[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Abortion is its own kettle of fish, and (depending on perspective) directly affects another. It's likely beyond the scope of this conversation.

The liberty to choose one's own death is as much a civil liberty as the ability to choose to risk one's own life. Or do you think we should outlaw missionary work to dangerous places?

The libberty of two same-sex people to marry is the same as the liberty of two people of the opposite sex to marry. Do you think heterosexual marriage is a civil liberty? If so, you've answered your question on how; if not, then you've thrown out a red herring.

How about the right to choose whether or not to use drugs? It's my body isn't it? I should have the right to choose whether I want to be stoned or not. Now if I go out and affect someone else's body because of what I do to my own, then that is a different matter.

How about if I want to sell my body to earn money to feed, clothe, and keep a roof over my head? It's my body isn't it? Why does someone have the right to stop me from doing with my own body what I want to do with it?

What about the liberty of 3 or 4 people marrying? Why is it ok to limit the number?

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by burningtr33

I want some proof of this happening. It probbably happened becuz a lot of(not all) christians are very hypocritical.
I decry any denial of religious freedoms. I dont care if they are muslim, buddhist, jewish or watever they deserve civil and religious freedom.

.

So what is the solution for when these freedoms are in conflict??

[Danny]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

How about the right to choose whether or not to use drugs? It's my body isn't it? I should have the right to choose whether I want to be stoned or not. Now if I go out and affect someone else's body because of what I do to my own, then that is a different matter.

How about if I want to sell my body to earn money to feed, clothe, and keep a roof over my head? It's my body isn't it? Why does someone have the right to stop me from doing with my own body what I want to do with it?

What about the liberty of 3 or 4 people marrying? Why is it ok to limit the number?

You come across like you're being sarcastic, but I agree with every one of those points. Restrictions against responsible drug use, prostitution, and polygamy are pointless, no business of the government, and should be done away with.

[JerryLove]

His unwaivering support of the USA PATRIOT ACT. Go do yourself a favor and read up on it. I assumed you already were at least somewhat familiar with it.

Ironically, in 2000 Bush campaigned on an ANTI-PATRIOT ACT platform. He then flip-flopped.

[JerryLove]

How about the right to choose whether or not to use drugs? It's my body isn't it? I should have the right to choose whether I want to be stoned or not.

Yes.

And actually, using a drug is not a crime. Posessing a controlled drug is a crime.

How about if I want to sell my body to earn money to feed, clothe, and keep a roof over my head? It's my body isn't it? Why does someone have the right to stop me from doing with my own body what I want to do with it?

I don't think they should.

What about the liberty of 3 or 4 people marrying? Why is it ok to limit the number?

I don't think it is... though I don't know why the government is involved in marriage to begin with.

[burningtr33]

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Quite simple (and I'm tired... and need to be at work in 8 hours... ):

His unwaivering support of the USA PATRIOT ACT. Go do yourself a favor and read up on it. I assumed you already were at least somewhat familiar with it.

Sry didnt read about the patriot act. If you can plz summarize it in a fragment.

[burningtr33]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Ironically, in 2000 Bush campaigned on an ANTI-PATRIOT ACT platform. He then flip-flopped.

I would like some evidence. From wat i kno i believe bush was the one introducing the Patriot Act.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

So what is the solution for when these freedoms are in conflict??

Solution? The first ammendment.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by burningtr33

I would like some evidence. From wat i kno i believe bush was the one introducing the Patriot Act.

Presidents don't introduce bills; they sign or veto them.

Solution? The first ammendment.

Which is worthless without enforcement, which doesn't happen without people who are dedicated to protecting your first amendment righst and making sure they are enforced - people like...you know where I'm going with this.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by burningtr33

Sry didnt read about the patriot act. If you can plz summarize it in a fragment.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162:

That's not a fragment - but it gives you an idea of what it involves. For a fragment, see this:

Expanded Surveillance With Reduced Checks and Balances. PATRIOT expands all four traditional tools of surveillance used by law enforcement -- wiretaps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas. Their counterparts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allow spying in the U.S. by foreign intelligence agencies have similarly been expanded. This means:
Be careful what you read on the Internet. 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.
Nationwide roving wiretaps. FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is being used by a suspect or target of an order, or even specifically identifying the person targeted. The government may now serve a single Title III wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even have to report where they served the order or what information they received. The EFF believes that the opportunities for abuse of these broad new powers are immense. For pen/trap orders, while ISPs or others who are not specifically named in the order do have the legal right to request certification from the Attorney General's office that the order applies to them, they have no right to request such confirmation from a court.
ISPs hand over more user information. 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. §§210, 211.
New definitions of terrorism expand scope of surveillance. One new definition of terrorism and three expansions of previous definitions also expand the scope of surveillance. PATRIOT §802's definition of "domestic terrorism" (amending 18 USC §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 §2331, terrorism transcending national borders per 18 USC §2332b, and federal terrorism per amended 18 USC §2332b(g)(5)(B)) expose more people to surveillance (and potential "harboring" and "material support" liability, §§803, 805).
Overbreadth with a lack of focus on terrorism. Several provisions of PATRIOT have no apparent connection to preventing terrorism. These include:
Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court order. §217.
Adding samples to DNA database for those convicted of "any crime of violence." §503. This provision allows collection of DNA for terrorists, but then inexplicably also allows collection for the broad, non-terrorist category of "any crime of violence."
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.
Dramatic increases to the scope and penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. These include: 1) raising the maximum penalty for violations to 10 years (from 5) for a first offense and 20 years (from 10) for a second offense; 2) ensuring that violators only need to intend to cause damage generally, not intend to cause damage or other specified harm over the $5,000 statutory damage threshold; 3) allowing aggregation of damages to different computers over a year to reach the $5,000 threshold; 4) enhancing punishment for violations involving any (not just $5,000) damage to a government computer involved in criminal justice or the military; 5) including damage to foreign computers involved in U.S. interstate commerce; 6) including state law offenses as priors for sentencing; 7) expanding the definition of loss to expressly include time spent on investigation, response, damage assessment and restoration.
Allows Americans to be More Easily Spied Upon by U.S. Foreign Intelligence Agencies. Just as the domestic law enforcement surveillance powers have expanded, the corollary powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act have also been greatly expanded, including:
General Expansion of FISA Authority. 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.
Increased information sharing between domestic law enforcement and intelligence. 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.
FISA detour around federal domestic surveillance limitations; domestic detour around FISA limitations. 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.

Source: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveilla...t_analysis.php

[Danny]

Originally Posted by jfahler03

That's not a fragment - but it gives you an idea of what it involves. For a fragment, see this:



Source: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveilla...t_analysis.php

As a disclaimer to that fragment, it should be known that the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) is a special interests group dedicated primarily to internet/digital rights, so the excerpt from their site may not even cite the most dangerous or egregious violations to your privacy rights - just the ones that have to do with the internet and high tech. It's certainly a good place to start, though.

[JerryLove]

I would like some evidence. From wat i kno i believe bush was the one introducing the Patriot Act.

You are correct. My memory is going in my old age. It was, in fact, the DoHS I was thinking of. Bush opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security for nearly nine months before turning around and supporting it. (http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Georg...d_Security.htm)


Another good quote:
I want to rebuild our military to keep the peace. I want to have a strong hand when it comes to the US and world affairs. I don’t want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don’t want to be the world’s policeman. I want to be the world’s peacemaker by having a military of high morale and a military that’s well-equipped. - G.W.Bush

[burningtr33]

Originally Posted by Danny

Which is worthless without enforcement, which doesn't happen without people who are dedicated to protecting your first amendment righst and making sure they are enforced - people like...you know where I'm going with this.

Sometimes they go way too far.

[burningtr33]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You are correct. My memory is going in my old age. It was, in fact, the DoHS I was thinking of. Bush opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security for nearly nine months before turning around and supporting it. (http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Georg...d_Security.htm)


Another good quote:
I want to rebuild our military to keep the peace. I want to have a strong hand when it comes to the US and world affairs. I don’t want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don’t want to be the world’s policeman. I want to be the world’s peacemaker by having a military of high morale and a military that’s well-equipped. - G.W.Bush

O thnx.