Exactly-what I wrote was "If you believe the US government does not engage in illegal wiretappiig without a warrant, one is delusional".

That has nothing to do with whether or not one agrees with me: thus, to say that I said it does is a gross mischaracterization of what I said.



This course of action as outlined would be a useful experiment indeed. Hm, does either of us have the time and resources to devote to such a project? (Not just a rhetorical question).

gekkogecko,


That is not what you wrote. Let us look again at what you wrote.

You expressed your opinion clearly “Yes, they do.”
You then expressed your opinion clearly about those who do not agree with you “If one believes otherwise, one is delusional.”
These two declarative sentences equate those who disagree with your opinion as delusional.

No sir, I believe there is no mischaracterization.


Yes sir, I think it would be.


I presume this is your way of saying that you decline to provide evidence to support your claims that “the cases where this is the situation are gradually being eroded”. Perhaps you believe that unnecessary. I trust you will excuse me if I point out that unsubstantiated claims are less convincing than those backed up by evidence.

I don't think it was Belial...but i cant quite remember all the details as it was ages ago i watched that.....will sniff around later and see if i can find anything on it

This is not an "opinion". This is a statement of fact, one that you yourself acknowledged when you wrote about the frequency of occurrence. That latter part-the frequency of such occurrences-is where we disagreed, and where the aspect of opinion comes in.



There is a mischaracterization, and since you insist on continuing such, I must question your motivations in doing so. To whit, I will further point out that I regard this continued mischaracterization as an offensive trivilization of my position.



No, I was stating exactly the situation here: it would be a valuable exercise to gather the data on the number of warrantless searches that have taken place since the current administration took office, and compare that data with previous occurrences of warrantless searches. However, the obstacles to such data gatherign should be obvious. I honestly don't have the time to devote to such a project on my own. I doubt you do, either. To make it more explicit: I *may* have the time to devote to such data-gathering as part of a colleective effort. Do you, in fact, have the time to work as a team? If so, I suggest we take this to PM, as it's getting too long and detailed for such replies, and also drifting somewhat off the topic of this thread.

wyndhy,

Yes Mam. I agree with both him and you.

The Devil is, however, often found among the details. I wonder which of the many liberties we enjoy today are the essential ones to which the good Mr. Franklin refers.

ssdd

BIBI,

I couldn't agree with you more.

Mr Franklin lived in a simpler, more black and white time.

The ethics of the eighteenth century, like the seventh century Islam the extreme islamists seem to aspire to, have much good in them, but are not appropriate for the 21st Century.

The right to travel where you want at the maximum possible speed is tempered by the needs of society.

We make a million "best choice" decisions which erode freedoms, but allow us to live in a society, not anarchy.

mind reader :x:

i'd say the right to privacy is as essential now as it ever was. privacy is privacy, no matter what era you live in. just becasue it's now more easily possible for communtications to be intercepted does not give them the right to do so. infiltration, training, diplomacy and foriegn policy changes will and could do more for keeping us safe than culling through the billion+ conversations of average people will ever accomplish.

wyndhy,

The right to privacy varies not only by country, but also in time. That may be the reason that there is no right to privacy in the U.S. constitution, they didn’t think it appropriate. The Supreme Court did not explicitly rule that one existed until Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965.

Incidentally, while the sentiment "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." is one we both buy into, you may find the link interesting.

What foreign policy changes do you think might help?

gekkogecko,

I am flattered by the suggestion that my concurrence with a claim you made has somehow helped move the claim from opinion toward fact. In all humility however, I must demur. The very best to which our shared agreement could aspire would be to establish the claim as general or common knowledge. As my observations of what you wrote about the delusional states of others offends you, I shall not do so.

In re your proposal for our teamwork: as we do, I believe, share a preferred vision of what some might describe as a more liberal future Administration, (and Congress, for that matter) I have already described the data which would be useful to collect, suggested a sample size (and why), and what I think might be a persuasive display mode. I have even identified an organization which might be in a position to provide the statistics to support your claim. The claim was yours sir, not mine. It is your responsibility to substantiate it.

If you wish people to accept your claims on faith, that is up to you. I am familiar with others who expect that, some periodically.

yes, interesting. paraphrased rather badly, but the sentiment is the same nevertheless and it can still be attributed to mr. franklin.




policy changes...i'm going for a broad idea here... live and let live. no harm, no foul. respect differences. acknowledge existences.
to take a cue from the beginnings of the original massive islamic empire (the ottoman): if you can contribute to our society in a meaningful and productive way, i don't really care what else your goals, ideals or beliefs are. i suppose it's a little late for some of that. the sparks of indignation have ignited and i wonder if there is any going back.

pissing contests. where would the world be without them...?

and let me rephrase to say an expectation of privacy instead of right. but just because it wasn't written into the constitution - as the article points out - does not mean it is not expected or granted, also as the article points out.

In this case, where wiretapping is a necessity of the times in order to protect the Nation from those who mean us harm, the ruling is a win for Osama Bin Laden.

I want the government to do everything in its power to keep us safe. Uncle Sam isn't interested in my calls to Mom or Aunt Sally. Too many of us warp this into a conspiracy so broad and evil that we miss the intent of the act, which is to protect us from terrorism.

The day this wiretapping is bent to include prosecuting non-terrorist acts, such as phone sex, is the day impeachment proceedings and firings take place.

As for the oft quoted Mr. Franklin, I feel his words of counsel are misplaced in this case. I daresay he would agree with the government's program in that intellegence gathering for the purpose of protecting the Nation is indeed a necessary and proper act.

At the risk of provoking my liberal Pixie friends, which I do not wish to do, I would suggest that the protest would not be nearly as vociferous had Mr. Clinton been the one authorizing it under similar circumstances.