Cognitive dissonance among the supposedly free

My post was only in agreement that you aren't going to make many converts with this tact. -Handy
Click to expand...


Handy, there is nothing to debate. Freedom is not negotiable, and those who would bargain that freedom away don't deserve it. You know, just like a certain Mr Franklin said a couple hundred years ago. -Coineach
Click to expand...

Coinneach, no one on this site truly believes they are actively undermining your rights. If you would like to demonstrate to them that they in fact are in error, a less combative tone may work better. -Handy
Click to expand...
+100^

It seems like people are having a hard time understanding each other. Handy did not say freedom is negotiable, neigther did I. The point we both are trying to make is that you catch more flies with honey than vinager. We agree that rights are in danger, mostly due to negligence, but alienating those you wish to convince is a stupid, and immature responce to the problem, and in the end will accomplish nothing. Keep your anger, it is a good thing. I watch the "Rules of Engagment" video once a month to remind me of my own, but directing it at your allies(whether you feel like we are or not) will not convince anybody.
 
People on this forum actively support the destruction of our rights; including their own. The end result is the same.
Click to expand...
You are 100% right on that, Coinneach. This is a GUN FORUM, for God's sake!! And yet we have many here who defend, apologize for AND VOTE FOR the antigun bigots who would disarm us and gut the Second Amendment.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Anyone who owns guns and votes for antigun bigots - and we all know who they are - is an idiot, period.
 
Nicotine, if you need convincing of something that's patently obvious (in this case, believing .gov's doublespeak), then your head is fundamentally broken and all the honey in all the world's beehives will accomplish nothing. Like I said, I see no reason to play nice with people who are willing to turn their backs on the US' principles.

If the honey > vinegar thing was true, Sarah Brady and Josh Sugarmann would have pulled their heads out long ago.
 
Good point Roberta.

Allow me to clarify: "Founders" as a term when used by myself, means only those who "founded" the government as we know it. It may or may not include those who signed the Declaration or those who wrote and ratified the Confederation. That's the "overlap."
 
Al you misinterpet my meaning. (and you have to excuse myu spelling and syntx as day two of narcotics continues)

There are tons of things not enumerated in the constition that are dealt with by government and or the people on a regualr basis and whose existence would be far beyond the ken of the founders/framers even in their wildest dreams. The existence of facts and circumstances inconcievable to the drafters of the constitution do not always even rise to the level of constitutional consideration. The constituion is a FRAMEWORK for a civil/politcal entity where life is to be conducted within that framework and nothing more. Things are in the framework, things are outside, and some are so basic that although unstated, they form the essense of the framework itslef.

So with that in mind, I turn to the issue in question: the governments power to "monitor" us. Now we all MUST agree that the government does have the power to "monitor" us...that is inherent in the constituion and in the powers to control the borders, put in place a system of judicial intervention etc...so the wuestion is not the power but the extent of the power.

So then the question becomes, I reckon, what is the extent of the power to monitor us...I guess this thread is based on the hullaballo about the government looking for patterns in phone numbers. Since such a practice is not mentioned in the Constituion (and wouldnt be) the issue is then does it conflict with any other portion of the constitution? The mere fact that it is not mentioned doesn not presume that the power to do so does not exist (or does exist for that matter).....

One can look at the Constituion of course and find all sorts of penumbras and emanations...which such epehemeral phiolosphies only count iof they support a political position one has I reckon.

Finally Coineach, since I am enjoying better living thru chemicals today, I wont bother lowering myslef to the playground with you, except to say...na forgoet it...

WildblackfootAlaska
 
I guess this thread is based on the hullaballo about the government looking for patterns in phone numbers. Since such a practice is not mentioned in the Constituion (and wouldnt be) the issue is then does it conflict with any other portion of the constitution?
Click to expand...
This is so specious as to be embarrassing. For the answer, a simple-minded but logical person need only look back at the communication devices that were in place, rather than simply conclude .gov can do whatever it wants since "the telephone was not invented in 1776".

I'm talking about Mail Delivery. What would Ben Franklin have said if, as Deputy Postmaster in 1753, King George had ordered him to maintain a list of all incoming and outgoing mail from the Colonies, "just to know who is writing who"? More important, what would he have said in 1776 if that very practice were offered up as an exception to the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

I think we all know the answer; and to dismiss that answer, because we now communicate with telephone, telegraph and internet, is simply unsupportable.
Rich
 
What would Ben Franklin have said if, as Deputy Postmaster in 1753, King George had ordered him to maintain a list of all incoming and outgoing mail from the Colonies, "just to know who is writing who"? More important, what would he have said in 1776 if that very practice were offered up as an exception to the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

He would say it was a "mail cover" not prohibited by the 4th amendment

WildtooloopytofingthecitesAlaska
 
He would say it was a "mail cover" not prohibited by the 4th amendment
Click to expand...
Patently absurd. He'd have asked what interest the Federal Government had in knowing who was writing who; upon hearing your answer, he'd have laughed uproariously as I am now.

One need only read his own words to know where he stood on the trade of of privacy vs safety:
Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Click to expand...
Rich
 
Funny as it may be Doesnt change the fact that its still a mail cover not unconstituional. The whole silly phone number shtick is just one giant mail cover, which, I may add, is one of the most INEFFICIENT AND DUMB ways of conducting an untargeted investigation.

And thats where principles get in the way of reality. While Congress and the pundits rant and rail and rage about invasion of privacy vis a vis national security, why isnt their one voice in the wilderness crying out "What a waste of time and money?"

WildnotgoodsoundbitemaybeAlaska
 
Wild-
You've just repeated my fictitious Franklin reaction. Invasions of privacy need to be balanced on a cost-benefit basis. There is enormous cost to this, not limited to financial; there is the potential for abuse, and the continued invasion of our private lives, to name two. Yet there is virtually no benefit.
Rich
 
Nicotine said:
"The point we both are trying to make is that you catch more flies with honey than vinager."

First, no one is trying to catch flies, certainly not Coinneach. I think he is trying to get somebody's attention. For that, a slap alongside the head with a 2X4 usually works best.
Second, while I might make a few changes to his verbiage, I generally agree with him. While there can be many levels of slavery, there is only one degree of freedom.
 
There is enormous cost to this, not limited to financial; there is the potential for abuse, and the continued invasion of our private lives, to name two. Yet there is virtually no benefit.
Click to expand...

Mail covers have always been worthless. Thats why youi dont need a warrant for them :)

One of the points I try to make is instead of shouting from the rooftops and viscerally putting on our tricorns is to ignore the complex and debatebale debate about the constituional implications of x and y and simply say:

"Dude, what a waste of time and money. It isnt making us safer, so go spend your time and OUR money on investigatory techniques that are worthwhile."

WildimdyingtoseeacongresssmansaythatAlaska
 
I will try to explain myself again, because I think I might not be expressing what I'm trying to correctly. It may be that I am missing what you are saying or it may be that you are missing what I am saying, but I strongly believe we are on the same side saying the same thing.

I am fully aware of the situation, and am not advocating sitting around and "playing nice". I am saying that if a diplomat gave a press confrence tomorrow, and said "things need to change, you are all worthless because you have not changed it yet!" he would be booed off stage and possably lynched. But if the same diplomat said "things need to change, here is how and here is why, thank you for your support." He would be taken seriously and have his words heard rather than have people get pissed and not listen to him.

I agree comepletely that something needs to be done, but I feel that a belligerent, combative approach could only be harmful at this point. There are still people who have not opened their eyes yet, and need convincing. Talking to a person about how and why things need to be done is different from telling a person that he has to get off his worthless ass and do something because its right.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say. If you do and think maybe I have misinterpreted what you are saying, let me know.
 
For those who don't get it, and probably never will.

Look at at how much money the government LEGISLATES AWAY FROM US.

Only to use it against us.
 
If we look back at why we fought the revolution to kick King George out....it becomes crystal clear that the "founders" felt that too much power in the hands of anyone or a government were a bad thing. The idea was that individuals should have rights which are "God Given". This means that they belong to the individuals and society as a group of individuals and are not government's to take away. The idea that came out on top was that the "people" were in the drivers seat not the government. That balance has gone awry as some of us have traded rights for safety with the government having the upper hand. Only to find that the safety they have traded for means being put on the short leash and muzzled by the government masters. If you are a good they will throw you a bone every once in a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top