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

[QUOTE=Prismatex;28116122]So would you be comfortable with the government having access to a 24/7 feed of whatever your webcam sees? After all, you've got nothing to hide.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I don't care. monitor phone calls or webcam (speaking of which, I don't have one.) [QUOTE=Prismatex;28116122]right to privacy[/QUOTE] Why don't you read the Constitution. We do not have a right to privacy. [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28117372]If I wanted to be safe I would put resources in building better cars and increasing education so there will be less gangsters on the street. Not have the government monitor people with beards. [/QUOTE] I'm sure building better cars isn't going to help us against terrorism.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28094827][b]They're not rights if you can deny them to anyone. Rights can never be fucking denied. You can't lose rights. They're not rights if you can lose them. Murderers may be bad people most of the time, but you can't strip them of their rights. YOU CAN NEVER STRIP PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHTS[/b] It's NEVER ok. Why does facepunch think "Oh, your rights don't matter because you did something, so now we decide!" Even if it's a criminal act, you still shouldn't lose them ever, effective justice systems do not strip people of their rights.[/QUOTE] According to the constitution they are forfeit of their rights if subjected to due process. They have been found guilty by a judge and a jury of their peers, and have been processed. [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] Also Fp should form a sovereign nation, would work well.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28117456] Why don't you read the Constitution. We do not have a right to privacy. [/quote] Why don't you? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut[/url] [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Uberman77883;28117500]According to the constitution they are forfeit of their rights if subjected to due process. [/QUOTE] Can you tell me which part of the Constitution says this?

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28117456]1. Yeah, I don't care. monitor phone calls or webcam (speaking of which, I don't have one.) 2. Why don't you read the Constitution. We do not have a right to privacy. 3. I'm sure building better cars isn't going to help us against terrorism.[/QUOTE] 1. "It doesn't apply to me, so I don't care." 2. Fourth and Ninth amendments. 3. I'm sure spying on our own citizens isn't going to help us against terrorism. Having better information about foreign citizens trying to come into the country by plane, or citizens with criminal records / public displays of crazy that can easily spotted with an actual test to see if they can handle what they want? (See: crazy dude getting a handgun and assaulting a senator and several others)

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28117456] I'm sure building better cars isn't going to help us against terrorism.[/QUOTE] Because only terrorist get in car crashes.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28115627]Why is this wrong? Do you want to be safe or not?[/QUOTE] 1984 called, they want their ignorant little sheep back. [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=mbutler2;28115838]I mean. I think the only ones to but upset is the one's who have something to hide.[/QUOTE] You're implying that you have nothing to hide? Liar.

[QUOTE=ThatHippyMan;28116756]I [I]was[/I] high on that stimulating safety versus freedom debate that was going. What ever happened to that? Now I'm just high on drugs.[/QUOTE] Freedom won, like it always does.

bjork is freedom explains why she always takes off her clothes

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;28117570]Why don't you? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut[/url] [/QUOTE] No, no not a supreme court decision. THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28119230]No, no not a supreme court decision. THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION.[/QUOTE] Because the constitution hasn't changed since its inception....

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28119230]No, no not a supreme court decision. THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION.[/QUOTE] Please show me in THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION where slavery is deemed illegal.

[QUOTE=Last or First;28117712]1. "It doesn't apply to me, so I don't care." 2. Fourth and Ninth amendments. 3. I'm sure spying on our own citizens isn't going to help us against terrorism. Having better information about foreign citizens trying to come into the country by plane, or citizens with criminal records / public displays of crazy that can easily spotted with an actual test to see if they can handle what they want? (See: crazy dude getting a handgun and assaulting a senator and several others)[/QUOTE] 1) Why would you want to hide from the government. 2) 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, [b]but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/b] maybe supporting our enemies is probably cause to me. 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Could work, but in the the danger of a nation and it's people I'm sure your right to privacy. Which no one cares about anyways. Like I mentioned earlier, it's not like a government official is going to find out about your deodorant fetish or whatever you are embarrassed of, and go put posters all over your school. 3) Right, but if someone flew here and is working with someone inside, that could give us that more information and help us, if not, nothing was wasted. Better Safe than Sorry.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28119230]No, no not a supreme court decision. THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION.[/QUOTE] You're dumb are you? "The Government cannot deprive you life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness."

[QUOTE=Prismatex;28119454]Please show me in THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION where slavery is deemed illegal.[/QUOTE] 13th Amendment, it's actually not [i]completely[/i] illegal, involuntary servitude can be used as a punishment for a crime. [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28119546]You're dumb are you? "The Government cannot deprive you life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness."[/QUOTE] right, maybe I read it wrong but I didn't see privacy in there, I'll read again.......No, privacy isn't there.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28119538]1) Why would you want to hide from the government. 2) 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, [b]but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/b] maybe supporting our enemies is probably cause to me. 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Could work, but in the the danger of a nation and it's people I'm sure your right to privacy. Which no one cares about anyways. Like I mentioned earlier, it's not like a government official is going to find out about your deodorant fetish or whatever you are embarrassed of, and go put posters all over your school. 3) Right, but if someone flew here and is working with someone inside, that could give us that more information and help us, if not, nothing was wasted. Better Safe than Sorry.[/QUOTE] 2. So if I join a Hezbollah Facebook group, that's enough PC to have me sent to Gitmo? And how many US citizens have been spotted actively supporting terrorism and have been living in the US? I don't want the government tapping into my Facebook and looking up what I just did after school.

"The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments." Yeah, fuck off already.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28119574] right, maybe I read it wrong but I didn't see privacy in there, I'll read again.......No, privacy isn't there.[/QUOTE] [i]Liberty[/i]. You are not free if you have the government breathing down your neck on every move you do. You're already advocating oppression and the establishment of a fascist state.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28119677][i]Liberty[/i]. You are not free if you have the government breathing down your neck on every move you do.[/QUOTE] That's a detail he's okay with ignoring.

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=HumanAbyss;28119668]"The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments." Yeah, fuck off already.[/QUOTE] The only thing I can think of being used against my statement is Amendment 5 "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, [b]when in[/b] actual service in time of War or [b]public danger[/b]; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28119230]No, no not a supreme court decision. THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION.[/QUOTE] Ummm... The Supreme Court in this decision said that the right to privacy is in the Constitution. It doesn't matter that your interpretation doesn't include it because the Supreme Court's interpretation is the one that actually matters.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28119677][i]Liberty[/i]. You are not free if you have the government breathing down your neck on every move you do. You're already advocating oppression and the establishment of a fascist state.[/QUOTE] Liberty gets thrown around without actually knowing what it means [i]Liberty[/i] is the right to behave to one's own responsibility or free will. It's not liberty is the right to keep things secret that you want to.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28119820]The only thing I can think of being used against my statement is Amendment 5 "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, [b]when in[/b] actual service in time of War or [b]public danger[/b]; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."[/QUOTE] 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=mbutler2;28119230]No, no not a supreme court decision. THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION.[/QUOTE] The supreme court ruled that THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION had that in it What part of this basic logic is not clicking in your head

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28119538]1) Why would you want to hide from the government.[/QUOTE] It's funny because you don't support the government making healthcare free to citizens but you do trust them with spying on them.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;28119848]Ummm... The Supreme Court in this decision said that the right to privacy is in the Constitution. It doesn't matter that your interpretation doesn't include it because the Supreme Court's interpretation is the one that actually matters.[/QUOTE] In Schenck v. United States our right to freedom of speech is taken, according to your rationale it's still okay. If someone speaks something that is likely to cause "Imminent lawless action" It is not protected by the constitution. But according to you Free speech should be total free speech. Without any limits. Regardless of the consequences that may harm you or the public. The government had the right to not allow citizens to say derogatory things against the military or war. [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28119921]It's funny because you don't support the government making healthcare free to citizens but you do trust them with spying on them.[/QUOTE] I don't understand what is funny?

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28120026]In Schenck v. United States our right to freedom of speech is taken, according to your rationale it's still okay. If someone speaks something that is likely to cause "Imminent lawless action" It is not protected by the constitution. But according to you Free speech should be total free speech. Without any limits. Regardless of the consequences that may harm you or the public. The government had the right to not allow citizens to say derogatory things against the military or war.[/QUOTE] See: "Clear and Present Danger Clause" According to you, you would yell 'bomb' at an airport and claim it's free speech. And when did Cupcakes say that total free speech should be implemented inside his post?

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28119856]Liberty gets thrown around without actually knowing what it means [i]Liberty[/i] is the right to behave to one's own responsibility or free will. It's not liberty is the right to keep things secret that you want to.[/QUOTE] How the fuck don't you get this? It's not liberty if you're not free to do what you want to without knowing you're being watched, that's not liberty or freedom. That's living in a prison.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28119898]The supreme court ruled that THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION had that in it What part of this basic logic is not clicking in your head[/QUOTE] And it also ruled that you can't say [i]anything[/i] you want. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States[/url] So there is a Constitution ruling against the first Amendment. So if the government says something you disagree with, better not say anything that might start a riot, you could be incarcerated for it.

Between the agenda bullshit and their rampant homophobia, I have no respect for anyone who calls themselves a conservative republican.