234 House Republicans (99%) vote against bill that forces govt. to respect constitution - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28121840]So why do you get to say that being gay is wrong shazam now it's on topic get your butt back in here[/QUOTE] I'm not going to go off and a tangent and discuss this, I already told you, if you keep bringing up subjects that do not contribute to the conversation I will ignore you.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28121864]They aren't bringing it down. If city police is looking for a gang that is explicitly all blacks, than I'm sure the police aren't going to question a white guy, it's not putting a race down, it's getting rid of dangers.[/QUOTE] They won't question a white guy but they shouldn't question every black guy either [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=mbutler2;28121925]I'm not going to go off and a tangent and discuss this, I already told you, if you keep bringing up subjects that do not contribute to the conversation I will ignore you.[/QUOTE] :ohdear:

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28121864]They aren't bringing it down. If city police is looking for a gang that is explicitly all blacks, than I'm sure the police aren't going to question a white guy, it's not putting a race down, it's getting rid of dangers. [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] Exactly that why I said you need suspicion (i.e. speaking arabic, long distance calls to middle east, etc.) for someone to "spy" on you.[/QUOTE] I've been watching this convo and it's painfully stupid but I just gotta comment on this. There are a lot of groups that have been involved with terrorism, should you profile each and every single one of them? If you're an evangelical christian that makes a lot of calls to, say, rural Iowa or Indiana should you be spied on because you might be a christian terrorists? What if you're some Irish immigrant that makes a lot of calls to Northern Ireland, you might be in with the terrorists/resistance movement/whatever there. e: really, I don't get why you don't think a warrant is necessary. Why should we violate the rights and privacy of everyone that could possibly be a terrorist just in the amorphous pursuit of "safety"?

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28121925]I'm not going to go off and a tangent and discuss this, I already told you, if you keep bringing up subjects that do not contribute to the conversation I will ignore you.[/QUOTE] But the country being able to discriminate willy nilly, especially when it still discriminates against gays, is an issue to bring up. Gay being wrong is moral view you have made, that moral view is being carried out against people that are innocent because of that. Why is being gay wrong?

[QUOTE=Jad Hinto;28121890]They shouldn't be questioning anyone who isn't a damn suspect. This is why we have due process, and an actual investigation method. Your way is just looking at a black guy, and that makes him a suspect due to his race if it's a black gang. Now, while you're looking for someone black, that still makes it racist.[/QUOTE] It's pointless to investigate a white person if the gang is all black. Just wasting time. If you are looking for food, don't go into the clothes section at Wal-mart. you are just wasting time.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28121955] Why is being gay wrong?[/QUOTE] PM him, he's talking to me over PM about it. (No I won't post them here)

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28121953]I've been watching this convo and it's painfully stupid but I just gotta comment on this. There are a lot of groups that have been involved with terrorism, should you profile each and every single one of them? If you're an evangelical christian that makes a lot of calls to, say, rural Iowa or Indiana should you be spied on because you might be a christian terrorists? What if you're some Irish immigrant that makes a lot of calls to Northern Ireland, you might be in with the terrorists/resistance movement/whatever there.[/QUOTE] It's funny that he sums up terrorists as brown arabic people. The majority of terrorist attacks against the US in the past, has been by... white people...

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28121961]It's pointless to investigate a white person if the gang is all black. Just wasting time. If you are looking for food, don't go into the clothes section at Wal-mart. you are just wasting time.[/QUOTE]That's not what I fucking said. I told you, don't investigate everybody who's black, actually take the damn time to investigate and make a suspect. You seem to feel it's pointless and time consuming.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28121970]PM him, he's talking to me over PM about it. (No I won't post them here)[/QUOTE] oh, he's not going to answer me. That's ok, I won't ask you to post them here. I am interested, but I don't want you to post them publicly.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28121971]It's funny that he sums up terrorists as brown arabic people. The majority of terrorist attacks against the US in the past, has been by... white people...[/QUOTE] Predicting that he will say domestic terrorism doesn't count [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28121985]oh, he's not going to answer me. That's ok, I won't ask you to post them here. I am interested, but I don't want you to post them publicly.[/QUOTE] I won't post them publicly unless he gives me permission to do so

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28121930]They won't question a white guy but they shouldn't question every black guy either [/QUOTE] Right, being black just raises suspicion. It doesn't instantly make him a suspect. Black guy in a business suit and a black guy dressed in all read head-to-toe. The guy in the business suit has [b]some[/b] suspicion but hardly any.

[QUOTE=Jad Hinto;28121980]That's not what I fucking said. I told you, don't investigate everybody who's black, actually take the damn time to investigate and make a suspect. You seem to feel it's pointless and time consuming.[/QUOTE] Objective view points lead people to believe in absolutes. Once you have a basic idea of what one "race" is like based on a small group of them like he has, it becomes more than ok to hate them. Oh, I forget who did that in the 40's. Nazi's.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122000]Right, being black just raises suspicion. It doesn't instantly make him a suspect. Black guy in a business suit and a black guy dressed in all read head-to-toe. The guy in the business suit has [b]some[/b] suspicion but hardly any.[/QUOTE] Or maybe the gang knows that tactic so they all dressed as businessmen!!

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28122010]Or maybe the gang knows that tactic so they all dressed as businessmen!![/QUOTE]Black Mafia? Sounds like a good movie. [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=mbutler2;28122000]Right, being black just raises suspicion. It doesn't instantly make him a suspect. Black guy in a business suit and a black guy dressed in all read head-to-toe. The guy in the business suit has [b]some[/b] suspicion but hardly any.[/QUOTE]Ok, so now you're saying anybody in a tracksuit with a lowrider is a suspect. That still leaves a broad range, and you can't go throwing everyone like that into the interrogation room.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;28093864]I'm one of those people who doesn't care about things like those TSA full-body scanners. They can listen in on my phone conversations all they want. I, as well as I would assume any law abiding citizen, have no reason to be intimidated by this. However, I can see the reason behind not wanting this - what if they rule that it's illegal to speak against your government, like they say happens in certain dictatorships? In that sense, this does not set a good precedent.[/QUOTE] So is it cool if I watch you touch yourself?

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28121953]I've been watching this convo and it's painfully stupid but I just gotta comment on this. There are a lot of groups that have been involved with terrorism, should you profile each and every single one of them? If you're an evangelical christian that makes a lot of calls to, say, rural Iowa or Indiana should you be spied on because you might be a christian terrorists? What if you're some Irish immigrant that makes a lot of calls to Northern Ireland, you might be in with the terrorists/resistance movement/whatever there. e: really, I don't get why you don't think a warrant is necessary. Why should we violate the rights and privacy of everyone that could possibly be a terrorist just in the amorphous pursuit of "safety"?[/QUOTE] no just those that warrant it.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122049]no just those that warrant it.[/QUOTE] You didn't answer my question at all, and in fact raised more. Who defines what warrants it? I don't think you actually have an answer to my problem seeing as how terrorist = arab to you.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28122010]Or maybe the gang knows that tactic so they all dressed as businessmen!![/QUOTE] Once a serious gang knows it's being targeted that easily, they won't be dressed like that. OH WAIT! They already don't do that. They haven't for years. Only the foot soldiers ever wear company colours.

[QUOTE=Jad Hinto;28122029]Black Mafia? Sounds like a good movie. [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] Ok, so now you're saying anybody in a tracksuit with a lowrider is a suspect. That still leaves a broad range, and you can't go throwing everyone like that into the interrogation room.[/QUOTE] No because someone like this: [img]http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/files/2009/02/l110797-1.jpg[/img] is different from this [img]http://www.ioffer.com/img/item/143/396/193/GVdI.jpg[/img]

And what is safety really? I don't thank that a government that watches it's citizen's every moves and thing that they do is safe. What if there was a mole in the government? Hell, what if we were the bad guys? From what I'm getting from Mr. Butler is that he wants a Stalin-esque government, that values the safety of the state so dearly it acts as a backdrop by saying it's protecting citizens. While it does the complete opposite. Sir, I usually am all for making sacrifices and placing the needs of the many above the needs of the few. But take my rights away, and you sir, will never have a good country. The ones with citizens constantly under scrutiny never succeed, look at Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28122075]You didn't answer my question at all, and in fact raised more. Who defines what warrants it? I don't think you actually have an answer to my problem seeing as how terrorist = arab to you.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28121953] should you profile each and every single one of them?[/QUOTE] "No just those that warrant it." Seemed like a great answer to me. but No those that raise resonable suspicion.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122117]No because someone like this: [img_thumb]http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/files/2009/02/l110797-1.jpg[/img_thumb] is different from this [img_thumb]http://www.ioffer.com/img/item/143/396/193/GVdI.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]Dude, I was just saying that as a reference, I have no idea about fashion.

[QUOTE=Jad Hinto;28122118]And what is safety really? I don't thank that a government that watches it's citizen's every moves and thing that they do is safe. What if there was a mole in the government? Hell, what if we were the bad guys? From what I'm getting from Mr. Butler is that he wants a Stalin-esque government, that values the safety of the state so dearly it acts as a backdrop by saying it's protecting citizens. While it does the complete opposite. Sir, I usually am all for making sacrifices and placing the needs of the many above the needs of the few. But take my rights away, and you sir, will never have a good country. The ones with citizens constantly under scrutiny never succeed, look at Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28119879]The 'War on Terrorism'. You mind as well just be declaring war on 'Happiness' or 'Crime' or 'Drugs' or 'Poverty' sound familiar to you? When will the period of 'public danger' ever end in the 'War on Terrorism'? Terrorism is defined as an open resistance against a government using methods of intimidation. How the [i]fuck[/i] is a nation like the United States going to stamp out Terrorism? We're already at war against Drugs, Immigration, and Poverty.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28119807]If you want to see a government that had a very active 'Security over Liberty' take a look at Iraq before any of the U.S. invasions. Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath party was in power. He stripped off rights and kept a boot on any Sunni that tried to shoot a Shiite and vice versa. You would end up seeing rampant corruption rising with in the government system. Voting results would have this "'so and so' province having a 110% voter outcome in favor of the Ba'ath Party". But hey, if the government is willing to shoot anyone involved in protests about the corruption of the regime, rig elections to keep the regime in power, have Kurds being abused and massacred, blackbag and kidnap any suspected 'enemies of the state' [b]all for the good of your security[/b] then I'm sure it's all worth it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122138]"No just those that warrant it." Seemed like a great answer to me. but No those that raise resonable suspicion.[/QUOTE] Ok let's ignore my edit and go look at the other much bigger block of text you ignored. And what is reasonable suspicion? Your definition was pretty much "arabic, makes a lot of calls to the middle east" That pretty much puts every immigrant to America with family still in the ME into your suspicious category, do you see the problem here?

[QUOTE=Jad Hinto;28122118]And what is safety really? I don't thank that a government that watches it's citizen's every moves and thing that they do is safe. What if there was a mole in the government? Hell, what if we were the bad guys? From what I'm getting from Mr. Butler is that he wants a Stalin-esque government, that values the safety of the state so dearly it acts as a backdrop by saying it's protecting citizens. While it does the complete opposite. Sir, I usually am all for making sacrifices and placing the needs of the many above the needs of the few. But take my rights away, and you sir, will never have a good country. The ones with citizens constantly under scrutiny never succeed, look at Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba.[/QUOTE] Well, Mr. Hinto I guess I'm not iterating myself clear. I do not want a Stalin government. I want a free government, but one that is willing to give up some freedoms for the safety of the public when the safety is apparent. Give freedoms back. Safety is not getting any kind of imminent impression of danger.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122171]Well, Mr. Hinto I guess I'm not iterating myself clear. I do not want a Stalin government. I want a free government, but one that is willing to give up some freedoms for the safety of the public when the safety is apparent. Give freedoms back. Safety is not getting any kind of imminent impression of danger.[/QUOTE] Which will never work.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122171]Well, Mr. Hinto I guess I'm not iterating myself clear. I do not want a Stalin government. I want a free government, but one that is willing to give up some freedoms for the safety of the public when the safety is apparent. Give freedoms back. Safety is not getting any kind of imminent impression of danger.[/QUOTE] If you can say "I want freedom... but" Then you don't want freedom. you want something entirely different, and don't have the balls to admit so.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122171]Well, Mr. Hinto I guess I'm not iterating myself clear. I do not want a Stalin government. I want a free government, but one that is willing to give up some freedoms for the safety of the public when the safety is apparent. Give freedoms back. Safety is not getting any kind of imminent impression of danger.[/QUOTE] When you suspect what you say you suspect, safety will never be apparent and there will always be an imminent impression of danger. The more paranoid you are the more danger there seems to be, it feeds back into itself. e: It's been a decade since a foreign terrorist attack on America. We've had multiple domestic attacks and plots in that period. Why are you not more concerned about white people?

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28122157]Ok let's ignore my edit and go look at the other much bigger block of text you ignored. And what is reasonable suspicion? Your definition was pretty much "arabic, makes a lot of calls to the middle east" That pretty much puts every immigrant to America with family still in the ME into your suspicious category, do you see the problem here?[/QUOTE] "Still doesn't seem right to wire tap them or spy on them or whatever at random, simply because they're Arab. They might have family back in the middle east or something if they're calling there, and the family would most likely only speak Arabic. Infringing on [B]a specific ethnicity's[/B] rights because most terrorists are Arab isn't right. Your welcome to have your opinion, but I'd still like to hear your rebuttal." Exactly, they figure out he is talking to his family and that's it. story over. he isn't a terrorist. The only time wasted is the searcher's

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122198]Exactly, they figure out he is talking to his family and that's it. story over. he isn't a terrorist. The only time wasted is the searcher's[/QUOTE] Assumes the people at those desks have no bias, and have no error. Oh wait, people fuck up all the time, how can we trust them to a sensitive job? They will have their own forms of judgements which will be carried out against innocent people. Naive, scared child.