House destroys 4th amendment

LDB · Apr 20, 2013

While attention was focused on the Boston bombings the House destroyed the 4th amendment. Convenient of the bombers to act just when this vote came up.

House Dismantles Fourth Amendment While America Distracted

layoutshooter · Apr 20, 2013

LDB said:
While attention was focused on the Boston bombings the House destroyed the 4th amendment. Convenient of the bombers to act just when this vote came up.

House Dismantles Fourth Amendment While America Distracted

n

Don't worry, be happy. We just need to accept and adapt. Freedom and the Constitution are of no value or importance. Our government is kind, and benevolent. This is only being done for our own good. They would never seek to harm us.

Turtle · Apr 20, 2013

I have a feeling that many on these forums will be utterly silent on the ACLU's position regarding CISPA. That, or they'll have some smarmy comment befitting their own hypocrisy.

xiggi · Apr 20, 2013

layoutshooter said:
n

Don't worry, be happy. We just need to accept and adapt. Freedom and the Constitution are of no value or importance. Our government is kind, and benevolent. This is only being done for our own good. They would never seek to harm us.

Now your.being ridiculous but that isn't anything new.

21cExp · Apr 20, 2013

Found this article interesting, too:

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/futur...g_as_a_reason_why_cispa_should_be_passed.html

And this one, as well, saying that the White House doesn't agree with the bill:

http://m.guardiannews.com/technolog...tives-cispa-cybersecurity-white-house-warning

cheri1122 · Apr 20, 2013

Tis interesting indeed, that Obama threatened to veto it "unless it creates stronger protections of citizens' privacy rights".
Odd thing for the man who many claim is trying to eliminate all our civil rights to say....

21cExp · Apr 20, 2013

Yep.

Talk among yourselves...

layoutshooter · Apr 20, 2013

cheri1122 said:
Tis interesting indeed, that Obama threatened to veto it "unless it creates stronger protections of citizens' privacy rights".
Odd thing for the man who many claim is trying to eliminate all our civil rights to say....

Privacy rights to Obama is asking Holder if it's OK to stick in our ear.

layoutshooter · Apr 20, 2013

Turtle said:
I have a feeling that many on these forums will be utterly silent on the ACLU's position regarding CISPA. That, or they'll have some smarmy comment befitting their own hypocrisy.

The ACLU is not "consistent" in their defense of our Constitutional Rights. They never have been. They do not support the idea of individual Second Amendment Rights and rarely defend them. I don't recall, though I may have missed something, the ACLU joining with those who believe in the Second Amendment in the fight now taking place to remove our right to own and carry a firearm.

Turtle · Apr 20, 2013

cheri1122 said:
Tis interesting indeed, that Obama threatened to veto it "unless it creates stronger protections of citizens' privacy rights".
Odd thing for the man who many claim is trying to eliminate all our civil rights to say....

Well, it depends on whether or not you're on his Kill List as to how he feels about your civil rights.

Turtle · Apr 21, 2013

layoutshooter said:
The ACLU is not "consistent" in their defense of our Constitutional Rights. They never have been. They do not support the idea of individual Second Amendment Rights and rarely defend them. I don't recall, though I may have missed something, the ACLU joining with those who believe in the Second Amendment in the fight now taking place to remove our right to own and carry a firearm.

They're incredibly consistent, it's just they aren't consistent with what you want them to do. Perhaps you should become a member and affect change from within.

cheri1122 · Apr 21, 2013

Turtle said:
Well, it depends on whether or not you're on his Kill List as to how he feels about your civil rights.

I'm reasonably sure that he feels better about my civil rights than I feel about his [illegal] kill list.
I don't admire or approve of everything he has done, but he is nowhere near the devil incarnate that some believe, is what I'm saying.

Turtle · Apr 21, 2013

No, he's not the devil incarnate at all. But he is a particularly crappy president and a godawful representation of the leader of the Free World.

blackpup · Apr 21, 2013

According to this article, quite a bit of money being spent.

"A Sunlight Foundation report recently revealed that interest groups in support of the bill spent $605m from 2011 to the third quarter of 2012 – 140 times as much lobbying Congress as those on the other side of the debate, who spent $4.3m."

jimmy

skyraider · Apr 21, 2013

If someone is reading everyone's emails now from NY to LA, it will take a long time to arrest all of us, but maybe some good will come out of it. Most of us in EO will be in the slammer,lol. Hey, 3 meals a day, free medical, millions will be joining us, prisons will be packed and we can get in touch with the mob while we are there. We can write long winded papers on the effects of prison life on expediters. Oh, and with 100s of millions in jail, who will pay all those entitlements, its an outrage I tell you, an outrage, but the best part, you will not have to pay for those new 12 dollar showers, but may want to watch out for bubba............just saying..... We the sheeples....or something like that and then they came for me....

layoutshooter · Apr 21, 2013

Turtle said:
They're incredibly consistent, it's just they aren't consistent with what you want them to do. Perhaps you should become a member and affect change from within.

NO, the are NOT consistent. They ONLY protect the parts of the Constitution that THEY like. I don't join organizations that are opposed to the individual RIGHT to own and carry a firearm. You are either 100% FOR the Constitution, or it's enemy. There is NO middle ground. I don't sit on fences.

21cExp · Apr 21, 2013

Internet blackout called for to protest CISPA: http://panarmenian.net/m/eng/news/155179

Similar blackouts were used to protest both "SOPA (Stop Online Privacy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act), which garnered support from over 7,000 sites."

xxiv24 · Apr 21, 2013

21cExp said:
Internet blackout called for to protest CISPA: http://panarmenian.net/m/eng/news/155179

Similar blackouts were used to protest both "SOPA (Stop Online Privacy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act), which garnered support from over 7,000 sites."

Yeh, that'll teach 'em...

sent using my Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator

Turtle · Apr 21, 2013

layoutshooter said:
NO, the are NOT consistent.

Yes they are, incredibly consistent.

They ONLY protect the parts of the Constitution that THEY like.

Well, duh. So does the NRA. The ACLU wasn't founded to be the overlord protector of any and all parts of the Constitution, they were founded to protect freedom of speech. Over the years they have expanded their focus to racism and other discrimination, and have concentrated on First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues. There are other organizations who are more focused on the other parts of the Constitution, like the Second Amendment.

I don't join organizations that are opposed to the individual RIGHT to own and carry a firearm. You are either 100% FOR the Constitution, or it's enemy. There is NO middle ground. I don't sit on fences.

They interpret the Constitution to mean a "collective right." You and I interpret it to mean an "individual right." That doesn't mean that either opinion is an enemy of the Constitution.

layoutshooter · Apr 21, 2013

Turtle said:
Yes they are, incredibly consistent.

Well, duh. So does the NRA. The ACLU wasn't founded to be the overlord protector of any and all parts of the Constitution, they were founded to protect freedom of speech. Over the years they have expanded their focus to racism and other discrimination, and have concentrated on First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues. There are other organizations who are more focused on the other parts of the Constitution, like the Second Amendment.

They interpret the Constitution to mean a "collective right." You and I interpret it to mean an "individual right." That doesn't mean that either opinion is an enemy of the Constitution.

All rights are individual. There is no "collective religion". There is no "collective protection from illegal searches." There is NOTHING in the Constitution that even suggests that the 2nd Amendment is "collective". I believe that 'stance' is just a cop out so that they can say they are for the entire Constitution, but that is just my belief.

IF they were SO big on the Fifth Amendment they would be opposed to background checks since, by their very nature, they assume a person is unworthy to own a firearm and therefor must PROVE their innocence.

I don't sit on fences. (not a slam on your other posts) It is all, or fight.

I don't believe that they are consistent on race either, but that is just a feeling. Same goes for the 1st Amendment. I don't trust them, not one bit.

Maybe it is the fault of the press. I ONLY ever see them trying to block prayer in school when the Constitution clearly states that government cannot interfere with the free practice of religion.

Things like the link below lead me to believe that they are not as advertised.

ACLU Sues Bloomfield for Display of 10 Commandments - American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico