no reason why you can't protect both.
Uh-oh. Don't go pointing out the false dichotomy of 'rights versus safety.' That would just be rational.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Then you agree with me about the IRS?
I don't like the IRS, but agree with you? No.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And you also believe that the commander in chief should put more concern into protecting phone calls than in protecting life?
More concern? No. But I see no reason why you can't protect both.
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't like the IRS, but agree with you? No.
So when some judge somewhere decides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches" doesn't mean financial information, that its direct meaning can be gleefully ignored by the government, but a penumbra of a shadow of it coverts the right to haveing phone sex, you are ok with that? That any judge can at anytime change the most fundamental meaning of the constitution for whatever personal reason he has, and you don't give a rats ass. But when the commander in chief decides that he needs to temporarily ignore a 'right' that one of those judges came up with while on LSD, that just sends you into fits of indignant rage? Wow, I really, really hope you guys go before the American people with that inane argument.
oilFactotum wrote:
But I see no reason why you can't protect both.
So your saying that it is absolutely impossible for the commander in chief to face a conflict in providing for the physical defense of the country and in ensuring every single possible interpretation of the bill of rights over 200 years is respected? :omg:
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
By your definition, they never have been.
What in the world are you talking about?
Give me one example of the American people ever defending their 'rights' as they are currently intrepreted?
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Give me one example of the American people ever defending their 'rights' as they are currently intrepreted?
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007\_08.php#005398 Oh wait, you wanted violent revolution.
-
jparken wrote:
The fact that Saddam is no longer with us --- that's not good??? And that both of his butchering sons are also dead --- that's not good???
No, it's not good (!!!) I don't know if you noticed, but the Hussein clan had a pretty effective system for keeping a bunch of warring religious freaks in line, and Al-Qaeda far away. So knowing what I know now about our retarded president's ability to handle wars, it's plain to see that keeping Saddam in power, tightly contained like he was, would have been the far better option.
Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea. - Mark Twain
Not to mention that what we have given them instead has done more damage. More Iraqis are dying under our occupation than under Saddam. What is it? A million dead Iraqis now from the War? Oh, we're helping them alright.... :rolleyes:
This statement was never false.
-
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007\_08.php#005398 Oh wait, you wanted violent revolution.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Oh wait, you wanted violent revolution.
No, what I want is an historic example of Americans ever getting bent out of shape over their rights being ignored in order to provide for the defense of the country.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't like the IRS, but agree with you? No.
So when some judge somewhere decides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches" doesn't mean financial information, that its direct meaning can be gleefully ignored by the government, but a penumbra of a shadow of it coverts the right to haveing phone sex, you are ok with that? That any judge can at anytime change the most fundamental meaning of the constitution for whatever personal reason he has, and you don't give a rats ass. But when the commander in chief decides that he needs to temporarily ignore a 'right' that one of those judges came up with while on LSD, that just sends you into fits of indignant rage? Wow, I really, really hope you guys go before the American people with that inane argument.
oilFactotum wrote:
But I see no reason why you can't protect both.
So your saying that it is absolutely impossible for the commander in chief to face a conflict in providing for the physical defense of the country and in ensuring every single possible interpretation of the bill of rights over 200 years is respected? :omg:
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wow, I really, really hope you guys go before the American people with that inane argument
That is your inane argument, not mine and not "you guys"(whoever they are:rolleyes:).
Stan Shannon wrote:
So your saying that
No.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wow, I really, really hope you guys go before the American people with that inane argument
That is your inane argument, not mine and not "you guys"(whoever they are:rolleyes:).
Stan Shannon wrote:
So your saying that
No.
Then you got nothing do you? A president's primary constitutional responsibility is defending the country and not the bill or rights. For my part, I expect the president to defend me from external threats to my rights and I expect the courts to protect me from internal threat to my rights in accrodance with a very strict interpretation of what the document actually says and not what they want it to say. So far, the president is doing a far better job than the courts are. So again, my original point is impeach or apologize right out in front of god and everyone.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Then you got nothing do you? A president's primary constitutional responsibility is defending the country and not the bill or rights. For my part, I expect the president to defend me from external threats to my rights and I expect the courts to protect me from internal threat to my rights in accrodance with a very strict interpretation of what the document actually says and not what they want it to say. So far, the president is doing a far better job than the courts are. So again, my original point is impeach or apologize right out in front of god and everyone.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Then you got nothing do you?
I've gotten entirely bored with more lectures from Stan. *yawn*
Stan Shannon wrote:
So again, my original point is impeach or apologize right out in front of god and everyone.
So, again back to my original response. Why the rush to judgement? The R's investigated for over 4 years and spent over $40 million. The dems have 3 1/2 more years to go. You have to give them the latitude you gave the R's.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Oh wait, you wanted violent revolution.
No, what I want is an historic example of Americans ever getting bent out of shape over their rights being ignored in order to provide for the defense of the country.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Those who would sacrafice freedom for security don't deserve either.
This statement was never false.
-
Those who would sacrafice freedom for security don't deserve either.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Those who would sacrafice freedom for security don't deserve either.
And those who sacrifice security for freedom will get neither - as Americans have always understood.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Then you got nothing do you?
I've gotten entirely bored with more lectures from Stan. *yawn*
Stan Shannon wrote:
So again, my original point is impeach or apologize right out in front of god and everyone.
So, again back to my original response. Why the rush to judgement? The R's investigated for over 4 years and spent over $40 million. The dems have 3 1/2 more years to go. You have to give them the latitude you gave the R's.
oilFactotum wrote:
So, again back to my original response. Why the rush to judgement? The R's investigated for over 4 years and spent over $40 million. The dems have 3 1/2 more years to go. You have to give them the latitude you gave the R's.
Well, primarily because the election will be long over by than and it will do me no good. But I can assure you that if the dems regain the whitehouse all of this will quietly go away so that they can continue doing exactly the same thing. and, btw, you're not bored, you've merely lost the argument.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
So, again back to my original response. Why the rush to judgement? The R's investigated for over 4 years and spent over $40 million. The dems have 3 1/2 more years to go. You have to give them the latitude you gave the R's.
Well, primarily because the election will be long over by than and it will do me no good. But I can assure you that if the dems regain the whitehouse all of this will quietly go away so that they can continue doing exactly the same thing. and, btw, you're not bored, you've merely lost the argument.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, primarily because the election will be long over by than
Still over a year till the election, there's plenty of time, until then quit your whining. and btw, what I lost was an interest in listening to you lecture.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, primarily because the election will be long over by than
Still over a year till the election, there's plenty of time, until then quit your whining. and btw, what I lost was an interest in listening to you lecture.
oilFactotum wrote:
Still over a year till the election, there's plenty of time, until then quit your whining.
Whining? I'm begging them to do it. Pleeeeeaaaaasssssseeee do it.
oilFactotum wrote:
what I lost was an interest in listening to you lecture.
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
It took Starr over 4 years and $40 million dollars to prove that Clinton cheated on his wife. Why are you in such a rush to judgement now? Are you unwilling to give the democrats the same latitude you gave the Republicans? You've already stated that the current investigations are justified. That must mean that you believe that there is sufficient evidence of unconstitutional/criminal acts by the Bush administration to continue investigation.
I have no clue what your point is. Are you saying that Clinton should not have been investigated? That public officials should be allowed to have unfettered sex with subordinate public employees and thats just ok? I think that the congress is responsible for oversight, if the dems believe that Bush has done something wrong, they should be investigating him as they are. But the onus of actually finding somthing is on them. Not on Bush and not on me. At least Ken Starr found the stained dress, that was his job. If the dems cannot do likewise than they have to publically admit that they were wrong all along and apologize. If they do find that Bush did something illegal while exercising his duties as commander in chief, then the dems must impeach him for doing so. After that, the AMerican people must decide which side is most willing to defend them from being murdered by terrorists and which side is most willing to protect their right to call their grandma. Good luck with all of that going into the next election. A brilliant plan on your part I must say.
oilFactotum wrote:
Your ever faithful IRS dodge. *yawn*
oilFactotum wrote:
You want to see heroic behavior. So where is your heroic behavior? All I see from you is complete willingness to give up the Bill of Rights in its entirety. Are you refusing to pay your taxes? Are you living a life a barter to avoid the IRS entirely? A number of "leftists" did that during the Vietnam era. Are you as heroic as a "leftist", Stan?
I never claimed I was a hero. I freely admit that I am willing to give up rights in order to be protected. I simply will not entertain lectures from hypocrits such as yourself who do precisely the same thing until it is convenient to pretend otherwise for political gain.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. <
Stan Shannon wrote:
I freely admit that I am willing to give up rights in order to be protected.
Protected from what? Do you really think the terrists are gonna crash a plane into the Best Buy at the off-ramp you live underneath?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I freely admit that I am willing to give up rights in order to be protected.
Protected from what? Do you really think the terrists are gonna crash a plane into the Best Buy at the off-ramp you live underneath?
If they did, what would represent a greater violation of the constitution - my death or an 'illegal' wire tap that might have prevented it?
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
If they did, what would represent a greater violation of the constitution - my death or an 'illegal' wire tap that might have prevented it?
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If they did
But they won't. They'll never attack your hometown, probably never your whole state. You have a greater chance of being accidentally killed by a police officer or being struck by lightning than you do being killed by a terrorist. If I told you I needed to tap your phone to make sure you weren't doing anything to increase the likelihood of you being struck by lightning, would you consent to that, too? Besides, murder by a private party is not unconstitutional, while illegal wiretapping is, even if it was legalized.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If they did
But they won't. They'll never attack your hometown, probably never your whole state. You have a greater chance of being accidentally killed by a police officer or being struck by lightning than you do being killed by a terrorist. If I told you I needed to tap your phone to make sure you weren't doing anything to increase the likelihood of you being struck by lightning, would you consent to that, too? Besides, murder by a private party is not unconstitutional, while illegal wiretapping is, even if it was legalized.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
But they won't.
Tell that to the 3000 people who died on 9/11. But, hey, thank god we protected the constitutional rights of the terrorists, eh?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
If I told you I needed to tap your phone to make sure you weren't doing anything to increase the likelihood of you being struck by lightning, would you consent to that, too?
Sure. I do not acknowledge that I have any constitutional right to expect my phone calls to be private. Do you have any ideal how many people are able to listen to your phone calls perfectly legally? The phone company taps into lines all the time just for maintenance purposes. I know, I've done it. The entire concept is silly. If it could help save someone's life, wire tap away.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.