Bush is trying to ban gay marriages nation-wide.... wow.

Drugs are also a moral issue, wether you realize it or not....

And the RAVE act puts a huge strain on small buisnesses.

You believe it is okay for the majority to force their moral opinions on the minority, I do not believe it is okay.

And I find it very sad that the majority agrees with you.


And, I don\'t want the government investigating me even if I have nothing to hide, it is just not their right to do that, plain and simple.


Edit:

many (the majority) would agree that we can\'t make exceptions for perversion from the natural.

Homosexualality is natural, because it occours...

Anything that occours was meant to occour, otherwise it would never happen. Nature ALLOWS for it to happen, even the most unnatural things are meant to happen, and are therefore actually natural.

[SirMystiq]

The Democrats can\'t do shit anyways. The Reps own Congress. The Democrat candidates probably do oppose this, but they\'re probably just saving them for the elections.


Blade said "whack jobs didn\'t read the Bible". What kind of whack job would believe the Bible? This isn\'t something the Bible has any say in. GWB is acting under his Christian motives and therefore he is breaking the whole "separation of church and state" thing.(I think it\'s in the Constitution) He in no way has the right to ban their rights. What\'s next? All businesses close on sundays in order to honor God?

Even if homosexuals are viewed as "not natural" or "not normal". Then shouln\'t we ban test tube babies? Shouln\'t we ban plastic surgery or alteration of the human body in any form? Banning a certain right of a person does not solve the problem. We might as well pull a Hitler and kill all the homo\'s b/c they aren\'t like us.

One last post: Why\'d you take my quote out of context? PETA is a bunch of whack-jobs.

DH: Just because something happens means it\'s natural, that\'s your argument? Man, I hope not.

Scientists haven\'t proven that human homosexuality is genetically natural, yet. Once they do.. if they do.. your logic will make sense. Meanwhile, a liberal school system teaches our children to accept homosexuality and even bask in it. That\'s just the tip of the iceberg. There, I\'m done. (me = hates political threads)

[SirMystiq]

Liberals > Conservatives...


Just adding more fuel to the fire

Since you seem to love the USA PATRIOT Act, Blade, maybe you should just glance over some of the items below.  It strikes me that Conservatives generally hold a view that our government is trustworthy, and would never abuse it\'s powers over it\'s own citizens.  Progressives like myself, however are a bit more cynical.  Throwing away our legal rights to privacy for a short term gain in "security" is not a wise choice.  It\'s not hard to understand what a slippery slope that path is.  You give away a few rights now, and later it\'s not as hard to take away a few more.

I thought Conservatives were supposed to care about protecting privacy rights too.  They seem to pay alot of lip service to "keeping the government off our backs" and so forth.  It\'s amazing how easily some personalities can be managed through FEAR (of terrorism, etc) to produce the desired result.


http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

This is only a partial list of provisions:

The government may now monitor the online activities of innocent Americans, and perhaps even track what Web sites you read, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied upon what it has done.

The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all "non-content" information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. §212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses, and means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. sec.210, 211.

One new definition of terrorism and three expansions of previous definitions also expand the scope of surveillance.  PATRIOT sec.802\'s definition of "domestic terrorism" (amending 18 USC sec.2331) raises concerns about legitimate protest activity being prosecuted as terrorism, especially if violence erupts, while additions to three existing definitions of terrorism (int\'l terrorism per 18 USC sec.2331, terrorism transcending national borders per 18 USC sec.2332b, and federal terrorism per amended 18 USC sec.2332b(g)(5)() expose more people to surveillance (and potential "harboring" and "material support" liability, sec.803, 805).

Wiretaps now allowed for suspected violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes anyone suspected of exceeding authorized access to a computer used in interstate commerce and thereby causing over $5000 worth of combined damage.

FISA authority to spy on Americans or foreign persons in the U.S. (and those who communicate with them) increased from situations where obtaining foreign intelligence information is "the" purpose of the surveillance to anytime that it is "a significant purpose" of the surveillance.

This is a partial repeal of the wall put up in the 1970s after the discovery that the FBI and CIA had been conducting investigations on over half a million Americans during the McCarthy era and afterwards, including the pervasive surveillance of Martin Luther King in the 1960s. It allows wiretap results, grand jury information and other evidence collected in a criminal case to be disclosed to the intelligence agencies when the information constitutes foreign intelligence information.

Domestic surveillance limits can be skirted by the Attorney General, for instance, by obtaining a FISA wiretap against a U.S. person where "probable cause" does not exist, but when the person is suspected to be an agent of a foreign government. The information can then be shared with the FBI. The reverse is also true.

[SirMystiq]

It\'s very sad that people would do anything when representatives of the Government right now use words such as "Terror", "Security", and now even numbers as "9/11" The fact is the US will NEVER be secure. The Patriot Act really is just another way for them to basically "spy" on anybody they wish. How hard can it be for Osama to pay an American Citizen to blow up the White House?

First of all Blade... bravo for your responses.  You stole all my thunder .

I still have to ask those who are so fearful of the Patriot Act why they are so?  If you aren\'t doing anything illegal YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR.  So what if the US Government spies on me online and finds out I have a fetish for lesbians... I am sure I fall into the same category as about 90 percent of all the other heterosexual men in the US.

The RAVE Act... if you are using drugs or you own a place where drugs are used (I am sure most club owners know what goes on in their clubs) then shame on you - you deserve what you get IMO.

As for gay marriages, I said it in the last gay marriage thread - either the US Supreme Court or Congress would shut the door on that issue.  I find it funny that DH refers to the US as a dictatorship when the majority are against gay marriages, yet he feels the position of the minority should dictate terms to the majority.  That isn\'t a democracy - that line of thought has all the characteristics of fascism, communism and socialism.

Hey Giga:  Just wondering why you made reference to facism in your final sentence, suggesting it\'s a bad thing, yet you seem to support the government\'s facist oversight of it\'s citizens personal lives in your second paragraph?  Do you see a conflict there?

I\'m not afraid of being found guilty of crimes based on information retrieved from Patriot act-authorized searches.  I am not guilty of anything.  I am however afraid of the government performing searches that have nothing to do with law enforcement.  I don\'t want them to collect information about me for no reason, and put it in a database so I can be sorted and classified at some future date.  THAT is granting facistic power to our government that they don\'t need.

Facism and communism use the same tactics - that is just semantics though.  It was basically to make a point that everyone could relate to.  Liberals seem to like socialism and some even communism while they hate facism.  Conservatives tend to be the opposite.  I also feel the government has certain rights to "monitor" citizens or people it feels are a threat to this country.  How can one argue against this if it is for your own safety?  Does anyone really want terrorists to set off something worse here on US soil?

Now I do have a question for you Core... what is so bad about the government having info on you...?  Unless you are up for a highly classified job that requires a very intensive background screening, I don\'t think it really matters.  I am sure the government already knows more about us than we know about ourselves, but I won\'t lose any sleep over it.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Now I do have a question for you Core... what is so bad about the government having info on you...?  Unless you are up for a highly classified job that requires a very intensive background screening, I don\'t think it really matters.  I am sure the government already knows more about us than we know about ourselves, but I won\'t lose any sleep over it.

What I\'m saying is... THAT situation "you are up for a highly classified job that requires a very intensive background screening" or there is a high probability that were involved in a crime or terrorist activity are the only situations where the government should be permitted to have such information about me.  They already have plenty of tools for finding terrorists.  The Patriot Act went went too far beyond.

They shouldn\'t be able to collect now for no reason, and then use it later whenever they need it.  There is a huge potential for abuse in such a system.  Individuals working for the government could abuse it, and the institutions themselves could do so as well.  Doesn\'t this concern you?

Originally posted by Coredweller
What I\'m saying is... THAT situation "you are up for a highly classified job that requires a very intensive background screening" or there is a high probability that were involved in a crime or terrorist activity are the only situations where the government should be permitted to have such information about me.  They already have plenty of tools for finding terrorists.  The Patriot Act went went too far beyond.

They shouldn\'t be able to collect now for no reason, and then use it later whenever they need it.  There is a huge potential for abuse in such a system.  Individuals working for the government could abuse it, and the institutions themselves could do so as well.  Doesn\'t this concern you?

To be honest not really...  If an individual does abuse my information... I smell a huge lawsuit.  Seriously though, give some example of the worst things that could happen to you as a result of this?  What terrible secrets are out there for them to collect data on?  Some people may have these fears, but I do not.  I am not perfect by any means and I do have a few skeletons lurking in my closet, but I will not live my life in fear of what someone knows about me.  Core, are we important enough that the government will want to collect data on us?  I doubt it.

The RAVE Act... if you are using drugs or you own a place where drugs are used (I am sure most club owners know what goes on in their clubs) then shame on you - you deserve what you get IMO.

Although I ultimatly feel that drugs should for the most part be legal, I do not expect such a radical change to happen quickly. My problem with the RAVE act is who it targets (club/small buisness owners) and the punishments.

The punishments are extremley unfair, especialy to the small buisnesses they will be targeting:  

"\'(d)(1) Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than the greater of--

\'(A) $250,000; or"

$250,000 to a small buisness is a huge amount of money, and they didn\'t even do anything wrong.

I find it funny that DH refers to the US as a dictatorship when the majority are against gay marriages, yet he feels the position of the minority should dictate terms to the majority.

I do not believe in a majoritys right to dictate morals to a minority, when this occours it is up to the minority to secure equality and destroy dictatorship.

I see nothing wrong with a smaller number of people controling a larger number if it is simply to stop inequality among people.

Giga,

1.  Regarding the RAVE act:  I thought conservatives were supposed to be gung ho about personal responsibility (holding the drug abuser responsible, not the club owner) and supporting the small business man, etc.  We hear this ALL THE TIME from Republicans.  So what\'s up?

2.  I\'m not even prepared to admit that the majority opposes gay marriage, but even if they do (by a slim margin), sometimes the majority is wrong.  Sorry, but it\'s a fact.  This whole situation reminds me of the political climate prior to every great shift in thinking on civil rights.  Before the civil rights changes under Johnson\'s administration, don\'t you think most people opposed it, just because "that\'s the way it\'s always been?"  Humans just naturally fear change.  It\'s nothing more complicated that that.  Sometimes it takes LEADERSHIP to bring about a needed change in the face of people\'s fears and anxiety.  How can giving every US citizen equal rights be wrong?  That\'s the part I don\'t understand.

[clips]

i\'ll just say this & leave this topic alone. i really don\'t have no problem with the gov\'t checkin\' me out, but what core stated about them issuing harsh fines on club owners is kinda unfair,..some clubs i\'ve been to you have cats sneaking drugs in no matter how tight security is..but on top of that i have to say this & this is my opinion & i don\'t want to sound racist when i say this.

Now just looking at it in general terms the gov\'t says it\'s has the right to check out all americans..now i see it like this..the gov\'t says this BUT i feel that they really are going to be checkin out people of arab decent or foreigners of arab decent. they have to say all americans for the sake of not profiling only arabs..think about it..bush stated this was a war on terror in all shapes & forms.now you won\'t see america going after the ira will you?(they are considered terrorists)..No because they are not a direct threat to the u.s..most likely i feel that is the real scenario..they just have to say all americans to protect themselves....imo

In the height of \'The Troubles\' when the IRA were letting off a bomb a week a hell of a lot of fundraising was done in the US.

Some of you lot may even have given money to them as they didn\'t tend to say it was for bombing London/Warrington/Derry etc...

So in one way Clips I\'m backing you up...................only to bitch-slap you down. The IRA were never a threat to the U.S. Instead you were their money pit.

The public face of the IRA - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1633282.stm

The real face of the IRA -
http://www.battlehill395.freeserve.co.uk/Omagh.htm

The last thing any American should talk about when it comes to terrorism is the IRA, you don\'t know shit.

Sorry, a bit off topic but I wanted to get a dig in on this one bit and post a few other \'things\'