Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 8:45 PM
358 online now:
Coragyps, halibut, JonF, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Rrhain (6 members, 352 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,365 Year: 23,971/21,208 Month: 1,936/2,468 Week: 29/416 Day: 29/24 Hour: 4/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234567
8
Author Topic:   Senator Al Franken?
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 106 of 119 (703978)
07-31-2013 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by dronestar
07-31-2013 4:30 PM


dronester writes:

Franken HAS BEEN and IS CONTINUING to support the violation of the fourth Amendment.


And you're continuing to be disingenuous. The question we were discussing was whether Franken was trying to destroy the entire Constitution or just taking issue with one part of it. My point was that he can, without compromising his overall "support" of the Constitution.

And I'll repeat that "supporting" a violation is not the same as participating in a violation. Note my example of marijuana. For another example, I support retroactively the killing of Saddam Hussein, though I wouldn't support it proactively and I can't be held responsible for it.

dronester writes:

Rahvin's already rebutted the 2nd part of your argument.


Yes, it's a quirk of American terminology. "Unconstitutionality" has become the only sin.

But I had hoped that semantics wouldn't take over the issue.

dronester writes:

Seems to me he is at least partly responsible for activities that are directed against the constitution.


Seems to me your position is getting a lot softer. Maybe you'll eventually make it under the top.

Edited by ringo, : Speling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by dronestar, posted 07-31-2013 4:30 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Rahvin, posted 07-31-2013 5:18 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 108 by dronestar, posted 08-01-2013 1:13 PM ringo has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 720 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 107 of 119 (703979)
07-31-2013 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by ringo
07-31-2013 5:08 PM


Yes, it's a quirk of American terminology. "Unconstitutionality" has become the only sin.

Sort of. When the Constitution says the right things. The same people who scream the loudest about the Constitution tend to be the people who call the Supreme Court "activist judges" for striking down as unconstitutional a law or practice they had supported.

America is a strange place, where the Constitution is enshrined as somehow sacred and unchangeable (while its authors plainly laid out for the methods by which it may and should be changed, and in fact its most "sacred" tenets are themselves amendments), while those who authoritatively interpret the Constitution as it is written are vilified when things go the wrong way from a given point of view.

We idolize our glorious Founding Fathers and their documents (but only the right ones!) on a level that is frankly baffling.

But I had hoped that semantics wouldn't take over the issue.

Apologies, as my nitpick has helped in this.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.” - Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ringo, posted 07-31-2013 5:08 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1362
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 108 of 119 (704002)
08-01-2013 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by ringo
07-31-2013 5:08 PM


RingO writes:

The question we were discussing was whether Franken was trying to destroy the entire Constitution or just taking issue with one part of it. My point was that he can, without compromising his overall "support" of the Constitution.

Sorry Ringo, I believe you are still wrong.

This is the 14-word oath Franken pledged:

quote:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

I know you said your personal experience with people's oaths and words have been empty (that's sad you are in contact with so many people without integrity!). And I understand that you are desperate to argue that this oath REALLY means Franken can compromise any part or parts of the constitution he later chooses. I heard you, . . . repeatedly. You can repeat it again if you want, but it would simply mean you are continuing to be wrong.

RingO writes:

But I had hoped that semantics wouldn't take over the issue.

Irony . . .

RingO writes:

And I'll repeat that "supporting" a violation is not the same as participating in a violation. Note my example of marijuana. For another example, I support retroactively the killing of Saddam Hussein, though I wouldn't support it proactively and I can't be held responsible for it.

Well, I was using the word "support" to mean "ACTIVE support". My original post should have read that Al Franken ACTIVELY supports the NSA surveillance program against americans . . .

quote:
[Al Franken] Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps in February 2011.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/al_franken.htm

Edited by dronester, : added link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ringo, posted 07-31-2013 5:08 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ringo, posted 08-01-2013 2:14 PM dronestar has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 109 of 119 (704005)
08-01-2013 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by dronestar
08-01-2013 1:13 PM


dronester writes:

I know you said your personal experience with people's oaths and words have been empty (that's sad you are in contact with so many people without integrity!).


I didn't say that. I said that I would rather a person have integrity than pay lip service to an oath - and if he has integrity oaths are irrelevant.

dronester writes:

And I understand that you are desperate to argue that this oath REALLY means Franken can compromise any part or parts of the constitution he later chooses.


You would need to show that "supporting" the Constitution does not permit any possibility of changing the Constitution. You haven't done that.

dronester writes:

My original post should have read that Al Franken ACTIVELY supports the NSA surveillance program against americans . . .

quote:
Al Franken voted YES on extending the highly invasive PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps in February 2011.

Try to think this through.

Franken voted.

Who created the proposition that he voted on? Why is that body not responsible for giving him the choice? If the question itself was illegal, why are his counterparts who voted NO not guilty of collusion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by dronestar, posted 08-01-2013 1:13 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by dronestar, posted 08-02-2013 11:22 AM ringo has responded

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1362
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 110 of 119 (704039)
08-02-2013 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by ringo
08-01-2013 2:14 PM


RingO writes:

I didn't say that. I said that I would rather a person have integrity than pay lip service to an oath - and if he has integrity oaths are irrelevant.

You declared that an oath is an empty formality.

It mostly appeared as a failed attempt to marginalize my damaging oath evidence.

". . . if he has integrity oaths are irrelevant." "IF." So does Franken have integrity or not? It appears not. Do you concur?

RingO writes:

You would need to show that "supporting" the Constitution does not permit any possibility of changing the Constitution. You haven't done that.

Not "changing." Not "criticizing," not "renovating," not "repairing," not "upholstering,' etc. Use the words I am using: "violating or attacking." I am claiming you cannot support the constitution by violating/attacking it. Stop being a slippery eel.

My supporting evidence:

quote:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

While not specifcally showing one must support the WHOLE constitution, it can be universally understood as being supportive of the whole. The spirit of the letter (oath) is understood by most people (except Hitler as we already agreed).

The opposite would quickly show how intelligentlly-bankrupt an idea of taking such oath is in the first place: What ethical person is gonna take such an oath while knowing they can violate up to 99% of the constitution? That is not in the spirit of the oath, that would be ludicrous. C'mon, what is the general rule and what is the ludicrous exception?

On the other hand, you have presented NO evidence to show that taking the oath:

quote:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

. . . allows one to attack the constitution. You haven't shown ANY evidence, just bare assertion and semantic acrobatics.

RingO writes:

Try to think this through.

Franken voted.

Who created the proposition that he voted on? Why is that body not responsible for giving him the choice? If the question itself was illegal, why are his counterparts who voted NO not guilty of collusion?

Yes, I am way ahead of you. I already ackowlegded this by writing this in a previous post:

Drone writes:

Seems to me he is at least partly responsible for activities that are directed against the constitution.

Though you were erroneously attacking me for some type of soft back-pedaling, my statement is an acknowledgement that Franken is not attacking the constitution single-handedly.

Gebbels is not single-handedly responsible for Nazi Germany.

Himmler is not single-handedly responsible for Nazi Germany.

Perhaps, even Hitler himself is not-single handedly responsible for Nazi Germany.

And Franken is not single-handedly responsible for turning america into a police state by actively supporting the violation of the 4th amendment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ringo, posted 08-01-2013 2:14 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ringo, posted 08-02-2013 12:13 PM dronestar has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 111 of 119 (704042)
08-02-2013 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by dronestar
08-02-2013 11:22 AM


dronester writes:

You declared that an oath is an empty formality.


I also declared in Message 96 that, "I would trust a person less, not more, if he did what he did only because of an oath. I'd rather see him act on his convictions, whether I agree with them or not."

dronester writes:

So does Franken have integrity or not?


It is possible to change your position and still have integrity. In fact, it may be necessary to change your position if circumstances change. The ability to admit your mistakes is also a sign of integrity.

dronester writes:

Use the words I am using: "violating or attacking."


No, I will not use those words because they are the wrong words. You have in no way shown that Franken is violating the Constitution.

dronester writes:

On the other hand, you have presented NO evidence to show that taking the oath:

quote:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

. . . allows one to attack the constitution.

You're still equivocating "support" with blind obedience and "attacking" with challenging.

dronester writes:

Seems to me he is at least partly responsible for activities that are directed against the constitution.


Let me walk you through how the system works (short version):

First a bill is written, for example the Patriot Act, and sponsored in both the House and the Senate. Then Representatievs and Senators vote on the bill. If it passes in both chambers it is signed into law by the President.

Can we spot Franken's "crime"?

He voted.

So did most of the other Senators. So did most of the Representatives. Some of them voted the same way he did.

So, how do we distinguish Franken's actions from the standard process? What makes his vote a "crime" and that of the guy next to him not? Where's Waldo?

dronester writes:

And Franken is not single-handedly responsible for turning america into a police state by actively supporting the violation of the 4th amendment.


So, to amend your initial rant, all of the Senators and Representatives who voted the same way as Franken are "treasonous clowns".

Or am I committing a crime by suggesting an amendment?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by dronestar, posted 08-02-2013 11:22 AM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by dronestar, posted 08-02-2013 1:26 PM ringo has responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1800
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 112 of 119 (704045)
08-02-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by dronestar
07-26-2013 3:29 PM


Re: Amash NSA Amendment
Dronster, is there any reason to suspect that passing the Amash NSA Amendment to the Dept. of Defense Budget bill would have torpedoed the whole Budget bill? Maybe Minnesota's DoD contracts were jeopardized too much, along with many others around the country to risk sending them into the red and forcing employee furloughs or layoffs or worse.

It was a close vote, but what would have happened to the bill if it had passed?


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2013 3:29 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by dronestar, posted 08-02-2013 1:32 PM xongsmith has responded

    
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1362
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 113 of 119 (704047)
08-02-2013 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by ringo
08-02-2013 12:13 PM


RingO writes:

It is possible to change your position and still have integrity. In fact, it may be necessary to change your position if circumstances change.

Of course. Now try applying it to this specific case: support against Amash NSA Amendment; violation of the the fourth Amendment; Franken; and violating his oath.

Drone writes:

Use the words I am using: "violating or attacking."

RingO writes:

No, I will not use those words because they are the wrong words.

Translation: I can not argue against your rock-steady argument unless I unilaterally change your words into a strawman I can attack.

RingO writes:

You have in no way shown that Franken is violating the Constitution.

Wow. I spelled out my case pretty well in my opening post Message 69 and Message 87. You are being deliberately concrete-headed.

RingO writes:

Let me walk you through how the system works (short version):

No need, I've seen "I'm Just a Bill" many times.

RingO writes:

So, to amend your initial rant, all of the Senators and Representatives who voted the same way as Franken are "treasonous clowns".

You SEEM genuinely ignorant that american Senators and Representatives are receiving a 10-20% approval rating from the public.

RingO writes:

Or am I committing a crime by suggesting an amendment?

I understand your desperation to change the topic, but in this thread, I am only claiming Franken is violating/attacking the 4th amendment.

Edited by dronester, : added: and Message 87


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ringo, posted 08-02-2013 12:13 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ringo, posted 08-02-2013 1:49 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1362
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 114 of 119 (704049)
08-02-2013 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by xongsmith
08-02-2013 12:52 PM


Re: Amash NSA Amendment
Xong writes:

Dronster, is there any reason to suspect that passing the Amash NSA Amendment to the Dept. of Defense Budget bill would have torpedoed the whole Budget bill?

Hey hey Xong,

(Give me a jeer will ya, why I oughta . . .)

Franken's words and actions have been very clear, he wants to continue spying on americans in a desperate hope to prevent another terrorist attack.

However, if you have evidence that Franken has economic reasons as well, by all means present the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by xongsmith, posted 08-02-2013 12:52 PM xongsmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by xongsmith, posted 08-02-2013 2:37 PM dronestar has not yet responded
 Message 117 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 08-02-2013 5:02 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 115 of 119 (704050)
08-02-2013 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by dronestar
08-02-2013 1:26 PM


dronester writes:

Now try applying it to this specific case: support against Amash NSA Amendment; violation of the the fourth Amendment; Franken; and violating his oath.


You're going to have to be more clear about what you're trying to say.

dronester writes:

Translation: I can not argue against your rock-steady argument unless I unilaterally change your words into a strawman I can attack.


On the contrary, I'm saying that you are equivocating.

dronester writes:

Wow. I spelled out my case pretty well in my opening post Message 69.


Don't be afraid to repeat yourself. While you're at it, answer the simple question: What has Franken done that the other Senators and Representatives who voted with him haven't done?

dronester writes:

You SEEM genuinely ignorant that american Senators and Representatives are receiving a 10-20% approval rating from the public.


How is that relevant? The only "approval rating" that counts is an election. You've already said that you think Americans are voting the wrong way. Your contempt for democracy is noted but none of that makes Franken a criminal.

dronester writes:

... in this thread, I am only claiming Franken is violating/attacking the 4th amendment.


"Only claiming" is the operative phrase there. You haven't done anything to back up that empty claim.

You haven't even shown that Franken wants to change the Constitution. All you've shown is that Franken has done his job, working within the system by the means prescribed by the system.

Please, just tell us how voting on a bill can be equivocated with attacking the Constitution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by dronestar, posted 08-02-2013 1:26 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1800
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 116 of 119 (704051)
08-02-2013 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by dronestar
08-02-2013 1:32 PM


Re: Amash NSA Amendment
Dronster replies:

Franken's words and actions have been very clear, he wants to continue spying on americans in a desperate hope to prevent another terrorist attack.

However, if you have evidence that Franken has economic reasons as well, by all means present the evidence.

I'm not gonna go there myself, but only raise the issue that every bill has it's gives & takes. It is not fair to characterize a yes or no vote merely on the basis of a small piece of it. There is no black and white. Only 50 (or so I've heard lately) shades of grey.

All the best. And kudos for your precocious nick name here!


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by dronestar, posted 08-02-2013 1:32 PM dronestar has not yet responded

    
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member
Posts: 436
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(1)
Message 117 of 119 (704056)
08-02-2013 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by dronestar
08-02-2013 1:32 PM


Re: Amash NSA Amendment
Dronester writes:

Franken's words and actions have been very clear, he wants to continue spying on americans in a desperate hope to prevent another terrorist attack.

Well, from I what I have read the program has thwarted 50+ terrorist attacks, which I consider a good thing. The other question I would ask is what evidence exists that the information gathered from Americans has been used against them by the Government at this time? I simply mean, have there been any instances where the NSA has gathered information not pertaining to terrorist activities and then proceeded to charge a U.S. National with a crime based upon that information?

From what I can find, this information has not been used in this manner to date. Perhaps you could direct me to some actual examples of the NSA spying actually being used against Americans, rather than just a blanket sweep using an algorithm to find possible terrorist links and then having a human operator determine the extent of the connection to terrorist activity. Personally, I knew they were gathering this data from the moment the Patriot Act was signed and I have yet to change any of my text messaging, e-mailing, or any other habits. Why? Well, because I am not the type of individual they are looking for. Oh, the DEA might be, but they have yet to come banging down my door over the hundreds of texts I have sent that would have given them the information they would need to file charges.

Look, I get that you feel the fourth amendment is important, and so do I. However, completely dismantling the NSA data gathering project would be detrimental and would actually cause deaths, while you have a highly speculative, paranoid outlook on its eventual outcome. Why do you chant for the complete dismantling instead of making it more transparent, bringing the court into the public eye, and showing Americans that their data is not being misused? Personally, if a system can save lives we should use it. We should just inform every American of it and exactly how it works.

Also, to think that the fourth amendment would remain as envisioned when it was written in this age of worldwide instant communication is sort of pipe dream and I don't know how you can reconcile it with reality in the technological age. Every country in the world is doing what it can to spy on and gather electronic data. Personally, I am glad my country is doing so as well, at least with the idea of keeping us safe....unless you have that information of it being misused to try a civilian?

Oh, and your statement that Franken is attacking the Constitution is blatantly incorrect. Otherwise, every Senator who has every voted Yes on an Amendment to the Constitution was breaking his or her Oath to support it. Such as making Alcohol illegal was against giving individuals Freedom to choose (And personally, I feel that no booze would attack my pursuit of happiness), but then we had upstart Senators later who did not support that portion of the Constitution and amended it again. You keep bringing the oath up as evidence, but notice the Oath does not state "I will support the Constitution in its exact form, never wanting to amend or adjust it to fit with current times."


The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov

If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-end…the person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson

What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by dronestar, posted 08-02-2013 1:32 PM dronestar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Rahvin, posted 08-02-2013 5:24 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 720 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(2)
Message 118 of 119 (704057)
08-02-2013 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
08-02-2013 5:02 PM


Re: Amash NSA Amendment
Well, from I what I have read the program has thwarted 50+ terrorist attacks, which I consider a good thing.

I've read that claim. I've also read that the number is grossly exaggerated - they included every incident where the program was used, not those that were actually prevented primarily by the program and would not have been prevented without it.

We need a comparison of what we'd see if the program didn't exist. Right now, we can't even get a straight answer on...well, anything.

The other question I would ask is what evidence exists that the information gathered from Americans has been used against them by the Government at this time? I simply mean, have there been any instances where the NSA has gathered information not pertaining to terrorist activities and then proceeded to charge a U.S. National with a crime based upon that information?

1) How would you know, if the proceedings are all secret?
2) This is a dangerous line of thinking. If the infrastructure for unchecked abuse exists, it's not okay simply because nobody has abused it yet. What about the next administration? Or thirty years from now?

From what I can find, this information has not been used in this manner to date. Perhaps you could direct me to some actual examples of the NSA spying actually being used against Americans, rather than just a blanket sweep using an algorithm to find possible terrorist links and then having a human operator determine the extent of the connection to terrorist activity.

We would have no way of obtaining this information whether it actually exists or not. That's part of the problem - we have no way of knowing whether abuses have occurred, or what "checks and balances" are really in place because it's all secret, right down to the rulings of the court. I can understand wanting to keep the specific methods secret, but the legal interpretations? That's one hell of a red flag.

Personally, I knew they were gathering this data from the moment the Patriot Act was signed and I have yet to change any of my text messaging, e-mailing, or any other habits. Why? Well, because I am not the type of individual they are looking for. Oh, the DEA might be, but they have yet to come banging down my door over the hundreds of texts I have sent that would have given them the information they would need to file charges.

The "I have nothing to hide" argument is a rather poor one. Virtually everyone is guilty of some crime or another. What happens if, a few Presidents from now, a corrupt administration dislikes something you say on a message board, and uses the NSA information-sweeps to try to track down every incidental law you've broken?

THis has happened in other countries. It's foolish to think that just because it hasn't happened in America that it can't happen. Especially when we see the infrastructure set up for such abuse.

Look, I get that you feel the fourth amendment is important, and so do I.

Except that your standard for "reasonable search and seizure" is apparently "whatever the Administration thinks is appropriate, as long as I don;t see any evidence of abuse, and I'm not going to actually look anyway. I have nothing to hide, so let them search."

However, completely dismantling the NSA data gathering project would be detrimental and would actually cause deaths, while you have a highly speculative, paranoid outlook on its eventual outcome.

This is an ironic statement, because the claim that dismantling the NSA datamining would "Actually cause deaths" is itself highly speculative.

Why do you chant for the complete dismantling instead of making it more transparent, bringing the court into the public eye, and showing Americans that their data is not being misused? Personally, if a system can save lives we should use it. We should just inform every American of it and exactly how it works.

Why do you think it's hidden? If the American public would approve, why bother making the whole thing secret? After all, you and I both knew that the legal framework was there in the PATRIOT Act; all that was secret were the specifics. What emails are searched; how long data is retained; how many layers of connections to a suspect are tracked; what form of oversight is present.

If Snowden's data is to be believed, the only "justification" needed for an agent with access is to fill out a justification text box that doesn't go to a judge before the query is executed. And the 51% confidence standard for determining "foreignness" is just this side of flipping a coin, which tells me it's not actually a consideration at all.

Also, to think that the fourth amendment would remain as envisioned when it was written in this age of worldwide instant communication is sort of pipe dream and I don't know how you can reconcile it with reality in the technological age. Every country in the world is doing what it can to spy on and gather electronic data. Personally, I am glad my country is doing so as well, at least with the idea of keeping us safe....unless you have that information of it being misused to try a civilian?

So everybody else is doing it, so it's okay? Welcome Big Brother, because anyone who thinks we can have privacy must be some anti-progress Luddite?

I'm looking into improving my cryptography, personally. And I no longer trust SSL, since the NSA has been pressuring various and sundry sites to hand over the private keys rendering it all moot. I don't knowingly break laws, but I don't like the idea of my every digital act being recorded in perpetuity for the government to scrutinize later.

If you value privacy at all then, as our lives move more and more online, you must also support online privacy. If I can have a private face-to-face conversation with my friend, why does the NSA get the right to watch my Skype conversations? If I can speak to as many people as I want untracked in person, then why can the NSA watch who I talk to, and for how long, and at what times, just because I used a telephone or a computer?

And if I disagree with the secret legal interpretations of the FISA courts...how would I ever even know so that I could file a lawsuit, or ever prove that I have standing to sue to change the policy?


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.” - Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings

Nihil supernum


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 08-02-2013 5:02 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3539
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 119 of 119 (818999)
09-04-2017 11:52 PM


Al related plug for KTWH-LP radio
KTWH-LP is a low power station in Two Harbors, MN, that I am heavily involved in.

KTWH carries a show call "The Bookshow", and the Tuesday 09-05-17 guest is Al Franken and his fairly new book "Al Franken - Giant of the Senate".

It's a 25 minute show, and starts at 12:05 pm U.S. central time. To calibrate for other time zones, that is about 14 hours and 15 minutes from this message's post time.

http://ktwh.org/ - Audio button at page top.

http://ktwh.org/player/ - Should get you directly to the audio.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


    
Prev1234567
8
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017