4th Amendment now VOID!!! (VIDEO) EVERYONE MUST WATCH THIS!

[PT]

I don't think you fully understand what the constitution is meant to protect if you trully believe this. What you're referring too is called a "living constitution." Some of the greatest usurpations of power and encroachments of rights have occurred when either the President or the Congress or both believed that the constitution was a living document. The constitution was designed to protect natural God given rights. Natural God given rights do not change over time or with technology, no matter what anybody tells you. Nor do Social and economic changes dictate what your rights are as a human being. The constitution was designed to never become obsolete and as such, we should be very wary of acquiescing our rights so easily because it won't stop here.

i do understand the constitution and like i said, sometimes you have to change with the world. terrorisim wasnt around 100 years ago and if you want to stop them stupied fuks then its gotta be no holds bar and any means neccesary. unfortunatly times has changed bro and if you expect to continue living a safe life then you might have to change the constituation in order to do so. im sure if you worked for the secret service, cia, nsa or fbi your views would change watching all these fuks slip thru your fingers. oh yea by the way im also for getting info out of them by any means neccesary even if it means tourture. let me explain this to you guys so you totally understand my views and stop trying to tell me different points because this isnt the first time i debated the issue. im totally for using the fisa admendment to help catch terrirists period. i wouldnt want it used for robbers, burgler, drug dealers, etc.... if your so against it then dont blame our government if a nuke goes off in your town someday or a plane crashes into your parents building there working in. terrorists may of existed 100 years ago but it was WAY different then the terrorisim of today. the definition of fisa is- U.S. federal law prescribing procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law: §1801 on territory under United States control. if it helps keep my country safer from terrorists then i am 100% for it but if the government abuses the power in any such form then im 100% against that. there is still a secret court that meets to approve or deny the warrent. i would rather have a few terrorists lose a little of there rights as opposed to a nuck, chemical or biological weapon being relased or detonated on US soil

[thegodfather]

i do understand the constitution and like i said, sometimes you have to change with the world. terrorisim wasnt around 100 years ago and if you want to stop them stupied fuks then its gotta be no holds bar and any means neccesary. unfortunatly times has changed bro and if you expect to continue living a safe life then you might have to change the constituation in order to do so. im sure if you worked for the secret service, cia, nsa or fbi your views would change watching all these fuks slip thru your fingers. oh yea by the way im also for getting info out of them by any means neccesary even if it means tourture. let me explain this to you guys so you totally understand my views and stop trying to tell me different points because this isnt the first time i debated the issue. im totally for using the fisa admendment to help catch terrirists period. i wouldnt want it used for robbers, burgler, drug dealers, etc.... if your so against it then dont blame our government if a nuke goes off in your town someday or a plane crashes into your parents building there working in

Are you serious once again? Terrorism is one of the oldest TACTICS in the book of war. Do you think the British Crown called the founding fathers of this country "Freedom Fighters" during the R*********ary War in 1776? Absolutely not, the Crown pronounced these people as TERRORISTS, yes, it called them that word specifically. More over they were also branded as traitors, because according to the Crown; the territories of the future United States were OWNED by the Crown.

The first thing that they teach us in International Relations(i suggest anyone who has the chance to take this as an elective does so) is that TERRORISM is a TACTIC, and it is impossible to wage a "WAR" against a TACTIC. It would be similar to waging war against "frontal assaults" or waging war against "flanking." It is simply illogical. Additionally, it has always been the stronger of the two warring parties who labeled the other some sort of defamatory remark- Evil, Terrorists, Traitors, Blasphemors, "Islamofascist Extremists"...

This is perhaps the BEST example of political fear mongering that can be seen in present day politics. During many of the debaates the candidates said we are fighting a war against "Islamofascist extremeists"... What in Gods name is a fu*king "Islamofacist?" The two words make absolutely no sense together. Islam, is a name for their religion, Islam/Muslim. Then Fascism, which is a type of governance whereby government and corporations are closely in bed with one another, or whereby the government nationalizes many private sectors of business. The point here is clear, whenever a politician in the modern day wants to DEMONIZE their enemy, they try to associate them with HITLER/NAZISM. Yes, when Ahmedinejhad so much as J-walks, President Bush is on TV telling us that Ahmedinejhad is the next coming of Hitler.

So I will present you with one political lens which we use to examine international politics. It is the realist theory. The realist theory would say that it is absurd to view Tehran/Iran as a viable threat because they lack ALL CAPABILITY to wage a war against us or to attack Israel. It would be equivalent to Mickey Mouse saying he is going to invade Russia all by himself. The Realist view would say that indeed Hitler/Germany/Third Reich were in fact a viable threat, because they posessed one of the largest army's of the time, and if he said he was going to invade a country, he very well could because he posessed the power to do so. On the other hand, Iran lacks any of those capabilities, it is unlikely that they could even invade their neighbors with much success. I could go on and on about Iran and the many reasons it is not a threat, but this is a good summation in brevity.

One more thing guys, if we are going to wage wars against these countries and demonize them, we might as well PRONOUNCE THEIR NAMES CORRECTLY. I just think it should be a pre-requesite to waging war against someone.

There is no such country as I--RAN. It is pronounced EEERAN.

There is no such country as I-RAQ. It is pronounced EEERAQ.

Both names stem from the word Aaryan. The Aaryan race. Quite ironic that Hitlers perfect Aaryan race actually originated in the Middle East. One more thing, you people need to stop referring to Iraqis as Arabs. THEY ARE NOT ARAB, THEY ARE PERSIAN!!!!!!!

[SMCengineer]

i do understand the constitution and like i said, sometimes you have to change with the world. terrorisim wasnt around 100 years ago and if you want to stop them stupied fuks then its gotta be no holds bar and any means neccesary. unfortunatly times has changed bro and if you expect to continue living a safe life then you might have to change the constituation in order to do so.

Terrorism definitely existed 100 years ago and times may have changed, but human nature has not. If the constitution is changed, which is simply a set of laws that restrict the government from infringing on the peoples god given rights (it doesn't give us our rights), than you're acquiescing your rights to people who were never meant to have them in the first place.

im sure if you worked for the secret service, cia, nsa or fbi your views would change watching all these fuks slip thru your fingers. oh yea by the way im also for getting info out of them by any means neccesary even if it means tourture. let me explain this to you guys so you totally understand my views and stop trying to tell me different points because this isnt the first time i debated the issue. im totally for using the fisa admendment to help catch terrirists period. i wouldnt want it used for robbers, burgler, drug dealers, etc....

What, exactly, is stopping them from abusing this power and using it stop burglars, drug dealers, etc? And, assuming this adminstration doesn't abuse these powers, what is stopping future administrations from abusing them? There's a reason we have a system of checks and balances and it's to prevent exactly this type of situation, which we're so easily accepting.

if your so against it then dont blame our government if a nuke goes off in your town someday or a plane crashes into your parents building there working in

That's horrible logic and jingoistic rethoric. That's called fear mongering at it's finest. The blame certainly could be placed on the government whether or not we have FISA. Do you realize the amount of information we had pre-911? It isn't our ability to collect info on these people that's allowing them slip through, it's our inability to decipher all the information that causes the problems.