  MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon FiOS
Host:
W.O.W.
FairPoint
World of Warcraft
Site Tools
Verizon Wireless
| It's only illegal if you're caught You only have a case if you can provide evidence.
Since you can't provide evidence and it's considered secret, no one is talking.
Continue on, citizen.
--
"If something about the human body disgusts you, complain to the manufacturer" - Lenny Bruce
What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon. | |
|
 | Gami00
join:2010-03-11
Mississauga, ON | Re: It's only illegal if you're caught Wouldn't it be easier if your Government/Prez just declared Martial Law. That way he doesn't have to bother with you people and all your whining about rights/constitution/privacy...
it would be a much more simpler America !!
it'll be like that movie V, except from the "leader's PoV" instead of the people/rebels. | |
|
| |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: It's only illegal if you're caught said by Gami00:Wouldn't it be easier if your Government/Prez just declared Martial Law... As the saying goes, if you put a frog in a boiling pot of water, he'll immediately try to jump out. But if you put him in cold water and slowly heat it until it boils, he'll remain until he cooks himself to death.
Declaring martial law would be like dropping the country in boiling water. There is no way that it would succeed. However since at least 9/11 and perhaps before, the temperature has slowly been rising under the guise of protecting the children. Or fighting the terrorists. Or Iranians. Or whatever the boogyman of the day is. | |
|
| | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: It's only illegal if you're caught said by cdru:said by Gami00:Wouldn't it be easier if your Government/Prez just declared Martial Law... As the saying goes, if you put a frog in a boiling pot of water, he'll immediately try to jump out. But if you put him in cold water and slowly heat it until it boils, he'll remain until he cooks himself to death. You should choose a different analogy. This one is false:
»www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp
--
I will be perfectly happy if the budget cuts specified in the Budget Control Act go into effect. 3 cheers for the sequester. Take the money from the drunken federal spenders. | |
|
| | | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: It's only illegal if you're caught I'm well aware of that. I can also cite counter examples that show the opposite. Your proof specifically mentions heating the water 2 degrees F per minute. Other examples where the frog did indeed die the water was heated an order of magnitude slower.
Regardless, I never said "As the scientific fact", I said "As the saying goes". "An apple a day keeps the doctor away", "the pen is mightier than the sword", and "a watched pot never boils" all are scientifically false proverbial sayings, yet they illustrate an underlying general truth or lesson. | |
|
| | | | | | I think you missed the point. Here is a line taken from your link: ...the "boiled frog" anecdote serves its purpose whether or not it's based upon something that is literally true.
| |
|
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Reminds of this, but apparently, it will be even worse. :/ | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| The republicans practically are attempting this sort of thing in a very underhanded way. They're attempting to change voting laws to make it possible for them to win elections even when they dramatically lose. See the scheme they're attempting to implement in Virginia.
Note these schemes are only being implemented in states Republicans control where the laws would help them to shave electoral college votes away from Democratic candidates, not in states where Republicans are solidly in control and expect to win in virtual perpetuity. | |
|
| | | | | Re: It's only illegal if you're caught said by Angrychair:The republicans practically are attempting this sort of thing in a very underhanded way. They're attempting to change voting laws to make it possible for them to win elections even when they dramatically lose. See the scheme they're attempting to implement in Virginia. This is really off topic of warrantless wire tapping, but Pot meet kettle. This door swings both ways so have a look here: »articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-1···district
"At that time, and with the benefit of popular incumbent Republican moderates Bob Ehrlich and Connie Morella, the Republicans held a surprising four of the state's eight seats. In a decidedly "blue" state, Democrats were frustrated by the evenly split delegation."
Basically if you are a republican in MD, don't bother voting because from the electoral college on down, it won't matter for anything because of how far Democrats have shifted this state in their favor. Not to mention the Washington Post releasing a "poll" that says 80% of MD residents are in favor of fingerprinting just to own a firearm and the last two questions of this poll show that 80% of the respondents don't own a firearm to begin with and are 40% democratic (20% were republican and the rest were independent).
If we required finger printing, photo ID and annual renewal charges for the right to Vote, how many people in MD would be OK with that? None since most illegals vote democrat and mandating a voter ID law would pretty much mean their voting base would be decimated.
--
"My weakness is that I care too much" | |
|
| | | | | | Re: It's only illegal if you're caught Wow, that's quite a bit of ignorance and venom for only 206 words. | |
|
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | said by Angrychair:None since most illegals vote democrat and mandating a voter ID law would pretty much mean their voting base would be decimated.
Illegals don't vote.
It's right up there with the "Everyone on Welfare votes Democrat."
Well, this is Oklahoma, as Red as it gets, and 25% on the population receive direct Government assistance of some kind or another, and that's not counting the people claiming EIC and other handouts.
The reality is, that many types of people believe in "Sticking it to the Gub'mint" and that most people on welfare don't vote at all.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | | | | Re: It's only illegal if you're caught Most people (period) don't vote. What's the point? The Party gives you a choice of candidate A or candidate B, both of which are only interested in making themselves and their "friends" richer, and screwing you.
--
"when the people have suffered many abuses under the control of a totalitarian leader, they not only have the right but the duty to overthrow that government." - The U.S. Declaration of Independence | |
|
| | | With the advent of domestic terrorism, it's a disgusting but necessary evil. The founding fathers would be pissed at both sides for sure. | |
|
| | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: It's only illegal if you're caught Ummm, you are ignoring the possibility of domestic terrorism being caused by such totalitarian methods; much like our foreign policy is a source of international terrorism.
Necessary evil? Funny, I am sure that's exactly what the terrorists think too. I find it strange that so much of the behavior we used to criticize Communist Russia for (that would NEVER happen in a free country!) is now commonplace in the US.
Not only is this NOT necessary, it should not be accepted or tolerated. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: It's only illegal if you're caught I'm not for domestic espionage any more than I am for Bloomie's dumbass large-sized soft drink ban, and it is instrusive. But the enemy does tend to camouflage itself to appear just like me and you. The digital age has made it easier.
I think my biggest gripe is that they're likely not monitoring the ones who need to be. | |
|
| | | | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: It's only illegal if you're caught said by Network Guy:I'm not for domestic espionage any more than I am for Bloomie's dumbass large-sized soft drink ban, and it is instrusive. But the enemy does tend to camouflage itself to appear just like me and you. The digital age has made it easier. Yeah, we have to lock up those stinking Jap spies! I mean we need to ferret out those damn commies! Wait, who are we spying now? | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: It's only illegal if you're caught We should be spying on the likes of Adam Lanza. We should stop being reactive... ie: stupid tighter gun controls that accomplish more harm than good because people are upset about a psycho with a gun... and become more preventive. | |
|
| | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: It's only illegal if you're caught said by Network Guy:We should be spying on the likes of Adam Lanza. We should stop being reactive... ie: stupid tighter gun controls that accomplish more harm than good because people are upset about a psycho with a gun... and become more preventive.
I don't think Lanza would have been helped by a surveillance state. The clues were already there, it was obvious that he had social problems. Do you think he was talking to people about his upcoming spree on his cellphone? Even if he was (and was caught) the system is for prosecution, not for psychological intervention. The system isn't used proactively at all, as a matter of fact, they simply go the database to obtain evidence to use against someone for whatever crime they are being charged with. | |
|
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: It's only illegal if you're caught Therein lies one of the problems. The judicial system has become more focused on warehousing accused criminals by the bulk, however petty the offense may be or if at all, than it is about addressing problems with real solutions.
It doesn't help at all that the NYPD seems to continually put badges on morons to supposedly keep the streets safe. | |
|
| | | | So, when an elected officials swears to the oath, what exactly is he defending? Seems to me that the government could care less about the constitution except when they deem it necessary to protect their position. | |
|
| | | MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1 | Re: It's only illegal if you're caught Tada! | |
|
| | |
1 edit | 
U.S. Constitution |
Osama WON. He destroyed AmeriCa. | |
|
| | | | said by Network Guy:With the advent of domestic terrorism...
One man's domestic terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I wonder if America's founding fathers would be labeled domestic terrorists if they existed in today's world. I guess it all depends on ones point of view. One thing that isn't debatable is the trampling of our Constitution (and thus the rights and protections we citizen's are afforded by it) by this ruling. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Everything is just fine.
Now please return to your homes and spend money like good little consumers. | |
|
| | | | Re: It's only illegal if you're caught ^Is that moss growing on his shirt??? | |
|
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: It's only illegal if you're caught said by TheHelpful1:^Is that moss growing on his shirt???
LOL, you mean the microphones? 
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | The terrorists won, It is that simple. I mean think about it, They do the worst act in US history and then the country slowly works towards lockdown in the name of stopping the evil evil terrorists.
The justice department of course has the perfect trifecta of keywords. Stopping terrorism, protect the children, end online piracy.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | Sounds about right I am not sure we can actually sum up the governmental screwing we are getting any better than what was stated in the last sentence.
In short, you can't sue about being wiretapped because you can't prove you were wiretapped -- because the government is hiding all wiretapping information from you. Clearly this was a political decision that had nothing to do with the constitution or the "we the people". | |
|
| | | Re: Sounds about right The people get the government they deserve. I'm not sure about the Court's legal logic, but almost 120 million Americans support the Wiretapping Party, and who are 9 justices to disagree? Bush and Obama should have been impeached and imprisoned...Americans instead re-elected them. | |
|
| | | | Re: Sounds about right said by Wilsdom:The people get the government they deserve...
Secretary of State John Kerry "In America you have a right to be stupid - if you want to be" | |
|
| | The point? I suppose I'm not sure what the point of the whole thing is. The NSA is listening, and I think most of us agree that we don't like the government listening. But they're doing NOTHING with all the information... that's the crux of this decision: no one has been impacted. What's the point of a lawsuit where no one was harmed? What's the point of spending billions of dollars to collect information that will never be used? What's the point of all this trouble? | |
|
| | | Re: The point? What about the FBI agents who misused info?
I have a problem with so much information (i.e. power) being secretly obtained. Human nature makes this a big problem. Waaay too tempting (after all, no oversight) to just misuse it a bit.
That is what I object to.
The national safety bit doesn't bother me so much (I want them to catch the bad guys), but they must not do it at the expense of constitutional freedom. This is the major objective to domestic spying.
Benjamin Franklin said (at least we think he did): "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." | |
|
| LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by mdlund0:I suppose I'm not sure what the point of the whole thing is. The NSA is listening, and I think most of us agree that we don't like the government listening. But they're doing NOTHING with all the information... that's the crux of this decision: no one has been impacted. What's the point of a lawsuit where no one was harmed? What's the point of spending billions of dollars to collect information that will never be used? What's the point of all this trouble?
It is used - to catch and kill terrorists overseas before they can get here.
--
I will be perfectly happy if the budget cuts specified in the Budget Control Act go into effect. 3 cheers for the sequester. Take the money from the drunken federal spenders. | |
|
| | | The oint is you don't know what they are doing wiht YOUR information, They won't tell you,your lawyer or Congress what they are doing and now have made warrant-less wiretapping LEGAL even when they got caught breaking the law. The Supreme Court (Worthless tits) sided with the Executive and legislative branches and declared everything hunky dory and piss on the American public.
They have harassed and intimidated those who actually knew something to the point the whistle-blowers are gutted. Welcome to the new Reich | |
|
easoninRock Ridge, FL
join:2008-07-08 | AMERICA! F**K YEAH!
Lick them boots subject!
Greatest. Country. Ever. | |
|
| |  Violating the Constitution is not harmful?
Wow, so would they say it's okay for say Texas to declare its independence from the USA because that does not cause harm to anyone? Oh right, it's only the Federal government that can violate the constitution as long as harm is not proved. However, Aaron Schwartz would have a different story to tell. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Violating the Constitution is not harmful? In your opinion it's violating the Constitution. In the opinion of both houses of Congress (bipartisan, approved the FISA act many times) and the President (bipartisan, both Bush and Obama signed the act and its amendments), it's not. And the Supreme Court has let stand several rulings against Constitutional challenges (and the EFF and ACLU have tried every variation of lawsuit they could think of).
And now, this one has been shot down too. It wasn't a Constitutional challenge, it was suing for damages.
When will you admit your opinion is just wrong? | |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Judges... are not going to rule against the spooks. The SCOTUS answers to the government, so how could they rule against the government? The SCOTUS is no longer a fan of the "Constitution", whatever that is. Ruling against the spooks wouldn't even help since the spooks don't care if what they are doing is legal or not. | |
|
| | | Re: Judges... Unfortunately, your last statement in particular is very true.
What would SCOTUS do, send the police after the NSA? That's not their job. The President is supposed to enforce the constitution, and he's a major culprit. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
 ·AT&T Wireless Br..
·Suddenlink
| Re: Judges... Unfortunately, this is a much bigger problem than anyone anticipated.
Allow me to place this in perspective.
All of the pieces are fitting together, at least how I see it.
Everyone is counting on the American citizen to not care, know, or notice that their freedoms are being eroded in the name of 'safety', of fighting terrorism and drugs, etc.
But, this is exactly what the People want, at least those who were emotionally impacted by anything like terrorism or murders, etc.
These people, with their emotions in turmoil, inevitably support any legislation to protect them (and their loved ones) from harm, because they don't want to have to go through that emotional roller-coaster ever again; it would be too painful.
Of course, it isn't just people who were impacted by the bad side of humanity, but also those who are looking towards a better life for themselves.
College kids, people down on their luck, etc., all these people, in the promise of 'free stuff', of not having to work for a living, of having all the creature comforts and a modest living - all of them are lured in, because no one wants to 'look the gift horse in the mouth' - they all have forgotten that nothing in this world is free, everything costs at least something.
The people in Government, in pursuit of the Utopia, desire a world (or at least country) where the fact that it is a dystopian place is hidden from the populace - you know, "Bread and Circuses", right?
A non-dystopian Utopia is simply completely unobtainable.
So, they move, in their positions of power, towards their goals, of creating the Perfect World, despite the fact such a thing is unattainable in the current human nature.
The human condition will not support such a world (or country, etc), because inevitably someone else will have something no one else has - this will lead to the Government confiscating that property, leaving innovation, personal motivation to die off.
Of course, the end scenario is inevitable - with everyone living off the Government in some form, with everyone with equal wealth, there will be no one left working aside from those in other countries.
With no new money coming in, aside from borrowing or some other means aside from taxing people (since no one works anymore), hyperinflation sets in, leaving those living off government money unable to now pay for what they desired and now had.
The Government may become weak, not having anyone willing to fight (because everyone is too busy enjoying their 'free stuff'), leaving the US to be easily conquered by a hostile force. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Judges... If the government really is moving "towards their goals", ruining the country and forcing themselves out of a job doesn't sound very smart. Not that many people would call our political leaders smart. | |
|
| | | | |
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | More likely, the "conservative judges" actually hold "conservative" opinions about what the government is allowed to do. Elections have consequences, and since Bush was re-elected he got to put in the judges he wanted.
I don't believe the judges are controlled by anyone, but they were selected because they hold these types of beliefs. You and I feel that unaccountable government search of our privacy is harmful, the majority of judges don't. | |
|
| | What? The next time a group of planes or god forbid, a small nuclear device is denoted in "downtown", we will be free to discuss the merits of the privacy of our communications. If you are not involve in illegal activities, why worry about privacy? I certainly doesn't care who wants to listen in on my "private" communication since I would be a fool to be discussing anything remotely illegal on the Telephone or any other medium of electronic communications. | |
|
|
1 edit | Re: What?
Tyranny!
The Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment to deal with such tyrants.
9/11 and a LOT of other "events" are an inside job designed to infringe upon our 4th Amendment rights. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·TELUS
| It's not only about illegal activities. It's about listening in on our personal coversations and having the ability to act against a person or group that the Government deems hostile to it's own agenda.
You and I are having a chat about our dislike of the government and we agree to start a movement against it. Next thing you know we're branded traitors. (don't think that's just being paranoid)
The constitution was created to prevent that very scenario but we're letting our Governments take it away with very little fight at all. (Canada is following suit in many ways)
Our childrens' safety and security has a price but not at the price we're facing. Our grandparents fought against this VERY form of society. Now they're gone and here we are all over again. | |
|
| Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by DaveSin:If you are not involve in illegal activities, why worry about privacy? Would you be OK with letting the police search your home any time they wanted? How about giving the police a key so they can come in and go through your stuff while you're not home? Would you allow them to install cameras in your home to watch you 24/7? After all if you're not doing anything illegal, you don't need privacy, right? | |
|
WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5 | You can't prove you were wiretapped? Why can't a subscriber file a lawsuit and in the per-trial discovery process ask for evidence. | |
|
| | | Re: You can't prove you were wiretapped? They will IGNORE anyone or any court, attorney or even Congress. Bottom line you will not be allowed to bring a suit or require the Govt to do anything on this subject unless you are a bigger bad-ass than the Might of the joint armed forces as well as the CIA, FBI and "others" | |
|
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Commentary "The Supreme Court this week followed hard party lines in killing off one of the last few legal challenges to the government's warrantless wiretapping efforts. Those efforts, exposed by whistleblowers at AT&T and at the NSA, involve carriers willfully dumping all private citizen voice and data into the lap of the NSA with little to no respect of privacy or wiretap law at the time."
They are not warrantless. The FISA court issues warrants under the guidelines of the FISA act. Congress reviews the details periodically (in secret).
You have no idea what the NSA is or is not gathering, much less what they are doing with it, under what oversight. Somebody saw some cables, that's all you know.
"After it was found the government (both Bush and Obama administrations) and carriers were breaking the law, the government began the process of making what they did retroactively legal by -- changing the law, attacking whistleblowers and hiding all program details. After the launch of FISA, they've essentially been playing a game of obfuscation patty cake with the press and civil rights groups."
Um, what? What laws were bring broken, exactly? And what exactly was made "retroactively legal"? That is not what happened. You are probably referring to the telco immunity amendment. It had zero to do with lawbreaking, except inasmuch as it specifically excluded illegal activities from the immunity. Rather, it provided a shield against punitive civil suits for this very specific area where the government needed the telcos help, much like the government itself is shielded.
Attacking whistleblowers? When did I miss that one? Unless you're referring to someone who puts a massive dump of classified information in the hands of our enemies as a "whistleblower".
"As many had feared, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision (pdf) this week that argues that citizens can't sue over the warrantless wiretapping program -- because they can't clearly illustrate harm. They're of course unable to show direct harm because the government refuses to be transparent about how it spies on its own civilians, and attacks anyone who tries to change that lack of transparency."
Repeating falsehoods like "warrantless wiretapping" doesn't make them true.
How exactly is the government supposed to be "more transparent" without giving away exactly the information that the people they are trying to catch would love to have? It's classified for a reason. | |
|
 SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1 | *shrugs* Big deal. This is what the sheep want, this is what the sheep get.
Nothing I can do about it. | |
|
|
|
