• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

American Willing To Give Constitutional Rights For Safety

Rights of privacy

Completely vague and undefined, not to mention not in the Constitution in the first place.

Unreasonable search without a warrant. cyber spying, telephone taping.

1. "Unreasonable" is subjective. Cyber spying and telephone taping seem perfectly reasonable to me, since they are non-disruptive to anyone who has nothing to hide.
2. The rights of the individual are often given up to protect the rights of society; i.e. you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Stopping terrorists seems to me to fit pretty well the notion of protecting the rights of society.

They did it to Martin Luther King and John Lennon as two examples.

Yeah, because LBJ and Nixon were jerks. Now we do it to terrorists. Big difference.
 
How do you know that? Do you have any idea how many "lefties" (whatever that means) have died defending this country?

Lefties means anyone who disagrees with him. I mean even Libertarians are called lefties by him, and I believe he has called every single Republican Moderator on these forums a lefty at one point or another.
 
Last edited:
How do you know that? Do you have any idea how many "lefties" (whatever that means) have died defending this country?

no, how many??
 
no, how many??

I have no idea. But I didn't make the claim that lefties would cower and give up their rights to save their (and I quote) "sorry asses".

Seems to me when someone makes a claim they should back it up. Especially a claim that is insulting and accuses a group of people of cowardice.

Do you agree with that?
 
Don't even mention the constitution you and your buddies that say vote and keep voting until you win, or pull ballots from the dead and out of garbage cans......I am through with you............

I guess you are a navy veteran. You should know better. If you were on active duty you could get court martialed for your remarks. Did not you swear to uphold the constitution when you were in the navy?

I live in Norfolk, Va and I am a veteran myself, so don't go wrapping yourself in the American flag when you the insult the constitution.
 
Its easy for these leftys to sit behind their monitors acting all brave and saying they would rather die then give up any right but when push comes to shove and they are up against it and facing death they would be the first ones to give up any right to save their sorry ass..............

I got news for you. I have faced death and I have seen a lot of my friends die. So, there is no reason for you to have a cow.
 
1. "Unreasonable" is subjective. Cyber spying and telephone taping seem perfectly reasonable to me, since they are non-disruptive to anyone who has nothing to hide..


Except (IMO of course)

*facepalm*

There is NO such thing as "having nothing to hide." Period. It is an illogical, irrational concept that blatantly ignores the concept of PRIVACY, mostly because the term is a catch phrase with absolutely NO definition whatsoever, and even less substance to support a rational definition.
 
Last edited:
Completely vague and undefined, not to mention not in the Constitution in the first place.



1. "Unreasonable" is subjective. Cyber spying and telephone taping seem perfectly reasonable to me, since they are non-disruptive to anyone who has nothing to hide.
2. The rights of the individual are often given up to protect the rights of society; i.e. you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Stopping terrorists seems to me to fit pretty well the notion of protecting the rights of society.



Yeah, because LBJ and Nixon were jerks. Now we do it to terrorists. Big difference.

Yes it is according to roe v wade. The lower court ruled citing the ninth amendment but the supreme court cited "the right to privacy" is established in the 14 amendment. Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to your assertation that the rights of the individual are often given up to protect the rights of society" is not correct. You are speaking in absolutes. Some rights are restrained but not given up when they infringe upon the rights of others.

An interesting case is Walz v NY Tax Commission. It was an issue of church and state. The court ruled that even though congress shall make no law for the establishment that the "Public Interest" in this particular case trumped the second amendment. I think it was totally bs. I would like to see another constitutional challenge to it, myself but it probably will never happen. Religion is too big a business. Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument
 
Oh, well if J. Edgar Hoover did something tangentially related to this to US citizens 50 years ago, it must be exactly same as what's happening now, right? :roll:

Furthermore, given that the number of Americans supporting torture is at a modern high, why does any of this surprise you?

No, I was only pointing it out as a matter of history. "If we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it" I would not be suprised if it is happening now, though it is illegal. George bush ignored a legal treaty by torturing prisoners which is forbidden by the geneva convention. The constitution says that all foreign treaties shall be legal and binding except when they infringe upon our constitution.

It does not suprise me. It sickens me.
 
Goodnight everyone. I enjoyed talking to ya'll. May your God bless you whoever she may be.
 
I'll never understand people's passion for wanting to get through a line quickly over arriving at their destination safely.

What's the point of getting through the line only to hurry up and die?

What kind of special clearance do you have that gets you through airport lines quickly???

That's like my husband going to the grocery store in his GTO; weaving and speeding dangerously to hurry past everyone, putting himself and everyone else at risk - only to wait at the next red light and do it all again when it turns green.

I think there's a term for that - being a freaking idiot.

How is this even a remotely good analogy?? I mean, yes, airports need a level of security. That's a very different story determining WHO should be searched, and having the 'unreasonable' search of EVERY passenger (which now, in most airports includes a virtual strip search).

By you're logic, why don't we have a cop at every doorstep armed with an M16, searching every individual as they walk onto the street? I mean, it's for 'safety', right?

Got a question for you leftys.........What good are constitutional rights if your dead?

What good is being alive if you're little better then a slave?

If you don't like it here don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.......I am free my left wing friend and live in the greatest country in the world or to make it shorter "Love it or leave it."

Hang on a second... if you're actually saying that we need to get rid of the constitution since it 'interferes with safety'... why should someone that wants to be free have to move?? Wouldn't it be just as beneficial for YOU to move to a place where you don't have 'constitutional protections' getting in the way of your 'safety'... I mean, wouldn't you be more comfortable in a place like, say China?? This way, we'd both win... you don't have that cumbersome 'constitution' endangering you're life any further, and I don't have to see a comunist revolution in this free country with those protections.

Its easy for these leftys to sit behind their monitors acting all brave and saying they would rather die then give up any right but when push comes to shove and they are up against it and facing death they would be the first ones to give up any right to save their sorry ass..............

naturally, people don't WANT to die... but if you won't fight for your own freedom... what IS worth fighting for?

Completely vague and undefined, not to mention not in the Constitution in the first place.

1. "Unreasonable" is subjective. Cyber spying and telephone taping seem perfectly reasonable to me, since they are non-disruptive to anyone who has nothing to hide.

Are you serious?? I'm pretty sure there's a part of the constitution which requires a WARRANT to do such things...

2. The rights of the individual are often given up to protect the rights of society; i.e. you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Stopping terrorists seems to me to fit pretty well the notion of protecting the rights of society.

Protect the 'rights of society' by 'eliminating the rights' of the people making up that society?? What was the point of the 'cold war' against communism, since a generation later, we've come to praise communist ideals??

No, I was only pointing it out as a matter of history. "If we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it" I would not be suprised if it is happening now, though it is illegal. George bush ignored a legal treaty by torturing prisoners which is forbidden by the geneva convention. The constitution says that all foreign treaties shall be legal and binding except when they infringe upon our constitution.

It does not suprise me. It sickens me.

Oh, but Bush didn't allow torture... he allowed 'enhanced interrogations'... like raping a suspects children in front of them to extract information.
 
Sadly what you lefties fail to understamd is 9/11 changed everything in this country........With the exception of Pearl Harbor we have never been hit like that and now a hit on the mainland. We always had the security of the oceans around us......that is gone now........we are very vulnerable......When the founding fathers made the constitution the never factored in a situation like this........No one myself included wants to lose any rights but our safety should be paramount and if it causes us to have a little discomfort or delay at the airport so be it...........

Rights are great but they are not worth a crap if you are dead.........Now I hear the lefties in this thread so they would rather be dead then lose a right.....That is very easy to say sitting behind your monitor typing on your keyboard at home.......Let the same people have a gun pointed at their head having to make a decision to lose a right or your life they would be the first to cry uncle hear and give up the right rather then die.........

It better to be alive, trust me..........I might have been a little redundent in this post...sorry about that.......
 
Last edited:
When the founding fathers made the constitution the never factored in a situation like this........

Kinda like when the Founding Fathers made the Constitution they never factored in assault rifles?
 
Sadly what you lefties fail to understamd is 9/11 changed everything in this country........With the exception of Pearl Harbor we have never been hit like that and now a hit on the mainland.

I find it funny how PNAC wrote that they NEEDED a 'new pearl harbour' to accomplish their objectives worldwide... so without veering the discussion any further, I'll just point out that I take issue with that statement. The only thing that 'changed' after 9-11 is how clear it's become that 'american supremacy' will bowl over and turn their backs on the ideals that made this country truly great.

We always had the security of the oceans around us......that is gone now........we are very vulnerable......

And so the nation is reduced to the level of an infant crying to his parents cause one of the people he's been bullying around punched back and gave him a bloody nose.

I'm not trying to make light of the people that died, but to say 'we need to give up our freedom to protect our freedom.' Is not only the type of statement that you'd see in an Orwellian novel, it's a complete fallacy to think that it can be accomplished.

When the founding fathers made the constitution the never factored in a situation like this........

That's completely false. Which of the founding fathers was it that said, 'those that would trade freedom for security, will get neither and lose both.'

No one myself included wants to lose any rights but our safety should be paramount and if it causes us to have a little discomfort or delay at the airport so be it...........

The world is NOT a safe place, no matter how you slice it, even if you have millitary police standing on every street corner, then what are you to do when someone decides to abuse that power?

Rights are great but they are not worth a crap if you are dead.........

What an ego-centric, self-centered view you have. Had you considered that giving up those rights so that YOU can feel safe, is dooming your children to deal with the consequences when that power inevitably gets abused.

Now I hear the lefties in this thread so they would rather be dead then lose a right.....That is very easy to say sitting behind your monitor typing on your keyboard at home.......

Then, what is worth dying for? Seriously.

Let the same people have a gun pointed at their head having to make a decision to lose a right or your life they would be the first to cry uncle hear and give up the right rather then die.........

That may be true... but then there are people that having the gun pointed to their head with the option 'kneel or die', who would grab the gun and help them pull the trigger.

You won't believe this, but I'll say it anyway... a few years back, I was walking with my girlfriend at the time when three guys jumped up and demanded money... I told my girlfriend to run, while I fought them off as best I could. I spent almost a week in the hospital recovering, but my girlfriend got away safely... I'm just saying this to say, that there are ideas and ideals like honor and freedom that trump your own life as an individual. If you don't have the strength of character to fight for these things, what's the point of being alive when you're just a shell of what it means to be human.

It better to be alive, trust me..........I might have been a little redundent in this post...sorry about that.......

Look, I don't WANT to die. I don't go around looking for fights. If anything, I'll be one of the first to talk my way out of a fight. However, there is a line, and once that line is crossed... it's no longer an OPTION, it's a matter of doing what is RIGHT.

And when Bush went around saying 'the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms' (aside from the MANY arguments I could make), for us to be giving UP THOSE FREEDOMS is conceding victory to the terrorists (in spite of the fallacy that a terrorist is born of jealousy).
 
Why are the people who trot out this trope when it comes to terrorism pretty much always the same people willing to surrender a whole basket of liberties in the name of "health care" or "the environment"? Or "campaign reform"?
 
I find it funny how PNAC wrote that they NEEDED a 'new pearl harbour' to accomplish their objectives worldwide... so without veering the discussion any further, I'll just point out that I take issue with that statement. The only thing that 'changed' after 9-11 is how clear it's become that 'american supremacy' will bowl over and turn their backs on the ideals that made this country truly great.



And so the nation is reduced to the level of an infant crying to his parents cause one of the people he's been bullying around punched back and gave him a bloody nose.

I'm not trying to make light of the people that died, but to say 'we need to give up our freedom to protect our freedom.' Is not only the type of statement that you'd see in an Orwellian novel, it's a complete fallacy to think that it can be accomplished.



That's completely false. Which of the founding fathers was it that said, 'those that would trade freedom for security, will get neither and lose both.'



The world is NOT a safe place, no matter how you slice it, even if you have millitary police standing on every street corner, then what are you to do when someone decides to abuse that power?



What an ego-centric, self-centered view you have. Had you considered that giving up those rights so that YOU can feel safe, is dooming your children to deal with the consequences when that power inevitably gets abused.



Then, what is worth dying for? Seriously.



That may be true... but then there are people that having the gun pointed to their head with the option 'kneel or die', who would grab the gun and help them pull the trigger.

You won't believe this, but I'll say it anyway... a few years back, I was walking with my girlfriend at the time when three guys jumped up and demanded money... I told my girlfriend to run, while I fought them off as best I could. I spent almost a week in the hospital recovering, but my girlfriend got away safely... I'm just saying this to say, that there are ideas and ideals like honor and freedom that trump your own life as an individual. If you don't have the strength of character to fight for these things, what's the point of being alive when you're just a shell of what it means to be human.



Look, I don't WANT to die. I don't go around looking for fights. If anything, I'll be one of the first to talk my way out of a fight. However, there is a line, and once that line is crossed... it's no longer an OPTION, it's a matter of doing what is RIGHT.

And when Bush went around saying 'the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms' (aside from the MANY arguments I could make), for us to be giving UP THOSE FREEDOMS is conceding victory to the terrorists (in spite of the fallacy that a terrorist is born of jealousy).



I truly believe that God forbid we have a nuclear cloud over New York or LA and millions are killed and the cities are made uninhabitable for the next hundred years it will be people like you and your other left wing friends who will be the first ones to cry that we did not do enough to keep his country safe.....It happened after 9/11 and it will happen again he only difference it will be a thousand times worse...........
 
Why are the people who trot out this trope when it comes to terrorism pretty much always the same people willing to surrender a whole basket of liberties in the name of "health care" or "the environment"? Or "campaign reform"?

Actually, for me that's not the case. I've spoken out against the 'health care reform', I'm also quite vocal about the global warming fraud, and campaign reform... well, I'm pretty sure I'd be against that as well.


I truly believe that God forbid we have a nuclear cloud over New York or LA and millions are killed and the cities are made uninhabitable for the next hundred years it will be people like you and your other left wing friends who will be the first ones to cry that we did not do enough to keep his country safe.....

I know the type of person you're talking about... and no, I'm not one of them either. However, to look at the insanity created in the aftermath of 9-11 and the 3000 dead there... if a nuke went off in an american city, the global nuclear holocaust would be over within 24 hours.

It happened after 9/11 and it will happen again he only difference it will be a thousand times worse...........

Ya, but now american's as a people are SO FRIGGIN SCARED of their own shadow, that some retard with firecrackers up his arse is enough to get across the next level of 'infringement at the cost of a little freedom.' If it's not a terrorist attack, it'll be the next 'piggy flu' that'll kill 0.000003% of the worlds population and people will be like 'no make me safe make me safe'.

Those in control have found the perfect balance... keeping the people not quite so scared that the people are frozen and crap their pants, but scared enough that they'll do whatever the tv tells them to do, without question... attacking anyone that disagrees because it makes THEM 'less safe'.
 
Actually, for me that's not the case. I've spoken out against the 'health care reform', I'm also quite vocal about the global warming fraud, and campaign reform... well, I'm pretty sure I'd be against that as well.




I know the type of person you're talking about... and no, I'm not one of them either. However, to look at the insanity created in the aftermath of 9-11 and the 3000 dead there... if a nuke went off in an american city, the global nuclear holocaust would be over within 24 hours.



Ya, but now american's as a people are SO FRIGGIN SCARED of their own shadow, that some retard with firecrackers up his arse is enough to get across the next level of 'infringement at the cost of a little freedom.' If it's not a terrorist attack, it'll be the next 'piggy flu' that'll kill 0.000003% of the worlds population and people will be like 'no make me safe make me safe'.

Those in control have found the perfect balance... keeping the people not quite so scared that the people are frozen and crap their pants, but scared enough that they'll do whatever the tv tells them to do, without question... attacking anyone that disagrees because it makes THEM 'less safe'.

We haven't been attacked in over 8 years so people get a false sense of safety........There is no question that we live in the most dangerous times in the history of our country....President Bush and his administration did a great job in protecting this country during his presidency........I hate to say it but I believe we will be hit again and it will be hard for us to respond because who do we respond against.........Its not like the Soviet Union attacked us and we could respond in kind...Who do we bomb if we are attacked? Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistan......

Its not as easy as you make it out to be........
 
We haven't been attacked in over 8 years so people get a false sense of safety........

Well, it's a false sense of safety to trust in guys in black uniforms pointing guns at people in the name of 'security'.

There is no question that we live in the most dangerous times in the history of our country....

So, how do we go from 'most dangerous time in history' to 'we need to give up all constitutional protections'??

President Bush and his administration did a great job in protecting this country during his presidency........

Yes, he also did a great job in tearing apart the founding document of this country...

I hate to say it but I believe we will be hit again and it will be hard for us to respond because who do we respond against.........

Well, we were attacked by a group of egyptians and saudi's, working in afghanistan, being funded from pakistan, so the only clear answer was 'regime change in Iraq'.

Its not like the Soviet Union attacked us and we could respond in kind...Who do we bomb if we are attacked? Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistan......

We'll just do what we did last time... go to war with a country 10 months BEFORE investigating the perpetrators.

Its not as easy as you make it out to be........

It's also not as 'sane' as you make it out to be.
 
I can't tell you how many people I have come across people who believe in arbitrary state imprisonment while calling themselves Americans.

I can understand the argument of 'enemy' combatants, but what I don't understand is that the same people who fear the government and find it inefficient, praise it when it comes to imprisoning people.

These same "****tards" who 'hate' the state, passionately defend its powers to intrude upon liberty.

I don't get it.

There is no need for holding and torturing people for 6+ years without trying them.

I really don't understand these freedom loving conservative. They only think that liberty applies to them.


p.s. I also not a fan of modern day liberals, so just because I disagree with one party doesn't exactly make me your brother.
 
Last edited:
Bman is not a liberal, just to tell you. I would call him pretty libertarian.

Thanks... I didn't want to spoil the fun and tell them I'm not liberal... I don't even like labelling myself as 'libertarian', even though for the most part at least that'd be accurate.
 
Back
Top Bottom