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

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28120061]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] And what is stopping you? Just because someone is watching me do something I have to stop? [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28120054]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] Uh, are you arguing with or against me? I'm saying that yelling bomb at an airport is wrong, I'm using that as a point, from what I'm reading people are mad that the government is "limiting" you guys by "spying" on you. Most everyone on here seems to have liberal views how "everything should be free and open and everyone should do what they want." Government needs to have control, sometimes we disagree with it. But if it's for the safety of the country and others then it's necessary. They aren't using this as an excuse to use your webcam to watch you undress or anything.

[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] Yeah sometimes they can be wrong, but it's their interpretation of the Constitution that matters. If I sued somebody right now for violating my privacy, I'd win the case. Assuming my privacy was actually violated of course. Another really crappy decision was [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore]Barron v. Baltimore[/url]. Shit decision, but if you sued a state for violating one of your rights listed in the Constitution you would lose. This was later overturned over the course of the last 100 years.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28120104] Uh, are you arguing with or against me? I'm saying that yelling bomb at an airport is wrong, I'm using that as a point, from what I'm reading people are mad that the government is "limiting" you guys by "spying" on you. Most everyone on here seems to have liberal views how "everything should be free and open and everyone should do what they want." Government needs to have control, sometimes we disagree with it. But if it's for the safety of the country and others then it's necessary. They aren't using this as an excuse to use your webcam to watch you undress or anything.[/QUOTE] See the fucking Clear and Present Danger clause. The government does not just outright bar free speech, it sets up a reasonable form that is accepted by every sane person living in the country. And since you mention that the government needs to exercise control over the people, you're already taking away liberties in exchange for safety.

The 14th amendment which applies the Bill of Rights to States didn't even overturn this right away. It was overturned bit by bit as people started taking cases to the Supreme Court in the early 1900s, and we finally got the 2nd amendment back in 2010 ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago]McDonald v Chicago[/url]). The 14th amendment was definitely a big help in getting the Bill of Rights back though.

[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. [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] I don't understand what is funny?[/QUOTE] Even if there is nothing wrong with taking away freedoms I bet that they rarely if at all catch someone because they were listening onto there phone calls. It seems to me kind of a waste of resources. Also I like my freedoms. Oh and this also opened the door for more freedoms being able to be taken because people are scared.

Dude, what the [i]fuck[/i]. I didn't think all Republicans were idiots, but damn.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28120234]See the fucking Clear and Present Danger clause. The government does not just outright bar free speech, it sets up a reasonable form that is accepted by every sane person living in the country. And since you mention that the government needs to exercise control over the people, you're already taking away liberties in exchange for safety.[/QUOTE] So, in the future you expect your son is using meth, you think to read his diary but you don't because "it takes away his [i]liberties[/i] which is the wrong word people keep using [i]privacy[/i] is a much better word. If your son is in danger, privacy doesn't matter anymore, his safety is the top priority now. Dad is to son as government is to people.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28120104]Most everyone on here seems to have liberal views how "everything should be free and open and everyone should do what they want."[/QUOTE] You're reading what you want to read, kiddo.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28120276]Even if there is nothing wrong with taking away freedoms I bet that they rarely if at all catch someone [/QUOTE] Better safe than sorry, if they don't get anything then nothing happens and life goes on. [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28120276]because they were listening onto there phone calls. It seems to me kind of a waste of resources. Also I like my freedoms. Oh and this also opened the door for more freedoms being able to be taken because people are scared.[/QUOTE] Then they aren't being taken, just because you are scared to go skydiving doesn't mean you can't go skydive.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28120401]So, in the future you expect your son is using meth, you think to read his diary[/QUOTE] My son will be to manly to have a dairy.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28120437]You're reading what you want to read, kiddo.[/QUOTE] I've seen the thread where you take a test and it tells it puts a score on if you are more "liberal" or "conservative" almost everyone in that thread was liberal.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28120401]So, in the future you expect your son is using meth, you think to read his diary but you don't because "it takes away his [i]liberties[/i] which is the wrong word people keep using [i]privacy[/i] is a much better word. If your son is in danger, privacy doesn't matter anymore, his safety is the top priority now. Dad is to son as government is to people.[/QUOTE] Liberty is the freedom to do anything without arbitrary or oppresive exercise of authority from any form of government. Seeing that a dad to son relationship is comparable to the government. I think I'm taking away liberties when I read my son's diary.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28120510]My son will be to manly to have a dairy.[/QUOTE] Thanks for contributing something that actually helps your argument.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28120465]Better safe than sorry, if they don't get anything then nothing happens and life goes on. Then they aren't being taken, just because you are scared to go skydiving doesn't mean you can't go skydive.[/QUOTE] Yes but if the money used to go skydiving could be used instead for a trip around the world I would rather do that. see what Im saying? edit [QUOTE=mbutler2;28120533]Thanks for contributing something that actually helps your argument.[/QUOTE] I didnt expect everyone to post so fast so bye bye automerge.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28120521]Liberty is the freedom to do anything without arbitrary or oppresive exercise of authority from any form of government. Seeing that a dad to son relationship is comparable to the government. I think I'm taking away liberties when I read my son's diary.[/QUOTE] but, you do it anyways because the life of your son is in danger and his rights are not important anymore. Sure, reading your son's diary does invade his privacy. But once his life in endangered privacy is something you can't be concerned about. When his life is no longer endangered, let him have his privacy. [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28120538]Yes but if the money used to go skydiving could be used instead for a trip around the world I would rather do that. see what Im saying? [/QUOTE] No. that makes no sense to me.

The lives of 10 people are not worth more then the freedoms lost and will be continually lost of a whole country or the resources used which could have saved 20 if used better.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28120580]but, you do it anyways because the life of your son is in danger and his rights are not important anymore. Sure, reading your son's diary does invade his privacy. But once his life in endangered privacy is something you can't be concerned about. When his life is no longer endangered, let him have his privacy.[/QUOTE] Uhh, I respect my son's choices in any form. Whether he takes drugs, or turns gay. If I do expect him to resort to drugs, I fucking talk to him like a real father does, not log into his facebook or check his e-mail. I'm pretty sure that's also comparable to the president talking to the public and showing his/her plans.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28120521]Liberty is the freedom to do anything without arbitrary or oppresive exercise of authority from any form of government. [/QUOTE] Ok, and what part of someone watching you do something, makes you not able to do it? Can you not walk if someone watches you? (analogy again)

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28120662]Ok, and what part of someone watching you do something, makes you not able to do it? Can you not walk if someone watches you?[/QUOTE] I cant talk on the phone knowing someone is watching me. especially when they could be being payed stopping real crimes.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28120653]Uhh, I respect my son's choices in any form. Whether he takes drugs, or turns gay. If I do expect him to resort to drugs, I fucking talk to him like a real father does, not log into his facebook or check his e-mail. I'm pretty sure that's also comparable to the president talking to the public and showing his/her plans.[/QUOTE] Right, but 99% of kids aren't going to say "Hey Dad! Oh yeah! I took up meth about 6 weeks ago!"

You know there is a difference between a person who takes meth and a person who does not? I mean after 6 weeks you should notice something. Also he would of had to of treid drugs for much longer before using meth.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28120684]I cant talk on the phone knowing someone is watching me. especially when they could be being payed stopping real crimes.[/QUOTE] Then that is your fault, get over you fear I guess, I don't know what it is that makes you not able to talk. I mean unless you are talking about a drug deal or something. But, if you have nothing to hide then it's the person's time wasted not yours.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28120401]So, in the future you expect your son is using meth, you think to read his diary but you don't because "it takes away his [i]liberties[/i] which is the wrong word people keep using [i]privacy[/i] is a much better word. If your son is in danger, privacy doesn't matter anymore, his safety is the top priority now. Dad is to son as government is to people.[/QUOTE] NO IT FUCKING ISN'T HOLY FUCKING SHIT. No wonder you're sounding idiotic. The government is not your fucking parent. It is not your friend. It is a government. You want to tell me how that's true? How government is a father? Oh, wait. You support the drug war don't you?

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28120662]Ok, and what part of someone watching you do something, makes you not able to do it? Can you not walk if someone watches you? (analogy again)[/QUOTE] The government is already exercising arbitrary authority by listening in, they do not care whether you're white, black, 12 years old, or 60.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28120737]You know there is a difference between a person who takes meth and a person who does not? I mean after 6 weeks you should notice something. Also he would of had to of treid drugs for much longer before using meth.[/QUOTE] Oh dear god, it's an analogy. change it to something more hard to realize like having sex or stealing or something I don't care what it is just as long as you get the analogy. [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28120746]NO IT FUCKING ISN'T HOLY FUCKING SHIT. No wonder you're sounding idiotic. The government is not your fucking parent. It is not your friend. It is a government. You want to tell me how that's true? How government is a father? Oh, wait. You support the drug war don't you?[/QUOTE] OH MY GOD OH MY GOD IT'S AN ANALOGY. It's a comparison between the relationship. The government takes measures to protect the people, just like a father takes measures to protect his son.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28120759]Oh dear god, it's an analogy. change it to something more hard to realize like having sex or stealing or something I don't care what it is just as long as you get the analogy. [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] OH MY GOD OH MY GOD IT'S AN ANALOGY. It's a comparison between the relationship. The government takes measures to protect the people, just like a father takes measures to protect his son.[/QUOTE] Yeah, i get what an analogy is. You apparently didn't get that's it's [b]a fucking abysmal analogy[/b].

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28120516]I've seen the thread where you take a test and it tells it puts a score on if you are more "liberal" or "conservative" almost everyone in that thread was liberal.[/QUOTE] So? That doesn't mean we want everyone to "do what they want". That isn't the definition of liberal at all. You can preserve strong personal liberties while still having useful and powerful laws to keep the public safe.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28120748]The government is already exercising arbitrary authority by listening in, they do not care whether you're white, black, 12 years old, or 60.[/QUOTE] Right, what I'm saying is you say they are taking away your "liberties" What are they taking away? Because they are watching you you can't practice your religion? [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;28120805]So? That doesn't mean we want everyone to "do what they want". That isn't the definition of liberal at all. You can preserve strong personal liberties while still having useful and powerful laws to keep the public safe.[/QUOTE] Well then that is what I'm getting from liberals "Gay Marriage, people should have total free speech, and privacy from the government in times of danger."

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28120742]Then that is your fault, get over you fear I guess[/QUOTE] Thats what I should be saying to you. I mean at least my fear that resources are being used inproperly is better then thinking some guy will blow you up any second. I mean really I don't like cops knowing what Im talking about. I could be talking about my porn fetishes I don't know but I do know that someone could be using tax money better.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28120812]Right, what I'm saying is you say they are taking away your "liberties" What are they taking away? Because they are watching you you can't practice your religion? [/QUOTE] They're taking away your ability to decide. Your ideal government decides what is right and what is wrong. People are willing to simply set aside their beliefs and obey whatever the government says in exchange for having their lives?