The FISA Fanatics are Funny

[Cancel5]

dixie will carry on and never be deterred by anything even facts. Pretty amazing and entertaining really.

Well, you know what they say about Dixieland!

 

[Cancel3]

Well it seems to me we simply HAVE to trust our Government to do what our Government is supposed to do, protect us from foreign enemies. I mean, what is your contingency plan? This is the reason and purpose for having a central government, so why would it be rational or reasonable to think we should undermine their purpose?

I am nonchalant about FISA, it is a system put in place to allow our government to do what our government is supposed to do. It doesn't have a thing to do with the rights of US citizens, because it is used against foreign enemies, not domestic ones. Plus, read the thread, wiretaps are not the only way to spy on someone, and probably not even the most efficient or best way. Trust me, if our government (trust or not) wants to spy on you, they can do so without a warrant, without your consent, and without your knowledge.

Being vehemently opposed to FISA is like being opposed to policemen carrying firearms because you are afraid they might shoot innocent people. Granted, there might be that possibility, and we have a system of handling such incidents, but this possibility it is not a reason to distrust police or take away the tools they need to protect us.

That is one of the most ridiculous comparisons you have made. You are absolutely wrong. The FISA is like saying that policemen can arrest someone because he THINKS the person is doing something wrong.

Yes, it is the government's job to protect us. But it is the government's job to obey its own rules too. And you say its only going to be used against foreign citizens? I'd have to say "Deja Moo". Which means I've heard this bull before.

So you are in favor of letting the government bypass the normal channels and decide who is guilty and should be wiretapped? And the SAME people are promising to ONLY do it to foreigners? lmao



Its basic to our rights to be free from unreasonable search & seizure. When you start throwing out that right, what makes you think the rest of our rights aren't going to follow it?

You want to allow the right to be free from unreasonable search & seizure to be negotiable, but the right to bear arms should be written in stone? WTF?

There have been FAR more americans killed by accidental gunfire than by terrorists.



No, this was just bad legislation. It does not slow the government or hinder them to have to get a warrant. They can present their evidence to a judge quicker than they can get the tap in place.

Its time to be worried about ALL our freedoms, not just a select few.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That is one of the most ridiculous comparisons you have made. You are absolutely wrong. The FISA is like saying that policemen can arrest someone because he THINKS the person is doing something wrong.

Yes, it is the government's job to protect us. But it is the government's job to obey its own rules too. And you say its only going to be used against foreign citizens? I'd have to say "Deja Moo". Which means I've heard this bull before.

So you are in favor of letting the government bypass the normal channels and decide who is guilty and should be wiretapped? And the SAME people are promising to ONLY do it to foreigners? lmao



Its basic to our rights to be free from unreasonable search & seizure. When you start throwing out that right, what makes you think the rest of our rights aren't going to follow it?

You want to allow the right to be free from unreasonable search & seizure to be negotiable, but the right to bear arms should be written in stone? WTF?

There have been FAR more americans killed by accidental gunfire than by terrorists.



No, this was just bad legislation. It does not slow the government or hinder them to have to get a warrant. They can present their evidence to a judge quicker than they can get the tap in place.

Its time to be worried about ALL our freedoms, not just a select few.

Very good points, Sol...

 

[uscitizen]

Sol usually has good thoughts on stuff.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That is one of the most ridiculous comparisons you have made. You are absolutely wrong. The FISA is like saying that policemen can arrest someone because he THINKS the person is doing something wrong.

People are arrested on "suspicion of" everyday. What is your point?

Yes, it is the government's job to protect us. But it is the government's job to obey its own rules too.

Of which, FISA is one of their rules. The requirement for warrant-less wiretap is that the president must report such instances in a timely manner to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Bush has followed this rule. Again, what is your point?

And you say its only going to be used against foreign citizens? I'd have to say "Deja Moo". Which means I've heard this bull before.

I am merely stating the obvious, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act pertains to Intelligence gathering on Foreign enemies. Not average Americans. You've hyped up and drummed up all these false fears about our rights and freedoms being violated, and FISA has nothing whatsoever to do with them.

So you are in favor of letting the government bypass the normal channels and decide who is guilty and should be wiretapped? And the SAME people are promising to ONLY do it to foreigners? lmao

I am in favor of allowing the Commander in Chief to execute Executive Power to authorize warrant-less wiretaps on suspected terror subjects making calls into this country from abroad, provided he follows the rules regarding the timely reporting of such instances to the Senate Intelligence Committee, yes.

Its basic to our rights to be free from unreasonable search & seizure. When you start throwing out that right, what makes you think the rest of our rights aren't going to follow it?

I've not thrown out that right, and it isn't abridged with FISA. Foreign terrorists do not have Constitutional rights, sorry!

You want to allow the right to be free from unreasonable search & seizure to be negotiable, but the right to bear arms should be written in stone? WTF?

Nope, both rights are written in our Constitution and should be protected, along with the duty of our government to protect us from foreign enemies. Again, FISA doesn't abridge your rights, or my rights. It is not unconstitutional, it is not illegal, it is not a threat to our freedoms in any way, shape, or form.

There have been FAR more americans killed by accidental gunfire than by terrorists.

SO FUCKING GODDAMN WHAT?????

No, this was just bad legislation. It does not slow the government or hinder them to have to get a warrant. They can present their evidence to a judge quicker than they can get the tap in place.

It does hinder the CIA and Intelligence gathering to require a warrant in any and all instances. Sorry, but it just does. AND, btw... How do you obtain a warrant in US court to listen to the phone conversation of a non-American citizen in Syria?

Its time to be worried about ALL our freedoms, not just a select few.

It's time to be worried about the Socialist Communists who want to remove any and all means our Government has to protect us from foreign enemies. Our freedoms are not in jeopardy with FISA, they are under much more danger from activist liberal judges who want to re-write the Constitution.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I've not thrown out that right, and it isn't abridged with FISA. Foreign terrorists do not have Constitutional rights, sorry!


The people they are talking to do.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's time to be worried about the Socialist Communists who want to remove any and all means our Government has to protect us from foreign enemies. Our freedoms are not in jeopardy with FISA, they are under much more danger from activist liberal judges who want to re-write the Constitution.



What about the activist judges who made up an individual right to own a handgun?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I've not thrown out that right, and it isn't abridged with FISA. Foreign terrorists do not have Constitutional rights, sorry!


The people they are talking to do.

No, they don't have the Constitutional right to conspire with our enemies to do us harm. It's nowhere in our Constitution, in fact, our Constitution deals with just these kind of individuals, it calls them Traitors and establishes punishment for Treason.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, they don't have the Constitutional right to conspire with our enemies to do us harm. It's nowhere in our Constitution, in fact, our Constitution deals with just these kind of individuals, it calls them Traitors and establishes punishment for Treason.

You see, you are charging them with "conspiring with our enemies" and taking away their rights, without due process, because they are talking to some random person overseas who the government suspects is an enemy, and has been called an enemy without due process. Don't you see how dangerous your point of view is becoming? It has nothing to do with the constitution. A person has inviolable rights until they have been taken away through due process. I don't surrender my rights just because I'm talking to a foreigner, whether or not that person is under government suspicion. You can only monitor my phone calls AFTER the trial for treason, and no one has ever been charged with treason in these cases because it would be a fucking joke trial.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's time to be worried about the Socialist Communists who want to remove any and all means our Government has to protect us from foreign enemies. Our freedoms are not in jeopardy with FISA, they are under much more danger from activist liberal judges who want to re-write the Constitution.



What about the activist judges who made up an individual right to own a handgun?

Hmmm.... seems to me, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Franklin made up the individual right to own a handgun when they penned the 2nd Amendment. To my knowledge, they weren't sitting on the Supreme Court at the time, and didn't make a ruling on this, instead, they wrote a Bill of Rights and allowed the people to ratify it, which the people did. Big Difference there... Activist Judges who rule something vs. The People who vote for something. Don'tchya think?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Hmmm.... seems to me, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Franklin made up the individual right to own a handgun when they penned the 2nd Amendment. To my knowledge, they weren't sitting on the Supreme Court at the time, and didn't make a ruling on this, instead, they wrote a Bill of Rights and allowed the people to ratify it, which the people did. Big Difference there... Activist Judges who rule something vs. The People who vote for something. Don'tchya think?

1. So what. I was using your dumb logic against you.

2. No one voted on the constitution. Voter turnout for the first presidential election was less than 1% and none of the states ratified the constitution through referendum.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You see, you are charging them with "conspiring with our enemies" and taking away their rights, without due process, because they are talking to some random person overseas who the government suspects is an enemy, and has been called an enemy without due process. Don't you see how dangerous your point of view is becoming? It has nothing to do with the constitution. A person has inviolable rights until they have been taken away through due process. I don't surrender my rights just because I'm talking to a foreigner, whether or not that person is under government suspicion. You can only monitor my phone calls AFTER the trial for treason, and no one has ever been charged with treason in these cases because it would be a fucking joke trial.

No, I don't see a problem. If you are talking to a terrorist abroad, you do not have Constitutional protections of your rights. If you are robbing a bank, you do not have Constitutional protection of your right to bear arms. If you are voting under an assumed name, you do not have the Constitutional right to have your vote count. If you are screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you are not protected by your right to free speech. If you are sacrificing virgins you do not have protection under the Constitution for your freedom of religious expression.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

2. No one voted on the constitution.

LMFGDAO! Are you serious????

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, I don't see a problem. If you are talking to a terrorist abroad, you do not have Constitutional protections of your rights.

This is all very subjective. The government doesn't know they are a terrorist. They have suspicion. You have all the same rights talking to a person abroad as you do at home. If I called up a friend after he came home from a bank robbery the government wouldn't suddenly have a right to remove all of my freedoms from me.

If you are robbing a bank, you do not have Constitutional protection of your right to bear arms.

You do not have the constitutional right to bear arms after the trial.

If you are voting under an assumed name, you do not have the Constitutional right to have your vote count.

No one has the constitutional right to have their vote count.

If you are screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you are not protected by your right to free speech.

Nothing to do with free speech.

If you are sacrificing virgins you do not have protection under the Constitution for your freedom of religious expression.

Nothing to do with religious expression.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

LMFGDAO! Are you serious????

Yes. Besides the people who basically appointed themselves to represent the American people, there was no vote to ratify it.

 

[Damocles]

Yes. Besides the people who basically appointed themselves to represent the American people, there was no vote to ratify it.

There were delegations.

http://www.jburgd12.k12.il.us/jjhs/Wbt/Foundations/ratify.htm

The Constitution was certainly ratified by the 13 States. 9 of them had to all 13 ratified it, the last voting for it in 1790. The Bill of rights, written in 1789 was ratified in 1791.

The delegations were elected, they then represented their various interests per their constituencies. Federalists and anti-Federalists alike had their say and their vote. Rhode Island, the last to ratify it did it by 2 votes. 34 to 32. Three voted unanimously.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Waterhead, you live in your own little dream world, don't you?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There were delegations.

http://www.jburgd12.k12.il.us/jjhs/Wbt/Foundations/ratify.htm

The Constitution was certainly ratified by the 13 States. 9 of them had to all 13 ratified it, the last voting for it in 1790. The Bill of rights, written in 1789 was ratified in 1791.

The delegations were elected, they then represented their various interests per their constituencies. Federalists and anti-Federalists alike had their say and their vote. Rhode Island, the last to ratify it did it by 2 votes. 34 to 32. Three voted unanimously.

A delegation elected by a 1% turnout certainly doesn't correlate with "the people".

 

[Damocles]

A delegation elected by a 1% turnout certainly doesn't correlate with "the people".

And you get the 1% turnout from what hole of your anatomy?

First you attempt to say that the framers just decided. Now you attempt to say that there wasn't enough representation.

Your buggered on this one Watermark. They voted, all 13 states did. With delegations, sure, but there was, without a doubt, a vote.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

And you get the 1% turnout from what hole of your anatomy?

From wikipedia.