whocares: you just proved your ignorance. were are NOT a democracy. the people DO NOT have the power. incase you didnt notice, the people's vote for presidency DOES NOT count. we DO NOT vote for laws, we basically are powerless. we can only vote for minor laws. thats what a republic is. we elect people who represent our beleifs, then they vote for us. you just defeated yourself.

 

 

 

YOu just prooved that you dont make a lick of sense. Please don't try to act like you know about politics.

whocares: you just proved your ignorance. were are NOT a democracy. the people DO NOT have the power. incase you didnt notice, the people's vote for presidency DOES NOT count. we DO NOT vote for laws, we basically are powerless. we can only vote for minor laws. thats what a republic is. we elect people who represent our beleifs, then they vote for us. you just defeated yourself.

 

 

 

YOu just prooved that you dont make a lick of sense. Please don't try to act like you know about politics.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

 

please read.

 

to sum it up what i was saying that is true. look up america, and you will find that it is a republic.

 

now what is a republic? read the article and you will find out. we elect people, who in turn vote for our major laws. your mom/dad does not go to the voting booth and vote if they want abortion outlawed or not, your elected representatives from your state vote for that.

 

a republic is a limited democracy. a republic tends to be much more stable and safe than a democracy itself.

 

also, we do not vote for a president, the electoral college does.

 

please, next time do a little research before saying i know nothing.

thats cool.

 

i dont really care, i mean does the fbi care if my mom calls and tells me to vaccum? honestly, what are americans so afraid of? do they value their self importance so much they think the govt. will care about their lives?

 

if it stops things like 9/11, ill let them hear every single word i say.

 

To me it's more the principle. Think back on what this nation was founded on. Sure this seems like a small thing to you, but if the government can take a step in this direction so easily, imagine what they're capable of slowly doing as people at every step say that they're ok because it stops terrorists and they don't want any terrorists attacking them.

 

This country's becoming ran and controlled by fear again. Irrational fears of terrorists. And the government easily uses this tool to advance and probably keep advancing in any direction they want.

 

 

 

that could happen, but it wont. you would have to get 51% + presidents signature. shure, im putting trust in politicians to vote against any other liberity restrictions. i doubt 51% of the house, 51% of the senate, and the president would like to make this country a dictatorship. thats why we vote for people we trust.

 

worst case senario, we have the right to bear arms :D .

 

 

 

whocares: im not a senator or a house rep. i dont vote to go to war, and i cant. i also cant vote for the pat. act. next time dont be so ignorant, and dont post stuff you know nothing about.

 

A majortiy of the large number of the polititions that voted for the Partrot Act, never read the 300 page report on it. I would not trust the governmets actons soo much if I were you.

 

 

 

You also do not know who this infomation is being released to. If it is someone who knows you they can use that as blackmail. If they dont know you then who knows how they interpreted your infomaton, you could be sent to jail from a joke you forwarded to your boss for all you know.

 

 

 

My guess is that if unabated, the government will continue doing things such as this. Soon the government could get a warrent for Nortin and IBM and force them to instal keylogers into the computers hardrive preloaded. The government is already asking search engines to giveup private search records. America as a whole will believe the one who has the best advertising campain, we have no voice, and the few who could have can now be cenncored.

 

 

 

The irony in it is that we critisize the communist governments, like China, for controling their people too much, we should be looking at ourselves.

The nation was founded upon a civil war and the genocide of an entire race of people spreading the entire land. What exactly are you trying to say?

 

I mean think about what we're told it's founded on. Whether or not it really was founded on principles of liberty and freedoms (you seem to think otherwise) doesn't matter. What matters is that today those are the things we should still believe and try to keep instilled in a country. Once you let go of a freedom it's so hard to get it back.

 

 

 

I agree. I've written many research papers on the founding fathers and how our constitution came to be, and liberty was definitely at the heart of it (thanks to John Locke).

 

 

 

But where I disagree, is how you define liberty. What's going on isn't necessarily invading someone's liberty, it's only invading what you believe is an essential part of liberty. For instance, some people believe that they should not have to do anything the government says because it invades their liberty. Some government programs that you support, probably invade someone else's perception of liberty.

 

 

 

So how do we decide one what liberty is? Our founding fathers, primarily Jefferson, were largely influenced by John Locke. In fact, our Declaration of Independence has almost exact quotes from Lockes ..Essay Concerning True Origin..., so we know his political philosophies were at the heart of the creation of our country. So what does Locke say?

 

 

 

Primarily, everyone is born into a Natural state of liberty - without license - and no one can take that away. But in order to thrive, men will get together to create government, and by doing so, they align themselves together under a common bond: to protect their liberties. In order to do that, the men who have bonded together to create a government (for the people, by the people), have to decide what common laws and what control the government will have an be able to exert over the people.

 

 

 

Because the government is in fact for the people, and by the people, the people decide what can and cannot be done. Is it fair, for instance, to force someone to give up their goods and pay taxes to the government? It is if the people say it is, because the people are protecting their own liberties, themselves.

 

 

 

If America believes that watching the patterns of phone calls is going too far, we will see the change in the elections and we the change will happen. If not? Revolution, just as our Declaration of INdependence and John Locke said. "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary..."

 

 

 

So what's my point? Liberty as far as civil liberties and the government are concerned, are defined by the people creating the rules. We aren't giving up liberties anymore than we are by having to pay taxes, if that's what we want.

revolution........ yes, that would be a solution

 

but first you have to fight indifference

Dude, the CIA can't even keep track of the 2000 known terrorists on their list. How they heck do you expect a goverment that is comprised of .001% of the population to be able to monitor everyone else? Thats like 200 million people. By "watching" you they mean there are computers checking to see if you call a known terrorist or something. Its not like there is a panel of people in suits watching your every move on a panel of TVs :roll:

Having the government monitoring you isn't a big deal, unless your doing something you shouldn't be. Besides it's worth it.

Dude, the CIA can't even keep track of the 2000 known terrorists on their list. How they heck do you expect a goverment that is comprised of .001% of the population to be able to monitor everyone else? Thats like 200 million people. By "watching" you they mean there are computers checking to see if you call a known terrorist or something. Its not like there is a panel of people in suits watching your every move on a panel of TVs :roll:

 

I agree with trapical. They only moniter known terrorist sympathizers. All this crap about the government "monitering" 2 out of 3 is i a buttload of crap, and Bush is one of the best Presidents we have ever had. I would have one of him rather than thousands of Kerrys or Clintons.

There is absolutley no way they could process all that information. It must just be stored. Luckily that kind of stuff can't happen in Britain under european law (see the Human Rights Act)

the people DO NOT have the power.

 

*claps*Exactly. It might of worked with 1 million people in some little colonies, but it can't work with 260 million people on 1/3 of a continent.

 

Revolution is will just start it over. One thing is certain: There will never be a true democracy.

 

 

 

dude.. that guy rocks.

"Those who are willing to give up some essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

 

+1,000,000,000,000

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1948927&page=1

 

The population in America is about 300 million if your wondering.

 

 

 

Maby the Patriot Act wasn't such a good idea for America.

 

 

 

How the hell are they storing this much infomation! Do they even look at it?

 

 

 

The only reason they're monitoring the calls is to find out unusual phone records that might link to terrorists. Besides, do you really think the government cares about how your girlfriend broke up with you? or what you ordered on your pizza?

the people DO NOT have the power.

 

*claps*Exactly. It might of worked with 1 million people in some little colonies, but it can't work with 260 million people on 1/3 of a continent.

 

Revolution is will just start it over. One thing is certain: There will never be a true democracy.

 

 

 

But why would we want a true democracy over a Republic?

 

I agree with trapical. They only moniter known terrorist sympathizers. All this crap about the government "monitering" 2 out of 3 is i a buttload of crap, and Bush is one of the best Presidents we have ever had. I would have one of him rather than thousands of Kerrys or Clintons.

 

 

 

Are you effin' kidding? I'll agree that Bush was a better candidate than Gore or Kerry, but that isn't saying much. His entire presidency has been based on creating laws and policies that sound good by playing on emotions and therefore they get voted for but aren't effective or aren't a good idea. Lets take a look...

 

 

 

-We invaded a nation on false intelligence. Whether or not the pres knew about that beforehand, its still a big screwup.

 

-No Child Left Behind: In creating such a pressure to do well in test taking, schools are scaling down music and art programs to cram in test taking. Last year, my school, which is a good suburban school that sends out a dozen national merit finalists each year and received the Blue Ribbon for Excellence, an award for being one of the best public schools, and last year we didn't make the cut determined by No Child Left Behind. Why? Because ONE person in our special ed subgroup failed. Note that the special ed kids are expected to be able to pass the same tests as everyone else, no matter their capabilities. And in a couple of years, all the schools have to have 100% passing. Simply impossible, goodbye accreditation.

 

-Patriot Act: Another emotional bill passed because lawmakers wanted to look good after 9/11. Arguably unconstitutional.

 

-Guantanamo: Because of the 'War on Terror' and 9/11, we've got our secret cuban prison camp. We abduct those who are 'suspicious' and give them 'due course of law,' which is a military tribunal, not a jury of peers. Often times the prisoners aren't even told what they're being accused of and often times theres no evidence.

 

 

 

Just remember, lawmakers vote for things that look good in getting them reelected. And just because something is made to sound good, it doesn't mean it is.

 

 

 

As for monitoring calls, yeah, they're collecting your data. It doesn't mean they're listening in, but they're collecting your data. Whether or not it's ever used or ever used against you, this sets a dangerous precident. Right now the government finds it necessary 'for the greater good' to collect phone records without warrants. When the next attack happens, what else will they want?

 

 

 

You have to remember, its not all about what a law actually does. The precident it sets is as important, if not more important, than the law itself.