G+_Curt Steege Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Judge, jury and executioner....... I think that's how dictatorships work. We'll we at least know you're not on the side of evidence and fairness. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Tim Allen Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Lou, A LOT of people complained about the law when it was passed: Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. The common sentiment was that the law meant the terrorists won. You either have forgotten or were too young and didn't understand what was going on at the time. And a lot of people back then predicted what has happened as a result of this law. It's funny, people like yourself say that because our current President is not white, people complain about this and that where they would not have had for a white President. Well, what about Clinton, Hilary (who often acted like President) and Carter? They led with the same ideals, tried similiar things, people fought back just as hard, if not harder, and more than often those Presidents didn't succeed, where President Obama has had a much better success rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Lou Gagliardi We all have our propaganda. BTW, what false presences? Last I heard Hillary did in fact believe the WMD's intel, along with everyone else in Congress. And British Intelligence still considers the data on Saddam's attempted purchase sound. The only one's who don't seem to be the Demosheep and media. The big lie is that there was no lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Ah the Senate. So exactly how did Bush manage to lie before getting into office? http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 I'll take the win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Tim Allen Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Lou, I have tried my best for months to understand you, to find the best in you. That said, I've found you contradict yourself at every turn. You post little fireballs and then complain when people respond and quickly hide comments, while in other's posts complain they are doing the same to you. It's not worth my time anymore and I've said all I ever have to say to you, I will not get caught up in your stuff anymore. I wish you well and hope you find happiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jeff Wheatley Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Kenneth Smith so security is more important than liberty? (I could throw a thousand platitudes at you over that position). In answer to your question: "Do you have a better suggestion...?" my answer is: "I don't have to." It is not government's job to protect us from every bad thing that might be done. Once you say that is government's job, you have lost all freedoms... it is only a matter of time. Should the government protect me from all drunk drivers? ...all muggings? ...all terrorist attacks? ...all robberies? If so, then of course you will want the government to see and know everything that everyone is doing so that all crimes can be stopped before they even happen. If, instead, it is the government's job to protect when possible, but also to prosecute and punish those who step on others' rights... then the government can stay out of the private lives of the citizen until the citizen demonstrates they are breaking the law. Try reading the 4th amendment to the constitution and seeing how it affects your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Curt Steege Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 That's a hell of a jump to monitor someones actions in public like a drunk driver and prying in on a conversation on a secure line that may or may not be about how actions by our own government might be too intrusive, like 2 people discussing politics online or a phone. Where and who draws the line that when someone being monitored is considered a threat to the country.......or just to the power of who is in charge?? Basically who get's to make the distinction of what's a threat between the good of the country as a whole and just the good of people in power. And do you want the people in power monitoring your conversations if you think they might use that against you to keep you from speaking out against them? It's a mighty short jump to tyranny at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Kenneth Smith So it's worth our civil liberties to save a life? Pulling over a drunk driver is not the same as collecting data and recording our daily activities. It's more like: A man is sitting at a bar drinking. He's being monitored until he's drunk. Then he's stopped as he leaves the bar. No, this is not worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 What if they don't get in the car? Are we just going to monitor everyone? All the time? It's frightening that any American would agree to this. BTW, this program was supposed to monitor calls into and out of the U.S. Not within it's borders. So someone took liberties with the law now we actually have Americans embracing it. What if someone decides to use it to quell dissent? The IRS is already being used this way. You can say, "Well, that will be wrong." Well very little is being done to the IRS. So best of luck getting the NSA to stop once they're spying on the left or the right and using the data against political groups, candidates, or you and I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jeff Wheatley Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Kenneth Smith seeing someone in public exhibiting behavior consistant with drunkenness (swerving, as you said, which by the way is illegal in and of itself) is probable cause to pull someone over. Someone having a private conversation by phone, email, chatroom, or what have you, is not legally suspicious. The government has no right to snoop without probable cause. I do understand your sentiments. I also ask you to reconsider the position you are taking by thinking about where it can lead. Regardless of which end of the political spectrum you hold, we must fight for our freedoms because we never know who will have the opportunity to use (or abuse) these allowed govt actions in the future. Bush brought in the patriot act. Govt under Obama has allowed more expansion of these privacy-killing actions. What if the next govt leader is completely contrary to all your ideals and expands these programs further than we can now imagine? We must safeguard the future of our country for our children and grandchildren. That is my position, and that was the position of the founding fathers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Curt Steege Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 They probably said the same thing about printed pamphlets back then. England would rather have had all printed information run through them to avoid the New England settlers from causing civil unrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Curt Steege Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 They're called unions and the give the employees the power to keep corporations from running roughshod over the workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Curt Steege I wouldn't have a problem with unions if they were voluntary. The fact that they force and often coerce membership is contra to our ideals. It's a matter of freedom. Unions are essentially a swan dive into socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Curt Steege Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I agree to a point. But, loss of unions is a swan dive into plutocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Always err on the side of freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Curt Steege Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I definitely see unions as a greater degree of freedom for the masses than a few plutocrats calling all the shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Unions are not the same as government and shouldn't be. They're afforded far too much power for a non-government entity and therefore are anti-freedom. If you wish to join an organization and are willing to abide by the rules of that organization then you're choosing to give up a certain amount of liberty. Taking away someone's means of employment because they won't join a union is tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Curt Steege Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Then don't work for a company that has a union. There's no tyranny about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Curt Steege If I work for a company without a union and a union comes along and tries, perhaps succeeds, in coercing the formation of a union and I don't want to join, that's tyranny. If unions are so great why do they have to force compliance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Curt Steege Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Because without compliance, there's no power to negotiate a contract. If you work somewhere and someone tries to start one, then vote against it if you don't like it. If it gets voted in anyway, then if you feel that strongly about it, work somewhere else. It's much easier to change jobs than changing countries. According to your logic, electing political officials to government offices to represent you is tyranny, too. Just because you don't want something doesn't automatically make it tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Not the same. Unions aren't government. The government isn't going to, as a function, force me out of a job. Let me ask the question another way. If unions are so good why do they use coercion and force to get their way? I'm amazed at how union supporters cannot see the inherent threat to freedom unions are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Curt Steege Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I've been in a couple of unions. I've never once had anyone coerce or force anything on me. I knew what was involved with the union before I started the job. I've never worked at a place that became unionized after I started, but have been in a few places that tried to start one and failed. Most of the coercion and force was produced from the company end, though, not from the unions. Your arguement holds no weight with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Curt Steege Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree but I'm encouraged that unions are becoming less popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Curt Steege Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I know what you're saying, but I really don't care for that "agree to disagree" cliché. Nothing personal. I just am firm in my beliefs and won't just be happy with there being alternative viewpoints and nothing being done about it. I still respect your argument, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts