Hoyer votes against Homeland Security!

B

Bruzilla

Guest
I chose it because I think it shows how someone can misuse personal information damage another person based on their personal preferences and attitudes. Having and abortion or contracting an STD has absolutely nothing to do with the personal reliability score on a service member's evaluations. This guy was very anti-abortion, and he chose to inject his beliefs into the system.

Now, expand this case outside of the military. Who do you deal with that you might not want to have knowing your personal business? Your boss? Your banker? Your mortgage company? Your insurance company? Do you honestly believe that industries are going to provide all this data to the government without some kind of quid pro quo? It's bad enough that the MVA can sell your personal information, but now imagine a vast government agency that finds that it can finance some struggling departments by providing legally opbtained information about you to your health insurance provider or mortgage holder.

Now suppose that your neighbor decides that you look a little too middle eastern, or that you you have too many friends over, or that they don't understand how you can afford such a nice house or car, and decide that they should report you to the Homeland Defense Agency. Then you go on a watchlist for the rest of your life, and the people you deal with find out that you're on said watchlist. Think you'll ever get a mortgage after that?

I would love to say that this is all a bit of overstatement, but I think a review of historical data will show that the US Government has a pretty rotten record when it comes to safeguarding classified information of any sort.
 
W

Warron

Member
Originally posted by Kain99
Hey Bru... "If your not doing anything wrong why the heck would you care about being snooped on?"
Click to expand...

I like to call this statement The Cry of the Tyrant. Because, in a free society, its not the accused's job to prove they are innocent, it's the accussor's job to prove guilt. Do you think the 1791 congress would waste their time amending the constitution if they thought the innocent have nothing to fear. I think a few of you need to make up for sleeping though history class by spending a few minutes reviewing the history of this issue. You could try starting with the term of Senator Joseph McCarthy (1954) and a good review of WWII Germany might help.

As for the statements about phone calls being picked up by baby monitors and email hackers, these are meaningless. I would expect that few, if any, of my neighbors are building dossiers of my life, and hackers would be bored with it after the first email. Regardless, the most any of these people would get are bits and pieces. Completely unlike a government that has the ability to gather information from numerous sources and put it all together in one place for use as they choose.

Another history topic you might look at, which has already been mentioned, is J. Edgar Hoover's term as the head of the FBI. His career was the epitome of what occurs when someone thinks those who are innocent have nothing to fear. Massive files detailing the lives of innocent Americans and illegal wiretaps of celebrities including Martin Luther King. I can't understand how anyone claiming to enjoy living in a free society would want to legalize this behavior.

Civil liberties are the ONLY difference between a totalitarian and a free society.
 
D

demsformd

New Member
You guys are starting to sound like liberals. Pretty freaky. Yes, the curbing of civil liberties is not worth increased security. Have you noticed also that even though they have this new heightened state of alert at airports, people are still carrying weapons onto planes? Still though, I agree with you Bru, the authorities are considering suspects guilty until proven innocent. Our entire purpose here is to defeat the oppression of fundamentalist Muslim fanatics, yet in order to do so, we must adopt their tactics. What sort of logic is this? Isn't it Ben Franklin who said that a man who sacrifices freedom for secruity deserves neither? Maybe we should think about that one. In our relentless pursuit of freedom, should we become them? I think not and I hope that you will not suck into that belief either.
 
SmallTown

SmallTown

Football season!
Originally posted by demsformd
Isn't it Ben Franklin who said that a man who sacrifices freedom for secruity deserves neither?
Click to expand...

Is this the same Ben Franklin who would flash people every morning with his naked air bath?
 
K

Kain99

Guest
Originally posted by Warron
I like to call this statement The Cry of the Tyrant.

Civil liberties are the ONLY difference between a totalitarian and a free society.
Click to expand...

Welp, Warron chalk it up to "Things we lost in the Fire!" It is obvious to me that you were basically uneffected by the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York. Minus the momentary shock....

Unfortunately, this may not always be the case for you. Tomorrow you may find yourself smack dab in the middle of Hell! Real Hell. The kind of living Hell where there is no way out.

Who will you blame then? Wait a second... Lemme think... Of course! You will blame the Government! Why didn't they do something to stop this? All your precious civil liberties won't mean much when you find your self falling face first from the 82nd floor.

Privacy is an illusion... Like it or not! You can be spied on now, Legally by the Government. You can be spied on by your employer (I promise), You can be spied on by anyone who really feels like it.

Call me a tyrant... Blow off the truth that I tell you I don't really care. But if you support tying the hands of The United States Government in times like these your crazy!!!

Let's hope ol' Osama doesn't Nuke D.C. before you get your priorities straight.
 
P

pilot

Member
Originally posted by Bruzilla

I'm all for deomestic security, but not at the expense of our freedoms.
Click to expand...

Bruzilla:

I couldn't agree more!

And, for anyone else who thinks we've already lost our privacy, believe me, it can get a lot worse!

I just wonder how much longer we'll remain "the land of the free and the home of the brave".
 
D

demsformd

New Member
Back to the Homeland Security bill. The bill contains amendments passed on the House floor that protect corporations that produce anti-terrorism tools like metal-dectors and baggage check manufacters from lawsuits. What kind of an add-on is this? What does this have to do with homeland security? Nothing, this is merely an attempt by Republican legislators to help out the special interests that got them elected. The House has adjourned also, thus if the Democrats in the Senate change any parts of the bill, it cannot be approved and sent to the President. This has caused Senator John McCain to side with the Democrats in their attempt to remove these pro-special interest components of the bill.
 
S

Spud

New Member
Oh No! Dont shut them down like that. They are a lot better reading. I have a special label for you. Anal Retentive.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
this is merely an attempt by Republican legislators to help out the special interests that got them elected.
Click to expand...
Yeah, buddy - them there metal detector and baggage check manufacturers were big Republican donors, yessirreebob. Couldn't a done it without them boys, that's fer certain.
:roflmao:

Spud, are you just free associating or what?
 
H

Heretic

Guest
The equipment is only as good as the user, and some of the equipment is new technology. It surely will not be 100% effective, the only way for somehting to be 100% effective is to not let anyone on an airplane ever. SO if something does happen people would probably sue the manufactures of the equipment adn say "we thought we would be safe" Why they thought this was such an important issue is debatable, it was probably someones pet legislation, everyone has it democrats, republicans, independants its all part of keeping their voters happy. Any company would be much more willing to let out emerging technology knowing that if it fails which emerging technology often can they they won't be penalized for giving the American public what they want. Heck if everything had to be 100% what it should be before it is used we wouldnt be using computers right now we would be chiseling these words onto stone tablets.
 
K

Kain99

Guest
Heretic sweetie, you know your only encouraging Dems... Did I spell encourageing right??? Anyway I have taken over this thread and Dems is out!
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Whew Demsformd... thanks for making that last post and pointing out our differences again. :biggrin: I agree with you that the Republicans are looking bad for adding in protections for companies, but the truth is that in this day and age they have to. Until there is some kind of tort reform, there will just be more and more bad lawsuits and I think these people do warrant some protection given the circumstances.

Look at the people who are lining up to sue the airlines for 9/11. Every ticket that's ever been sold by an airline has explicit information about how the airline is not responsible for death, injuries, or loss due to acts of God, terrorists, criminals, etc., so there should be no lawsuits. Yet there are plenty of lawyers who will play of people's fears and sympathies to try to rewrite history and win settlements against the airlines. If the government came to you and asked you to develop innovative equipment, would you be willing to do the work if you knew that there was a good chance that your company could be legally liable for the inaction ro mistakes of people who are beyond your control? No company would do business like that.

As for Kain's comments, I've made my case on this issue on other strings but I'll repeat it here. We have lost millions of Americans since 1776 because they would rather die than live without our freedoms. They sacrificed their lives to ensure the American way of life. And now that 3,000 people have died, we have many Americans signing on to forgo our way of life and freedoms to save their collective butts. What did all those Americans die for if Americans today have grown so cowardly that a weak potential threat causes us to say "screw our rights... we want to feel safe"?

I think that Americans who are willing to give up our rights because they are afraid of more attacks are an insult to every American who has lost his or her life defending those freedoms. I don't care of terrorists kill 3,000, 30,000, or 300,000 of us, we should not sacrifice our rights. If we want to feel safe we should do so by removing and killing the threat, not by creating a Gestapo or KGB.
 
K

Kain99

Guest
Originally posted by Bruzilla
I think that Americans who are willing to give up our rights because they are afraid of more attacks are an insult to every American who has lost his or her life defending those freedoms. I don't care of terrorists kill 3,000, 30,000, or 300,000 of us, we should not sacrifice our rights. If we want to feel safe we should do so by removing and killing the threat, not by creating a Gestapo or KGB.
Click to expand...

In turn, I will say that it is an insult to the Americans who were mudered on the 11th and those who will continue to die at the hands of terrorists Not to take extreme action.

You are argueing the right to privacy which you do not have now. My opinion, your spinning your wheels.
 
SmallTown

SmallTown

Football season!
Originally posted by Bruzilla


As for Kain's comments, I've made my case on this issue on other strings but I'll repeat it here. We have lost millions of Americans since 1776 because they would rather die than live without our freedoms. They sacrificed their lives to ensure the American way of life. And now that 3,000 people have died, we have many Americans signing on to forgo our way of life and freedoms to save their collective butts. What did all those Americans die for if Americans today have grown so cowardly that a weak potential threat causes us to say "screw our rights... we want to feel safe"?
Click to expand...

Yes, people have losts their lives to protect our freedoms. The difference is, the ones who lost their lives were (for the most part) willing to fight and die for thier purpose. The people on those planes, as well as the people in the world trade center and pentagon did not want to die, they didn't even have a choice. I think we owe it to THOSE people to exercise our ability to choose, and I choose safety.. When I get on a plane, i'm not looking over my shoulder for "big brother".. I'm watching for terrorists.

I think we owe it those who did die for this country to make sure this country carries on, whatever the cost may be. Those people paid the ultimate sacrifice, and we are eternally grateful. Now we have a chance to protect this nation without severe loss of life, and people are opposed? It truly is baffling. I really don't think the people who fought and died for our freedom gets joy from seeing airplanes crashing into our buildings and innocent people being killed.. That is not what they died for. The way I see , we are cowards if we DON'T sacrifice a little to protect out safety. People have sacrificed their lives for this country, and you have the ability to sit there and say you won't give up a little privacy to do the same?? Pretty shallow my friend.. People give up their right to life, and you say you won't give up a little right of privacy. Amazing.. Americans have become way to pampered.. The enemy knows this. Which is why they were able to crash jets into our buildings. Terrorists know that the SAFEST place for them to be is IN this country. Now that is sad.
 
SmallTown

SmallTown

Football season!
Originally posted by Kain99
In turn, I will say that it is an insult to the Americans who were mudered on the 11th and those who will continue to die at the hands of terrorists Not to take extreme action.

You are argueing the right to privacy which you do not have now. My opinion, your spinning your wheels.
Click to expand...

Ok, i'm going to quit posting now.. this makes *3* times I had the same thoughts as Kain99.. And this time I actually posted it so there is actual proof..
 
Kyle

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
Originally posted by Bruzilla
... If we want to feel safe we should do so by removing and killing the threat, not by creating a Gestapo or KGB.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem.

You know there isn't political will to take the Roman approach and eradicate these filth by wiping them from the globe and future existance.

So we're stuck with defensive strategy only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top