Political Cartoons

Now post a comic where you pretend this is something new and hasn't been happening since at least the 1960's.

From:

petdance.livejournal.com

Why do you think that makes it OK?

From:

zombiesmustdie.livejournal.com

and just because its been happening a while it makes it ok? sweet shit, i think im gonna go kill some people, afterall, it must be ok because its been happening a while right?

christ.

From:

Awesome. So then I can take all the people who I think might be dangerous to the country and lock them into concentration camps. Cause hey, a democrat did it for a while and that makes it double ok!

From:

tubaboy81.livejournal.com

. . .

You are so totally missing the point of the comments above.

From:

No I knew exactly what their assertion was, I just don't accept it. The only reason the cartoon got drawn, the only reason this is an issue at all is because the president has an (R) after his name and not a (D). If Algore was in office, we'd be getting puff pieces about how "He's going the extra mile" to catch the terrorist and protect us.

From:

tubaboy81.livejournal.com

The cartoon, possibly (though I suspect we would actually get amore or less identical conversation in the media with the parties reversed). But Zombiesmustdie was not defending the Democrats who did it, he was saying tradition doesn't make it right. Gripe about the media all you want, but how about a little more charitable interpretation of the other party here? Many of us are relatively young and only now becoming aware of this crap (yes, that you can blame on the medias).

From:

tubaboy81.livejournal.com

Or media, even.

From:

vlion.livejournal.com

The point isn't that it's new or old: it's that it's happening at all.

From:

Exactly how is this imposing on your freedom? Explain.

From:

Amendment IV - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

Phone records are protected as papers and effects.

From:

The Supreme Court of the United States, ruling during the Carter Administration, disagrees with your opinion. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=442&invol=735)

"[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .

[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not "one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed."

From:

This is a good point, but I feel there is one big diffrence. The register in question was orignaly created at the request of police during an ongoing crimminal investigation. If the NSA wants to open up 100 million investagations against all of us who haven't committed any crimes, they better hold a job fair sometime soon.

From:

It's an unfortunate reality of current technology. I think no matter what party was in charge and whether we were at war or not these lists would still be compiled.

While the scope of it is indeed overly broad, they've been left with no other choice. If they didn't do it they'd be accused of not doing enough or not trying to "connect the dots". Yet if they attempted to narrow the search to only those most likely to commit terrorist acts, they'd be accused of racism and racial profiling.

From:

I'll repeat...exactly how does this affect your freedom?

What about your day will be different because of this, besides you being safer?

From:

Because who I call isn't the business of anyone but myself and the caller on the other end. End of story. If the cops want to open up an investgation on me, fine, get a warrent and record away. If they don't, then they don't get to listen because they feel like it. That's the erosion of the aformentioned amendment.

Back to you, how does this make me safer?

From:

They don't collect any information about who is calling who (no names, addresses, etc), merely the numbers that are called, how long the conversations are, and at what times they are being made...that's it.

This makes you safer, because if the intelligence operatives know of a suspected terrorists number, they can see who is calling them and figure out patterns from that data.

From:

Point one: I still don't care. I don't want them knowing who I call or who calls me without a warrent.

Point two: So in order to track said terrorists they have to track all of us? That makes no sense.

From:

I think you have a rather large ego to assume anyone cares about who you are calling.

From:

Now you see, there we were, having a nice, polite discussion an then here you come with the insults because you can't think of anything intelligent to say. How sad.

I'm assuming nothing. It's been revealed that the phone companies have turned this information over to the government. Regardless if my calls are on there, I'm still pissed that they are doing it.

BTW, acquire that dictionary yet?

From:

How is that an insult? Anyone that believes that people care who they are calling is either a criminal, extremely paranoid, or has a rather large ego...what other classification could they fall into?

And like I said before, they only get numbers, not names associated with them.

BTW, if you had a dictionary, you'd know how to spell warrant.

From:

You were the one who insinuated that had a large ego. Considering some of the statements you've made in this community, you should take a good look in the mirror. You also shouldn't be talking the spelling skills of others considering your less than perfect track record.

You've stated they only take the numbers. Do you really think if they are going to all that trouble to get the numbers that they are going to stop there?

From:

zombiesmustdie.livejournal.com

is it extremely paranoid to think that governments shouldnt be collecting information on ordinary citizens?

is it extremely paranoid to think that the government might be using that information for ill purposes?

if you answered yes to the above questions i suggest you pick up a history book, because youve got some learnin' to do.

honestly, the "if you have nothing to hide you shouldnt be worried" attutide is part of what leads to dicatorships.

From:

"BTW, acquire that dictionary yet?"

I've been asking this for weeks. I don't think he knows what a dictionary is or where one might be procured.

From:

Think he will figure it out by September?

From:

No.

What's the particular importance of September?

From:

If he got one in September, he would have an additional two months of study time to learn something in time for the 2006 elections.

From:

Oooh, yeah.

Don't get your hopes up. He's pitifully attached to the notion that rights aren't important and that any measure promising security is worth twice its weight in forfeited liberty.

From: