Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calling a Spade a Spade
Mercurial Times ^ | December 3, 2001 | Aaron Armitage

Posted on 12/03/2001 10:00:13 PM PST by Mercuria

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-198 next last
To: JoeEveryman
Exactly what gizmo do you have that will identify the funding, planning, and institution of a nuclear device in downtown Chicago without eroding any Constitutional Rights????.

Why don't you ask the Feds?

They seem to have a LOT of knowledge. They just don't tell us about it until it's too close...or too late.

Then they come out with cleverly-titled bills-that-become-laws saying that it's worth giving up our freedom to their control for our protection.


In short...to you, are the deaths of millions an acceptable collateral damage of remaining able to continue your "banking in private?" Are you willing to see entire cities disappear from the planet in your country so that your email messages are not recorded by a third party? Can you accept the loss of major Fortune 500 companies within seconds in exchange for someone taking your picture as you enter a football game. Just asking...

Gotta hand it to you...you ask the good tough questions.

The fact that things have even GOTTEN to this point is a source of extreme worry on my part.

I honestly don't believe the Federal Government is sitting around sucking their collective thumb while a lot of rancid activities are going on behind their backs without their knowledge.

We are told if we hold fast to our freedoms, we risk our survival.

We are told if we DON'T compromise on freedoms, we stand a chance to lose our security.

But if we compromise on our freedoms to the degree that some powerful people in the FedGov system wish, we're put on the path of destroying everything this country is supposed to stand for, and this nation, as we know it, will be destroyed anyway.

The answer?

Take steps to make certain we don't get into these situations in the first place.

The Federal Government knows quite a bit more how to avoid situations like this than they claim.

It just helps FedGov gain more power from those not in the know if it pretends that it DOESN'T know how else to avoid such situations besides compromising our freedoms.

Short answer? Quite frankly, I think we're having our heads screwed with.

101 posted on 12/04/2001 8:42:01 PM PST by Mercuria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Henchman
From what he said, you've gathered Mr. Armitage is an anarchist?

Uhhhh...whatever...

102 posted on 12/04/2001 8:45:28 PM PST by Mercuria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
It was a nice try. The comparison of GW and Billyboy is superficial though. You ignore significant differences which, if acknowledged, will pretty much vitiate your thesis.

One element of the critique that is valid is just how flexible and easily bypassed the Fourth Amendment is today, and with the rulings of the SC in the seventies to prove it.

Privacy is a very negotiable item in the law of today, and has been for a long time, notwithstanding the discovery of "rights" and "penumbras" and "emanations" in the Constitution induced by the abortionists. Context is everything anymore.

103 posted on 12/04/2001 8:47:53 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
It IS about cards!! LOL!!

But some people just aren't happy unless they're finding some lame-ass word or phrase or idea or another to apply to themselves personally so they can take offense.

Being a Victim-American is too big of a fad these days!!

104 posted on 12/04/2001 8:49:01 PM PST by Mercuria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Registered
No matter how good of a man President Bush is...you can't argue with the FACT that slimebags of the future will be chomping at the bit to use some of these new acts in a way that you WON'T like!

But by then...it'll be too late...and what will you do to stop them when the Usual Power-Hungry Suspects get out of hand?

105 posted on 12/04/2001 8:52:21 PM PST by Mercuria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Southack
On the one hand you claim that it doesn't matter if only machines are reading internet messages, but then on the other hand you claim to have an issue with machines reading internet messages.

Quote my exact words saying I have an issue with packets of information passing through machines.

106 posted on 12/04/2001 8:53:08 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Say what you mean. Don't dance around begging for me to speak your own words for you.
107 posted on 12/04/2001 8:55:29 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Registered
The actions of an honorable man and the actions of an evil one, though they be similar in nature, will always end at two very different destinations.

And what will happen when the next Bill Clinton assumes office, and he is granted all these unconstitutional powers?

108 posted on 12/04/2001 8:56:05 PM PST by Doctor Doom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Of course. I'd be against ANYTHING the man did. But the premise of your question is grounded in absurdity. BECAUSE CLINTON WAS EVIL. Get it?

Yep. You follow politicians, not principles.

109 posted on 12/04/2001 8:56:38 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: All
Forgive me for interrupting your very important thoughts and profound wisdom, but we are in the midst of the most exciting fundraiser ever on FreeRepublic. I would hate for any of you to miss it!

Come visit us at Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year - Thread 5

and be a part of something that is larger than all of us.

Alone, we are a voice crying in the wilderness. Together we are a force for positive action!

Don't be left out!

Be one who can someday say..................... "I was there when..................."

Thank you to everyone who has already come by and become a part!

110 posted on 12/04/2001 8:57:26 PM PST by 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Say what you mean. Don't dance around begging for me to speak your own words for you.

You made a very specific claim. To wit: "On the one hand you claim that it doesn't matter if only machines are reading internet messages, but then on the other hand you claim to have an issue with machines reading internet messages."

You're refusing to quote where I said that because I didn't say it. You are, in short, a liar.

Packets of information passing through computers is fine, that's how the internet works. A person other than the intended receiver reading it, catching it as it passes over his computer or at any other time, is wrong unless there's a warrant.

You need to admit that your comparision between passing through a computer in the function of the internet and someone reading it is apples and oranges. In other words, that you were wrong. Grant the point, and move on.

111 posted on 12/04/2001 9:02:30 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
Calling a Spade a Spade

Personally, I call a spade a shovel.

112 posted on 12/04/2001 9:07:44 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #113 Removed by Moderator

To: Southack
Hey, I was making the statements half in fun, but as long as you are going to react, I will say this: 1) I witnessed an attorney on TV complaining that the prosecutors won't tell him where his client is and that he is not allowed to speak to him. 2) I have seen no evidence of the government providing us with a list of detainees and the charges. Aside from that, I have no PROOF of anything. In fact, I can't even prove that ANYBODY is being held in jail at all! Can you?

If you are familiar with the list of detainees and their lawyers, please let me know where it is since you obviously have proof.

My statements are made on a political forum and MOST here know what I was referring to without having to pretend that this is a courtroom in an effort to discredit the statement. I don't have a need to be taken seriously. The choir will sing hallelujia and those in 100% denial will remain so. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, as always.

Oh yeah, no I have no idea what a "JAG Culture" is. Feel free to explain it if its important to you.

114 posted on 12/04/2001 9:15:36 PM PST by bluefish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: bluefish; Southack
By the way, I should had that I don't give a flip if the person being held was a foreign national here illegally or on an expired Visa. I don't think our constitutional protections should apply to them because without our permission to be here, they are invaders. IF however we are talking about American CITIZENS, the current "patriot" act sets a very dangerous precedent. If the act distinguished between the two, I would have had no problem with it at all.
115 posted on 12/04/2001 9:21:06 PM PST by bluefish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

Comment #116 Removed by Moderator

To: A.J.Armitage
"Packets of information passing through computers is fine, that's how the internet works. A person other than the intended receiver reading it, catching it as it passes over his computer or at any other time, is wrong unless there's a warrant."

That's basically a contradiction in terms. Every packet of data on the internet is read by software on multiple machines, none of whom will end up being the intended receiver. A router in particular will examine numerous packets, but only pass a few through it. A cable modem will see every packet sent into its local loop, yet it will only pass those with a certain IP on to its owner. Yet you want to claim that the cable-modem is wrong to read messages that don't belong to its owner. That just isn't how the Internet is designed.

"You need to admit that your comparision between passing through a computer in the function of the internet and someone reading it is apples and oranges. In other words, that you were wrong. Grant the point, and move on."

I simply compared various government machines that all ran various software programs, all of which read every packet of data traffic on the internet and pass it on. That looks like apples to apples, not oranges, to me.

Perhaps a simpler technical examples would aid you. Consider packet radio. Packet radio has a satellite transmitter that broadcasts all data traffic (that belongs to its sum total sub group of users). Every packet radio receiver reads every data packet, even though the vast majority of those packets are not destined for its owner. The packets with the owners IP get passed to the owner's computer. NOTE: every packet was read by every machine in that scenario, but the packet radios don't need search warrants to legally read all of those packets, betraying your claim above.

Taking this scenario even further, there is nothing wrong with a user attaching a sniffer (that's a device which reads and displays ALL packets in plain text as they pass through) on the packet radio to diagnose technical problems (even if the user has no warrant).

In fact, the odds are that your average daily land-based internet data traffic will pass through numerous corporate and government machines while a sniffer is attached to diagnose a technical problem (displaying the contents of your data in plain text all the while), yet a warrant is not required for this behavior. That is because such data traffic is generally considered to be just as public on the information super-hiway as is your car on an interstate freeway.

And you don't need new laws to protect your privacy, either. You just need to go to the effort of using encryption. Just as writing a note on a postcard isn't going to give you much privacy, sending open text over the Internet isn't very secure. Likewise, enclosing your message in an envelope (be it encrypted or physical) will provide privacy.

117 posted on 12/04/2001 9:28:17 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
You follow politicians, not principles

You know nothing of the sort. I take offense to that statement. I won't wait around for an apology because I know you're incapable of producing one. Good-bye and good riddance.
118 posted on 12/04/2001 9:30:37 PM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
I am indeed very sorry that you lost loved ones to the actions of the terrorists, and apologize if I seemed insensitive to that, but your primary dialogue with me on this board was to question the veracity of contributors to my site re: their OPINIONS on issues, as well as my "truth in advertising" as it were.

Thank you. Reference your site, this article, and the definition of "patriot" we clearly differ on the meaning and the words of patriots. I am still waiting for the original poster to define what should be done in lieu of the Patriot Act. It is easy to say something is bad and potentially threatening but it isn't necessarily helpful. The heavy lifting is in designing a plan that is effective but without threat. Let's here what he would do differently?

I don't blame Mr. Armitage for being cynical about the implementation of the "Patriot" Act. This idea was lying around for MONTHS (like from January!), with those supporting it just waiting for something like 9/11 to happen so that those who are looking to increase the power (and let's be frank, the possible ABUSE) of Federal Government could play upon the fears of someone exactly in your situation to cram it through without comment from the public, without hindrance from the President...and hell, without even READING it themselves.

I would like to understand clearly what you are saying. Is your contention that concurrent with the swearing in ceremony the Bush Adminstration someone drafted these exact line items currently known as the Patriot Act? Please share with us who drafted it and where you got your data. Please cite it here, I would be interested in reviewing it.

And considering the Feds admitted they knew the 9/11 attack was being planned for quite some time, it's rather tough for me and others NOT to be cynical about This Magic Solution suddenly popping up as The Answer To All Our Problems. "We're from the government and we're here to help you", as the old joke goes.

The logical continuation and connectivity from the paragraph above is with this legislation already drafted, the Feds intentionally allowed the attack to happen so that they could enact the Patriot Act. Is that what you are saying? The other way this can be read is that the Patriot Act is part of a planned strategy to usurp our rights, waiting in the wings for an opportune time to roll it out. Maybe that's what you are saying. A clarification would be appreciated.

I'm POSITIVE if President Clinton signed something like this under such circumstances, the red warning lights would have been flashing like Rudolf's nose on Christmas Eve 'round these parts.

We will have to disagree. I am equally positive that the public support would have been the same. I can not speak for the radical fringe who would have "flashed like Rodolf's nose" in that case anymore than I can for there counterparts who are doing the same thing now. I am sure there are those who would have objected.

As to the current conflict (or war, whatever you want to call it)...I say find the bastards who did this and who assisted them, put them down, and then bring our troops home. No "nation-building" aftermath, if you please.

We agree on this. Though it is in our interest to help them get started, to assure Afghanistan doesn't become Club Med for the terrorists again. After that we need to be gone.

I think we've discovered over the past few years that too many of these people we've assisted in the past usually wind up NOT appreciating it.

And we've got more important things to do at home than set up future, dangerous foreign ingrates into positions of power.

I agree partially with the first part. But that's the stating the obvious, you can get that from TV. The less obvious part, because you have to be there to see it, is many people do appreciate and benefit from our assistance. It may not be evident on the national level, yet, but as individuals many lives are better for the US's efforts. Over time the investments we make in educating citizens of foreign nations will payoff.

I will await your clarification then reply accordingly.

119 posted on 12/04/2001 9:48:31 PM PST by LiberalBassTurds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; Registered
"You follow politicians, not principles."

That begs the question of whether the individual in question makes any difference.

Does it matter if a 5 year old girl is alone in a room with her mom? Does it matter if a 5 year old girl is instead alone in a room with a convicted serial child rapist?

If one states that the 5 year old girl should (or shouldn't) be alone in a room with any adult, then one has opined a position based upon a "principle" (such as that little girls should or shouldn't be alone in a room).

But perhaps trying to lead a life based upon 100% blind adherence to "principles" can lead to unintended consequences...

120 posted on 12/04/2001 10:02:53 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Packets of information passing through computers is fine, that's how the internet works. A person other than the intended receiver reading it, catching it as it passes over his computer or at any other time, is wrong unless there's a warrant."

That's basically a contradiction in terms. Every packet of data on the internet is read by software on multiple machines, none of whom will end up being the intended receiver. A router in particular will examine numerous packets, but only pass a few through it. A cable modem will see every packet sent into its local loop, yet it will only pass those with a certain IP on to its owner. Yet you want to claim that the cable-modem is wrong to read messages that don't belong to its owner. That just isn't how the Internet is designed.

Seeing a difference between humans and computers is a contradiction in terms? LOL

I don't doubt you'll continue to act as if no one had ever thought of such a distinction.

121 posted on 12/04/2001 11:10:48 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Registered
You know nothing of the sort.

What else am I supposed to make of #98?

122 posted on 12/04/2001 11:14:52 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Well, that's not really a good analogy. After all, the mom and the child molester will never change places, but elections do change officeholders. Suppose, however, you were deciding whether or not the little girl should be left alone with the guy who lives next door. Not that one particular person, but the person next door whoever he is (this is to make sure it stays in line with the way our political system works, powers gained by one president being almost always retained for others). Now, say the guy next door right now is a nice guy, but in a short period of time he'll move. You know that the last guy there was a child molester, and there's a very good chance whoever replaces the current resident will be like the last one. What do you do then?
123 posted on 12/04/2001 11:22:40 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Southack
unrepresented without any proof (and be taken seriously)?!

One word to you:
Manzanar

124 posted on 12/05/2001 2:19:25 AM PST by from occupied ga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; Southack; Registered
As a dispassionate outside observer of your debate with Southack, I must say that Southack handed your head to you.

Your smugness does you no good in the process. It makes you appear like an average politician tap-dancing around specific questions rather than answering them.


125 posted on 12/05/2001 3:10:08 AM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria; A.J.Armitage
YEEOOW!! What a perfect return in this tennis match! You ACED it A.J.!! Thanks...and I haven't even read the replies yet!

BTTT

126 posted on 12/05/2001 5:50:53 AM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BillofRights
Ping!You may just like this!
127 posted on 12/05/2001 5:51:37 AM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; Registered
Are you saying Clinton had prinicples? LOL! Registered doesn't "follow politicians" if he is not defending Clinton (like others do). That's obvious.
128 posted on 12/05/2001 6:04:59 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Save this for later. It will come in handy
129 posted on 12/05/2001 7:15:43 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Or maybe this one
130 posted on 12/05/2001 7:17:19 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
Thanks for the ping. I did like that!
131 posted on 12/05/2001 7:54:20 AM PST by BillofRights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"Seeing a difference between humans and computers is a contradiction in terms?"

Probably, but that wasn't what I was trying to convey. I was trying to show that it is a contradiction in philosophy to be OK with some government machines/software reading your specific internet data traffic (as they must do to determine where to correctly route your data packets or to even diagnose technical problems which are unrelated to you or your data), but not OK with other government software/machines reading your internet data traffic (say, with software like Carnivore).

Having a problem with government software examining open, unencrypted data traffic on the information super-hiway is akin to having a problem with police offices watching your car travel a public interstate hiway. You seem to be OK with one but not the other.

132 posted on 12/05/2001 9:53:20 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"You know that the last guy there was a child molester, and there's a very good chance whoever replaces the current resident will be like the last one. What do you do then?"

Precisely. That was my point. It matters which person is in there, not the generic principle that the kid either can or can't be allowed into that place.

133 posted on 12/05/2001 9:56:51 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Southack
I was trying to show that it is a contradiction in philosophy to be OK with some government machines/software reading your specific internet data traffic (as they must do to determine where to correctly route your data packets or to even diagnose technical problems which are unrelated to you or your data), but not OK with other government software/machines reading your internet data traffic (say, with software like Carnivore).

So now you're telling me the purpose of the software doesn't matter. LOL, again.

134 posted on 12/05/2001 10:13:54 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Precisely. That was my point. It matters which person is in there, not the generic principle that the kid either can or can't be allowed into that place.

I've noticed a pattern. You come up with a point you think is clever, and then it has to be painfully spoonfed to you past a wall of non-comprehension why it isn't. And then you ask the other guy why he doesn't admit he was wrong, usually just before the exact point you ought to admit that.

On the above, that's NOT what I said. Now PAY ATTENTION.

What I said was, if you have a choice of letting whoever lives next door be alone with the little girl or not, without regard for who it is, and you know the guy next door is frequently replaced, and the last guy was a child molester, and there's a good chance that the next guy will be too, you decide not to let her be alone with the next door neighbor.

I that know with actual next door neighbors, you can let one be alone with the kids and not the next one. I also know that we don't have the option of letting one president have a particular power, but not the next one. If you let Bush have a particular power, and Hillery gets elected in 2004, she's going to have that power.

You see, in our system power doesn't go to particular persons, it goes to offices. We don't know who the next president will be, but we do know there will be a democrat in there eventually.

Now do you get, or should I use bolded all-caps?

135 posted on 12/05/2001 10:25:41 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Here is a Freep-mail from A.J. to me:

"You're a lunatic."

And just why would I be a lunatic? I'd back off of the name calling, partner.

136 posted on 12/05/2001 10:30:26 AM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
And just why would I be a lunatic?

Because you think being this guy means winning. It doesn't, it mean being jaw-droppingly obtuse.

137 posted on 12/05/2001 10:48:01 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
mean

Means.

138 posted on 12/05/2001 11:09:26 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"What I said was, if you have a choice of letting whoever lives next door be alone with the little girl or not, without regard for who it is, and you know the guy next door is frequently replaced, and the last guy was a child molester, and there's a good chance that the next guy will be too, you decide not to let her be alone with the next door neighbor."

Yes, and I think that's a good example of why your blind adherence to principles over the person is wrongheaded. If Tiger Woods or Mr. Rogers moves in next door, you're going to throw out your former, generic "principled" policy of not letting your child go next door to see your neighbor; the policy that you had in place when your next door neighbor was a convicted child rapist, previously. You see, the person in question really does make a difference.

"I also know that we don't have the option of letting one president have a particular power, but not the next one. "

You mean like letting one President have the line item veto, briefly, but then no other President got it? Or like initiating a prohibition on alcohol during one or two administrations and then repealing that power for other administrations? Or like reigning in Presidential powers with something like the War Powers Act so that other Presidents didn't have the power that one President in particular had?

"Now do you get, or should I use bolded all-caps?"

Goodness, not the bolded CAPS treatment! No, anything but that! Logic, facts, and reason would actually be preferred, if you can find it in you for once.

139 posted on 12/05/2001 11:39:30 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"So now you're telling me the purpose of the software doesn't matter."

Well, that's too generic of a statement for me to really want to get too far into, but no, the purpose of the software doesn't matter in regards to the question of whether or not the data traffic is in the public domain in the first place.

Either sniffers have a right to view your (and everyone else's) coincidental data packets while they are diagnosing technical problems AND other software on other machines have a similar right to examine data packets OR only the intended reciever of the data has the right to read packets (which would shut down the Internet because reading packets is REQUIRED for routing and technical diagnostics).

140 posted on 12/05/2001 11:52:49 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Yes, and I think that's a good example of why your blind adherence to principles over the person is wrongheaded. If Tiger Woods or Mr. Rogers moves in next door, you're going to throw out your former, generic "principled" policy of not letting your child go next door to see your neighbor; the policy that you had in place when your next door neighbor was a convicted child rapist, previously. You see, the person in question really does make a difference.

It does if you can actually choose to let one person have it but not the next one, which is unlike the situation with presidents. You gave counter-examples, but none of them work, as we'll see.

You mean like letting one President have the line item veto, briefly, but then no other President got it?

That was, you might recall, struck down as unConstitutional by the Supreme Court. If it had been held Constitutional, Bush would have it now. Actually, that supports my case, because it was enacted to go into effect in 1997, after the inauguration. The republicans in Congress meant it for Dole, but only the intervention of the Court took it away from Clinton.

Or like initiating a prohibition on alcohol during one or two administrations and then repealing that power for other administrations?

You may or may not know that it took an amendment to repeal prohibition, and that this amendment was passed with the encouragement of the then president, FDR. Prohibition doesn't really fit, however, because it wasn't a discretionary power; the president was required by it to act in a particular way.

Or like reigning in Presidential powers with something like the War Powers Act so that other Presidents didn't have the power that one President in particular had?

It wasn't that one president in particular. Remember, Johnson had used the same powers Nixon had. If you'll look at what they did, it didn't apply just to Richard Nixon. They saw, rightly, that the problem was too much power vested in the president, and took some away. The only problem is, they didn't go far enough.

Maybe we should learn the lesson and limit, not expand, the powers of the president.

Let me ask you a serious question. Do you really think these new powers are going to just go away if a democrat takes office?

Logic, facts, and reason would actually be preferred

If you can avoid confusing sophistry for logic and repeated sophistry for reason, we might get somewhere.

141 posted on 12/05/2001 12:06:16 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; Southack; rdb3
A.J., I am still awaiting your alternative to the Patriot Act, military tribunals, etc. If they are un-Constitutional and potentially repressive then lay out a better way. Anyone can complain, anyone can shout "the sky is falling" anyone can parse words...very few can design comprehensive solutions. Show us you are as smart as you think you are. Some bulleted 30K foot concepts would be a good start. We can dig into the details from there.

In this discussion with Southack you are fairing badly. You don't realize it, nor does this pack of folks that forms this "mutual admiration society" (I haven't quite got my hands around who you all are or what you stand for yet), but you are...very badly. It reminds me of Mullah Omar's declarations throughout this engagement...or the Black Knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail" having no arms and legs left shouting he will be victorious.

I will go back to the theme I started with early in this thread...too subtle perhaps so I will spell it out clearly...I you write these post to make yourself feel good that's fine. If you are trying to get people to see the world differently, to come over to your side, you need to give them facts to chew on. Simply responding back to their logic, which from what I've seen is accurate and excellent, with "quips" and circular logic will not win supporters.

142 posted on 12/05/2001 12:12:05 PM PST by LiberalBassTurds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"It wasn't that one president in particular. Remember, Johnson had used the same powers Nixon had. If you'll look at what they did, it didn't apply just to Richard Nixon. They saw, rightly, that the problem was too much power vested in the president, and took some away. The only problem is, they didn't go far enough."

And yet, power was taken away from future Presidents...

143 posted on 12/05/2001 12:13:27 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Well, that's too generic of a statement for me to really want to get too far into, but no, the purpose of the software doesn't matter in regards to the question of whether or not the data traffic is in the public domain in the first place.

Yes, it does.

You know, even under the "Patriot" Act, they have to get a judge to get permission to read your content. They don't have to show probable cause, but they do need to go to a judge. Would they need that if it were public domain?

Either sniffers have a right to view your (and everyone else's) coincidental data packets while they are diagnosing technical problems AND other software on other machines have a similar right to examine data packets OR only the intended reciever of the data has the right to read packets (which would shut down the Internet because reading packets is REQUIRED for routing and technical diagnostics).

False choice. There are other options, specifically, only the intended HUMAN recipient has a right to read it without a warrant. How hard is that to understand? There's a difference between computers passing it over and even checking for technical problems, and another PERSON reading it. Are you even capable of understanding my point, or are you simply an idiot?

144 posted on 12/05/2001 12:14:18 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"I also know that we don't have the option of letting one president have a particular power, but not the next one."

Flashback...

145 posted on 12/05/2001 12:16:23 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"You know, even under the "Patriot" Act, they have to get a judge to get permission to read your content. They don't have to show probable cause, but they do need to go to a judge. Would they need that if it were public domain?"

Don't be silly. Carnivore was in use for YEARS before the Patriot Act was even put on paper. President Bush and Congress only want the court order because they want to set good precedents for future government behavior. Just with packet radio alone I can conclusively show that both government and private machines have a right to listen in on all data traffic, and that's merely a layman's example.

146 posted on 12/05/2001 12:20:29 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds
A.J., I am still awaiting your alternative to the Patriot Act, military tribunals, etc. If they are un-Constitutional and potentially repressive then lay out a better way.

How about not having them?

Show us you are as smart as you think you are. Some bulleted 30K foot concepts would be a good start. We can dig into the details from there.

I'm not going to write alternative proposals for tyranny.

In this discussion with Southack you are fairing badly.

I just reallized how right you are. The fact that's he's unwilling to even address what I'm saying, instead responding to what he wishes I'd say, means I'm wrong. How could I not see that? How could I be so blind?

It reminds me of Mullah Omar's declarations throughout this engagement...or the Black Knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail" having no arms and legs left shouting he will be victorious.

How could I not see? The fact that he's too willfully obtuse to see a difference between a human and a computer makes me a loser!

Simply responding back to their logic, which from what I've seen is accurate and excellent

The word for it is sophistry.

147 posted on 12/05/2001 12:21:35 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Southack
And yet, power was taken away from future Presidents...

Yes, that sometimes happens. What are you willing to stake on it happening this particular time? More, how much are you willing to stake on it happening with a major fight and significant abuses?

148 posted on 12/05/2001 12:25:54 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"False choice. There are other options, specifically, only the intended HUMAN recipient has a right to read it without a warrant. How hard is that to understand? There's a difference between computers passing it over and even checking for technical problems, and another PERSON reading it."

Your premise is fatally flawed. When you hook up a sniffer to view data traffic, the humans involved can see ALL of the data in those packets in plain text, and they are certainly not the intended recipients of those messages. Another flaw in your reasoning is the human versus machine difference. Once you let machines read or record data traffic, the genie is out of the bottle. An analogy to what you are claiming would be letting a machine tape record a phone conversation be legal so long as no person was allowed to listen to the tape. The flaw in that position is that there is no law preventing an American from listening to a tape. Once the tape is recorded, the genie is out of the bottle. The same holds true for letting other machines read data traffic. Once the machine has been permitted access, the genie is loose. You can't go stop a human from looking at the data on their own machine, after all.

I hope that helps.

149 posted on 12/05/2001 12:26:27 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"I also know that we don't have the option of letting one president have a particular power, but not the next one."

Flashback...

The worst parts of the "Patriot" Act don't sunset, which means that if Bush loses in 2004, the democrat will have them. Then, the only way to take them away will be a major fight.

150 posted on 12/05/2001 12:28:14 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-198 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson