NOW!!! I know where my check went.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 9, 2006, 9:56 pm

U.S. opening some private mail in terror fight

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/09/terror ... index.html

Post by **Sylvus** » January 10, 2006, 1:55 am

Are you sure you didn't blow it on nascar commemorative plates and maybe a home pregnancy test for your cousin?

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » January 10, 2006, 3:51 am

nah, he used his paycheck for that. he is talking more specifically about his guvment check that should have been here on the 3rd.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 10, 2006, 10:31 am

Sylvus wrote:Are you sure you didn't blow it on nascar commemorative plates and maybe a home pregnancy test for your cousin?

Nope!! Spent it all going to San Antonio and watching Nebraska pummel Michigan.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » January 10, 2006, 11:49 am

You came to San Antonio and didn't tell me?

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » January 10, 2006, 1:15 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Sylvus wrote:Are you sure you didn't blow it on nascar commemorative plates and maybe a home pregnancy test for your cousin?
Nope!! Spent it all going to San Antonio and watching Nebraska pummel Michigan.

HAHAHA I think the gauntlet has been thrown.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 10, 2006, 1:40 pm

Wonder how long the average American will keep buying the 'war against terror' crap the Bush administration keeps throwing out on every lame thing they do.

"Sure we break the law: But it's in your best interest!"

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 10, 2006, 2:17 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
Sylvus wrote:Are you sure you didn't blow it on nascar commemorative plates and maybe a home pregnancy test for your cousin?
Nope!! Spent it all going to San Antonio and watching Nebraska pummel Michigan.
HAHAHA I think the gauntlet has been thrown.

He knows im not into assplay, But yet he tries.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 10, 2006, 2:22 pm

Just a question, How many of you if you suspected your child of doing drugs, would go through his aor her room?

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » January 10, 2006, 2:26 pm

I would.

noel · Post by **noel** » January 10, 2006, 2:28 pm

I would.

Please tell me you're not leading to some analogy about Bush's wiretapping advocacy.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 10, 2006, 2:46 pm

noel wrote:I would.

Please tell me you're not leading to some analogy about Bush's wiretapping advocacy.

Just trying to see how far we are willing to take personal privacy.

noel · Post by **noel** » January 10, 2006, 2:49 pm

The example you gave has absolutely nothing to do with personal privacy.

Surely even you see the difference in the relationship between the US government and a citizen and that of a parent and a child.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » January 10, 2006, 2:49 pm

Once she turns 18 and is out of my house then I will accept the violation of personal privacy. Until then I maintain my right as a parent to safeguard my child against that kind of thing. Also, I will use this right when it endangers my house and home being taken away from me by authorities because there is drugs. I will confiscate before they confiscate.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 10, 2006, 2:51 pm

noel wrote:The example you gave has absolutely nothing to do with personal privacy.

Surely even you see the difference in the relationship between the US government and a citizen and that of a parent and a child.

For your child it is.

noel · Post by **noel** » January 10, 2006, 3:03 pm

There is a difference between 'personal privacy' when talking about an individuals privacy, and 'personal privacy' when discussing the legality of actions of the federal government toward it's citizens.

Additionally, a child has no legal right to privacy until they turn 18 years of age. Would you not check your baby's diaper because of fear of invading their privacy? Would you not search your child's room if you thought they were going to go into school in a black trenchcoat with automatic weapons and 'get revenge on the world'?

Once again, the analogy you're attempting to draw is a stretch even for you.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 10, 2006, 3:14 pm

noel wrote:There is a difference between 'personal privacy' when talking about an individuals privacy, and 'personal privacy' when discussing the legality of actions of the federal government toward it's citizens.

Additionally, a child has no legal right to privacy until they turn 18 years of age. Would you not check your baby's diaper because of fear of invading their privacy? Would you not search your child's room if you thought they were going to go into school in a black trenchcoat with automatic weapons and 'get revenge on the world'?

Once again, the analogy you're attempting to draw is a stretch even for you.

Ok Ill agree with the child issue, let me word it this way, You suspect your wife is cheating on you, you see a number of clues about the house but the only real way of finding out is to check her cell phone bill, Do you do it?

An no im not trying to draw up an analogy im just trying to figure out WHY!! some people are so concerned about protecting what could be guilty people, I, Myself am trying to weigh if its worth it.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 10, 2006, 3:22 pm

Cartalas unless your kid owns the house you live in (which may be the case for you...) and owns the furniture, AND has custody of himself then i think you might be on to something.

otherwise your "interpretation" of the law is totally irrelevant.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » January 10, 2006, 3:47 pm

Im just impressed that you can turn a democracy into a semi-fascist country in that short time. AND not having the majority of people complaining about it.
Oh well, maybe the complaining will start when every internal flight int he US will require reqtal searches for everyone, but who knows, Bush core voters might like that too, they at leat been acting like they like being assreamed so far.

Oh well, in the lasts 2 months we seen college professors mails being opened and then being listended in on, seen students get visits from Homeland for doing research on fascist government types, seen professors being afraid to start controlversial classes simply because it might make his students being checked out by the government.

Hell, im not an american, and im no expert on your history, but isnt governments acting like this the REASON that your constitution got that part about the right to bear arms that you are so proud off? So you can rebel against governments like this?

Oh well, ill better stop now, before my next DVD orders from you get opened and searched.

noel · Post by **noel** » January 10, 2006, 3:47 pm

Cartalas, I'm going to respond to you 100% seriously with no malice or sarcasm under the assumption that you're truly trying to understand why we have privacy laws.

First, I would recommend that you read and become familiar with the fourth amendment of our US constitution.

FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - '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, 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.'

Here's a link to further discussion and explanation:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm

Bear in mind that the fourth amendment is one of the first 10 amendments of our constitution also called the 'Bill of Rights'. These first 10 amendments were considered the most important rights for citizens of our nation by the writers of our constitution and each of these amendments has stood the test of time for over two centuries of war and peace. Also bear in mind that every President, Congressman, Senator, Judge and member of the military since George Washington has sworn to uphold the laws of the constitution.

Second, I would recommend that you read the book 1984 by George Orwell. If you need a copy of it, I have it in electronic format and would be more than happy to provide it for you. This is a worst case example of what our privacy laws are attempting to protect us from.

Third, here are some recent comments out of the Alito hearing:

Specter, who plans to hold a hearing on the domestic spying program next month, asked Alito if he agreed with a statement by Justice O'Connor in a separate case that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

"Absolutely," Alito responded. "That's a very important principle. Our Constitution applies in times of peace and in times of war, and it protects the rights of Americans under all circumstances."

Finally, there is no law that says the US should protect guilty people only laws that say there should be probable cause to investigate someone believed to be guilty and that a judge should sign a warrant as one of the checks that makes our government (based on checks and balances) so effective. It's also important to note that there is a specific mechanism set up so that the warrant process can be streamlined for special situations 24 hours a day 365 days a year, so there's no reason for a member of the executive branch not to get a warrant.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 10, 2006, 3:55 pm

First of all thank you for responding this way, And trust me I understand all the ramifications of what your talking about. We as americans pride ourselves on this, but what im torn about is, if the Government knows or has a good idea person A is about to commit a serious crime i.e. Destroy A Hoover Damn with a Ryder truck full of explosives and an illegal wiretap or opened mail or hell even an unlawful traffic stop, stops him from doing this is it worth it?

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » January 10, 2006, 4:02 pm

Cartalas wrote:First of all thank you for responding this way, And trust me I understand all the ramifications of what your talking about. We as americans pride ourselves on this, but what im torn about is, if the Government knows or has a good idea person A is about to commit a serious crime i.e. Destroy A Hoover Damn with a Ryder truck full of explosives and an illegal wiretap or opened mail or hell even an unlawful traffic stop, stops him from doing this is it worth it?

No, its not. Not an illegal wire tap. If they had enough evidence to even think that someone was planning on doing that, a warrant wouldnt be hard to get. Thats not what they are doing, they are putting wire taps and searching people's mail that have done nothing wrong.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » January 10, 2006, 4:07 pm

Cartalas wrote:First of all thank you for responding this way, And trust me I understand all the ramifications of what your talking about. We as americans pride ourselves on this, but what im torn about is, if the Government knows or has a good idea person A is about to commit a serious crime i.e. Destroy A Hoover Damn with a Ryder truck full of explosives and an illegal wiretap or opened mail or hell even an unlawful traffic stop, stops him from doing this is it worth it?

Yes, but if the government suspect person A, they can get warrants to do all this, they can even get emercency warrants. If you know or suspect someone of doing something illegal, you can go the legal, or even semi-legal in some cases, but thats not the issue here.
The problem is when they start blindy opening random mails in hope of getting hold of something they can use. The next step could be then randomly taking people from the streets, in case some o fthem might be criminals, or maybe opening the mails or wiretapping everyone thats not 100 arian, in case they might do something.
Or maybe throw random people in camps and hold them without trial or anything for years, then just release them. Oh wait, they US government alradey DO that.
Thats why its so important to not just let them get away with eroding even more freedeoms, its more than bad enough already. Why Bush isnt impeached already ill never know.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 10, 2006, 4:14 pm

Thank you for the info.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » January 10, 2006, 4:15 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Sylvus wrote:Are you sure you didn't blow it on nascar commemorative plates and maybe a home pregnancy test for your cousin?
Nope!! Spent it all going to San Antonio and watching Nebraska pummel Michigan.

I never thought I'd see the day Cartalas owned Sylvus.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 10, 2006, 4:17 pm

Stragi wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
Sylvus wrote:Are you sure you didn't blow it on nascar commemorative plates and maybe a home pregnancy test for your cousin?
Nope!! Spent it all going to San Antonio and watching Nebraska pummel Michigan.
I never thought I'd see the day Cartalas owned Sylvus.

I'm just amazed at Cartalas using (and spelling) the word ramifications correctly.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 10, 2006, 4:25 pm

Aslanna wrote:Wonder how long the average American will keep buying the 'war against terror' crap the Bush administration keeps throwing out on every lame thing they do.

Don't question the son of God sonny.. woe unto you!

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » January 10, 2006, 6:23 pm

Anyone who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserves niether, and looses both.

--Franklin

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 10, 2006, 6:37 pm

Hest was asking how can Bush still be in office? How can so many freedoms, strongly believed in, fought and in many cased died for be eroded? Fear, ignorance and greed...

For the average American the main proponent is fear. Fear that someone might hurt them or their familier, fear they might not be able to maintain the same level of comfort they currnetly have, fear that their "world" might change... For some it's the above along with ignorance. They wouldn't understand what was happening even if you slapped them in the face with it. But for those in charge it's greed, greed that they can continue to live by taking advantage of others, greed that they can have so much more than is necessary for any person to live well, greed that they can do what they want without reprisal...

If you want to understand how this could happen in an educated modern country just ask any, if you can find any still alive - maybe that's why they aren't on the news, average German citizen who lived through the 20-30s. Of course now they would be eldery, you best bet would be someone's grandparent or perhaps great grandparent. I was lucky enough to speak with a friends grandmother back in the 80s about what it was like, how they could "not see what was happening" when it was all around them... most of what she told me I really didn't fully understand at the time, what bothers me now is that every time I read or watch the news it seems I hear her words reverbrating in my mind...

Marb

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » January 15, 2006, 7:41 pm

miir wrote:
Stragi wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
Sylvus wrote:Are you sure you didn't blow it on nascar commemorative plates and maybe a home pregnancy test for your cousin?
Nope!! Spent it all going to San Antonio and watching Nebraska pummel Michigan.
I never thought I'd see the day Cartalas owned Sylvus.
I'm just amazed at Cartalas using (and spelling) the word ramifications correctly.

The real Cartalas has been kidnapped by the Bush administration!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 17, 2006, 5:00 pm

This is a grand thread

o/