Discussion - The Government is spying on your email and web surfing habits

[roidpuple]

hell sometimes if i forget to shut off my computer.... i catch em watching ...
me fuck my wife... basterds!!!

 

[Fukkenshredded]

When I was a "20 year old kid" I graduated Navy Nuclear School with honors.

Yeah, those kids sure are stupid...

I looked back at your insult, Div. And that IS what it was. It was basically a claim that I try to show an erudition that I don't actually possess. That I show off. I chose to take the advice part -- "stay true"-- to heart. That's good advice. As I recognize that there are members who take my advice fairly seriously, I try to make certain that it is grounded in knowledge and personal experience. If I get verbose, perhaps it is to be crystal clear. Sometimes there are several layers to a concept. It takes a certain amount of words to establish the proper context in which to analyze certain data. When I am offering an opinion, I choose to highlight that fact in a number of ways. But to suggest that I front, or show off...

You've talked over ten thousand times.

You feel me now?

Stay true.

 

[pudding]

I didn't say I think the Patriot Act is or isn't unconstitutional. For the record, I think it is clearly unconstitutional.

What I was wondering is why all of a sudden we are concerned with a high profile legislation that does not undermine any of our rights that have not already been taken from us in the form of legislation.

People's main siren song with the Patriot Act seems ot focus on the idea of being "monitored". This, in and of itself, is not unconstitutional. There must be some form of monitoring if there is to be a government at all.

Ulter, I know you're pointing out the rulings to me to play Devil's advocate -- I am certain that you know that I cannot endorse the Patrioit Act as drafted (I think I've alluded to why on AF some time ago). I will allow you to yank my chain because you are so old...

Here's the point: The rights to privacy that George has implied are being taken from us by the Patriot Act were already gone. Simple as that. And when we start talking about what is and isn't Constitutional...whew. The vast VAST majority of legislation on the books is clearly unconstitutional. After all, Congress was never granted the authority to govern what we put in our bodies to begin with, as defined by the initial limits and bounds of power of Congress and legislation.

Interestingly, those who call themselves liberal, or Democrats, don't realize that they are actually touting a conservative philosophy. If you believe in a right to privacy, a small government that leaves you alone, and the right to keep the money you earn as well as the right to decide how to spend that money, well...guess what? You are a conservative.

The term conservative does not apply, as many people seem to think, to the difinition of rules of behavior (strictly governed = conservative and loosely governed = liberal). It merely reflects one's attitude toward how strictly the Constitution must be adhered to. If you are crying out for the Patriot Act to adhere strictly tot the Constitution, then why is Roe vs. Wade allowed under the radar screen in the same so called philosophy of freedom and equality? Both are violations of the same thing: Sovereignty of the individual human.

Roe vs. Wade is such a good example because it represents government sleight of hand at its finest. Social engineering is easily accomplished when everyone is angry, scared, or hungry. And war is the mechanism that ensures those conditions in perpetuity.

So yes, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. I know that, but more importantly, I understand EXACTLY why it is. I see people knocking the decisions made by others who have to protect this society, this nation, etc. This is a great, if not the greatest, aspect of a free country -- the right to dissent. It yields discussions of alternatives and ulimately gives rise to the better way.

But let us not forget what the Patriot Act is:

It is an amalgamation of so called Democratic principles, supported primarily by the left side of the political fence many years prior to now, and finally bookended and put under a microscope while a "Republican" is in office. Bush is a Democrat. He calls himself something else, but his choices are democratic in tradition, with the few military exceptions.

Mr. Spellwin --

As to the identity/credit theft issue...yes, this is an incident that is a result of gross mismanagement of power. But not in the way generally believed. Think of it this way:

We (government, that is) can either monitor online data or we cannot. If we cannot, then we have given complete sovereignty to an entire society, without any governing whatsoever. Is this bad? Maybe.

I think the question is not whether or not we should be monitored. The question is whether or not we should be punished for how we behave in private. Ulimately, this is the essential dividing political question. After all, the radical right is trying to legislate morality all the time. This is the WORST decision engine to utilize, because moraltiy is subjective.

What do I think the solution is? Simply enforce the constitution in its present form and see where that gets us for starters. Is it a perfect document? No. But the entire POINT o f a two party system is...surprise, GRIDLOCK. Of what? Government. Why? To prevent the government from ever becoming more powerful than the nation that it governs. Thomas Jefferson understood this. He was, in my way of thinking, the greatest political mind in history. Other good studies include Marx's writings, (yes, we must study communism in order to understand why it won't work) and Communism, by the way, has NEVER been tried on this globe as Marx described it...to the studies of Bastiat, who had a remarkable grasp on the intrinsic flaws of socialist philosophy. Julious Huxley wrote a book that practically predicted what is happening now. So did Buckminster Fuller. They knew that the legislation of morality, be it in the form of patriotism, religion, or any other collective moral imperative, is ALWAYS bad. What we should watch out for now is the sluggish inertia toward socialism that will render this country absolutely powerless to defend itself, not only because its citizens are divided, but because they are uneducated, lazy, feel a sense of entitlement, and do not recognize that money is not wealth, but rather, productivity is. And the right to produce is what is being taken away, piece by piece, by boths sides of the government, because both party philosophies, taken to their respective extremes, result in the same thing: A Dictatorship. And this, people, is why there are two parties. Arguing beats subjugation. I suppose that I could be called an objectivist, but I don;t really try to label my political stance any more. Suffice it to say that I understand political theory, practice, and some history.

I am not a genius, though.

I'm just a lean guy who can do a lot of pull ups or a lot of talking, depending on the situation.

That was awful lot of bullshit to not take a position

 

[Fukkenshredded]

Tell ya what, Pudding. Feel free to delineate the bullshit aspect for us. My position is clear. I think the act is unconstitutional, but I think that the majority of legislation is also unconstitutional. I am an objectivist, for the most part, but try not to pigeonhole myself with a LABEL. Now. I said that in the above bullshit. Was it not clear? Or did you simply not comprehend it...

The Patriot Act is a collection of errors already committed in the legislative branch of our government. The intent is based on a misconsception; namely, that we are all equal. It is the fatal flaw of this county's siren song. We are NOT all equal. We have equal rights. That is a different thing than being equal. Our differences are our strength as a nation, but since we are currently involved in the effort to eradicate all differences and utterances thereof, we are overlooking our greatest asset -- diversity.

I appreciate your opinion that my words are bullshit. I'll put that right under Div's opinion (as I think you are jumping on an imaginary bandwagon here), but at least Div offered up some good advice with his observations.

 

[Ulter]

Everything in the act was not already on the books. Spying, search and seizure without a warrant was not part of any other legislation.

 

[Fukkenshredded]

Ulter --

Perhaps section 213, (Authority for Delaying Notice for Execution of a Warrant), could be considered a new form of legislation. But I still think this is simply an extention of earlier attempts to legislate mitigating circumstances for the issuances of warrants. I tend to agree with any strict constructionist here. Take Ron Paul from Texas, for example. He makes a very good point about the so called "sneak and peek" provision.

His primary worry is, in his own words:

"I don't like the sneak-and-peek provision because you have to ask yourself what happens if the person is home, doesn't know that law enforcement is coming to search his home, hasn't a clue as to who's coming in unannounced … and he shoots them. This law clearly authorizes illegal search and seizure, and anyone who thinks of this as antiterrorism needs to consider its application to every American citizen." This is an irrefutable point of logic and common sense. Obviously it will be overturned in the Supreme court by the strict conservatives as well as the liberals, probably unanimpously, based on the following simple argument: By not notifying a person of a search, that person is robbed of his constitutional right to challenge said search. Simple.

Section 215 will also be challenged, as it should. It authorizes the FBI to acquire ANY business records by order of U.S. secret court. That's not the problem, though. The problem part is that the recipient of such an order is FORBIDDEN TO TELL ANOTHER THAT HE HAS RECEIVED THE ORDER. An obvious violation of the first ammendment. But again, this is not the first attempt to legislate silence. Any censorship legislation is exactly the same thing. EXACTLY THE SAME. For example, the attempt to force a girl to tell her parents about an abortion. The legislation that says certain words were not allowed to be spoken on public airwaves. All violations of the first ammendment.

So, what I am doing in this post is what I asked others to do. Show me the actual words and section that violate the constitution. Nobody has, as of yet. But I can. I read the act, studied it. I know the constitution. I understand conservatism and liberalism, socialism, totalitarianism, communism, oligarchies and what supports them, and other forms of government. I studied it. Not in school. I started studying it in the military.

What is my point? My point is that I can do what I ask others to do when they are discussing an issue that they feel so "passionate" about, and yet very often they cannot even cite a single line of text from the very piece of legislation the claim to so detest. That is not "staying true", as Div would say.

I can put my money where my mouth is. If you would like, I will find prior legislation that addresses each of the issues that are under the microscope with the Patriot Act. All I am saying about the Patriot Act is that it is a collection of violations that have already been tried separately in various forms and various venues, most of which the people right here and in colleges and offices and wherever else they are arguing cannot even cite, much less discuss intelligently.

I suppose, Ulter, one could argue that there is a unique form of violation as a result of the clumping...the language is obscene to me, to be honest. I hate the Act, because I loathe the concept of living in a police state or a dictatorship. Both Bill Clinton and George Bush have exhibited tendencies that show a desire to be a dictator. Bush even make a reference to being a king. I don't like that at all.

But I like to hear why others are "so upset". I get a bit miffed about these things because I am so proactive with my communications to Congress. I am involved in the support of cognitive liberties from several standpoints, including financial. I write letters to my senator. I almost got to appear to speak about the GHB bill. Barely missed that one because I didn't have the backing. Just me by myself and about a hundred letters to everyone from Kennedy to Hatch to the FDA to the head of the DEA.

I am ACTIVE in the defense of our rights. So those of you (Div) who want to call me out on the floor and see what I am made of, feel free. I can back my position with years of research and study and most importantly --ACTION.

Oh, BTW Ulter, could you email me a shopping code for your store? I need to get a few things for summer.

FS

 

[Ulter]

It's afdiscount

 

[concordsize]

lol freaks

 

[slat1]

It would be nice if people took this much interest in moderate doses and pct....

 

[DIVISION]

When I was a "20 year old kid" I graduated Navy Nuclear School with honors.

Yeah, those kids sure are stupid...

Alright......

You took what I said as an insult and for that I apologize. I didn't mean to make it seem so harsh, just that I wanted you to understand what I saw in your words. That you were "verbose" when you clearly didn't need to be, you can make your ideas more succinct and relevent without the excess. Just an observation, Shred.......that's all. I had no idea you were a navy grad "with honors" and I respect that, truly. Don't take what I said in one post and try to apply that to anything else, it's not logical or fair.



DIV