Help in countering Freeper bullshit ...

[HCE SuiGeneris]

Here is the comment: "ftj - name one instance where YOUR personal rights have been stifled, compromised or stolen - just one instance where anything this administration has done has in any way infringed on YOUR constitutional rights...what a crock...."

My one instance -- and I want to reply giving 1 instance at a time -- is the relegation of protest to controlled free speech zones.

Would really appreciate other counter-points to this a-hole. I am so tired of his diatribe. TIA for any help!


:toast:

[hobbit709]

1. You can't argue with a closed mind

much less one that's been nailed and welded shut.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

But, it is more for the benefit of others viewing

the discussion board -- more people need their eyes opened. It is a global site.

[Rosemary2205]

2. I think you are wasting your time.

The person asking you that question has no concept that a loss of rights to any of us hurts us all -- that shredding the constitution for Jose Padilla makes this country lesser -- for everyone. The person asking you that question has an "I've got mine, fuck you" mentality. IMHO there's no getting through to those people.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

8. It's true, this a-hole could very well be spawn of Limbog

and Mann Coulter and is beyond help. However other less "moranic" posters hold some of his bs to be valid. Anything I can do to discredit him is a good thing.

[rusty charly]

3. wiretapping? phone record searches? freedom of the press?

separation of church and state?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Thanks for any and all suggestions...

:hi: :dem:

[terip64]

5. The point is that we don't know...If they can wrap their heads around that, which they can't.

[Cabcere]

6. I would say that it's the principle of the thing, except...

...that would require them to actually have principles (or, at the very least, understand the concept). :eyes: Sorry, I'm afraid I'm not much help. :shrug:

[DesertRat]

Dupe. sorry

[DesertRat]

7. For starters:

The Bush administration has suspended the writ of habeas corpus which is our most basic instrument for securing personal freedom against unlawful imprisonment through the right of a hearing before a judge.This is one of our Constitution's most fundamental rights.

Freepers will say that they aren't terrorists, so they aren't affected. But it does affect all of our freedom. When the government is able to wrongfully search and detain people with no consequence, the fundamental nature of freedom is undermined. Too many people have died for the basic freedoms of this country for those rights to be diluted by the Bush administration.

Dictators like Saddam Hussein performed illegal searches and detained people without giving them trial. Taking away the same rights that Republicans *claim* we are fighting for in Iraq does not make sense. Fighting terrorists doesn't make it right to resort to their tactics.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

12. Thanks... great argument

:hi:

[badgerpup]

29. There is also the small fact that the definition of 'terrorist'...

...or 'enemy combatant' is now dependent UTTERLY upon the whim of the Bush administration.
"But I'm not a terrorist!" doesn't cut any ice if TPTB have decided that you are, according to their playbook. And with Habeus Corpus down the drain, you have NO WAY of disputing this.
Can you say "SCREWN"?
:hide:

[BoneDaddy]

9. The correct answer is

that it is not a war of the government against the people using guns, at least at the moment it is not. I think even this government knows that we are way to saavy as a people not to see something so overt.

What they do is to create a fear based environment, that is planned to have the citizens of this country give up their rights, willingly, in order to preserve the illusion of safety.

Read Noam Chomsky's The Manufacture of Consent. They create scenario's, some legit threats that have been magnified and others that are purely imaginary to frighten people.

You respond to this person by saying that the ground work has been set. The Patriot Act, the wiretapping, the incursion of government into our personal business are the beginning actions that will slowly erode our rights or until we voluntarily give them up.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

13. Thanks BoneDaddy

:hi:

[Mz Pip]

10. My answer

would be:

I don't know. And therefore lies the problem. I don't know what this administration is doing with any personal information they may be gathering. Are they gathering personal information on me? How would I know? I don't have the right to know. They don't ask me; they say they don't need a warrant, so who knows what they are doing?

We fought a revolution because we didn't like the King having unlimited power over our rights. This system has worked well for us for over 200 years. Now because the government says we should be afraid, we are to believe that the only way to keep us safe is to go back to the way the King did it.

Is the government snooping in my bank statements? I don't know. Is the government listening in on my phone calls? I don't know. Is the government opening my mail? I don't know.

Conservatives have always championed the rights of the individual over government interference. Not anymore. Would they be quite so willing to turn over their rights if Hillary were president?

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Cabcere]

11. Nice.

That is a very well-put (and obviously well-thought-out) argument. :)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

14. Excellent points. Thanks...

:hi:

[Skittles]

16. you nail it, Mz Pip

everything is A-OK under King George; these little freepers will wait until they have a Democratic president before they question ANYTHING

[Lautremont]

15. All of the things they've done - the warrantless wiretapping,

mail searches, etc., infringe on your rights whether or not its your particular phone, mail, library books or whatever that they've been snooping. That's what this person doesn't get. They think the infringement part happens one person at a time, when in fact it happens to the whole country at the same time as these policies go into effect.

So this person you're arguing with is just fundamentally wrong, as is so often the case with these people. The actual moment when your personal phone is tapped is just the end point; the compromising of constitutional rights begins much earlier, and is occurring whether or not the government ever peeks at your mail, imprisons you without cause or representation, or sneeks peeks at your library borrowing history.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

17. May I copy your second paragraph? ( will cite you) Very well put

Lautremont! Thanks. :hi:

[Lautremont]

25. You certainly may. No particular citation necessary.

[Cerridwen]

18. Some things I'd like to ask this person...

Has s/he ever needed help from the police? No? So we should close down all police forces because not everyone has need of them all the time.

Has s/he ever needed emergency medical help? No? So we should close down all emergency rooms because not everyone has need of them all the time.

Has s/he ever needed the fire department? No? So we should close down all fire houses because not everyone needs them all the time.

Personally, I'd like to keep those things around in case I'm ever in need of them. Just because I'm not in need of a cop, a firefighter, an ER or my civil liberties and personal rights today doesn't mean I won't have need of any one of them tomorrow or the day after or next week or next month. I sure hope they're there when I need them.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

21. Brilliant!

:applause: :hi:

[Cerridwen]

22. Thank you.

:hi:

edit to add: my experience with this kind of short-sighted thinking is to make it real to the person and keep it simple. There are great philosophical and legal debates about various issues, unfortunately, people like the one you're interacting with, won't sit still long enough to hear them and may not understand what can be abstract ideas. So, put it in the real world with simple ideas. /stepping off soap box :D

[HCE SuiGeneris]

27. Nailed it again Cerridwen! Thank you... eom

[petronius]

24. Right - and ask him if he believes that only the murdered can oppose

murder, and if only rape victims are allowed to be against rape, and if you are only allowed to argue for laws against burglary if your house has been broken into. If he doesn't believe these things, then why does he think that only the wire-tapped are allowed to speak out against illegal wire-tapping?

[hfojvt]

19. what is the history of free speech zones?

Was Clinton more open to protestors? Bush is the first President I've had that made me want to protest, although I did goto a march against the first gulf war.

When I lived in Iowa, VP Gore came to my town for a fund-raising dinner. I wanted to see him, be part of a cheering crowd, the way I was when RFK visited my town, but I could not get anywhere near him.

I do not remember if Clinton, Bush-41, Reagan or Carter came anywhere near where I was living. I did goto a ground-breaking ceremony for Habitat for Humanity in 1989. I had a friend who claimed that President Carter goes to those incognito and unannounced. She claimed that she was standing right next to him at one such event. If that's true, he might have been at that event without me knowing about it.

[pacalo]

20. This list could take all day, but here are a few...

-- Those who attend the boy king's public appearances, particularly during his presidential campaign, are screened before entering. Non-Republics are turned away or forcibly removed, along with having their license plates recorded.

-- Because of the "you're either against me or with me" attitude & the fact that he considers all Democrats as his enemy, those who don't go along with his hare-brained schemes are concerned that they will become his target through subversion of habeus corpus (being picked up & jailed at the boy king's whim); being placed on the no-fly list ("I'm gonna make those Democrats' lives miserable"); having our phone conversations listened to & our mail read because our name was picked up on anti-Bush sites or mailing lists; catering to the corporate world by stepping on the middle class/poor, who are overwhelmingly Democrats; subverting our laws to favor religious fanatics...

That's just for starters.

[hwmnbn]

23. I had similar tactic used on another forum.....

this is how I responded:

If you are not doing anything wrong. what are you worried about?
You have lost nothing
Please give us the details of what YOU have personally lost to the ACT.

Please, we are waiting.

Point #1--We aren't here to be your research staff. If you truly don't know how the ACT impinges on our basic freedoms, you're not smart enough to discuss it. Get off your ass, stop listening to Rush and Fox News, and use the google on the internets. Until you do, you can't help us here.

Point #2-- If you believe none of your basic freedoms is impinged upon by the ACT, then there's no reason for you to be concerned, so why bother posting here? We don't need YOUR reassurance because it's meaningless, so save your energy.

Point #3 -- If you're here just to start shit, you will be called on it.

[JohnnyRingo]

26. I like to ask them if they mind GW's model of a strong central govt....

being passed on to President Rodham? (Give him time to think there)

Would he be OK with the idea that President Obama can override a future Republican Congress with signing statements?

Does he care that President Biden can open his mail and tap his phone in the name of anti-terror?

The liberties taken by this administration will be inherited by all future presidents, and I don't think we'll see a Repub in that office for at least a decade, regardless of how much freeps think they're in the majority. (see Nov '06)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

28. lol -- just the thought of a potential president Clinton scares the

bejeebus out of him. Nice point... Thanks :hi:

[B Calm]

30. Bankruptcy bill, the right to Habeas Corpus....

[tabasco]

31. My phone call records are now in a giant government database.

That is unacceptable and would not be tolerated in many other countries.

[zbdent]

32. You're being redundant ...

Freeper = bullshit ...

(edited to add the note that I was being nice ... my apologies to bullshit ...)

[twilight_sailing]

33. They took away Jose Padilla's rights.

So, they can just as easily take away mine.