[Sky Captain]

But yet the press continue to just make up news where there is none.
As far as I'm concerned, that should be illegal.
Free press is about reporting FACTS not some journalist's twisted opinion.
With power comes responsibility.

And Peeb, if Bush and Co. are the bad guys, do something to save us all.

[OldManMac]

One man's facts are another's opinions. It's tragic that some don't understand the very notion of free speech and democracy, and are so threatened by views different than their own they would stifle them, yet still claim to live in a free country.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

But yet the press continue to just make up news where there is none.
As far as I'm concerned, that should be illegal.
Free press is about reporting FACTS not some journalist's twisted opinion.
With power comes responsibility.

And Peeb, if Bush and Co. are the bad guys, do something to save us all.

And how would you legally come up with a difference between fact and opinions?

The press is fine as it is, but people should be encouraged to not rely on one single source for their information, and if a matter is really important enough to you, investigate it yourself. Whether we are talking about an encyclopedia or a news outlet, none of these are infallible, and each have their own interests in mind (primarily, in the case of private news outlets, making money).

I think what Peeb is saying is that Bush's attempts amend the constitution smells like attempts to turn this country into more of a police state. A police state is a legitimate form of government, I don't mean this in a derogatory way like some would use communism or socialism, although I'm sure that many people that feel this way about this administration would prefer to not resemble a police state in any way.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

As far as I'm concerned, that should be illegal.

Well, lucky for you that you can try and sponsor a constitutional amendment.

In the meantime, the Bill of Rights says you can suck it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A police state is a legitimate form of government

Bingo.

If this is what you want, then more power to you. It's not like I find the inclination unfathomable.

Just don't delude yourself into thinking you can invoke the founding principles of this country to make your case.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

One man's facts are another's opinions. It's tragic that some don't understand the very notion of free speech and democracy, and are so threatened by views different than their own they would stifle them, yet still claim to live in a free country.

Facts are facts. Knowing and proving they are facts is important. Opinions are usually deviations from facts, usually to make the facts into an arguing point for one side or the other (better/ worse, left/right etc)

Is "Truth" the same as "A Fact" or is it yet another variation of an opinion. Perhaps a self righteous one?

Free Speech allows for opinions which others may completely disagree. We live in a Representative Democracy. It's a good idea if not abused like it is now with the "AH's" we've unfortunately elected into the House & Senate. It's been discussed in the Federalist Papers as a better form of 'Democracy' than a pure one, which requires all the voters to know what they are talking about. Their are just too many issues and sides for a regular Joe to decide, with having a life and all.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I love your notion of 'Bad Guys' - the Bush administration ARE the bad guys - they have damaged America far more than terrorists have. You should hand your first amendment rights over to them though, for all of our safety!

I'd say Sam Nunn Damaged or country more than the Bush Admin. Add The drunken sot Teddy Kennedy in there!
I blame the fools who elected them too. Add in the turncoat spies, and Judges who legislate from the bench, and remove laws they disagree with, even though they were legally enacted.

Where are the Militia when we need them?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I'd say Sam Nunn Damaged or country more than the Bush Admin. Add The drunken sot Teddy Kennedy in there!

It's a good job for you that Sky Captain doesn't have his Police State, or you could be imprisoned for saying that!

[tie]

Basically, we have some people who want to fight terrorism, and others who want to surrender. BadKosh and Sky Captain, whose side are you on?

[BadKosh]

Fight!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Even better, perhaps we should post a cop outside (or even inside) everyone's house, and you could get permission from the cop if you wanted to leave - he could check that you were not carrying weapons or anything - we'd be safer that way!

I'm glad to hear you oppose gun control.

[peeb]

Actually I don't favor gun control. I was pointing out how absurd Sky-Captain's desire to sacrifice all his civil liberties for a warm feeling that someone was looking after him is.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by tie 

Basically, we have some people who want to fight terrorism, and others who want to surrender. BadKosh and Sky Captain, whose side are you on?

Right, because if you don't buy Bush and Co's lies about what's going on in the world, then you want to 'surrender to terrorists'. Think it through. There are very few things in the world that kill fewer Americans than terrorism. Swimming pools are certainly more dangerous, the Iraq war much more so.
There are some people who want to preserve the US as a democratic republic, and others who want to use terror tactics to surrender it to imperial presidency and corporate corruption. Whose side are you on?

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Right, because if you don't buy Bush and Co's lies about what's going on in the world, then you want to 'surrender to terrorists'.

Uhh, if someone thinks that moving towards a police state is the proper way to defeat terrorism, are not those who oppose "surrendering to terrorists"?

To me, the question is why would someone give in to their desires for a police state? I can't wrap my head around it without seeing a marked increase in my blood pressure.

Everything I've heard thus far is this bizarre blend of overcompensatory machismo coupled with begging to suck on the government truncheon in a way that only a communist could love.

[besson3c]

Maybe they are all a bunch of commies?


Passing on FUD via hot button labels is fun! I see why everybody is doing it these days!

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Actually I don't favor gun control. I was pointing out how absurd Sky-Captain's desire to sacrifice all his civil liberties for a warm feeling that someone was looking after him is.

Funny that you would say this, because that's how many people view universal healthcare, public education, social security, and welfare, for example.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Funny that you would say this, because that's how many people view universal healthcare, public education, social security, and welfare, for example.

Where's the civil liberties tradeoff here?

[BadKosh]

Go ahead and listen to my phone calls and read my email.

Wooooo-Hooooo. Boy,It's a POLICE STATE NOW!!


So we arrest a bunch of drug dealers, mafia, Islamic terrorists, pedophiles, crooked politicians, and OJ because of it?


Would we be better off if a LOT of THOSE KIND of folks are off the streets?

[besson3c]

BadKosh: you seem like the sort of unreasonable fellow that would be inclined to pronounce that we would officially be Socialist if we introduced universal healthcare I bet, huh?

It is this sort of binary extremist form of discourse that is so simultaneously destructive and counter-productive. Nobody here is saying that they heart drug dealers and pedophiles, so please attempt to restrain yourself from making posts like this. Time to put the old thinking cap on.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Would we be better off if a LOT of THOSE KIND of folks are off the streets?

It would depend on whether one thinks they would be better off without the Bill of Rights.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Where's the civil liberties tradeoff here?

By participating in any one or all of the programs mentioned by Vmarks, you'll find the government is more aware of who you are, where you are, what you do, and how you do it than any tapped phone call could ever hope to accomplish. Not to mention the fact that they'll be taking more of your money to do it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

By participating in any one or all of the programs mentioned by Vmarks, you'll find the government is more aware of who you are, where you are, what you do, and how you do it than any tapped phone call could ever hope to accomplish. Not to mention the fact that they'll be taking more of your money to do it.

Wasn't thinking.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Go ahead and listen to my phone calls and read my email. ...
So we arrest a bunch of drug dealers, mafia, Islamic terrorists, pedophiles, crooked politicians, and OJ because of it?
Would we be better off if a LOT of THOSE KIND of folks are off the streets?

That's nice, but your assumption is that the government only uses those powers in a benevolent way. History tells us otherwise. That's why we need a bill of rights. I'm in no hurry to give those up to politicians with totalitarian aspirations. The reason Bush hates the constitution is that it limits his power to arrest whoever he wants. Even if you are a Bush fan, you want to trust any future president to decide who gets arrested and who doesn't, and who can say what? I just find it baffling that you have so much trust in government that you want them to spy on you.

[tie]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Right, because if you don't buy Bush and Co's lies about what's going on in the world, then you want to 'surrender to terrorists'.

I think you misunderstood my post. As far as I can tell, it is BadKosh who wants to surrender to the terrorists. He'd rather sacrifice our freedoms than fight to defend them. Don't you doubt, this is a world war like the others, and its outcome will determine whether future generations live in freedom or under oppression. BadKosh is surrendering at the first battle, instead of standing up for our nation and what our nation represents: freedom and liberty.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

BadKosh: you seem like the sort of unreasonable fellow that would be inclined to pronounce that we would officially be Socialist if we introduced universal healthcare I bet, huh?

It is this sort of binary extremist form of discourse that is so simultaneously destructive and counter-productive. Nobody here is saying that they heart drug dealers and pedophiles, so please attempt to restrain yourself from making posts like this. Time to put the old thinking cap on.

But to do absolutely nothing is pointless. I have asked you nay-sayers for suggestions of what you would do to make us more safe. No replies. I'm not surprised.

if you say we should uphold our constitution, why not also apply the letter of the law throughout the US? Would that be OK?

You are so afraid of loosing your rights, how about the ABUSE of them by judges who legislate from the bench?
What about politicians on the take?
What about those we have trusted who have circumvented the laws to protect their friends and contributors,
or to make it hard for them to be caught in some scam?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by subego 

It would depend on whether one thinks they would be better off without the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps we should APPLY our laws absolutely? Perhaps you have some other suggestions that might be used to provide better safety?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by tie 

I think you misunderstood my post. As far as I can tell, it is BadKosh who wants to surrender to the terrorists. He'd rather sacrifice our freedoms than fight to defend them. Don't you doubt, this is a world war like the others, and its outcome will determine whether future generations live in freedom or under oppression. BadKosh is surrendering at the first battle, instead of standing up for our nation and what our nation represents: freedom and liberty.

We have already been invaded by terrorist cells. We have also been invaded by illegal aliens and the blight they bring with them. Our borders are still open. Our elected idiots on both sides deserve the blame there.

I hope you enjoy your freedoms as much as those who went down in the Twin Towers. How can we stop that kind of terrorists? Any suggestions from those who proudly carry their copy of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, and even their notated copy of the Federalist Papers on thumb drive, as they die from radiation poisoning from a dirty bomb. But hey, we didn't spy on anybody either. Will that make your death more peacfeul? Great Ideals but they haven't worked in the real world as well as we'd hoped.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Perhaps you have some other suggestions that might be used to provide better safety?

You're not listening. I have acknowledged that maintaining our rights means less safety. My goal isn't to provide better safety. My goal is to maintain the American way of life, which is based on civil liberties.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You are so afraid of loosing your rights, how about the ABUSE of them by judges who legislate from the bench?
What about politicians on the take?
What about those we have trusted who have circumvented the laws to protect their friends and contributors, or to make it hard for them to be caught in some scam?

I fail to understand how gutting the constitution is a good solution to any of these issues. Maintaining the separation of powers and maintaining civil rights seem to have the best chance of reigning in abuse by any one branch, or corruption. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

You're not listening. I have acknowledged that maintaining our rights means less safety. My goal isn't to provide better safety. My goal is to maintain the American way of life, which is based on civil liberties.

Exactly. You can't become safe just by giving away your freedom. We'll never make a system that can absolutely stop a small group of lunatics from wreaking havoc occasionally, but we do need to keep that in perspective and not turn the US into the Soviet Union because we're afraid of terrorists.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

But to do absolutely nothing is pointless. I have asked you nay-sayers for suggestions of what you would do to make us more safe. No replies. I'm not surprised.

What if there really is very little we can do that will make us "more safe"? What if, even after a huge event, the list of things to do that will really matter is short? And yet, there are people who are complaining loudly that we need to "do something" to make us "more safe"?

It can be very comforting when bad stuff happens to go out and "do something". It makes you feel that you have some control over the bad, bad world. But unless what you're doing is actually constructive and helps the problem, all you're doing is spinning your wheels. A lot of what DHS does is designed to make us feel good about security, not necessarily to make us more secure.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

A lot of what DHS does is designed to make us feel good about security, not necessarily to make us more secure.

It's really tragic that more people don't realize this, and are so susceptible to 60 second sound bytes. DHS has been consistently underfunded since it's inception, and the belief that magically transforming all the formerly separate entities that form it into one effective unit is just silly. Anyone who believes that doesn't know much about human nature.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, lucky for you that you can try and sponsor a constitutional amendment.

In the meantime, the Bill of Rights says you can suck it.

So you support slander and liable?

[BadKosh]

Obviously, they also support legislation from the Bench, which nulls out the voters rights too. Makes you wonder whether we're dealing with Idealists or realists.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Actually I don't favor gun control. I was pointing out how absurd Sky-Captain's desire to sacrifice all his civil liberties for a warm feeling that someone was looking after him is.

Where did I say I wanted to sacrifice all my civil liberties?
This is the kind of half truth made up bullshit I want struck from the 1st.
Offering your opinion as fact.
Facts, just facts, not your twisted delisional interpretation. A tool to try and shame some one in to siding with your opinion. A form of control.
Something that would surely lead to a physical altercation.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Where did I say I wanted to sacrifice all my civil liberties?
This is the kind of half truth made up bullshit I want struck from the 1st.
Offering your opinion as fact.
Facts, just facts, not your twisted delisional interpretation. A tool to try and shame some one in to siding with your opinion. A form of control.
Something that would surely lead to a physical altercation.

OK then, we're not really taking all of our civil liberties, then. But how much is enough?

If we're going to police all media for "truth", then who gets to decide what the truth is? The Government would have to do that, right? Perhaps we need a Ministry of Truth to sort it all out! That will be double-plus-ungood!

Rather than let the Government police all ordinary speech, in this country we declare that everyone has the right to express themselves, then frame our laws around that right. So you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and so on. (You can also threaten violence as a way to settle arguments, like you did in your reply to peeb, but the law generally frowns on using it....) It assumes that people are generally smart enough to make up their own minds, and call BS when they see it, keeping in mind that different people call BS on different things.

The reason why we bothered to make the Bill of Rights in the first place is that some of the Founding Fathers thought that even though all those rights were contained in the Constitution, we would all be better off if we explicitly wrote down some key ones. History has shown that they were right.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Where did I say I wanted to sacrifice all my civil liberties?
This is the kind of half truth made up bullshit I want struck from the 1st.
Offering your opinion as fact.
Facts, just facts, not your twisted delisional interpretation. A tool to try and shame some one in to siding with your opinion. A form of control.
Something that would surely lead to a physical altercation.

Why would this lead to a physical altercation? Are you not secure enough in your beliefs that you don't care what others think? Do you seriously think you can alter others' beliefs by beating yours into them? It's interesting that you would use the phrase "a form of control." You're the one who's in control of your emotions, actions, and beliefs, and if you're secure in that, it doesn't matter what others think or say.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Obviously, they also support legislation from the Bench, which nulls out the voters rights too. Makes you wonder whether we're dealing with Idealists or realists.

Where do you come up with all of this "legislating from the bench" nonsense? I hear this phrase all the time, but have never heard any concrete examples or clarifications as to what this means.

Or, is this a label you throw you there when laws are passed or rulings are made that you simply disagree with? Even after your hero Bush hand selected some new supreme court justices (which happens only on a pretty rare occasion), they still dissatisfy you for some reason which has been left vague and nebulous to us?

It is because of people like you that Stephan Colbert has a gig.


P.S. are you PacHead?

[peeb]

Yep. After I've been beaten senseless by SkyCaptain for violating Ministry of Truth regulations, show me an example of 'legislating from the bench'.

[besson3c]

Maybe we need to form a new department to head up this badly needed Ministry of Truth (paid for by tax payers, of course)... It should only need a couple hundred employees...

Maybe we could get Alberto Gonzales to run this department?

[Dakarʒ]

Would he remember to show up to work?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Would he remember to show up to work?

"I do not recall being appointed to the Ministry of Truth"

[Dakarʒ]

Yeah, thanks for making it obvious what I was getting at.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Yeah, thanks for making it obvious what I was getting at.

I enjoy taking the wind out of your sails... Don't worry, you have an abundance of self-produced wind, you'll find yourself another sailing destination.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

"I do not recall being appointed to the Ministry of Truth"

"I did not have sex with that CIA agent in an airport toilet!"

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I enjoy taking the wind out of your sails... Don't worry, you have an abundance of self-produced wind, you'll find yourself another sailing destination.

That's more like it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

So you support slander and liable?

This wasn't what you were talking about (if it was, you have a funny idea of verb tense), but the answer is yes. I do support laws against them.

I'm not sure what your point is, but I've already said the issue isn't whether rights have boundaries, it's where those boundaries are placed.

AFAICT you have presented the daft argument that the unconstitutional limits placed on gun ownership (of which there are plenty), are a good rationale for unconstitutional limits on speech and the press. When you have been asked if this is what you believe, you don't deny it.

Again, please clarify this if I am mistaken, I'm trying to give you every opportunity here.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Where did I say I wanted to sacrifice all my civil liberties?

Let's just say "a few" and consider it fixinated. Okay?

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Something that would surely lead to a physical altercation.

Originally Posted by subego 

Everything I've heard thus far is this bizarre blend of overcompensatory machismo

One down.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

you have presented the daft argument...

Thank you. 'daft' was the word I was searching for!

[besson3c]

Well, I haven't been keeping score of these fights, but all I do know is that I'm still the best here, and also the best there is on all of MacNN.