So You Use A Cellphone Eh?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

So You Use A Cellphone Eh?

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:57 am

Then you better read this 4th amendment ruling....
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=223192
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58100
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana


Re: So You Use A Cellphone Eh?

Postby ohioboy » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:29 pm

Guess I should throw mine out.
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: So You Use A Cellphone Eh?

Postby cartervj » Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:58 pm

just get an Obamaphone for free and have a direct line for eaves dropping :lol3:

at least you won't be paying for it directly :biggrin:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7357
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: So You Use A Cellphone Eh?

Postby Andy W » Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:43 am

The usual argument on the other side is something along the lines of "I'm not doing anything wrong so I don't care."

I will admit to thinking along those lines in the past.
Andy W
hunter
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:30 am
Location: KY

Re: So You Use A Cellphone Eh?

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:09 am

Andy W wrote:
The usual argument on the other side is something along the lines of "I'm not doing anything wrong so I don't care."

I will admit to thinking along those lines in the past.

I think the next time a public official says that, we should set up a 24/7 webcam outside their house.

Hey, if they aren't doing anything wrong, why would they care.

My guess is they would came back with an argument that includes something about security and not being able to trust people knowing their every move.

Image

But you can trust everybody in government with that information :fingerpt:

To make the point in a way liberals can understand

Image

Thankfully, nobody like him or worse will ever be President again or hold any position of power in government ever again

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16303
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: So You Use A Cellphone Eh?

Postby stackemhigh » Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:30 am

The recent 4th amendment discussion this country has been having is the embodiment of what I hate the most about our current system. A decade ago, under a neocon government, the Patriot Act was passed and unconstitutional surveillance was fully supported by a neocon government and its supporters. Liberals were outraged, as they should have been. Now, a liberal government is conducting the same surveillance activity, and conservatives are outraged, as they should be. Liberals defend it. Four years from now, a conservative government will continue the surveillance, liberals will be outraged. And on and on and on.
stackemhigh
hunter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:42 pm

Re: So You Use A Cellphone Eh?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:07 am

stackemhigh wrote: the Patriot Act was passed and unconstitutional surveillance was fully supported by a neocon government


Which part of the bill should we be outraged over? Please quote the specific text.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/html/PLAW-107publ56.htm

What bothers me more is that no one ever reads the bill. Not those that vote for it. Not those that condemn it. Nobody knows what it says and it does not matter to the discussion.

There was a reason the Patriot act passed with such broad support. It for the most part was just common sense and boilerplate.

It is a Zimmerman/Martin debate. Most don't know nor care about the facts and even when they learn them, they disregard them because they do not care.

People willing to abuse the power of government only use the law as a pretext. That is what we are seeing and when society is willing to defend that we are screwed. That I agree 100% and it happens on both sides. No matter how carefully laws are written, it will make no difference.

It is not a fact based discussion, which is why it will go on and on and on.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16303
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: So You Use A Cellphone Eh?

Postby stackemhigh » Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:59 am

@SpinnerMan

Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the sense that you assume I'm a buffoon that doesn't know what he's talking about. Since you're so familiar with the law, you know I can't copy and paste parts of the Act and display them in any intelligible way because most of the Act is amending previous statute. In most cases, those amendments dramatically broaden the allowances of the previous statute (see section 505). To copy and past those amendments would be silly unless they are put in the context of the act they are amending. A good example of what I was talking about would be section 507, which allows government actors to obtain educational records based on "articulate facts", rather than the Constitutional "probable cause" standard.
Another example could be section 802, which essentially makes any protester or political activist fall into the category of domestic terrorist. In any case, I was only using the Patriot Act as an example. And when you say "common sense and boilerplate," I'm not sure what you mean. Increasing the government's ability to gather sensitive information about private citizens is not boilerplate. If the Patriot Act impeded the 2nd amendment rather than the 4th, I suspect your response would be different. And when you say the law is a pretext, I'm inclined to disagree. The law is a tool, terrorism is the pretext.
stackemhigh
hunter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:42 pm

Re: So You Use A Cellphone Eh?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:01 am

stackemhigh wrote:Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the sense that you assume I'm a buffoon that doesn't know what he's talking about.
I didn't assume it about you. I had no way to know one way or the other. I was not even stereotyping as you were. It seems a pretty clear fact that the vast majority of the people know nothing and it is irrelevant to the discussion which is why there are almost never specific complaints as you point out.

But you did provide specific examples something I would bet the vast majority cannot. That is surprising. Debating that is interesting. That is the only way you can have a serious discussion, which I have never seen at this point and it is all broad generalities like you presented.

I had a problem with your stereotyping and explaining why it had such broad support from nearly all parts of the political spectrum. You politicized it while basically complaining about politicization :thumbsup: This is consistent with every worthless discussion I have ever seen. I'm interested in a serious debate, but I have never seen one.

stackemhigh wrote:And when you say "common sense and boilerplate," I'm not sure what you mean.


Boilerplate
Sec. 903. Sense of Congress on the establishment and maintenance of intelligence relationships to acquire information on terrorists and terrorist organizations.


Common sense being a lot of it is little fixes.

It seems that only a small fraction of the large bill is the questionable parts. Of course, the cynic in me would suspect that was on purpose and to hide them. However, that makes it easy to point out what specifically you are criticizing. Nobody does that and it's just vague generalities.

stackemhigh wrote:Liberals were outraged, as they should have been.
Most liberals were not outraged. The liberals in Congress voted for it.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml
Dems passed it 145 to 62 in the House

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313
In the Senate, there was only 1 vote against it.

It was only later when they smelled political advantage like the war in Iraq. That I agree.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16303
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: So You Use A Cellphone Eh?

Postby stackemhigh » Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:11 pm

I'm not even sure that what you pulled out can be considered boilerplate. I don't know many colleagues that would consider matters of international intelligence and national security boilerplate. In any case, it doesn't matter if 99.99999% of the law is boilerplate. If there's one clause in a law that grants the government massive latitude in domestic surveillance, it isn't as if the boilerplate language cancels out the effectiveness of the abilities granted elsewhere in the law.

An yes, when Michael Moore makes a movie about something, it means liberals are outraged. I wasn't necessarily talking about the nincompoops who passed the law without reading it. Or the nincompoops who read it and signed it anyway. It's slowly being undone anyway. One of the statutes (18 U.S.C. § 2709) it was amending was ruled unconstitutional by a district court earlier this year.

All of that is beside the point. My point is that people rarely stick to their principles. When their team is taking liberties, it's somehow justified. Whether it's Bush ignoring the 4th amendment or Obama ignoring the 2nd, the people should be more objective and criticize both. Or maybe people will start to notice that our rights are shrinking each year regardless of which administration lives in the White House.
stackemhigh
hunter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:42 pm

Re: So You Use A Cellphone Eh?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:42 pm

stackemhigh wrote:I'm not even sure that what you pulled out can be considered boilerplate. I don't know many colleagues that would consider matters of international intelligence and national security boilerplate.

This is what they included in the law.
It is the sense of Congress that officers and employees of the intelligence community of the Federal Government, acting within the course of their official duties, should be encouraged, and should make every effort, to establish and maintain intelligence relationships with any person, entity, or group for the purpose of engaging in lawful intelligence activities, including the acquisition of information on the identity, location, finances, affiliations, capabilities, plans, or intentions of a terrorist or terrorist organization, or information on any other person, entity, or group (including a foreign government) engaged in harboring, comforting, financing, aiding, or assisting a terrorist or terrorist organization.

Seriously, this needed to be included into the law? :no: Was this in doubt. If so, :eek:

That's why it is boilerplate.

stackemhigh wrote: If there's one clause in a law that grants the government massive latitude in domestic surveillance, it isn't as if the boilerplate language cancels out the effectiveness of the abilities granted elsewhere in the law.
I agree, but as I said. The cynic in me says it is put in there, not because there was any doubt that Congress didn't believe that the intelligence activities should try to acquire information on the identity of terrorists, but because it provides political cover for whatever they are trying to do. That is not always proof of wrong doing.

stackemhigh wrote:An yes, when Michael Moore makes a movie about something, it means liberals are outraged.
:lol3: Or it means he sees a way to make a buck by stirring outrage through lies and misleading editing. :yes:

stackemhigh wrote:One of the statutes (18 U.S.C. § 2709) it was amending was ruled unconstitutional by a district court earlier this year.
And Obamacare was ruled constitutional. This appeal to the court as an authority is problematic since it is so obviously flawed. That is a sad state of affairs, and a bad argument.

stackemhigh wrote:My point is that people rarely stick to their principles.
You presume they had principles to start with. That is your flaw. Politicians rarely have principles beyond what is good for me is by definition good for everyone.

stackemhigh wrote: Whether it's Bush ignoring the 4th amendment or Obama ignoring the 2nd, the people should be more objective and criticize both.
I agree completely. There is just a large difference between what Obama is doing and what Bush was known to have been doing. You are presuming that if Bush were known at the time to be doing the same thing, this is what you would see. There is some defense of what Obama is doing and the criticism is not one sided either. I have yet to see a direct comparison of quotes where a politician was clearly for it before he was against it. Of course, what is that "it" that we are talking about is also not clear at all.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16303
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL


Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests