Right: "That which one has a legal or social claim to do or to exact; legal power; authority; as, a sheriff has a right to arrest a criminal."

http://ardictionary.com/Right/6465

Is english not your first language? You play such strange semantic games that are so contrary to the definition of words. And then you actually have the audacity to constantly try to insult people who actually speak english. It just makes you look bad and not them - doesn't help your "argument" at all.


He's been stuck between 4 and 5 percent in the GOP race for some time now. If that's what you call popular. The other candidates ignore him because he is not a factor.

The only thing you would be able to do for a half hour is type him to death. Man are your posts long winded. He would die of boredom reading them. But hey, keep typing, you are entertaining.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

...the more I read of how upset the minute minority of the loony left nut jobs are over this surveillance, the more I am convinced, it is most definitely the right thing to do, your loss is our nations gain.

I guess you are lucky though that this isn't world war II, because you extremist nuts wouldn't have been alive long enough to type your drivel.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Sorry, that definition is incorrect.

A Right, with a capital "R", such as that word is used in the Constitution, has a very specific meaning.

I'm not gonna spell it out for you though, 'cause that'll just give you an opportunity to call me an idiot 'cause you don't understand what I'm saying.

Nope, you're gonna have to get this understanding yourself, if you want it.

And I mean, if you don't want it, keep on going with your non-sensical political models......

But then, expect to be "checked" and "balanced", right?

Bronco, let me float an idea by you, buddy.

In World War II, all the corps, and even Hollywood, came to the aid of the US government.

And, they did that voluntarily, without being coerced.

Why? Because the US government was doing the right thing.

So you know, the very same Hollywood types that all you conservatives are poo-pooing right now, were out there doing everything they could to a) expose Hitler, and b) help win the war.

So, you gotta ask yourself, "what happened"? Why are they not doing that "now"?

Could it be, could it possibly be, 'cause the US government isn't doing the right thing anymore?

You know, I have no doubt whatsoever, that if the US was involved in a just war, every single liberal in the United States would be on your side. Every one. I don't think there'd be an exception.

But this war, is not a war of necessity. It's just not. And we've been all over that space and I'm not gonna argue it again, but it's just not. All it is, is a black hole for US taxpayer dollars.

And therein lies the disgust, on the part of We the People.

Sorry, Bronco. I ain't givin' up my Rights just 'cause your vaunted government is too god(*)(*)(*)(*) incompetent to catch the guy that's trying to light his shoes on fire.

In that case, the problem would be an incompetent government, and not "my Rights".

So like, go get me Osama's head on a platter.

Then come back and talk to me.

Sorry, Bronco - I won't be givin' up my Rights today.

I feel the need to protect myself from people like you, who wanna dictate what my Rights should be.

You're no better than Josef Stalin, or Kim Jong Il, or Saddam Hussein himself, with that crap.

You're just a tyrant, who wants to foist unreasonable and unjust laws upon a population that doesn't buy into them.

Remember that little "consent of the governed" bit? That's important, yes?

And if people like you get power, it seems to me, you're very likely to take that whole concept right off the table.

\No, I'm sorry Bronco, it ain't gonna happen. The People will never stand for it. The only reason that the weasels in Weaselton get away with what they do, is because the people are uninformed. And the internet is changing all that, very rapidly. You know, "this" election cycle, it might a five to ten percent traction rate. The next cycle, it'll probably be like 50% or something. The floating of "ideas" in a "medium" like that, is going to have a dramatic impact on politics in the very near future.

Nah, Bronco - try to think about it this way: today, the guy that's magically creating these new government Powers, our Prez, happens to be a guy you agree with. You know, he wants to wiretap you, you think it's the right thing, you say "rah".

But what happens tomorrow, if Hillary gets elected, and then tries to do the same thing to you, only you don't agree with her? You know, she wants to tax you for her "universal healthcare", and you're like, no freakin' WAY am I gonna pay for Joe Blow's prostate cancer operation......

And then your government says, "Sorry, Bud, we have the Right to tax you for this purpose, and you're gonna pay, and if you don't pay we're gonna throw you in jail"?

Are you gonna be a happy camper then?

Um.... if you're a doctor, and someone who's sick comes to you for help, how are you gonna treat that person?

Well, if someone comes to you with a lot of open sores, you're not gonna put a band-aid on every one, right?

That would be "treating the symptoms, and not the cause", yes?

Nah - what you're gonna do, is start giving the guy antibiotics, right?

So, you know, if you're looking to "results", and you're saying, "those are bad results, we didn't want that", then it seems to me, you don't go around trying to put a band-aid on the "results", or sweep them under the carpet and pretend like they don't exist.

Nah - you don't "ignore" the open sores. What you do, is treat them correctly. Use the antibiotics - the "systemic" approach - right?

But right now, Bushie is running around trying to put band-aids on open sores.

And this would be a perfect example.

Hey Billy, I had three simple questions for you back at the end of page 3. I was hoping you could answer them.

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

Who in this thread (or really anywhere else for that matter) is saying that terrorists shouldn't be monitored? The point we are making is that they should be watched within the constraints of the law.

This is an awfully short and off-hand dismissal of warrants, a very basic check against government intrusion. To just casually toss that out as an explanation is evidence that you aren't taking this issue as seriously as it needs to be.

First problem you stated: the time involved. In extenuating circumstances a warrant can be gotten after surveillance has begun. Seriously. If for whatever reason you absolutely have to begin wiretapping before a court order can be granted, then you have up to 3 days after in which to do it. More than enough time. How is this not sufficient?

Second issue brought up: the scale of the surveillance. What you are trying to say is that the government is trying to tap so many many Americans, that they simply can't keep up with it. That doesn't seem ridiculous to you? How many terrorists are in this country? How many new ones are being wiretapped each day? There would have to be such an utterly colossal amount for this argument to make sense that the country would either have been destroyed three times over by now, or we would be locking up people day in and out.

If there is a large demand of warrants (which I image there might be, but not unmanageably so) then why not increase the scale of FISC? Surely its not too much to ask that a few more lawyers or judges be set on this task before we remove the right to a warrant?


A simple sentence about the scale and time constraints of obtaining warrants is not sufficient to convince me of that. Is our government so horribly incompetent that writing up a simple document laying out reasonable suspicion and the boundaries of the surveillance and presenting it to a judge is too much to ask for?

Who does? You are advocating trying to change a long standing and very crucial part of the Bill of Rights. The burden of proof is on your side to show why such a basic right is not needed anymore. So far your smarmy bulldozing of the facts haven't come close to that.


Who said anything about only my opinion in this matter?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020600931.html
http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...readid=2715507

I was also pleased that when I spoke with Obama, he definitely agreed with me on this one.

A "loophole?" We're talking about American's fundamental rights to an expectation of privacy from government intrusion, and you're worried about loopholes. If the telecoms and the NSA have a rock solid case here, they shouldn't be stressed about taken to court. Either you are allowed to operate wiretaps on citizens without warrants, or you are not. What hypothetical loopholes are you worried about?


I don't think a Harvard Law degree would convince you, frankly.


Because it seems that much of Congress is in cahoots with the Executive branch, and rubber stamps anything set before them. If you think that Congress is really putting the Administration under serious scrutiny, you must be reading different news than I am



Also, feel free to answer the questions posed to Billy, too.

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

Prove it. Dont respond.

Actions seak louder than words.


Semantics.


Neither do you apparently, since you referred to a "right" to privacy. You have a right to due process. But you do not have a right to privacy.

I was going to say something else, but Glitch beat me to it:

Heh. Owned.


Source please. Glitch provided his.


Mostly because "spell it out" in the context means "pulling it out of my aѕs".

It is yet another example in an endless stream of examples on here of liberals projecting opinions as if they are objective facts.



You forgot to put "popular" in quotes. Do you have any poll numbers for him?


...from the kooky fringe....


The only way to protect yourself reliably is to surrender your citizenship and move to another country. In a democracy the majority gets to decide what "rights" are.


Who gets to decide if they are unreasoanble or unjust?


Heh heh..."if"?

You do know that the domestic surveillance program is already underway, right? You do know we're already in Iraq, right?


They seem to be standing for it pretty well so far. The People have had several chances to elect representatives to end this program, and yet have refused to do so.


How did you determine that? Projecting your opinion as fact again?

When did you become the official interpreter for the American People?


You sound like the white supreamists claiming there will be a race was "any day now".

But it's been "any day now" for several decades. I think your prediction will have similar results.



We will never disagree that she has the right to do it for reasons of national defense. That opinion is not going to change for me, and I am guessing the same thing is true of Bronco as well.


Thats a completely separate issue. It is possible to be in favor of domestic surveillance and yet still oppose excessive taxes. The two issues are not the same.


Whether I am or not is irrelevant, since my feelings about domestic surveillance programs will not change either way.

You are proceeding on the false assumption (in that example) that allowing broader domestic surveillance powers will result in broader taxation powers as well. That is retarded.


You did. read your original post on page 4. Underlined above for your clarification.


The present situation is sufficiently dire that those checks need to be bypassed. This is the equivilent of a wartime situation. That is why it is referred to as the "war on terror".


Not for millions of people at once.


Becuase of the volume of people being "tapped".

I put "tapped" in quotes because the vast majority of them are not being directly monitored. Their calls are simply being scanned electronically for certain words or phrases. Only a tiny minority of them are actually being listened to by the government.

I dont consider a computer scanning my calls to be "tapping". There is no privacy issue if the only other party listening to my call is a computer.


Nope. See above.


If we knew that, the tapping wouldnt be necessary. and none of this would be an issue.


That may have already been proposed for all I know. I never claimed to be an expert on this subject. My opinions are based on the data I have so far.

There may be time issues involved with that as well. The current program may simply be a stopgap until a permanent solution (such as the one you suggested) can be implemented.


Probably, yeah.

We cant afford delays that bureaucracy and loopholes and mistakes might create.


The Judicial branch. And beyond them, Congress.


There is precedent for it. I am not just pulling it out of my aѕs.

And technically it comes down to interpretation of existing law, not changing existing law.


Apparently our proof is sufficient. Thats why Congress has not moved to change the laws, and why Bush has not been convicted of anything.



One of the many reasons I will never vote for him. He is very intelligent, articulate, and informed. But his policies are batѕhit crazy and dangerous. This issue is not the main reason I will never vote for him, but it is definitely in the top 5.


National defense supersedes your right to privacy.



Not on an anonymous forum it wouldnt.


The fact that Congress may not WANT to override the President does not mean they dont have the POWER to override the President. So whatever you quoted does not, in fact, alter the accuracy of my initial statement.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page