See below …

 

 

 

See below …

 

 

 

Bingo! My point exactly. :thumb:

 

FWIW, I'm not accusing Bush of tracking his enemies like Jim is. On the other hand, I do feel like the Patriot Act is more egregious because this blog thing is voluntary, whereas the Patriot Act is backed up by the strong arm of our government. However, both are incredibly invasive and both are ideas that defecate, for lack of a better word, on our Constitution.

A message for all:

 

Please don't defend the Patriot Act and oppose this. Or oppose the Patriot Act and support this. You lose a tremendous amount of credibility by doing so.

 

How so? The Patriot Act was attempting to find/keep track of people who either had or were planning to commit illegal acts. That is absolutely a legitimate function of government. The debate on the Patriot Act concerns maintaining a balance between the conflicting needs of security and privacy. You can argue that the Patriot Act goes too far, but you can not reasonably argue that there aren't circumstances where security needs outweigh privacy concerns.

 

Keeping tabs on law-abiding people for the sole reason that the government doesn't like their political statements is not a legitimate function of goverment. The purely politcal nature of this list leads me to ask: What legitimate governmental need is served by this list? It seems like apples and oranges to me.

:idunno:

:ohbrother:

How so? The Patriot Act was attempting to find/keep track of people who either had or were planning to commit illegal acts. That is absolutely a legitimate function of government. The debate on the Patriot Act concerns maintaining a balance between the conflicting needs of security and privacy. You can argue that the Patriot Act goes too far, but you can not reasonably argue that there aren't circumstances where security needs outweigh privacy concerns.

 

Keeping tabs on law-abiding people for the sole reason that the government doesn't like their political statements is not a legitimate function of goverment. The purely politcal nature of this list leads me to ask: What legitimate governmental need is served by this list? It seems like apples and oranges to me.

I am arguing that the Patriot Act goes too far.

A message for all:

 

Please don't defend the Patriot Act and oppose this. Or oppose the Patriot Act and support this. You lose a tremendous amount of credibility by doing so.

 

The patriot act was passed through the proper channels due to national security. I was wary of this myself but chose to bite the bullet due to the hand we were dealt. Considering the point that the patriot act was later attacked by most democrats (many of which voted for it) after the fact, I find this development to be beyond hypocritical. It is nothing short of disgusting.

 

I understand where you are coming from on this point. I just choose to lose what little credibility that I have to show my distate for this action.

Sounds like something straight out of the Nixon White House doesn't it kiddies .

How so? The Patriot Act was attempting to find/keep track of people who either had or were planning to commit illegal acts. That is absolutely a legitimate function of government. The debate on the Patriot Act concerns maintaining a balance between the conflicting needs of security and privacy. You can argue that the Patriot Act goes too far, but you can not reasonably argue that there aren't circumstances where security needs outweigh privacy concerns.

 

Keeping tabs on law-abiding people for the sole reason that the government doesn't like their political statements is not a legitimate function of goverment. The purely politcal nature of this list leads me to ask: What legitimate governmental need is served by this list? It seems like apples and oranges to me.

 

I think that BOTH certainly have troubling implications. The Patriot Act can be used for a positive outcome, but the fact that it infringes upon liberties cannot be ignored.

 

If instead of forwarding the emails, the person could just "copy and paste" the information, then it would be less intrusive. The reporting of the mis-information (and there is plenty out there) could then be analyzed and a determination made on how to better inform the public and negate that misinformation.

I think that BOTH certainly have troubling implications. The Patriot Act can be used for a positive outcome, but the fact that it infringes upon liberties cannot be ignored.

 

If instead of forwarding the emails, the person could just "copy and paste" the information, then it would be less intrusive. The reporting of the mis-information (and there is plenty out there) could then be analyzed and a determination made on how to better inform the public and negate that misinformation.

How about this, Obama gets on TV and explains the bill in detail. Wouldn't that be much more effective then this crap?

The patriot act was passed through the proper channels due to national security. I was wary of this myself but chose to bite the bullet due to the hand we were dealt. Considering the point that the patriot act was later attacked by most democrats (many of which voted for it) after the fact, I find this development to be beyond hypocritical. It is nothing short of disgusting.

 

I understand where you are coming from on this point. I just choose to lose what little credibility that I have to show my distate for this action.

If President Obama and Congressional Democrats had passed the healthcare bill before the recess, they would have been (correctly) accused of trying to pass it quickly before anyone knew what it was. This is exactly what Bush and the Congressional Republicans did with the Patriot Act.

 

What Democrats who supported and then criticized the bill did is embarrassing and disgusting, but it doesn't make the bill right. Anything that allows the government to search telephone, email, and financial records without a warrant should not be excused. I'm all for defense spending and counter-terrorism procedures, but searches on citizens with no checks and balances is dangerous.

If President Obama and Congressional Democrats had passed the healthcare bill before the recess, they would have been (correctly) accused of trying to pass it quickly before anyone knew what it was. This is exactly what Bush and the Congressional Republicans did with the Patriot Act.

 

What Democrats who supported and then criticized the bill did is embarrassing and disgusting, but it doesn't make the bill right. Anything that allows the government to search telephone, email, and financial records without a warrant should not be excused. I'm all for defense spending and counter-terrorism procedures, but searches on citizens with no checks and balances is dangerous.

 

I can't argue with anything you said, your points are valid. I did not speak up for the Patriot Act, but perhaps I should have spoke against it at the time as well. Sometimes in desperate times we accept things we shouldn't.

 

This may have been what you were referring to in your original warning.

:notworthy::thumb:

I can't argue with anything you said, your points are valid. I did not speak up for the Patriot Act, but perhaps I should have spoke against it at the time as well. Sometimes in desperate times we accept things we shouldn't.

 

This may have been what you were referring to in your original warning.

:notworthy::thumb:

 

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. And your credibility has been restored

I can't argue with anything you said, your points are valid. I did not speak up for the Patriot Act, but perhaps I should have spoke against it at the time as well. Sometimes in desperate times we accept things we shouldn't.

 

This may have been what you were referring to in your original warning.

:notworthy::thumb:

 

I admire someone willing to re-examine information and admit that they might have arrived at a hasty conclusion. :thumb:

The Patriot Act was abused by its users. The [email protected] crap will be even worst in that I believe that its sole purpose is to create a list of opposition to Obama's plans.

The Patriot Act was abused by its users. The [email protected] crap will be even worst in that I believe that its sole purpose is to create a list of opposition to Obama's plans.

 

 

So in your mind, Billy Smith from Omaha who objects and sends out an email with false information which then matriculates to the White House will suffer how exactly?

 

I'm stunned that people are OK somehow with the tracing of emails and phone calls and the monster databases collected in the name of "security" are somehow all lathered up about this. IMO this is President Obama wanting to do nothing more than continue his campaigning.

So in your mind, Billy Smith from Omaha who objects and sends out an email with false information which then matriculates to the White House will suffer how exactly?

 

I'm stunned that people are OK somehow with the tracing of emails and phone calls and the monster databases collected in the name of "security" are somehow all lathered up about this. IMO this is President Obama wanting to do nothing more than continue his campaigning.

 

To clarify- and this is from someone adamantly against the Patriot Act- do you have a problem with the White House collecting names? Does the Patriot Act make these actions acceptable?