on the radio today "More screening at the airports".

f#ck.

I don't think the public will take much more of this, but we shall see.

People in this country think that they are free as long as they can have a gun.
Yeah… right.

the majority lives under the illusion of freedom.

People don't want the truth, they don't want to hear it or know it.

Ignorance is bliss.

Can you start with the part about Arthur Dent?

Come on, lay some truth on me. I'm listening.

Tell me something about frogs, at least.

what liberties have I lost lately?

Other than the right to NOT buy health insurance

and perhaps also the right to take my dogs for a car ride.

If you don't count the following:

The keepers of any records if they reveal that the government requested information on their clients or members in the course of an investigation. It has become a crime for these individuals to try to safeguard your privacy or to tell you that you are under investigation.

Government agents may now monitor the First Amendment-protected activities of religious and political institutions, and then infiltrate these groups with no suspicion of criminal activity.

The government may now monitor conversations between attorneys & clients in federal jails.

Government agencies can demand records from telecommunications and financial services providers without any court order at all and then gag the recipients.

The government can seize assets from charities, even without probable cause.

Please explain how you have 4th amendment protections from the government... I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

1. None of this theoretical loss of privacy has apparently impacted me in the slightest

2. omigosh, I could be sitting next to a secret government agent at my mosque, what a loss of freedom. It's just like being in jail.

or maybe not.

3. now if I ever was sent to a federal jail, presumably I would have lost a whole bunch of freedom right there, even if the government couldn't monitor my conversations. I seem to remember also how much of DU howled with laughter after Zimmerman got his bail revoked - after the government had recorded his conversation with his wife.

4. Again, am I supposed to notice this? Oh no, the government is tracking all my calls to 900 numbers. Or something. Probably I am about to get a letter from the government chiding me for not calling my mom enough. Damned nanny state.

5. Do tell. And how many "charities" have had their assets seized?

Other than the a$$hats who freak out when they see a dog in a car, this will mark the 4,000th consecutive day since the passage of the Patriot Act that the government has had no measurable impact on my life at all. So if I have, in theory, lost some 4th amendment protections, then such "loss" has had zero impact on my life.

1. Since it does not personally impact you, then it's ok for others to have their rights violated. Right?

2. No it is not the same as being in jail. However, it is a loss of freedom. It's just apparently one you don't care about.

3. Being in a federal jail is not the same as being guilty. Simply being charged is enough, however you could be completely innocent. In that case you have no right to a privileged conversation with your attorney.

4. Yes, the damned nanny state. You see, if you wanted to let's say give money to a charity that provides humanitarian aid without regard to religious or political affiliation. I mean humanitarian aid is good right? When an unfettered and arbitrary government with no judicial oversight has complete access to all of your financial records, you could very well be charged with providing material support to terrorism, simply by making a donation.

5. Islamic American Relief Agency, KindHearts, Al-Haramain, Benevolence International Foundation, Life for Relief and Development, etc...

I'm so glad that you personally, within your four walls are not effected and can completely ignore the rippling effects that it has on others.

What freedoms have I-I-I-I-I lost lately?

And yes, I do tend to believe that

If it does not impact me, then I have not lost anything. Remember the OP? It said - get ready to lose the little freedom YOU have left. Presumably that means ME and not some imaginary guy down the street.

It's not like I have ZERO concern about the problems of others, my concern sorta moves out in concentric circles, along with a certain logic - that if X happened to somebody else doing something that I might do, then it could also happen to me.

And actually the secret government agent in my mosque is not any sort of loss of freedom at all.

And if I am completely innocent, then why exactly do I need to have a privileged conversation with my attorney? Because the government is charging me with murder and my alibi is that I was on the other side of town making a drug deal at the time of the murder?

And if I was, accidentally, let's say, providing material support to terrorism, then why wouldn't I want to know it? And to cease and desist at the very least?

I am however, of a differing opinion. I do not believe that because I have done nothing wrong, that I have nothing to hide. The reason you need a privileged conversation with your lawyer, is because it is (was) your right. If you were accidentally providing material support to terrorism, yes you would want to know it. Absolutely. But you are not offered the opportunity to cease and desist. Providing material support can include weapons, or money toward the advancement of violence. But it can also include simply speaking. If you donate money to a group who has a goal of ending violence, you can be guilty of providing material support. In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court ruled that it could be a serious felony merely to urge terrorist groups to use peaceful means to resolve disputes. So, no cease and desist opportunity, just felony charges.

So there you are, stuck with felony charges, and trying to explain to your lawyer that you had simply donated to a charity who were working on trying to coordinate peace talks to end violence between two groups of people. You just admitted guilt to your attorney and the government who is using what used to be a privileged conversation as evidence against you.

We have no idea the liberties we have lost until we are arrested. The Patriot Act was never fully read and the few Reps who did bother reading it came out saying "if the American people knew what was in this they would be out in the streets"..

The fact is, you have no more rights. If the government wants to get rid of you, they scream terrorist and you end up in a hole somewhere never to be heard from again. No lawyer, no right to face your accuser no trial, on their word alone. Or if you are lucky they will just kill you.
You have lost the right to privacy in your own home. The cops and feds can kick your door down anytime they want, for any reason they want and they can get a warrant for it... later.

If you are a law abiding citizen, you may not feel the sting of what you have lost. Which is why they get away with it.

Oh and they can also take your property, money, and anything else you own, no questions asked. They call it Asset Forfeiture.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/police-can-just-take-your-money-car-and-other-property-and-good-luck-getting-it-back

"If you are a law abiding citizen, you may not feel the sting of it"

But then again, who, exactly, is a law abiding citizen? Not me. I violated a stupid law written by the moronic city council of Lawrence, Kansas. Paid a large fine for doing so, and apparently have no legal recourse. I guess when you make the mistake of visiting a moronic city, you are supposed to know every moronic law on the books, so as to avoid breaking it. Otherwise they can give you a huge parking ticket even though there is not a sign that says no parking.

Uh huh. So the government can take my money, kill me, or put me in a hole, according to you. Which government? The city? The state? The county? The federal? All of them?

So how many people has Obama done this too since he took power? Clearly he still hasn't gotten Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly. Are they protected by being famous?

Or is the government only using these powers to go after drug cartels, gangsters, and terrorists? And is that a bad thing some how, if drug cartels lose some of their rights?

All of them. Did you bother to read the fucking link?

Goodbye and welcome to ignore. I hope you never wake up to find a Swat team in your house.

wake up to find a swat team in their house.

And for some reason I think that is a valid point, in spite of Alternet's three anecdotes. The moral of the story seems to be - don't carry large sums of cash. Which is probably always good advice. Any down payment I have ever made for property has either been a check or a cashier's check.

I always find it amazing when you ask a question like you did "what freedoms have you lost" and the end result is to say "welcome to my ignore list"! You would think that answer with a list of the freedoms we have lost would be much better, but I guess not.

Funny thing is the right wing nuts also talk about "all the freedoms they have lost" since Obama took office, but when you ask them which one, they too can't name any. I guess some just like to set their hair on fire and run around screaming things that aren't really true.

our government tells us...

nt

What rights have I lost lately?

I asked people in their 50s who say the same thing.



Not sure what these liberties are or where they're going, but there's always plenty of people and groups who claim the cattle cars are coming any second.

But, just in case... everyone be sure to stock up for the HYPERBOLE APOCALYPSE:

that a geezer like me could name.

Back in the day, I used to be able to drive without wearing a seat belt.
In many places, you cannot legally ride a bicycle without wearing a helmet.
Pretty sure most of the anti-dog laws are new too. They didn't exist probably in the 1970s and 1980s.

And by anti-dog laws I mean this. In the shitty of Topeka, Kansas for example, you cannot legally leave your dogs in your car in any weather for any amount of time.

As a dog owner I consider that to be anti-dog. It basically says I cannot take them for a car ride. One of the major joys of their life. Because if I am driving to the grocery store, I cannot possibly take my dogs without leaving them in the car. The moronic law of Lawrence, Kansas is a little bit more sensible as they say you cannot leave a dog in a car more than 5 minutes when the temp is over 80 degrees.

I still say it is moronic though since I was parked in the shade and my dogs had water. Thus, I could have put them on leashes and taken them for a walk in the hot sun, with no water, and NOT have been in violation of said moronic law. But clearly they are better off in the shade with water than they would be in the sun with no water. Ultimately the dogs were fine anyway, as I knew they would be, but that makes no difference to those writing and enforcing moronic laws.

Those types of laws are probably spreading too. Bad ideas being contagious apparently.

And of course, recently you have lost the freedom to NOT buy health insurance. A freedom that I sort of enjoyed when I was your age. Not that I really enjoyed it. I would have been happy to get insurance then the same way I eventually got it in 2004 - by having my employer pay for it.

I'm aware of most of them.

And we should have healthy debates about even the most minor of rules/regulations.

But what I'm saying is none of that is worth the hyperbole it receives.

I'd rather people discuss why a law or regulation sucks, like you have, rather than scream: "MAH FREEDOM!"

as I have probably demonstrated

but saying "there's NOTHING I have lost" seems a little bit hyperbolic too.

Possible that yelling about "freedom" allows the unity of people with a variety of "minor" complaints, perhaps even some with opposite complaints or points of view.

Yes I will trade standing in line at the airport for my neighbor's right to marry and be accorded full equality under the law.

Talking on a cell while driving, having tinted windows, and not banning realistic-looking water guns. I prefer freedom over safety every time.

so your personal preferences are only relevant to a limited extent.

I guess you can ask any number of parents of dead black kids about realistic looking water guns.

Last edited Sun Jan 11, 2015, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)

But talking on a cell doesn't. It's the same as talking to the passenger. Even less dangerous, because sometimes you look at the passenger while talking.

sad....