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

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122117]No because someone like this: [img_thumb]http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/files/2009/02/l110797-1.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Those guys are white uh oh reality strikes

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28122151][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] And did I say go to those extremes? No. spying on someone which will have no impact on their life is not even close to "shooting people."

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122198]"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] You still infringe on the person's right to privacy. This is what you don't get, randomly listening to people's private conversations is a deep violation of privacy. Would you support the cops going through your house and every house in the area just because you live in an area with a high crime/drug rate? [QUOTE=mbutler2;28122224]And did I say go to those extremes? No. spying on someone which will have no impact on their life is not even close to "shooting people."[/QUOTE] It will drastically lower their trust in the government and probably lead to even more situations that you would want to prevent by these means.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28122220]Those guys are white uh oh reality strikes[/QUOTE] ugh, ignore the people just take a look at the suit on the guy in the middle.

There's a difference between the spying we have now and getting a warrant for a sufficiently suspicious citizen. Oh yeah, and [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1060996-Veteran-Ray-McGovern-Bloodied-and-Arrested-At-Clinton-Speech[/url]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28122235]You still infringe on the person's right to privacy. This is what you don't get, randomly listening to people's private conversations is a deep violation of privacy. Would you support the cops going through your house and every house in the area just because you live in an area with a high crime/drug rate? If they had a reasonable suspicion of [b]me personally[/b] involved with a crime then yes. It's their job. It will drastically lower their trust in the government and probably lead to even more situations that you would want to prevent by these means.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122224]And did I say go to those extremes? No. spying on someone which will have no impact on their life is not even close to "shooting people."[/QUOTE] But spying on people is still wrong. it still doesn't create safety. Only unrest. MOST people don't feel comfortable under scrutiny, whether or not they're doing something wrong or not. Imagine your whole system as a giant lie detector machine. Strap someone innocent in, and JUST by being scared and nervous because they understand what they have to lose and fear is a natural human emotion, will fail the test. A calm, cool, criminal who has become an expert at hiding shit(don't imagine you can beat them. Look how well any of the "moralistic" wars of our times are going, TERRIBLY) will pass that test with flying colours. Yes, they slip up, but innocent people get dragged into it. You imagine the world as if people can't fuck up, as if systems don't fuck up, and as if innocents don't get killed on your already well tread war path.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122256][/QUOTE] Jesus fuck you just don't get it. Your definitions of reasonable suspicion are fucking absurd and abusable. If they have a reasonable suspicion they should get more evidence and justify a warrant. It's not the cop's jobs to randomly search through my house if I might possibly be connected to some crime. e: All of your ideas are counter-intuitive and would lead to way more problems than now, like Abyss says. You're not normal, most all people don't like to be spied on for no reason. I sure as hell wouldn't want the cops/government knowing everything I say or what all I browse. Is it because what I say or browse is wrong? No it's because it's my personal right to have what I want to be private be private. If this right is infringed upon I, and most other people, would be angry.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122224]And did I say go to those extremes? No. spying on someone which will have no impact on their life is not even close to "shooting people."[/QUOTE]It may as well be. You're dense mate, I don't care how little it is, the government shouldn't spend their time observing me without letting me know. The last thing I ever want to see in this world is to be living in a big brother state. [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] Forget Sarah Palin and Glen Beck 2012, vote Mr. Butler and Glaber 2012!

[IMG]http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b281/Frost327/Joker/1181911796832.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28122281]Jesus fuck you just don't get it. Your definitions of reasonable suspicion are fucking absurd and abusable. If they have a reasonable suspicion they should get more evidence and justify a warrant. It's not the cop's jobs to randomly search through my house if I might possibly be connected to some crime. e: All of your ideas are counter-intuitive and would lead to way more problems than now, like Abyss says. You're not normal, most all people don't like to be spied on for no reason. I sure as hell wouldn't want the cops/government knowing everything I say or what all I browse. Is it because what I say or browse is wrong? No it's because it's my personal right to have what I want to be private be private. If this right is infringed upon I, and most other people, would be angry.[/QUOTE] People have become too weak. Sometimes things need to be done that may seem "wrong" You say you don't care I just want privacy. If there was an actual threat today of going to nuclear war with another country, you wouldn't be saying any of this. This is not so government can look at your bum after you get out of the shower or see that you bought a fleshlight. It's to get rid of dangers that could pose a threat, people need to get over their insecurities and sacrifice for a greater outcome.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122352]People have become too weak. Sometimes things need to be done that may seem "wrong" You say you don't care I just want privacy. If there was an actual threat today of going to nuclear war with another country, you wouldn't be saying any of this. This is not so government can look at your bum after you get out of the shower or see that you bought a fleshlight. It's to get rid of dangers that could pose a threat, people need to get over their insecurities and sacrifice for a greater outcome.[/QUOTE] [quote]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] e: Also, this ain't 1960, you're defending these policies now. e^e: Also yes I would. What the hell does international cold war have to do with routing out terrorists. Oh and fun fact, people just loved what McCarthy did, huh? That was during that era and it was pretty much what you're proposing, so... you're wrong.

Is this becoming a "The ends justify the means" argument?

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122352]People have become too weak. Sometimes things need to be done that may seem "wrong" You say you don't care I just want privacy. If there was an actual threat today of going to nuclear war with another country, you wouldn't be saying any of this. This is not so government can look at your bum after you get out of the shower or see that you bought a fleshlight. It's to get rid of dangers that could pose a threat, people need to get over their insecurities and sacrifice for a greater outcome.[/QUOTE] See? Scared naive child.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122352]People have become too weak. Sometimes things need to be done that may seem "wrong" You say you don't care I just want privacy. If there was an actual threat today of going to nuclear war with another country, you wouldn't be saying any of this. This is not so government can look at your bum after you get out of the shower or see that you bought a fleshlight. It's to get rid of dangers that could pose a threat, people need to get over their insecurities and sacrifice for a greater outcome.[/QUOTE]Except if we're not willing to sacrifice, nothing will be accomplished. Do you really thank that the taliban will just have phone calls over unsecure phones, or talk over an unsecure network? Face it, persecuting the common man, on grounds of shift behavior or not is not going to do a damn thing for the country. And with that logic, I return again to the Japanese labor/prison camps. Oh yes, those were SUCH a good idea for the country. Look, I said it once, and I'll say it once more, I'll even say it thrice more. [b]The government doesn't always know what's best or right[/b] You follow it blindly, submitting to it like a bitch does to the more dominant male. You're the one that gives in, feeling that it's right to give up everything to be what they consider safe. The truth is, when there's war, who's right and who's wrong quickly become clouded. Look at some members of the SS, some just wanted to keep their family fed during all of that.

[QUOTE=Jad Hinto;28122287]It may as well be. You're dense mate, I don't care how little it is, the government shouldn't spend their time observing me without letting me know. The last thing I ever want to see in this world is to be living in a big brother state. [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] Forget Sarah Palin and Glen Beck 2012, vote Mr. Butler and Glaber 2012![/QUOTE] If there becomes some problem that some government official is whacking it to you naked body then I would totally agree with you. But that hasn't been a problem has it? I don't get it, I don't know if you've seen my father-son analogy but if you were a father I'm sure you would invade your son's privacy if you believed something he is doing is endangering him. It's not that you want to oppress your son, You care about your son and are concerned for his safety. [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] Well guys it's almost 11:30 p.m. here and I have school tomorrow, if this thread is within reasonable distance from the top I will reply to those posts that require replies if its been too long since the last reply I won't. But feel free to add me on Steam or PM me and we can talk more if you like, I do enjoy these debates.

[QUOTE=Warriorx4;28122388]Is this becoming an "The ends justify the means" argument?[/QUOTE] Yes, except that the ends aren't actually different with the Patriot act, only the means. [QUOTE=mbutler2;28122352]People have become too weak. Sometimes things need to be done that may seem "wrong" You say you don't care I just want privacy. If there was an actual threat today of going to nuclear war with another country, you wouldn't be saying any of this. This is not so government can look at your bum after you get out of the shower or see that you bought a fleshlight. It's to get rid of dangers that could pose a threat, people need to get over their insecurities and sacrifice for a greater outcome.[/QUOTE] McCarthyism: I'm lovin' it!

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122405]If there becomes some problem that some government official is whacking it to you naked body then I would totally agree with you. But that hasn't been a problem has it? I don't get it, I don't know if you've seen my father-son analogy but if you were a father I'm sure you would invade your son's privacy if you believed something he is doing is endangering him. It's not that you want to oppress your son, You care about your son and are concerned for his safety. [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] Well guys it's almost 11:30 p.m. here and I have school tomorrow, if this thread is within reasonable distance from the top I will reply to those posts that require replies if its been too long since the last reply I won't. But feel free to add me on Steam or PM me and we can talk more if you like, I do enjoy these debates.[/QUOTE]No, I wouldn't. I worry for him, and I'm concerned, but that doesn't mean I'd read his damn diary. It's his personal book to write his problems, if he wanted me to read it, he'd give it to me. Sometimes you have to help yourself.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28122405]If there becomes some problem that some government official is whacking it to you naked body then I would totally agree with you. But that hasn't been a problem has it? I don't get it, I don't know if you've seen my father-son analogy but if you were a father I'm sure you would invade your son's privacy if you believed something he is doing is endangering him. It's not that you want to oppress your son, You care about your son and are concerned for his safety. [/QUOTE] It's not whether or not we're doing anything suspicious, it's if the government infringes on the right to privacy, how long would it be before they do the same to our other rights?

[QUOTE=Warriorx4;28122467]It's not whether or not we're doing anything suspicious, it's if the government infringes on the right to privacy, how long would it be before they do the same to our other rights?[/QUOTE]It starts with the questioning of the masses, than the silencing of the opposers, and soon the regime of the party begins.

[QUOTE=Last or First;28122427]McCarthyism: I'm lovin' it![/QUOTE] I'd like to know, mbutler, do you think McCarthyism was good in the 50s? Was considering anyone with left-wing tendencies "Communist" and then trying to put them in jail good? Was that okay within your views?

I don't like Obama but come on Republicans....wtf?

The arguments in this thread are just so fucking hilarious.

[QUOTE=PelPix123;28131905]I feel like the liberals and the conservatives don't understand why they exist. The liberals exist to come up with new ways to do things, and the conservatives exist to consider the liberal proposal and work it into a stable base for a government. Conservatism isn't supposed to be counter-productive.[/QUOTE] uh the very definition of conservatism is not changing things

lol, mericans are so stupid

[QUOTE=cathal6606;28133396]lol, mericans are so stupid[/QUOTE] A lot of government officials today don't seem all that competent, or perhaps they're just voting on party lines, but that's no reason to call Americans stupid.

I think people's rights are overstated. Part of living in a good society is dissolving your natural rights for the good of the state.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;28133797]I think people's rights are overstated. Part of living in a good society is dissolving your natural rights for the good of the state.[/QUOTE] Not if it does no actual good for the state. [b]Why the fuck are people stuck in this red scare paranoia bullshit? You are not threatened. For fucks sakes.[/b] [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] Also, that's known as fascism. So you're a fascist. [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] If you're an american, you exemplify what's wrong people who think like you. Freedom doesn't mean stepping on my toes, and if you're guarunteed freedom, then what fucking business is it of theirs to step on your toes in the name of imaginary security?

Patriarchal view of the government? Check Discrimination against all things foreign? Check Guilty until proven innocent by wiretaps/other surveillance? Check Discrimination against homosexuals? Check Congratulations you are Imperial China...or the Third Reich...or the Soviet Union...basically any totalitarian/fascist state that ever existed. You aren't "protecting" the people if you are actively spying on them and imprisoning them. Also Terrorist who should be wiretapped until "proven innocent": [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e3/KareemRashadSultanKhan.jpg[/IMG] Freedom loving Americans: [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Photograph_of_Jared_Lee_Loughner_by_Pima_County_Sheriff%27s_Office.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.cbsnews.com/i/cbsnews/2001/05/29/image293827x.jpg[/IMG] Move to North Korea where the government keeps tabs on everyone, just to be safe.

The above poster kind of has a point - there are certain kinds of terrorists that no illegal wiretaps or unconstitutional searches would ever find. Eric Rudolph, behind many politically-motivated bombings, acted alone.