Define Right To Privacy...

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Or forget that, argue the specific things we mean by privacy. Arguing for or against privacy is very broad, but arguing about warrentless searches is much easier.

We all know what the word privacy means and I think most of us understand it's application in this context. Reducing a gravely serious issue to tedious arguments of semantics is a rather simplistic diversionary tactic. While not as embarrassing and ludicrous as Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" it's nonetheless trite and a waste of time.
This is what happens when you can no longer argue against the facts.

If you seriously think about it...it is all about semantecs...is it not?
You read this forum in particular and you have alot of people on both sides whose viewpoint is scewered by that tiny little word--semantics!!
You will never get people to totally agree on the meaning of a word!!
For example each and everyone of us has a different definition of the word--FAIR....
Define the word-- FAIR.....as in thats not fair...
You can`t becuase each of us brings our various life experiences to the table in trying to defein a word such as FAIR!!

The same way with this thread.....
everyone says we have a Right or an expectation of privacy.....
I am not trying to fuel or fan the flames here but truthfully....
Name one president in the last 50 years who has not been involved in anything the public might or might not percieve as illegal in the context od national security...wiretaps....spying...etc....

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Hmm, income reporting, privacy...

...could they possibly be related?

Well, since income reporting is unquestionably essential to the functioning of the government, I'm be willing to let that one go.

It is? How did they manage for the first 150 years.

Not nearly as well as we manage now.

There is a reason why most countries in the world collect income tax, so let's not reduce an important issue to debating on the fringes of universally-accepted economic and political theory. This is how legitimate arguments become a joke.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Or forget that, argue the specific things we mean by privacy. Arguing for or against privacy is very broad, but arguing about warrentless searches is much easier.

We all know what the word privacy means and I think most of us understand it's application in this context. Reducing a gravely serious issue to tedious arguments of semantics is a rather simplistic diversionary tactic. While not as embarrassing and ludicrous as Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" it's nonetheless trite and a waste of time.
This is what happens when you can no longer argue against the facts.

If you seriously think about it...it is all about semantecs...is it not?
You read this forum in particular and you have alot of people on both sides whose viewpoint is scewered by that tiny little word--semantics!!
You will never get people to totally agree on the meaning of a word!!
For example each and everyone of us has a different definition of the word--FAIR....
Define the word-- FAIR.....as in thats not fair...
You can`t becuase each of us brings our various life experiences to the table in trying to defein a word such as FAIR!!

The same way with this thread.....
everyone says we have a Right or an expectation of privacy.....
I am not trying to fuel or fan the flames here but truthfully....
Name one president in the last 50 years who has not been involved in anything the public might or might not percieve as illegal in the context od national security...wiretaps....spying...etc....

everybody between nixon and w bush

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Hmm, income reporting, privacy...

...could they possibly be related?

Well, since income reporting is unquestionably essential to the functioning of the government, I'm be willing to let that one go.

It is? How did they manage for the first 150 years.

Not nearly as well as we manage now.

There is a reason why most countries in the world collect income tax, so let's not reduce an important issue to debating on the fringes of universally-accepted economic and political theory. This is how legitimate arguments become a joke.

I guess you are right. The income tax does allow the government to better manage people. The tax code is over a million words long. I suppose it was scientifically designed by our wonderful scientifically trained social engineers.

Universally accepted economic and political theory? Ha! Many economists agree that significantly reducing or eliminating the income tax would create a significant boon to the economy.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Meuge


There is a reason why most countries in the world collect income tax.

What reason is that?

People are so damn dumb they don't even understand that it's the middle class paying all these taxes, too busy working, getting nothing back for them and it goes to two groups of people. 1) the very wealthy like Halibutons etc. 2) the very poor who contribute nothing. Robbing the the vast middle to pay the frindge.

 

[ControlD]

I know this gets back to the semantics argument, but it seems like a lot of people like to use arguments such as "Well, the word privacy is not used in the Constitution, so there obviously isn't a right to privacy". You can thank that on the ever evolving English language more than anything else. At the time the Constitution was being drafted, the word privacy was generally used to refer to using the bathroom (the "privy" as it was often called) and thus would not be a word used in a political sense. Like others have already stated, such arguments are rather narrow minded, but using the above argument that the word "privacy" is absent is obviously ignoring the language of the day. I believe Thom Hartman wrote about this in one of his books, but I can't remember which one off the top of my head.

Dave

 

[Hacp]

right to privacy= right to abortion

 

[her209]

You're right. Also note the words "right to a fair trial" also does not appear in the Constitution.

 

[OrByte]

I think the best definition of privacy can be found in the constitution....

oops.

I hope and pray that the next couple of days we are NOT going to be subjected to this excruciating argument over semantics. OH The IRONY if the right wing tactics are going to involve semantics and blame-game!

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Hmm, income reporting, privacy...

...could they possibly be related?

Well, since income reporting is unquestionably essential to the functioning of the government, I'm be willing to let that one go.

Ahhh, I see. So having the government track what books you have checked out at the library is a big deal, but having to report all of your transactions to the IRS at the drop of the hat is no biggie. We have to let that one go because it is 'essential' to the functioning of the government.

Yeah essential to fund the invasion of your other privacies don't you know.

Not to mention the invasion of other countries. Your contribution is appreciated. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Meuge


There is a reason why most countries in the world collect income tax.

What reason is that?

People are so damn dumb they don't even understand that it's the middle class paying all these taxes, too busy working, getting nothing back for them and it goes to two groups of people. 1) the very wealthy like Halibutons etc. 2) the very poor who contribute nothing. Robbing the the vast middle to pay the frindge.

Hear, Hear!

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Hmm, income reporting, privacy...

...could they possibly be related?

Well, since income reporting is unquestionably essential to the functioning of the government, I'm be willing to let that one go.

Ahhh, I see. So having the government track what books you have checked out at the library is a big deal, but having to report all of your transactions to the IRS at the drop of the hat is no biggie. We have to let that one go because it is 'essential' to the functioning of the government.

Yeah essential to fund the invasion of your other privacies don't you know.

Not to mention the invasion of other countries. Your contribution is appreciated. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Meuge


There is a reason why most countries in the world collect income tax.

What reason is that?

People are so damn dumb they don't even understand that it's the middle class paying all these taxes, too busy working, getting nothing back for them and it goes to two groups of people. 1) the very wealthy like Halibutons etc. 2) the very poor who contribute nothing. Robbing the the vast middle to pay the frindge.

Hear, Hear!

[typical drooling brain dead Republican] "You libs are such DEFEATISTS! Once again for you thickheaded leftists, GAYS CAN'T GET MARRIED!!! THAT'S what's really important!" [/tdbdr]