648Views237Replies

Author Options:

Obama won! Answered

Hey guys, Obama won!!!!! : )? : (? You tell me!

50 Replies

user
Pumpkin$ (author)2009-02-16

Today is the day, the largest and most expensive legislation in U.S. history being voted on today. It will pass, there are too many demoncrats to stop it. Less than 1/3 of the $800 BILLION will go to Americans, the rest goes to "infrastructure" earmarks and special interests. The document is over 1,000 pages long! Obama promised to change the way Washington works, he did, this bill is the most corrupt piece of legislation ever proposed. Given the state of our economy, our government shouldn't be spending record amounts of tax payer dollars on programs that do not create jobs or give Americans the tax breaks they need. This bill is an epic waste of money and will cripple our country. My bet is that after the bill fails to stimulate the economy, Obama and his followers will implement more socialist solutions to fix it. Create a disease and then sell the cure, that seems to be his plan. Say good-bye to the free market.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)2008-11-23

Prepare for the most uber-liberal four years of your life. Bye second amendment. Bye-bye morals. Bye-bye money.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Spint2008-11-24

Isn't it great that your Republican overlords have already taken away your money and all your other amendments? And who needs morals when we have realpolitik?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)kelseymh2008-11-24

My Republican "overlords" have not taken away any rights or money and I would love some justification to your statement. Are you saying that Obabma is going to use realpolitik?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
gmoon (author)Spint2008-11-25

Here's an incomplete rundown.

Warrantless wiretaps, without probable cause; The 4th amendment:

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.

No presentation of charges, no representation, no speedy trial; the 6th amendment; Guantanamo Bay (and they are criminal cases, since Congress has not issued a declaration of war. Capturing and detaining persons outside the continental US doesn't excuse the government from due process.)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Waterboarding and other torture activities: The Geneva convention; (Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay) and the 8th amendment (Guantanamo Bay.)

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Not to mention Black ops within other sovereign nations, etc., etc...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
randofo (author)gmoon2008-11-25

And the current government surely has not done the 1st amendment any favors either.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)randofo2008-11-25

I have not noticed any censorship if our current government did not support the first amendment than why is the slander against our current President allowed.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
randofo (author)Spint2008-11-26

Perhaps you are too young to remember a point when we had more free speech. Thanks to current legislation there is now a fine line about what you can say, in what context and where. For instance, try having an intelligent conversation about terrorism near an airport screening area. That alone is grounds for arrest (What of your thoughts are so dangerous? What crime have you committed by expressing yourself?) Openly criticizing public officials is enough to put you on a terror watch list (which are real and presumably still used) and possibly enough to get your phone tapped and finances monitored. Another favorite of mine is the "free speech zones" setup during the visits of the president and other dignitaries. These are carefully controlled zones where you can go to peaceably assemble and freely criticize the president. If peaceful assembly and protest is cordoned off behind plastic barriers, then it is no longer free, but zoned, regulated and controlled by the existing powers. Zoned protest is another clever way the government has taken away constitutional freedoms and limited public dissent (expressing your views outside of these zones is subject to arrest... how far outside? Yet to be determined, I believe). I have a funny story for you. I had a friend that worked at a design firm in midtown Manhattan during the 2004 RNC. Upon walking home to the East Village one sunny summer afternoon, the police saw this peaceful young woman, suspected her of being a protester, arrested her, and illegally held her for three days without charging her. During this time they gave her little food or water and since she is diabetic, she proceeded to have serious complications and needed hospitalization. How can someone in a free country be criminalized for the mere suspicion of expressing peaceful dissent and held for three days without being charged or properly cared for? Such a thing would be unheard of under Clinton, Bush Sr. or even, for that matter, Reagan. (anyhow, case still pending...) Let us not forget poor Star who was almost killed for wearing LEDs on her shirt and then forced to give a public apology for the government's own incompetence simply because the government needed to seem tough on innocent bystanders. This case shows us that it is a dangerous time not just for "terrorists," but also for social deviants, because as far as the government is concerned, they are one in the same. Social deviants didn't have to risk getting shot by going out into the public space just ten years ago. This is another example of fear-fueled totalitarianism slipping into American life. "The patriot act does not violate rights the wiretaps are warranted because the probable cause is there. Possible terrorist activity." Do you know what "ex post facto" means. That is legal speak for "after the fact." In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. This system of wiretapping makes the average citizen guilty until proven innocent. True, when you don't know who "the enemy" is, exactly, there is probable cause to suspect everyone as being the enemy (be vigilant of those suspicious looking people on the subway young man!) But, the problem is, once you suspect everyone as a possible terror suspect and arbitrarily selecting people for surveillance, you are essentially arbitrarily and illegally incriminating a large swath of average law abiding citizens (in hopes of possibly catching one or two bad apples). That is the action of a totalitarian government.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)randofo2008-11-27

The story of your friend while tragic seems more of a local crime that I can't really see how you could blame the Bush Administration for. I have yet to hear about someone getting arrested for criticizing the the President (although I may be uninformed). As I have said searching a house with probable cause is also the presumption of guilt so why don't we illegalize that. Wiretapping is not the best way to go about things but I belive it does help. If after it is no longer neccesary the government is still wiretapping people believe me I would be the first to speak out against the government. Star was the unfortunate victim of the times, I think it's sad that thad had to happen to her but in an airport that's kind of a touchy thing to wear. I know violation of the first amendment but me getting arrested for wearing a shirt that said "I have a bomb!" is also a violation. The purpose of government is to allow freedom while not allowing you to encroach on others freedom. Wearing clothes that could possibly frighten other citizens or cause panic is encroching on their freedom. That's a very touchy subject, but a lot of it has to do with common sense. It also has to do with the difference between people like us who could tell hey thats a circuit board, and the general public who are going to be like "OMG a bomb!" Unfortunatley the media today paints a picture of people wearing things like that has scary which also probably had something to do with that. Or like you said having a conversation about terrorism in an airport I personally would never do that in the first place because I know if I heard people talking about terrorism which could be heard out of context like I walk by and hear "blow up the plane." it would scare me so I would not do that. A violation of the first amendment yes. A violation of my freedom of peace of mind yes. So it's give and take. The "free speech zones" you mention are the first I've heard of that. I'm going to look into it so thank-you for informing me. Zoned protests sound like another protection for the public. That's a touchy one for me though. If the protest has a tendency to get violent then yes please zone it. If they are usualy peaceful then don't. Please reply I enjoyed your argument seriously not being sarcastic.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
randofo (author)Spint2008-12-02

As I have said searching a house with probable cause is also the presumption of guilt so why don't we illegalize that. Wiretapping is not the best way to go about things but I belive it does help. If after it is no longer neccesary the government is still wiretapping people believe me I would be the first to speak out against the government.

Who and how do we make that determination? Terrorism has always existed. In its modern form (and thinking), it dates back to the far left labor movements of the 19th century. Few people foresee the war on terror being as being a battle that can realistically be won (and those people who think we can win it have a very low approval rating). Never ending war and constant surveillance sounds more like Orwell's 1984 than American democracy.

Star was the unfortunate victim of the times, I think it's sad that thad had to happen to her but in an airport that's kind of a touchy thing to wear. I know violation of the first amendment but me getting arrested for wearing a shirt that said "I have a bomb!" is also a violation.

The fundamental difference between those two statements is that Star was not trying to provoke a scare. It was the over-reaction and misunderstanding of the city of Boston that created a scare. Wearing a shirt that says "I have a bomb" is intended to incite panic and is clearly illegal. Wearing LEDs on your shirt is not. I can walk around all day with LEDs on my shirt and not incite panic.

(On a side note, if the shirt was store-bought and more finished looking, no one would think twice, but when it looks handmade, people freak out. It is a testament to Americans fear of handcrafted goods and are reliance on mass production. In spite of the whole "Maker Movement," society as a whole treats this general population with mistrust)

The purpose of government is to allow freedom while not allowing you to encroach on others freedom. Wearing clothes that could possibly frighten other citizens or cause panic is encroching on their freedom. That's a very touchy subject, but a lot of it has to do with common sense.

Telling people what they can or can not wear is encroaching on the freedom of others. If we reduce everything to the mentality of children, we will be a nation of children. Fortunately, we are a nation mostly of adults. Adults should be able to come to terms with the fact that there will be things in life that they won't readily be able to understand. These things aren't necessarily bad or harmful and, as adults, we should think critically before we consider shooting a teenage girl at an airport with blinky lights on her shirt.

Or like you said having a conversation about terrorism in an airport I personally would never do that in the first place because I know if I heard people talking about terrorism which could be heard out of context like I walk by and hear "blow up the plane." it would scare me so I would not do that. A violation of the first amendment yes. A violation of my freedom of peace of mind yes. So it's give and take.

Than you are a willing participant of the theatre of security. Talking about one thing objectively, inciting action upon a thing and taking direct action are all completely different things. Merely discussing something does not mean you are intending to engage in such action, nor does it make you any safer. The likelihood of a terrorist calmly discussing terrorism at a security checkpoint is very slim. To think it is a crime to do so is almost laughable.

Zoned protests are a tool used to keep protesters "in line." It is very easy to claim that a group of protestors has become disorderly and rope them in and cart them off if their politics get too far out of line. I have no examples to back up this scenario, but I am sure I can find some in recent years.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)randofo2008-12-16

I never condoned what they did to star, I'm just saying that those sorts of things could incite panic like the handamde look you mention. It will get better with time,(hopefully) at least I hope so, because I wear my own stuff from time to time and it looks pretty homemade. I'm just saying common sense has to be used.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Spint2008-12-31

They only incite panic in those that have already been set on edge. Any intelligent person could see it could not have been anything harmful. The present admin has made this country less secure than ever before. Inciting fear of those that are innocent and allowing the terrorists nearly free reign.

On a completely different note: the 2600 magazine's Winter of 2008-2009 is out and the first story has this in the early portion of the article:
In the hacker / technical world we have a particular reason to open our eyes. On the technical front, Barack Obama seems to get it, quite a bit more than his predecessors AND opponents. He spoke out in favor of net neutrality years ago and seemed quite familiar with why it was important....This is significant. someone who has an actual grasp and comprehension of technology, along with its risks and essential freedoms, is poised to push policy in a direction that might benefit all of us. We COULD be on the verge of moving in a whole new direction.
Page 4., 3rd paragraph. Emphasis mine.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)Goodhart2009-01-01

. I think a point that randofo and LlamaBoy are missing is that we really don't have much in the way of absolute rights. . The "right" to free speech is tempered by prohibitions on incitement to riot, crying fire in a crowded theatre, slander, &c.; . In order for me to have the privilege of being secure in my property, I give up the "right" to invade your's. . &c;, &c;, ad nauseum . I think the reason randofo sees more of the bad side of the rights/privileges compromise is because he lives in such a high population-density area. Individual rights tend to be abridged more the tighter you pack ppl together. . . I'm not trying to defend the present administration - or any other. It seems like every other President has a God-complex. Yes, there have been serious breaches of individuals' rights, but that has been going on for over 230 years and I feel certain it will continue for another 230+. There will always be panjandrums who think they can trample the right and privileges of other in the name of Freedom. I guess that why we have ppl like randofo around - to keep an eye on the bad apples. . But the sky is not falling and our Constitutional rights are in amazingly good shape (especially considering all the stuff that Bush/Cheney tried to get away with). Not perfect, but they never will be. . . I still say that Star was smart enough to know that her actions were tantamount to crying fire in a crowded theatre. If not, she learned a valuable lesson. I'm a dumb Redneck from rural Arkansas who hasn't been on a 'plane in over 10 years and I know you don't do that kind of crap. . Judging by all the reports I've seen, saying she "was almost killed" is a gross exaggeration.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)NachoMahma2009-01-20

You my friend are a good mediator.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)NachoMahma2009-01-03

. Judging by all the reports I've seen, saying she "was almost killed" is a gross exaggeration.

But that was the Guard's exaggeration, at least in one statement.

I do still think it was less like a pointless yelling fire in a crowded room and more like a demonstration of how far we've goneas opposed to how far we've come

Most demonstrations incur some risk. Wasn't there a recent "problem" with some iblers (or someone we know) in Japan?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)Goodhart2009-01-04

> that was the Guard's exaggeration . Still a gross exaggeration. Nothing I have read would lead me to believe she was in imminent danger of dying. . > more like a demonstration of how far we've gone... . But I have seen no suggestion that it was a demonstration. All I have seen is her claiming that she didn't know it would cause a stir - which I just can't believe.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)NachoMahma2009-01-04

*shrug* whatever :-) I just know that the one statement the guard made shows that they over-reacted to a situation... the one that said she could have been killed had she not co-operated fully. And then later, when she is charged, one of those charges includes not being fully co-operative. It is almost like a scene out of Conspiracy Theory.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)Goodhart2009-01-04

. OK. We'll just have to agree to disagree. . PS: I'm not trying to say that Star is dumb (quite the contrary, her CV is very impressive) or a bad person. I don't think she meant any harm - from what I can tell, she just wanted to cause a stir and succeeded beyond her wildest dreams.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)NachoMahma2009-01-05

from what I can tell, she just wanted to cause a stir and succeeded beyond her wildest dreams.

Actually :-) I believe in a sense, that statement I quote from your last post is what we DO agree on mostly. That is pretty much what I meant when I wrote that she wanted to see (maybe demonstrate was too strong a word) how far we'd gone with the new airport terrorism/antiterrorism controls. And it went further then desired. Kind of like defying the old law about certain persons sitting in the back of a bus....
;-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)Goodhart2009-01-05

. If it was an act of civil disobedience, then the situation is even worse. If that is the case, she doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up, say that's why she did it, and take her punishment as a good "martyr" should; as the ppl that moved to the front of the bus did. . But that doesn't appear to be the case. Last I read, she said she did it to show off her project . I'm inclined to take her word for it unless shown different. I think she made a very poor decision, not that she's a liar. ;) . The fact that she made a mistake isn't the point - she's only human and we human are notorious for screwing up every now and then. It's the fact that she still doesn't seem to think that what she did was pretty dumb. And claims of being almost killed are, well, pretty outrageous (although I don't recall her ever making that claim, only her defenders). . If this had been an act of CD I'd still think it was a dumb stunt (if for no other reason than venue selection), but I could respect her for having the courage of her convictions. But that doesn't appear to be the case.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)NachoMahma2009-01-05

(although I don't recall her ever making that claim, only her defenders).

And the guard.... ;-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Goodhart2009-01-05

Anyway, I think there was a lot of too much on both sides. I can't make a judgment on what she was thinking.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)gmoon2008-11-25

Let me first say that you are the first Democrat (you are right?) to ever lay or try to lay out a sensible agument in return to one of my statements so thank you. Wiretaps being warranted is a very debatable subject you may say that they are unwarranted while I say that it is perfectly legal to wiretap a possible terrorist if they are not doing something wrong than they have nothing to hide, and you are going to say ok Big Brother. But desperate times call for desperate measures. Guantanamo Bay is a U.S. territory and therefore is not subject to constitutional law.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
gmoon (author)Spint2008-11-26

But desperate times call for desperate measures.

Just how desperate are the times? More desperate than WWII, Vietnam or Korea? Have you, as an American, suffered to the extent your parents and grandparents did then? Did the government see fit to officially gut the constitution then?

Oh, and the I have nothing to hide argument is nonsense. That allows the government to act under presumption of guilt, not innocence. The intent of the fourth amendment is clear.

Guantanamo Bay is a U.S. territory and therefore is not subject to constitutional law.

That's a specious argument. If you're allowing the government to make a "judgment call" about who is granted constitutional protections based merely on where they are incarcerated, that very scary indeed. I thought you guys were afraid of federal abuse of power?

It's been widely assumed in legal circles that the Bush administration intended that the detainees in GB would never go to trial, and would be imprisoned indefinitely. From a purely political sense, that's so incredibly foolish. What's happening with the change of administration is completely predicable (shutting down Guantanamo Bay, with all the associated national and international shame.) So what to do now with those detainees at GB who really are a danger?

No one really believes that the US government always grants detainees the rights they deserve in "wartime." The difference between previous administrations abuses and the Bush administration is they tried to make the abuses legal.

You should hear what actions the Bush administration really wanted to undertake post-911, but luckily were dissuaded by the Senate foreign relations committee...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)gmoon2008-11-27

Well then we should ban searching peoples houses or property for good then. Because probable cause is always based on the presumption of guilt. War always calls for prisoners of war, every country does it, it is just that the American law has almost banished our POW abilities, I am against the over use of Federal power if it is not in any way called for, but I personaly from my own view points justify it. Just as you do not justify it according to your views.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)Spint2008-11-28

. Probable cause is just that. It is not based on the presumption of guilt - evidence has to be presented indicating that a search is warranted.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)NachoMahma2008-12-01

I was comparing wiretapping to searh and seizure of property. Both are based on probable cause so if one is on the presumption of guilt then they both are on the presumption of guilt.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Spint2008-12-01

Neither one is based on a "presumption of guilt." There is no such legal concept under U.S. law. Period. There is a presumption of guilt under French (Roman) law, but this is not France or a French-historical country (such as Quebec).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)NachoMahma2008-11-28

every country does it

There's an argument that every parent has heard (but he does it !!!....well, if everyone else jumped off a bridge would you?LOL).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)Goodhart2008-12-01

Could of probably used a better choice of words, I was tired and irratable lol. Anyway has anyone noticed the huge abundance of Democrats and the small percentage of Republicans on this site. Or do the Republicans just not voice themselves.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Spint2008-12-01

I don't know....I am neither really....I have to go along with Will Rogers....I'm a Bull Moose ;-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Spint2008-11-28

You really do have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Probable cause is not based on "the presumption of guilt." It is based on "sufficient evidence" that might eventually warrant taking a case to trial. In that trial, as in all preceding discussion, there is the presumption of innocence. The state must prove (not just presume, as your Republican buddies might wish it) guilt.

The political prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay are not POWs. They are not being accorded the rights of POWs under international laws to which the U.S. has (intelligently, since our troops might become such prisoners themselves) agreed,

The political prisoners are just that, prisoners, being held by U.S. authorities on U.S. soil, and should obviously be accorded exactly the same rights (no more, and no less) than any other prisoners being held by U.S. authorities on U.S. soil. Thankfully, that is the position which the U.S. Supreme Court has taken.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)kelseymh2008-12-01

My argument said that if wiretapping someones house is on the presumption of guilt then so is "probable cause" to search someones house. Both are based on "sufficient evidence" did you even read my entire statement. And insulting my knowledge on the subject is simply insulting and a gesture that I would not return. It's not on U.S. soil it's on a U.S. territory same rules do not apply. Guantanomo is simply a loophole to allow torture on suspects and terrorists. Which is neccesary in certain instances. It also stops dangerous criminals from getting out with a huge bail.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Spint2008-12-01

I'm not "insulting" your knowledge. You are using specific technical terms incorrectly. Either you are unaware ( ignorant) of the correct definitions of those terms ("warrant," "probable cause"), or you are deliberately misusing them as a disingenuous rhetorical tactic.

I chose to assume that you simply didn't know what the terms meant, rather than ascribing malice. If I was wrong about that, I apologize, but now we know you're being deliberately misleading.

Now, on to you your actual incorrect statements above. Wiretapping a person's house is based on "probable cause" which is not the same as a presumption of guilt. "Probable cause" means that the State has collected sufficient evidence to convince a judge that further investigation is reasonable (warranted). It can also mean that the State has enough evidence to take a case to trial. That does not mean the person is guilty -- any refutation they may have of the State's evidence does not matter when evaluating "probable cause."

U.S. laws apply everywhere in the U.S., states, territories, possessions, commonwealths, and sovereign facilities (such as the Guantanamo Bay military base, embassies, and so on). The Bill of Rights doesn't have loopholes (at least not in the country that was founded 225 years ago).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
threecheersfornick (author)Spint2008-11-28

ARG. The "I've got nothing to hide" argument. I hate it.

To quote Little Brother,

"There's something really liberating about having some corner of your life that's yours, that no one gets to see except you. It's a little like nudity or taking a dump. Everyone gets naked every once in a while. Everyone has to squat on the toilet. There's nothing shameful, deviant or weird about either of them. But what if I decreed that from now on, every time you went to evacuate some solid waste, you'd have to do it in a glass room perched in the middle of Times Square, and you'd be buck naked?

Even if you've got nothing wrong or weird with your body -- and how many of us can say that? -- you'd have to be pretty strange to like that idea. Most of us would run screaming. Most of us would hold it in until we exploded.

It's not about doing something shameful. It's about doing something private. It's about your life belonging to you."

Also: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Spint2008-11-24

Your Republican overlords just took away $700 billion of your money, not to mention turning the largest budget surplus in the 20th Century into the largest budget deficit in the 21st (so far). Have you ever read the text, or even a summary, of the so-called Patriot Act? How about warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens? How about the "protections" extended to the (poor, suffering) media industries at your expense? And as for realpolitik, consider ~~the d~~Dick Cheney's policies vis a vis his corporate interests in "protecting" Iraq. Aren't "protection rackets" one of those things covered by RICO?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)kelseymh2008-11-25

War costs money I am in support of taxes being used to free an oppressed people but not to be used to bail out faulty companies. The patriot act does not violate rights the wiretaps are warranted because the probable cause is there. Possible terrorist activity. What "protections" as I have just said if the government were violating the First Amendment then why would they allow the media to speak poorly about the President? I have no idea how Dick Cheney's corporate interests relate to realpolitik. Please elaborate on that, it's not that I dont want to answer you, it's just I have no idea what your arguments point is.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Spint2008-11-26

You wrote, "The patriot act does not violate rights the wiretaps are warranted because the probable cause is there. Possible terrorist activity."

You are obviously ignorant of basic U.S. legal terminology.

1) A "warrant" is a written order, signed by a judge, authorizing the government (usually law enforcement, but not necessarily) to take specific action to "violate" a specified individual rights -- for example, to search their person or premises (which includes telephone conversations), or to seize their person or materials. To take such action without a warrant (i.e., "warrantless") is in violation of the 4th Amendment.

2) "Probable cause" is the requirement that the government already have in hand specific, detailed evidence, which they can present to a judge, in order to convince that judge to issue a warrant (see (1) above). Probable cause is requred to be legally obtained evidence, against a specific individual, for a specific illegal act. If a robbery victim says her attacker was "a black man," police DO NOT HAVE probable cause to stop and search every African-American in the neighborhood. If a terrorist attack was performed by a Muslim extremist, then the goverment DOES NOT HAVE probable cause to detain or wiretap every Muslim or person of Middle Eastern descent in the U.S.

Is that sufficiently clear for you to understand?

I think that Randolfo has provided you with sufficient detailed examples of your Republican buddies' violations of First Amendment rights.

The new Tricky Dick's own company was awarded the primary rebuilding contract for Iraq non-competitively. Given that Iraq did not have either an active nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons program at the time, nor were they actively supporting the Al Qaeda terrorist groups at the time, it is certainly reasonable to question how much of Tricky Dick's enthusiastic support for going to war was driven by his corporate interests.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)kelseymh2008-12-01

Good point, my final statement on this wiretapping argument is I view it as a neccesary evil for now. I am sure the government doesn't go around wiretapping for fun, but you never know. I have answered Randolfo to my satisfaction and have yet to get a reply. I don't agree with the non-competition, but hey if he actually helps over there and stands to make some money good for him. I know I'd like to get a monopoly in a newly developing country.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)kelseymh2008-12-05
user
teaaddict314 (author)Spint2008-12-01

"War costs money I am in support of taxes being used to free an oppressed people" Oh yea because Iraq was about liberating people (cough cough OIL cough cough)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
teaaddict314 (author)Spint2008-12-01

Oh yea because giving money to the poor and disabled is a horrible thing to do... And btw say what you want about Obama, but just look at the republican party's recent history... I dont think the republicans were really working out for you guys anyways...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)teaaddict3142008-12-16

No it's not the most horrible thing to do, but stealing money from people who have it is.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
teaaddict314 (author)Spint2008-12-16

BTW I think that your stance would change a LOT if you were someone that was poor and didn't have any money... Without the lower class the upper class wouldnt have any money anyways, so why let the upper class screw over the lower class when the lower class is often doing a lot of hard and dirty work.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)teaaddict3142008-12-26

BTW I am pretty poor. I have no water heater and a lot of the time no water lol. So I have to take ice cold showers, if I can take showers. But I usually just heat the water on the stove and pour it on myself.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
teaaddict314 (author)Spint2008-12-26

maybe you should put ur money into essentials (such as water) over the internet... And btw no money is being taken from you then, so why are you complaining...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Spint (author)teaaddict3142008-12-26

Our buisness is run over the internet so that's a no. Because I care about morals not just money, and I don't want a president who hangs around with known terrorists.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
threecheersfornick (author)Spint2008-12-27

Hangs around with known terrorists? Who?

Wait, back up, there are known terrorists? Since when?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer