Dante Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Ok scratch this guy off the list of potential candidates. For me anyway. Anyone who endorses mass warrant less searches is a chump. Enough sacrificing freedom for safety. http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/marco-rubio-wants-to-permanently-extend-nsa-mass-surveillance-20150127 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Ok scratch this guy off the list of potential candidates. For me anyway. Anyone who endorses mass warrant less searches is a chump. Enough sacrificing freedom for safety. http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/marco-rubio-wants-to-permanently-extend-nsa-mass-surveillance-20150127 Good for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Any serious-minded candidate would support the program. It may be politically popular to say otherwise, but the reality on the ground dictates it as a necessary evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 That Magox is just a good poster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 14, 2015 Author Share Posted May 14, 2015 Any serious-minded candidate would support the program. It may be politically popular to say otherwise, but the reality on the ground dictates it as a necessary evil. We can justify any program in the name of security. When all the bs is spewed and the dust settles it's always the citizens that have less freedom. Just think how spying like this can be leveraged against both citizens and politicians. No way. Have a reasonable cause to look at my shite? Get a warrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 The program as intended doesn't specifically target anyone that is without cause. If it is leveraged against someone without justification then that isn't an indictment on the program but rather a corrupt official abusing his power. In which then you throw his ass in jail. You are conflating the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 The program as intended doesn't specifically target anyone that is without cause. If it is leveraged against someone without justification then that isn't an indictment on the program but rather a corrupt official abusing his power. In which then you throw his ass in jail. You are conflating the two. Great point because we all know that's never happened. I'd rather run the risk of something happening than risk people going rogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Great point because we all know that's never happened. I'd rather run the risk of something happening than risk people going rogue. I think we all say that and feel that until a baby gets blow up in Boston. There's no question many people, even you, would rather throw the dice than give up data, but once body parts are thrown around, people want answers and the answer can't be "We didn't see it coming because we respect you privacy." I know we want it to be. But it can't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Great point because we all know that's never happened. I'd rather run the risk of something happening than risk people going rogue. Abuse happens, but I'm not paranoid enough to think that they are going to target me. I believe that the program does more good than harm, I also believe that it wasn't created with nefarious intentions and that the intent is to save lives, which I also believe has happened. So, I support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I think we all say that and feel that until a baby gets blow up in Boston. There's no question many people, even you, would rather throw the dice than give up data, but once body parts are thrown around, people want answers and the answer can't be "We didn't see it coming because we respect you privacy." I know we want it to be. But it can't be. Going through life in fear of what MIGHT happen is not a reason to allow this type of invasion into my privacy. He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. Of all people I'm surprised you're ok with the government having this kind of power. Abuse happens, but I'm not paranoid enough to think that they are going to target me. I believe that the program does more good than harm, I also believe that it wasn't created with nefarious intentions and that the intent is to save lives, which I also believe has happened. So, I support it. It's not about targeting you! It's about targeting anyone. Remember that little IRS "issue" with targeting conservative non-profits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 14, 2015 Author Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) The program as intended doesn't specifically target anyone that is without cause. If it is leveraged against someone without justification then that isn't an indictment on the program but rather a corrupt official abusing his power. In which then you throw his ass in jail. You are conflating the two. Does that ever happen? Look at Hillary? Look at that women and the IRS targeting the Tea Party. If officials are given the tool to abuse they are going to use it. Oops I just read Chef's and LA posts. The same. I also worry about foreign interests compromising people in power. Sometimes I think thats what is happening with McConnell and Boehner Edited May 14, 2015 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Going through life in fear of what MIGHT happen is not a reason to allow this type of invasion into my privacy. He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. Of all people I'm surprised you're ok with the government having this kind of power. It's not about targeting you! It's about targeting anyone. Remember that little IRS "issue" with targeting conservative non-profits? No where does the program state that they would target anyone that is without justifiable suspicion. Your argument is predicated on a hypothetical situation that the program is without merit because some bad apple abuses the power that is possibly granted under the program. Under your scenario and thinking, if you were to remain consistent with that thought, we should just abolish the police force as well. I mean, they have the power to infringe on people's civil liberties, and since they have that capability the police force should cease to exist. There will always be bad apples, but the actions of a few shouldn't discredit the intent and the results of the program. Does that ever happen? Look at Hillary? Look at that women and the IRS targeting the Tea Party. If officials are given the tool to abuse they are going to use it. Oops I just read Chef's and LA posts. The same. I also worry about foreign interests compromising people in power. Sometimes I think thats what is happening with McConnell and Boehner Screw it! Let's just disband the entire government. Since we know that there will always be people who can abuse power, there shouldn't be any power available from the government that could be abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) No where does the program state that they would target anyone that is without justifiable suspicion. Your argument is predicated on a hypothetical situation that the program is without merit because some bad apple abuses the power that is possibly granted under the program. Under your scenario and thinking, if you were to remain consistent with that thought, we should just abolish the police force as well. I mean, they have the power to infringe on people's civil liberties, and since they have that capability the police force should cease to exist. There will always be bad apples, but the actions of a few shouldn't discredit the intent and the results of the program. Screw it! Let's just disband the entire government. Since we know that there will always be people who can abuse power, there shouldn't be any power available from the government that could be abused. Cops operate under transparency. The NSA does not. Cops can get fired if they infringe on someone's rights for poor reasons. Too much power turns a "few bad apples" into something much, much worse. Edited May 14, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 14, 2015 Author Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) No where does the program state that they would target anyone that is without justifiable suspicion. Your argument is predicated on a hypothetical situation that the program is without merit because some bad apple abuses the power that is possibly granted under the program. Under your scenario and thinking, if you were to remain consistent with that thought, we should just abolish the police force as well. I mean, they have the power to infringe on people's civil liberties, and since they have that capability the police force should cease to exist. There will always be bad apples, but the actions of a few shouldn't discredit the intent and the results of the program. But the IRS isn't supposed to be abused either. We shouldn't have to worry about it. This is why the 4th amendment is necessary. It's not like this is the first time this country has been threatened and it has never been necessary to spy on everyone. We have the DHS, TSA,NSA,CIA,FBI, DEA, and even the CPS all up in our shite for gods sake. All other government agencies are being militarized. Cops look like para military outfits these days. Our own military is performing massive military operations in our own towns and states(Jade Helm). Any one of these wouldn't be good but I think I could brush it off. All together it's starting to get very creepy. Edited May 14, 2015 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 But the IRS isn't supposed to be abused either. We shouldn't have to worry about it. This is why the 4th amendment is necessary. It's not like this is the first time this country has been threatened and it has never been necessary to spy on everyone. What some individuals have done in that case is inexcusable. Aside from the IRS being terribly inefficient, which is a whole another matter, the vast majority of the people who work there are public servants who are just doing their jobs. Let's not pretend that what some of these corrupt individuals did was something so bad that it has irreparably damaged our nation. The best thing that could have come out of this would have been if the DOJ assigned a special investigator to the case and that if wrong doing had occurred, which I believe it did, to have then thrown them in prison. Cops operate under transparency. The NSA does not. Cops can get fired if they infringe on someone's rights for poor reasons. Too much power turns a "few bad apples" into something much, much worse. In that case, let's get rid of the CIA and FBI, if you want to go by those metrics. They certainly don't operate under "transparency". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 But the IRS isn't supposed to be abused either. We shouldn't have to worry about it. This is why the 4th amendment is necessary. It's not like this is the first time this country has been threatened and it has never been necessary to spy on everyone. We have the DHS, TSA,NSA,CIA,FBI, DEA, and even the CPS all up in our shite for gods sake. All other government agencies are being militarized. Cops look like para military outfits these days. Our own military is performing massive military operations in our own towns and states(Jade Helm). Any one of these wouldn't be good but I think I could brush it off. All together it's starting to get very creepy. J. Edgar Hoover wasn't supposed to abuse it either. That's what's wrong with this approach. Someone will abuse their power and use this information against someone. Maybe not Magox, but someone will for personal or political gain. Abuse happens, but I'm not paranoid enough to think that they are going to target me. As long as they don't target you it's OK? Who cares about the poor schmuck whom they do go after, just as long as it's not you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 J. Edgar Hoover wasn't supposed to abuse it either. That's what's wrong with this approach. Someone will abuse their power and use this information against someone. Maybe not Magox, but someone will for personal or political gain. As long as they don't target you it's OK? Who cares about the poor schmuck whom they do go after, just as long as it's not you. If that's what you got out of what I have been saying, then I would say to you, re read what I wrote and then get back to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) If that's what you got out of what I have been saying, then I would say to you, re read what I wrote and then get back to me. Abuse happens, but I'm not paranoid enough to think that they are going to target me. This is not the first time I've read this sentiment from you either. Edited May 14, 2015 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 This is not the first time I've read this sentiment from you either. You got me, I'm not a paranoid person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. What freedom are you giving up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts