Live in San Fran? Don't light your fireplace...

MrVicchio · 12-11-08, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueKC

And if the government acquires a WARRANT based on PROBABLE CAUSE that I am making such phone calls, they are free to tap them. Until then, the 4th amendment protects me from such a warrantless search. That would be precisely why the patriot act is unconstitutional.

I also have the right to receive a call from whomever chooses to call me. I am not required to determine whether or not someone is a terrorist before picking up my phone. Putting such a burden upon the citizen is absurd.

Yeah well, see you're wrong, and you're wrong. IF you were correct about the PA, it's been around long enough that such an "obvious" challenge should have happened. Are you gonna tin foil hat and explain the great cover up for why it's still there?

They don't just willy nilly recored your freaking phone calls. They have a net cast over known, suspected and possible numbers. If anyone happens to call those... they get recorded. If you called Terrorist Abdul at 5536 instead of Habib the rug maker at 5563 what do you care?

You're worried about... what again, that you might could be recorded without a warrant at the time...

Yeah and we've gone 7 years with no terrorist attacks here.

So where is the down side again?

BlueKC · 12-11-08, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Yeah well, see you're wrong, and you're wrong. IF you were correct about the PA, it's been around long enough that such an "obvious" challenge should have happened. Are you gonna tin foil hat and explain the great cover up for why it's still there?

They don't just willy nilly recored your freaking phone calls. They have a net cast over known, suspected and possible numbers. If anyone happens to call those... they get recorded. If you called Terrorist Abdul at 5536 instead of Habib the rug maker at 5563 what do you care?

You're worried about... what again, that you might could be recorded without a warrant at the time...

Yeah and we've gone 7 years with no terrorist attacks here.

So where is the down side again?

Repeating "you're wrong" doesn't actually make it any more true. The patriot act has been challenged in court, and a federal judge struck down multiple provisions as unconstitutional. You know as well as I do that challenges to the constitutionality of a law take considerable time to be heard and decided by the SCOTUS. There is no conspiracy.

I am quite worried that the government has the ability to listen to what I say in a private conversation without probable cause, without warrant issued, and without my knowledge. That sounds very much like the beginnings of a police state. In case you missed the whole history of America PRIOR to 9/11, there had never been such a deadly attack committed on American soil BEFORE either. We somehow managed to prevent such attacks before Bush without picking and choosing which aspects of the 4th amendment we wanted to follow.

Wessexman · 12-12-08, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Since the PA doesn't infringe on anyones rights... I'm for it.

It DOES however mean that I can't call uncle Abdul and talk about killing americans without Uncle Sam hearing us... damn.

Are you being sarcastic? I thought you said you believed in freedom.

You're all as bad as each other

.

jfuh · 12-12-08, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emdash

I'm still in shock about san diego's drinking-on-the-beach ban passing. apparently alchies don't vote.

San Diego is prominently conservative - well, out goes that whole liberal nanny thing huh?

Orion · 12-12-08, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WI Crippler

Certain communities nowdays have these wood burning bans,especially in cities. Its basically the result of what cities are. Overpopulated pockets of humanity that are so smushed together, you cannot do anything without it having an affect on somebody who lives, drives, or sits right up your asshole. So people work to get these things banned, because they don't like the smell of smoke, or are so completely overwhelmed by a desire to protect their own health, the health of the "underpriviliged", or the environment. And as people continue to get offended by(or try to protect) more and more things, they slowly eat away at freedoms, without realizing they are a snake that is devouring its own tail. They mistakenly believe they are devouring only the rights of others, but in actuality, they are only on the way to devouring their own rights. As it works its way up the tail, it will inevitably consume them.

I actually agree with you... but unfortunately, what you are arguing against can't really be helped. In places like India and China where public welfare is not legislated as much, and people have relative freedom to do what they want, the standard of living is lower and people have lower life spans. I guess it becomes an argument of quality of life vs. quantity, but happiness is relative I suppose.

I forget the name of the sociologist who said it, but as the human population rises, freedoms begin to diminish. Large groups of humans living in close proximity to one another creates too much tension, which in turn leads to special interests. When you put any animal in a crowded situation, problems increase.

On the plus side, the world is becoming so urbanized that the countryside doesn't have as many people... which means those of us who have the know how and the will to live the country lifestyle can move to places with more freedom.

Orion · 12-12-08, 01:43 AM

I support this legislation in principle, but not in practice. The industries that cause way more pollution than individuals are not subject to this day of practice because it damages economy. The governments like to target the little people, don't they?

You practically have to move to the middle of nowhere in a hut to not have someone lecturing at you about rules.

emdash · 12-12-08, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

San Diego is prominently conservative - well, out goes that whole liberal nanny thing huh?

conservative and republican are two very different things in california. why, look at our governator.

jfuh · 12-12-08, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emdash

conservative and republican are two very different things in california. why, look at our governator.

So? Regan was a California republican/conservative as is the Governator.

Rodney · 01-01-09, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

I don't see what the big problem is?
For those of us living in the 21st century how many still rely on hearth fire for warmth? So out goes that whole non-sense. The fireplace is used for enjoyment and entertainment purposes - not a neccessity.
I assume you do not live in California, but most people that do do not use wood burning hearths, but instead use synthetic natural gas which is not affected by this legislation at all.
Finally, "spare the Air" day is as follows.
So in reality, this isn't that big an issue at all, even less so than smoking regulations. Not to mention this isn't a full time ban, but only on certain days in which particulate matter is very high. I have high doubts that anyone would just coincidentally on that exact day would suddenly have a failure of their home heating and would be unable to deal with a the rediculously freezing cold of a November through Feburary in SF that drops to an average of 49.

The CO2 issues ...SOMEBODY P L E A S E...help those poor iceburges. Folks we have very real environmental issues to deal with.Lay the sword down and step away from the windmill

12-12-08, 01:43 AM	#106
Orion Via Negativa Join Date: Jun 2008 Last Seen: Today 03:33 AM Location: Canada Posts: 5,022 Thanks: 1,411 Thanked 2,080 Times in 1,267 Posts Gender:	Re: Live in San Fran? Don't light your fireplace... I support this legislation in principle, but not in practice. The industries that cause way more pollution than individuals are not subject to this day of practice because it damages economy. The governments like to target the little people, don't they? You practically have to move to the middle of nowhere in a hut to not have someone lecturing at you about rules.
	__________________ "All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible." T. Lawrence

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/40889-live-san-fran-dont-light-your-fireplace.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
BurningIssues.org :: View topic - News Dec 11, 2008	This thread	Refback	12-12-08 03:47 PM
BurningIssues.org :: View topic - News Dec 11, 2008	This thread	Refback	12-11-08 02:25 PM

The Following User Says Thank You to emdash For This Useful Post:
MrVicchio