Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Serenity (the Constitution) is besieged by the Alliance (... or any other that seek to weaken it)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
AURaptor, if I believed all that you seem to, I would hate Firefly as lefty-liberal-libertarian bull***t, full of contempt for authority, and not give it a second viewing.
Why is it, exactly, that you say you like it?
I'm not kidding here, I really don't understand.
I know that I, myself, cannot watch Airforce One because I could never believe that we could have a president that courageous and fair, and see the flick as being so much fairytale nonsense set in today's real world that I can't stomach it....

????Chrisisall????

---

Quote:

---

You mean like the 2nd Amendment-hating Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, et al? Yep. Evil Alliance bastards, every one.

---

Quote:

---

As a conservative libertarian, and a Southerner too, I can identify w/ Mal's plight and the concept of letting folk do as they please, as long as they don't hinder or deprive anyone else of their freedom through force or fraud. Yet despite the yammerings of our personal freedoms being taken away, I simply don't see it. Well, not any more than I saw under the previous Administration( Waco, Elian Gonzalez, for example ) ...in fact, far less so now.

---

Quote:

---

I think some folks need to take up a new hobby. Or get outside more.

---

Quote:

---

Auraptor, I guess you're OK with the government snooping on your business and conversations with no oversight whatsoever? Also, you're OK with the government detaining US citizens indefinitely w/o charges? I mean, whatever happened to the concepts of personal liberty, due process, checks and balances? I was not entirely thrilled about Waco- I thought at the time it was mishandled terribly. (I simply would have w/drawn all forces from around the compound area and let them simmer in their own paranioa. Instead, they fell right into acting just like Koresh's doomsday predictions and gave him credibility w/ his own people. Stupid, stupid, stupid.)

---

Quote:

---

When they say they're monitoring KNOWN terrorist operatives...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

When they say they're monitoring KNOWN terrorist operatives...

---

Did you believe everything Clinton "said"? I doubt it. So why would you believe Bush? If Bush was really monitoring "known terrorists" why didn't he just go and present his "reasons" for monitoring these people to FISA? Then he could have shown that it wasn't UNreasonable search and seizure and the Fourth Amemdment would have been upheld. As it is, we just have his "word" on the topic. So, I take that "word" and pose it against his OTHER public statements that searches and wiretaps would always be conducted with a warrant and I'm left with the impression his word doesn't mean much because of ingorance or mendacity.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Where do you get that idea, unless you're paranoid? Under no circumstances am I "OK" with the Gov't snooping me or any average Joe. But that isn't what they're doing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I just gave you a reason- Bush's word contradicting Bush's word. Hey, when someone disagrees with themselves ONE of them is going to be wrong and BOTH of them lose credibility about their "word"! Clearly, you have a serious need to believe Bush and you hold him to a far lower standard than, say, Clinton.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Where do you get that idea, unless you're paranoid? Under no circumstances am I "OK" with the Gov't snooping me or any average Joe. But that isn't what they're doing.

---

Yes it is.
It's called the PATRIOT Act, and it lets Law
Enforcement enter your home or business, search,
find, and NEVER have to tell you about it, all
without a court order.
Waah Waah Waah, they're not using it on ME so why
should I care? First they came for the Gypsies, then
they came for.... oh what's the use.
The fact is that it's ON THE BOOKS and IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and people we "elected" Right and Left want to keep it there........

Best we can do is VOTE the ISSUES, not the PARTIES
and keep our powder dry.

---

Quote:

---

Warrant, no warrant, I still support what The President is doing in regards to fighting terrorism and ' collecting the dots ', before another attack.

---

Quote:

---

Lincoln freeing the slaves was also 'UnConstitutional' but I'm not about to advocate we overturn the Emancipation Proclamation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Quote:

---

Lincoln freeing the slaves was also 'UnConstitutional' but I'm not about to advocate we overturn the Emancipation Proclamation.

---

Please explain how slavery was upheld by the Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

Under no circumstances am I "OK" with the Gov't snooping me or any average Joe. But that isn't what they're doing.

---

Quote:

---

When they say they're monitoring KNOWN terrorist operatives, I have no delusions in thinking that means me. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that is what the Gov't is wasting its time w/ random searches of any/every American. That'd be ridiculous.

---

Quote:

---

How Janet Reno wasn't at the very least sacked for the Waco debacle, I'll never know.

---

Quote:

---

Did you believe everything Clinton "said"? I doubt it. So why would you believe Bush? If Bush was really monitoring "known terrorists" why didn't he just go and present his "reasons" for monitoring these people to FISA? Then he could have shown that it wasn't UNreasonable search and seizure and the Fourth Amemdment would have been upheld.

---

Quote:

---

The goal is to detect communications between those who would pull off another 9-11-01 type attack.

---

Quote:

---

I'll pardon the Feds for not turning a blind eye to some of these PEACE groups. They can monitor them all they want, imo. Of course, once they take action to silence or disrupt their right to freely assemble w/ out due cause...THEN come talk to me.

---

Quote:

---

There are al Qaeda groups in Columbia getting busted for fake Passport rings.

---

Quote:

---

I'm more than a bit pissed a ALL POLITICIANS for not doing more to protect our borders, North and South.

---

Quote:

---

While folks are bickering about the wither- tos and why-fors, real bad folk are actually out there waiting to do very real bad things.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry to do this, but a statement like this needs a link. I've read of commie groups doing this, but that's the enemy we ignore. I've read nothing about Al Qaeda doing it. In Columbia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
As a conservative libertarian, and a Southerner too, I can identify w/ Mal's plight and the concept of letting folk do as they please, as long as they don't hinder or deprive anyone else of their freedom through force or fraud. Yet despite the yammerings of our personal freedoms being taken away, I simply don't see it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Pirate News, you have a theory?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
As a conservative libertarian, and a Southerner too, I can identify w/ Mal's plight and the concept of letting folk do as they please, as long as they don't hinder or deprive anyone else of their freedom through force or fraud. Yet despite the yammerings of our personal freedoms being taken away, I simply don't see it.

---

AURaptor, thanks for that. That was a fine answer, a lot more to it that the "Because it's good" you gave me last time I posed the same question.
It seems the only place we differ is the perception of what is possible, and what is actually occurring concerning big government trying to control our lives, and it's role in planetary corporate domination.
I see Big Brother; you see Wally Cleaver

Time, as always, will tell.

Satisfied Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Did you know that the law/federal regulation which states you need to show ID to get on an airplane is secret? Yes, we have secret laws that apply to American citizens, laws that none of us are allowed to inspect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:


Auraptor- It's law, not airline policy. Just google: secret airline security law.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
As a conservative libertarian, and a Southerner too, I can identify w/ Mal's plight and the concept of letting folk do as they please, as long as they don't hinder or deprive anyone else of their freedom through force or fraud. Yet despite the yammerings of our personal freedoms being taken away, I simply don't see it. Well, not any more than I saw under the previous Administration( Waco, Elian Gonzalez, for example ) ...in fact, far less so now.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Did you know that the law/federal regulation which states you need to show ID to get on an airplane is secret? Yes, we have secret laws that apply to American citizens, laws that none of us are allowed to inspect.

---

I'm pretty sure that's an airline policy, and not a law. But then again, it's the airlines prerogative, so unless you want to charter your own flights, it doesn't matter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumper:
No, it's a TSA regulation. It is passed down orally to each airport, and varies from airport to airport, and is updated weekly. John Gilmore just sued over not being able to see the regulation - the circuit court judges looked at it in private and promptly determined that it is A-OK to have secret laws that bind US citizens.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hey, I bitched and moaned to my Senators about that, and I bitched and moaned about that here on the board. Not that the Senate is the right forum to complain, but the Supreme Court Justices are pretty immune to public dissuasion. (Which is why we have to be pretty careful about who gets on in the first place.) But fortunately a number of states have since passd laws preventing that kind of travesty. So contact your state Legislators. Fortunately, this is still w/in the purview of the States.

BTW- Do you suppose Mal would have been for or against the right of the government to snoop into anyone's business?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
It's not a law it's a regulation or order.

If it's a law you can be arrested for violating it, in this case if you don't show ID you just aren't allowed to fly. You have no constitutional right to fly just like you have no constitutional right to drive (despite what PN appears to think)

---

Quote:

---

It’s not the regulation requiring identification that is secret but rather the CAPPS, which is a Decision Architecture for discriminating potential terrorists/hijackers. This is secret because if the criteria by which a person is identified as a potential threat were public, that information could be used as a countermeasure against it, indeed it could render it impotent, thereby providing terrorists with an avenue to hi-jack airliners and use them as precision bombs to cripple US defensive network and kill tens of thousands.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
That's only an argument if you planned to assemble on the aircraft and that was the only place you could assemble. You can drive anywhere you can fly within the US so you are not prevented from travelling pa see

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumper:
I'm pretty sure the regulation itself is secret as well. Since that was the entire point of the lawsuit. He wasn't asking to see the CAPPS criteria, just a copy of the regulation which states 'you are required to show ID to fly.'

---