Section 215 Can Supersede 1st Amendment Rights

Temperatures vary far too wildly for lizardmen to take over the earth.

They'd have to be able to take-over Canada, and since it has snowed in the middle of July on several occasions, not going to happen any time soon.

they might take over Florida. or the warm coastal US areas, but inland is another thing.

I'm just going to sit back, pull out a few marshmallows, and watch the world burn, and kick back some beers.

You bring the smores?

You realize Lizard men aren't just like..."REPTAR SMASH" right?

They've got technology. We made it to Antartica and send people there for lengths of time.

They can handle Freezeyourtitsoffipeg.

I'll take cat women anyday.

You can keep your lizard men, with tails on both sides of the hip.

It's not specifically targeted at you, as I believe you have a better hold on these things than most, but it is something that drives me nuts about the statement "nothing changed in my day to day life". Little changed in today or yesterday, sure, but there will be MANY tomorrows, and what changes on those days are what matters.

The government had access to most of the information people are complaining about anyway, prior to the Patriot Act.

I really don't see what the big fuss is to be honest. I do appreciate privacy and all that like the next guy, that's why I don't make important information public. And I limit what the government knows about me according to law.

One day when I get black bagged by the CIA I'll be forced to explain myself and this entire website to operatives who believe this is a front for terror.

WHO IS IN YOUR TERROR CELL?
WHERE ARE THE DETONATORS??
WHY DO THESE THREADS ALL GET LOCKED AFTER NINE PAGES????

What I would like to gain from any discussion is what we are to do about it. I know that solutions aren't simple or easily attained, but ideas would be helpful. Or, as sad as it sounds, is there really anything we can do?

The answer is that Mordor is in Pakistan.

On these forums? Absolutely nothing.

I should have clarified. What can we do as citizens do attempt to alleviate these problems? Of course nothing will be accomplished on this forum. Then again, talking about it may help, even a little.

Wait, what?
If the government isn't going to follow the law, then why the hell have any?

There is a difference between having access to data (which is problematic), and performing unlawful surveillance and monitoring without a warrant.

If someone is enough of a threat to need to be monitored, then you should have sufficient evidence to convince a judge to get a warrant.

If that evidenceis obtained illegally, the judge should be able to recognize that fact, and rule accordingly.

The government never breaks the law.

You can get off your duffy *** and actually vote for people that represent your interests, rather than kneel before the party lines.

I don't think you're clear as to how we got here in the first place.

People vote on party lines or, rather, AGAINST the other party's line because they like the "other" guy (in this case, Obama) because they fear the other guy will be worse for them.

There are never "good" candidates anymore.

You just pick the guy whose lies fit you the most.

Basically you say to yourself, "If this politician happens to not be full of ***, then I stand to make out in this."

And that's voting.

Where in the hell did you get any hint of me saying anything about the government not following the law?

Or are you trying to create an argument where none exists?

Sure seems like you're assuming they are following the law...

INB4 "I never said that!"

Lets try this again.

"And I limit" means that I, and in myself, restricting access to information. Also the subject of the sentence.

"what the government" means that the federal government.

"knows about me" means that what is known and released by me.

"according to law" means that the subject of the sentence is attempting to follow the federal law.

Put them together, and you get the subject restricts access to information to what the federal government obtains information about the subject according to what the federal government considers law.

In other words, there is no mention that the federal government is or is not following the law. The only mention of anyone following or not following the law is the subject in question, which is me.

I know that you and Milamber are trying to create an argument where none exists, but you can't seriously be THAT stupid. Well, I suppose you are....

Now, who's twisting words again?

You can't hide anything in violation of federal law, you're talking about limiting what you allow them to know without violating the 4th amendment. Even a paragraph of twisting yourself into a knot, it's painfully clear.

Please continue to express your stupidity.

You do realize that the federal government has access to more information about you than you realize, right?

They have access to how much you make. They have access to all of your bank accounts. They have access to all of your credit card information. They have access to your vehicle information. They have access to your social media. They have access to your telephone records. They have access to your work records. Health records. Credit records. They know who your children are, they know who your parents and relatives are, they know how much you spent on groceries and what you bought for dinner last night.

And all this information was obtained prior to the Patriot Act. And they can access this information without a warrant.

You had less freedom than you thought you had, and nobody complained until after the Patriot Act was passed.

But please, continue to twist my words. Since you can't understand a simple sentence, I'm assuming that this whole post is beyond your capability for understanding.

Its no secret the agencies have your information running through their systems. Its paranoid delusion to think they are actively opening your files for no reason. Even after TPA, its just paranoia gone rampant.

Please do attempt to demonstrate your immense knowledge instead of owning up to being called out for the same thing for the 3rd time today. "I never said that!"

The only thing I want to point out is that Possessing the Information does not mean Knowing it. For example, I possess DNA, I don't know the exact genetic code (A-T's C-G's) intimately. Though if I wanted to, I could actually source the data.

In much the same way, the Gubbmint has all that information at hand, but it's not specifically known until sought out.

Why do I detect the distinct malodor of some very carefully chosen words meant to obfuscate what you mean (or merely to troll the oblivious) when you're inevitably challenged?

I "have access" to most of the same information as the FBI. In that I could acquire (somehow) the necessary equipment to hack, monitor, or outright steal everything there is to know about you from your shoe size to your preferred brand of dolphin-themed pornography. That I "have access" hypothetically is completely different from having carte blanche to exercise that capability or, indeed, even having anything set up to capture it.

Basically, it sounds like you're saying "I'm ok with the feds spying on me because I deliriously believe I've never done anything prosecutable" (you have -- everyone has, the law is complex, twisted, and big enough at this point) with healthy doses of "for all that I *** about the feds, I want them further up my *** than Big Jimbo from Cell Block D," but hiding it behind a cop-out rhetorical dodge that the technology to tap phones and scan e-mail has existed for years or decades.

I'm forgetting what the term is for stating a pointless truism that seems like a different statement. I'm sure such a term must exist, though, given that politics has been around for several thousand years.

Really?

Since you asked for what the government knows:

Wages: From your W-2.
Bank records: Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.
Credit Card records: Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.
Vehicle Registration: State reporting.
Social Media: They already have access to your name, it's a simple matter of looking you up on Facebook and Twitter. Most idiots out there say exactly what they did on every minute of every day there.
Telephone records: Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Work Records: Social Security Act of 1934.
Health Records: Social Security Act of 1934.
Credit Records: Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.
Children's Records: Form 1040/Social Security Act of 1934.
Parent's Records: Form 1040/Social Security Act of 1934.
Grocery Records: Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.
Where you went to eat last night: Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.

With the exception of 2 items, every single "surveillance" method they have were laws passed prior to the Patriot Act. The 2 items that were not laws are state reporting and the stupidity of the person in question.

Begging your pardon but this is nothing new.

I was involved with protests and marches before the Viet Nam war. We were harassed, beaten, and jailed for exercising our first amendment rights.

What is new here is the technology and the justification.

Which was what the FISC was partially set-up to combat. The problems with over-reach from 50's, 60's, and 70's. Instead it has become a different way to justify "watch 'em all".

A way to repeat previous mistakes.