Gas Bandit's Political Thread II

[strawman]

I'm absolutely fine with Obama wiretapping phones, I never say anything interesting on there anyway.

Ah, so you are fine with the Government freely snooping on its people without supervision from the judiciary???

You disappoint me Gas...

Eh, it's the same old argument, "Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then it won't matter."

Which, of course, under different circumstance I'm pretty sure GB would debate.

-Adam

 

I love the fact that Stienman made a thread for GB...

 

[sixpackshaker]

We could not wait a couple of hours for Gas to show up?


It is perfectly fine for Obama to use wiretapping on the GOP. Turnabout is fair play.

 

[zero]

I'm absolutely fine with Obama wiretapping phones, I never say anything interesting on there anyway.

Ah, so you are fine with the Government freely snooping on its people without supervision from the judiciary???

You disappoint me Gas...

Eh, it's the same old argument, "Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then it won't matter."

Which, of course, under different circumstance I'm pretty sure GB would debate.

-Adam

Uh, is that a Stienman's Gas Bandid's Political Thread?

Anyway, no, the "if you aren't doing anything wrong" argument does not hold, because it contains one unwritten assumption. It should actually be read as "if you AND YOUR GOVERNMENT aren't doing anything wrong then it won't matter."

Well, geez, if nobody is doing anything wrong, we don't have much use for laws and regulations, have we?

Now I'm confused... isn't Gas supposed to be a critic of the government abuse of power?

 

[Shakey]

I'm absolutely fine with Obama wiretapping phones, I never say anything interesting on there anyway.

Ah, so you are fine with the Government freely snooping on its people without supervision from the judiciary???

You disappoint me Gas...

Eh, it's the same old argument, "Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then it won't matter."

Which, of course, under different circumstance I'm pretty sure GB would debate.

-Adam

Uh, is that a Stienman's Gas Bandid's Political Thread?

Anyway, no, the "if you aren't doing anything wrong" argument does not hold, because it contains one unwritten assumption. It should actually be read as "if you AND YOUR GOVERNMENT aren't doing anything wrong then it won't matter."

Well, geez, if nobody is doing anything wrong, we don't have much use for laws and regulations, have we?

Now I'm confused... isn't Gas supposed to be a critic of the government abuse of power?

Also we do still have the belief that you are innocent until proven guilty. Wiretaps without a warrant basically assume that even though we have no proof you did anything wrong, we're going to assume you're guilty and take away your right to privacy. The whole "we need it to combat terrorism" is a scare tactic used over and over again, last time it was communism.

 

[Jake]

Now I'm confused... isn't Gas supposed to be a critic of the government abuse of power?

When he's pretending to be a libertarian, yes.

In reality, apparently not.

 

[Futureking]

WE REBEL AGAINST STEINMAN!!! THIS IS GAS'S THREAD!!! AND HE IS THE RIGHTFUL MONARCH!!!! YOU USURPER OF THE THRONE!!!!!

 

[Krisken]

WE REBEL AGAINST STEINMAN!!! THIS IS GAS'S THREAD!!! AND HE IS THE RIGHTFUL MONARCH!!!! YOU USURPER OF THE THRONE!!!!!

It's kind of like being King of Shit Town. Yeah, you could take control, but do you really want to?

 

[GasBandit]

I believe in rights. There isn't a right to telephony. Just like there isn't a right to air travel (which is why I say make a separate line at the airport for people who are willing to go through the next gen scanners even though they basically make you look naked to whoever is monitoring).

Anyway, so long as the government's not interfering with your ability to use the service which you have legally bought, the only real thing I'd have to gripe about it is the cost to taxpayers. Now, if you want to say wiretapping is wrong because the MONEY is not well spent, I could probably go along with that. But not because you falsely think you have some right to unmonitored telephony.

 

So, who is this Paula Ticks person you guys keep talking about, anyway?

 

[GasBandit]

PS, I don't care that Steinman started the next one

How many of you saw this coming ... GM says that it is going to run out of money by the end of March.

Republicans want a private meeting with Obama to discuss their ideas for the economic stimulus. It better include tax cuts ... a lot of them.

Obama wants Guantanamo Bay to be closed in one year. Yeah. We'll see how that works out.

The confirmation hearing of Eric Holder is going to be delayed for about a week.

China did its own editing of Obama's inauguration address, leaving out Obama's references to communism and dissent.

Do you remember Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who made the controversial movie about Islam? He is now going on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.

"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.

So much for "defending to the death your right to say it." Double plus ungood!

A Michigan-based bank is offering Sharia banking. It will also stop having a Christmas party and no longer serves alcohol at after-hours events. Private bank. Their choice.

Helen Thomas says "what else should a reporter be" than a liberal? Well .. you could be a sea hag as well.

 

[Shakey]

Obama now has rainbow stealth love planes!.

It gave me a chuckle.

 

[Futureking]

A Michigan-based bank is offering Sharia banking. It will also stop having a Christmas party and no longer serves alcohol at after-hours events. Private bank. Their choice.

Facepalm.

I can't describe the stupidity. Islamic banking is not making your workers follow Islamic law. Next thing you know, they'll deduct their employee wages for zakat. Bunch of dolts.

 

[zero]

I believe in rights. There isn't a right to telephony.

Ah, I get it... so you're saying if someone passes an electrical wire in order to talk to someone else, such wire is fair game for anybody to wiretap into? Are you fine with ME eavesdropping your telephone calls Gas?

That's a rather unorthodox position on privacy, but I acknowledge, more consistent than I gave you credit for initially...

 

[GasBandit]

I believe in rights. There isn't a right to telephony.

Ah, I get it... so you're saying if someone passes an electrical wire in order to talk to someone else, such wire is fair game for anybody to wiretap into? Are you fine with ME eavesdropping your telephone calls Gas?

That's a rather unorthodox position on privacy, but I acknowledge, more consistent than I gave you credit for initially...

Yes, if someone passes a power pole outside, they're outside in public and privacy definitely does not enter into anything (legally anyway... it'd still be a little rude to just go stand inbetween people and say "carry on.")

Yes, I'd be absolutely fine with you listening to my phone conversations. They're boring as hell anyway. Except you'd get to hear me talk politics with my father once every other month or so, but that'd probably make you claw your hair out.

I want to stipulate though, that I don't have a problem with listening... but that doesn't mean I'm ok with, for example, imprisoning someone for a point of view they express that isn't illegal. It's the further action taken where rights once again enter the equation. Or rather, at every step of the process, one has to consider, what rights would this violate?

 

[zero]

I believe in rights. There isn't a right to telephony.

Ah, I get it... so you're saying if someone passes an electrical wire in order to talk to someone else, such wire is fair game for anybody to wiretap into? Are you fine with ME eavesdropping your telephone calls Gas?

That's a rather unorthodox position on privacy, but I acknowledge, more consistent than I gave you credit for initially...

Yes, if someone passes a power pole outside, they're outside in public and privacy definitely does not enter into anything (legally anyway... it'd still be a little rude to just go stand inbetween people and say "carry on.")

Yes, I'd be absolutely fine with you listening to my phone conversations. They're boring as hell anyway. Except you'd get to hear me talk politics with my father once every other month or so, but that'd probably make you claw your hair out.

Well, in this case, as I said, I withdraw my previous comment on you not being consistent on your positions... I must reinstate though, that your positions are quite unusual... Unless you're just trolling me, of course... :smirk:

 

[GasBandit]

I believe in rights. There isn't a right to telephony.

Ah, I get it... so you're saying if someone passes an electrical wire in order to talk to someone else, such wire is fair game for anybody to wiretap into? Are you fine with ME eavesdropping your telephone calls Gas?

That's a rather unorthodox position on privacy, but I acknowledge, more consistent than I gave you credit for initially...

Yes, if someone passes a power pole outside, they're outside in public and privacy definitely does not enter into anything (legally anyway... it'd still be a little rude to just go stand inbetween people and say "carry on.")

Yes, I'd be absolutely fine with you listening to my phone conversations. They're boring as hell anyway. Except you'd get to hear me talk politics with my father once every other month or so, but that'd probably make you claw your hair out.

Well, in this case, as I said, I withdraw my previous comment on you not being consistent on your positions... I must reinstate though, that your positions are quite unusual... Unless you're just trolling me, of course... :smirk:

Only your hairdresser knows for sure.

 

GB is full of shit. If he found out his discussions were being listened to & recorded he would be filled with righteous indignation about the invasive-ness of the government.

He just can't admit to being wrong.

 

[GasBandit]

GB is full of shit. If he found out his discussions were being listened to & recorded he would be filled with righteous indignation about the invasive-ness of the government.

He just can't admit to being wrong.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they already are, and all I'm grumpy about is the wasted expense. Thanks for telling me how I my feelings work, though.

 

[Futureking]

Yes, if someone passes a power pole outside, they're outside in public and privacy definitely does not enter into anything (legally anyway... it'd still be a little rude to just go stand inbetween people and say "carry on.")

Yes, I'd be absolutely fine with you listening to my phone conversations. They're boring as hell anyway. Except you'd get to hear me talk politics with my father once every other month or so, but that'd probably make you claw your hair out.

Well, in this case, as I said, I withdraw my previous comment on you not being consistent on your positions... I must reinstate though, that your positions are quite unusual... Unless you're just trolling me, of course... :smirk:

His premise is that the government does not care about wiretapping ordinary homes. Imagine the resources needed to tap every last phone. To save money, the government would just tap criminal or terrorist suspects. Why bother if you're not guilty of terrorism?

Ed: Use your mod powers to sticky this.

 

[ElJuski]

Next up, we'll teach you about proper sentences.

 

[GasBandit]

Yes, if someone passes a power pole outside, they're outside in public and privacy definitely does not enter into anything (legally anyway... it'd still be a little rude to just go stand inbetween people and say "carry on.")

Yes, I'd be absolutely fine with you listening to my phone conversations. They're boring as hell anyway. Except you'd get to hear me talk politics with my father once every other month or so, but that'd probably make you claw your hair out.

Well, in this case, as I said, I withdraw my previous comment on you not being consistent on your positions... I must reinstate though, that your positions are quite unusual... Unless you're just trolling me, of course... :smirk:

His premise is that the government does not care about wiretapping ordinary homes. Imagine the resources needed to tap every last phone. To save money, the government would just tap criminal or terrorist suspects. Why bother if you're not guilty of terrorism?

That's not what I said, and it's not true besides. They wouldn't have to tap the phone (it'd be defeated the next time you bought a new phone anyway). They can just tap the exchanges.


And Ed's trying to cut down on stickies. I don't care, it'll be bumped pretty well anyway.

 

GB is full of shit. If he found out his discussions were being listened to & recorded he would be filled with righteous indignation about the invasive-ness of the government.

He just can't admit to being wrong.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they already are, and all I'm grumpy about is the wasted expense. Thanks for telling me how I my feelings work, though.

No problem, since you obviously won't admit it, even to yourself.

 

[zero]

Yes, I'd be absolutely fine with you listening to my phone conversations. They're boring as hell anyway. Except you'd get to hear me talk politics with my father once every other month or so, but that'd probably make you claw your hair out.

Well, in this case, as I said, I withdraw my previous comment on you not being consistent on your positions... I must reinstate though, that your positions are quite unusual... Unless you're just trolling me, of course... :smirk:

Only your hairdresser knows for sure.

Stop it, I'm already on Minoxidil, the last think I need are bald jokes...

 

[MindDetective]

It doesn't seem to me that there is any right to listen in on someone else any more than there is a right to not be listened in on. That is, I don't think you can argue that "we don't have the right to telephony" means that others have the right to eavesdrop. The lack of my right does not mean that the other is necessarily granted. It is a somewhat empty argument in that sense. Rather, I think these rights are things that must be decided upon and perhaps amended in writing.

 

[GasBandit]

It doesn't seem to me that there is any right to listen in on someone else any more than there is a right to not be listened in on. That is, I don't think you can argue that "we don't have the right to telephony" means that others have the right to eavesdrop. The lack of my right does not mean that the other is necessarily granted. It is a somewhat empty argument in that sense. Rather, I think these rights are things that must be decided upon and perhaps amended in writing.

I am completely free to swing my fists so long as I don't hit you with them. If you think there should be more legislation defining what rights we don't have, so be it... but be careful what you wish for.

 

[MindDetective]

It doesn't seem to me that there is any right to listen in on someone else any more than there is a right to not be listened in on. That is, I don't think you can argue that "we don't have the right to telephony" means that others have the right to eavesdrop. The lack of my right does not mean that the other is necessarily granted. It is a somewhat empty argument in that sense. Rather, I think these rights are things that must be decided upon and perhaps amended in writing.

I am completely free to swing my fists so long as I don't hit you with them. If you think there should be more legislation defining what rights we don't have, so be it... but be careful what you wish for.

What's the analogy you are drawing here? That other people are free to tap my phone as long as they don't listen to it? And I think if there is sufficient disagreement about whether privacy is a right or not, then yes it should be decided upon. I think this for two reasons: That is how they originally did it when they wrote the bill of rights and they designed a government that was capable of adapting to cultural and technological changes that would far outstrip the vision of the founding fathers. They knew they couldn't cover everything so they left it to us to figure out the new disagreements that would arise, like rights regarding privacy.

 

[Necronic]

Surprised a dark horse republican is supporting wire tapping. Not gonna get into it myself beyond saying that as long as we didn't know it was happening it wasn't a problem.

Anyone catch the new executive order? Not incredibly strong, but a good step in the right direction if you ask me. Here's the outline:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and sections 3301 and 7301 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Ethics Pledge. Every appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 2009, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractually committed to, the following pledge upon becoming an appointee:

"As a condition, and in consideration, of my employment in the United States Government in a position invested with the public trust, I commit myself to the following obligations, which I understand are binding on me and are enforceable under law:

"1. Lobbyist Gift Ban. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.

"2. Revolving Door Ban All Appointees Entering Government. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.

"3. Revolving Door Ban Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:

(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;

(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or

(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.

"4. Revolving Door Ban Appointees Leaving Government. If, upon my departure from the Government, I am covered by the post employment restrictions on communicating with employees of my former executive agency set forth in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, I agree that I will abide by those restrictions for a period of 2 years following the end of my appointment.

"5. Revolving Door Ban Appointees Leaving Government to Lobby. In addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 4, I also agree, upon leaving Government service, not to lobby any covered executive branch official or non career Senior Executive Service appointee for the remainder of the Administration.

"6. Employment Qualification Commitment. I agree that any hiring or other employment decisions I make will be based on the candidate's qualifications, competence, and experience.

"7. Assent to Enforcement. I acknowledge that the Executive Order entitled 'Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel,' issued by the President on January 21, 2009, which I have read before signing this document, defines certain of the terms applicable to the foregoing obligations and sets forth the methods for enforcing them. I expressly accept the provisions of that Executive Order as a part of this agreement and as binding on me. I understand that the terms of this pledge are in addition to any statutory or other legal restrictions applicable to me by virtue of Federal Government service."

 

[Covar]

shame its meaningless though.

 

[Dieb]

Well, that is an unusual position Gas takes. Personally, I'd definitely say we have the right to privacy over the telephone. The Fourth Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now, obviously, the founders did not consider the case of the telephone. But if people have the right to be secure in their papers, well, it makes sense to me that they would be secure in their phone calls. I'm almost certain that the founders would include mail under the Fourth, for example, and phone calls seem pretty damn close to that for me.

As for that free speech case in Holland, well, I'm just going to say I'm glad I live in the US, where we have actual free speech laws. As Gas alluded to, I might not agree with what you say (and I certainly don't agree with this nut), I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Finally, I voted for Obama for many reasons. But by far the most important issue, for me, was torture. So, needless to say, Obama's actions the last couple of days have left me extremely happy, none more so than his Executive Order stating that only interrogation techniques outlined in the Army Field Manual would be allowed. As Dennis Blair, retired Admiral and current Obama nominee for Director of National Intelligence, said today in his opening statement at his confirmation hearings (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/po ... f=politics), "I believe strongly that torture is not moral, legal, or effective." I could not agree more.

 

[GasBandit]

Barney Frank is STILL trying to social-engineer via banks, using bailout money.

The Treasury had said it would give money only to healthy banks, to jump-start lending. But OneUnited had seen most of its capital evaporate. Moreover, it was under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use.

Nonetheless, in December OneUnited got a $12 million injection from the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. One apparent factor: the intercession of Rep. Barney Frank, the powerful head of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Frank, by his own account, wrote into the TARP bill a provision specifically aimed at helping this particular home-state bank. And later, he acknowledges, he spoke to regulators urging that OneUnited be considered for a cash injection .....

He cites the bank's status as the state's only financial institution owned by African-American (blacks). "We did say, yes, I thought it would have been a social tragedy if the one minority bank in Massachusetts that has been working so hard and had been overextended into housing was to be wiped out by a federal action, the Fannie-Freddie preferred [shares] thing, and that's why I think it was important to try to help them.

Al Gore is headed to the Senate next week to testify on global warming.

The New York Times is now saying that tax issues and a housekeeper might have been the reasons why Caroline had to pull her bid for Hillary's seat. (username wootwoot3 password wootwoot)

Barack Obama places stringent rules on lobbyists in his administration ... but if he wants his choice for the No. 2 Pentagon official, he is going to have to get an exemption from the rules.

US officials intercepted an Iranian ship that they believe was carrying arms for Hamas.

Larry King says that his eight-year-old son wishes he were black, because of Obama.

While waiting for the results of his Senate race with funny guy Al Franken, Norm Coleman has taken a job as a consultant.

I know what is going to get our economy going .. spending $8.4 million on slave memorial project in Pennsylvania.

A group in Canada is upset with a company's job requirement: smokers need not apply. The group says it is discrimination. (I've worked somewhere that had the same rule, here in Texas)

And just because I can't let too much time go by without a daily mail link... BANNED FROM SCHOOL FOR BEING TOO BLONDE!!!

 

[GasBandit]

Work's kickin' my ass today, I probably won't be back until monday. Have fun, kids.

 

Kinda surprised he didn't post the girl's HS team that beat another team 100 - 0.

It seems that they were still shooting 3 point shots and doing a full court press well into the 4th quarter. The coach isn't commenting, but the head of the school is going to forfeit because the way they won was shameful and wrong. Good for him, I say! But the girls on the other team are really classy.

I know what people are going to say about the fact that we are basically punishing a team for doing exceptionally well, but there's got to be some humanity. It reminded me of the rugby match in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life...

 

[Jake]

Usually a 100-0 victory is bad form. But what are you going to do? Don't let the starters play any of the second half? That would screw up their stats. Go half speed and just let the other team score? That's not entirely sporting and would be patronizing to the other team.

Yeah, keeping the full-court press going might have been overzealous, but I don't see a problem with continuing to shoot 3-pointers. If anything, you're giving the other team a chance by taking more challenging shots.

I think a "sorry, we got carried away" would suffice, but trying to a forfeit after the fact is rather silly.

 

[JCM]

Now I'm confused... isn't Gas supposed to be a critic of the government abuse of power?

When he's pretending to be a libertarian, yes.

In reality, apparently not.

:slywink:

Anyway, I reserve the right to go into your house and browse through your stuff guys, because who knows, one of you might be a terrorist.

Al Gore is headed to the Senate next week to testify on global warming.

Since when do the Senate have "story times"

BTW, this is probably the only Obama poster worth having