Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Civil liberties loses.

Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on
Thu, Jul 25, 13 at 7:20

The amendment to prevent the government from so called metadata gathering on American citizens was defeated by 12 votes. What a shame.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

Does that mean the representatives didn't listen to the people ... or the people didn't make themselves adequately heard, I wonder?


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

It will take time to figure out how our new tech fits into our democratic society. I suspect that there will be many ups and downs as we adjust and go forward into our "brave new world" ...


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

We lost them a while ago.

Just drop a few national security buzz words and Congress will fall quickly into line.

How sad


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

It's a start !


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Jul 25, 13 at 10:18

If this had passed and we have a terrorist attack next year then guess who would be blaming Obama for dropping the ball and letting down our defenses? It would only result in another Benghazi-style "scandal" though embassy security funding was also cut by the same old GOP finger pointers.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

vgkg...I'll let this article speak for itself.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

What a shame

Ditto.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

We're getting closer and closer to 1984. We think it will improve our lives, but it'll do just the opposite in the end. Short term it looks good. Long term it looks awful. Very typical of the way we conduct our political lives.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

"The strongest backers of the measure were an oil-and-water mix of deeply conservative tea party Republicans and some of the chamber's most liberal Democrats. A majority of Democrats bucked President Obama and voted for the amendment."

Why don't they just put a tracking computer chip in my body at birth and be done with it?

"License plate readers capture vast amounts of data on innocent people

Because of the way the technology works ---these devices snap photos of every passing car, not just those registered to people suspected of crimes ---virtually all of the data license plate readers gather is about people who are completely innocent. Data that we obtained through our records requests illustrates this point vividly:

....

Should the government be logging for months, years, or indefinitely the movements of the other 99 percent of people, who are innocent?

The answer to this question is no. License plate reader information can be very revealing. While one snapshot at one point might not seem sensitive, as blankets of plate readers cover our streets, and as the government stores data for longer and longer, the technology quickly morphs into a powerful tracking tool."

We're getting closer and closer to 1984. We think it will improve our lives, but it'll do just the opposite in the end. Short term it looks good. Long term it looks awful. Very typical of the way we conduct our political lives.

Hay


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

It's true! Godwin's Law is true!

Godwin said that, "given enough time, in any online discussion - regardless of topic or scope - someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis."


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

Don't know why YOU chose to introduce Hitler into the conversation. No need to do that.

At the same time though, if we want to go back to the mid 1900's,

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Don't ever think that giving the government more control over your lives doesn't lead to unintended consequences. Seldom are they good ones.

I need a nap. Nightie night.

Hay


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

I think YOUR cartoon this date at 13:39 opened that door.

If it looks like a duck wearing jodhphurs, well, we do have our implied comparison.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

"I think YOUR cartoon this date at 13:39 opened that door."

And you barged right in.

OK, we'll go with it.

It wouldn't hurt, if you want to learn from history, to listen to the likes of George Orwell, author of Animal Farm and 1984, and Friedrich von Hayek, the author of The Road to Serfdom.

Each of them is a very smart individual with front row seats to the evils that come from the masses' willingness, no, eagerness, to accept having more government control over their lives.

If that draws up images of Hitler for you, GOOD.


"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

If you'd prefer a more contemporary image, well, we got those, too.

For the slow learners:

Our leader is all for more government in our lives. Setting the stage.

Nice nap.

Hay


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

I'd like to see someone rewrite the history of the last century without mentioning Hitler.

I'd like to see someone expound on the evils of a Police State without mentioning Nazi Germany or Hitler.

You want to give it a try?

"George Orwell's 1984 has been described as "the definitive fictional treatment of a police state, which has also influenced contemporary usage of the term"

Hay


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

For my part I'm AOK with my government collecting telephone metadata but in no way could I support the capture of voice or data content without very specific warrants.

I find it ludicrous that people can get their knickers in a knot over telephone metadata whilst they're every move on the internet, shopping, banking etc is captured daily for marketing purposes...and captured with no over sight at all.

Better to capture for security proposes than to sell me a cruise.......

This post was edited by chase on Thu, Jul 25, 13 at 17:48


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Jul 25, 13 at 17:41

Thx Mrskjun, You were right, the article does speak for itself, as well as for me :)

The facts:
"According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.
However, the final bill, after being worked on by the Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested.

Conclusion: The GOP-led House did initially approve about $330 million less than what the administration requested, but in the final bill, passed with bipartisan support after adjustments by the Senate, put the amount a little closer to the administration's target."


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

She's got style, she's got grace, She's a winner.
She's a Lady. Whoa whoa whoa, She's a Lady.

But nonetheless, Hay, I'll leave you to your thoughts of someone out there "rewriting" history then going out and pounding sand with the tome.

Whoa whoa whoa.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

But vgkg, it was still more than the year before! Maybe this will help...testimony from the State Dept.

In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

Duluth: "It's true! Godwin's Law is true!
Godwin said that, "given enough time, in any online discussion - regardless of topic or scope - someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis."


Close enough.

Godwin interview (March) "When you first proposed Godwin's Law, it stated, simply, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, such a comparison is, eventually, inevitable. Would you give it the same definition today?"

Godwin: "The only thing I would say is that it turns out not to be limited to online discussions. Other than that, it still seems to have some observational value. It’s the worst thing anybody can think of, so if you have some kind of rhetorical escalation with someone you disagree with, it’s sort of easy to go there if you’re not very reflective about what you’re saying."

Interesting interview at the link.

Here is a link that might be useful: Godwin Interview


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

elvis - I wasn't aiming (bad choice, I know) for anal. I credited Godwin in my gentle paraphrase, but felt also acknowledging Wikipedia for having the "eptitude" to carry the item was a bridge too far.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

Thanks for posting that, Duluth. I am relieved ;-)


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

'And you barged right in.

OK, we'll go with it.

If that's what you want to discuss, so be it.

From Godwin himself at Elvis' link

"Do you ever come across Nazi comparisons in discussions of American politics that you find legitimate?

You know … sure. American history has its own flirtations with fascism and racism and militarism, and people have believed in any and all of these things, so with certain individuals it has to come up from time to time. So it’s not the case that the comparison is never valid. It’s just that, when you make the comparison, think through what you’re saying, because there’s a lot of baggage there, and if you’re going to invoke a historical period with that much baggage you better be ready to carry it."

Hay has a strong back and can carry a big load.

And from Wikipedia, the apparent source of Duluth's quote:

"The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate...."

Thanks, Duluth, for bringing it up. Better you than me.

Hay


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

Chase:

"For my part I'm AOK with my government collecting telephone metadata but in no way could I support the capture of voice or data content without very specific warrants.
I find it ludicrous that people can get their knickers in a knot over telephone metadata whilst they're every move on the internet, shopping, banking etc is captured daily for marketing purposes...and captured with no over sight at all.

Better to capture for security proposes than to sell me a cruise......."

If I absolutely, positively KNEW that the information was not going to EVER, EVER be used in any other way than is STATED, then I'm with you. Can you guarantee that?

The risk, and in my mind, pretty close to an absolute certainty, is it will, in the future, not be used solely for "good". That's the problem. Put that on the scales and they tilt the other way for me.

Real freedom, as history amply demonstrates, has a hard time enduring. Don't make it any easier for it to go away. There are already too many forces working against it.

I'm willing to give up some of my "security" to ensure my freedom.

I'll take the cruise if that's the choice.

Hay


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

"If I absolutely, positively KNEW that the information was not going to EVER, EVER be used in any other way than is STATED, then I'm with you. Can you guarantee that?

The risk, and in my mind, pretty close to an absolute certainty, is it will, in the future, not be used solely for "good". That's the problem. Put that on the scales and they tilt the other way for me. "

I am confident enough that it would not be used in a way, other than for security purposes, to be comfortable with the gathering of the data.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Thomas Jefferson

Where are we?


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

"I am confident enough that it would not be used in a way, other than for security purposes, to be comfortable with the gathering of the data."

Never, ever?

We'll call you Polly. Pollyanna.

Would you feel the same way if Nixon or Bush were our current presidents? They're mild in comparison to the potential that we could face.

I don't feel like tracking down Cait's thread about how Hitler, (Thanks, Duluth), slowwwwly came to the power he had with the people of his time having an attitude just like yours.

Don't make it so eassssy!!!

Hay


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

Never, ever is not enough for me to deny the authorities this incredibly valuable information now.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Fri, Jul 26, 13 at 10:08

Mrskjun, I have but one word to say to you --- Uncle!

But for a general summary of the GOP's actions over the past 4-5 years, they continue to pull the rug from under the prez and then turn around and accuse him of lying down on the job.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

vgkg, will you agree with me that Obama is the president? Do you remember when Clinton was the president and he had a republican senate and congress? Do you remember how much got done? He didn't stand behind a pulpit and whine..woe is me, I can't do anything because I have a republican congress. He may have been morally corrupt, but he was a leader. He crossed the aisle, he sat down with the other party and they worked things out, and they got things done. If he hasn't learned how to lead by now, how to reach across the aisle and bring people together, it isn't going to happen in the next three years. Are the republicans obstructionists? Sure, you can call them that. They have a different vision. Same reason you can call democrats the same with a republican administration. But it's the presidents job as "leader", to bring the two sides together. This my way or the hwy attitude by him will come up against a brick wall every time. I don't know if he doesn't know how to do it, he could get some tips from Clinton, or maybe he just doesn't want to do it.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

"But it's the presidents job as "leader", to bring the two sides together."

Mrs that is impossible in an environment where certain Republicans are intent on bringing him down and have publicly said so.

They will do, or not do, anything if it has a chance of making The President look bad. That is their primary goal, not the work of the people, and I think it will backfire on them.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

What exactly do you think they are doing to make him look bad chase? Do they make him look bad to you?


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

'Never, ever is not enough for me to deny the authorities this incredibly valuable information now."

Now, you and I would agree.

Tomorrow is the problem. You won't be able to take back the power when it is used against YOU. The power, once gotten, is not so easy to take back.

Go read a bit about J. Edgar Hoover if you want to see the evils of this kind of power.

"According to President Harry S Truman, Hoover transformed the FBI into his private secret police force; Truman stated that "we want no Gestapo or secret police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover would give his right eye to take over, and all congressmen and senators are afraid of him".

Do read about the potential abuse of the power you're so willing to grant.

Take your time. I gotta go.

Hay


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

I don't need to take my time and I'm no Pollyanna.

I have no problem with granting my government access to telephone metadata now and in the future and feel quite strongly that the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion.....you think I'm a Pollyanna and I think you are paranoid..........which, by the way, doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Fri, Jul 26, 13 at 10:55

 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

Mrs, you know darn well what they do to make him look bad because you buy into it and often repeat it. IRS, WH tours, vacations...... even gas prices!

......and no they don't make him look bad to me because I can see right through the distortions and outright lies.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

The GOP is behind the IRS? The GOP shut down the White House tours and stopped the Keystone Pipeline? This is the best you can come up with chase?


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

Mrs, these are examples of how the GOP used certain issues to make the President look bad....

but forget it Mrs...I'm not playing.

......besides I think this discussion is on the wrong thread.....should be on the phony scandals thread

This post was edited by chase on Fri, Jul 26, 13 at 11:20


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

Please, give it a break.The President looks mighty good when compared to Republicans. He's a reasonable, well spoken man who cares about his family and his country.

The right wing tea potty are eating their own- it is not the same party as in the past and even if they want to do the right thing, for the country, they can't because they fear they won't win their primary election back home. If just some of them stood up to their Tea Party base, we would have a better America.

Now we have to consider the daughter of strongman Dick Cheney running for the Senate. "Keep America Safe" don't vote for Liz.... Speaking of Cheney, how about that Halliburton
"Halliburton has admitted destroying evidence in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and will plead guilty to a criminal charge, the Justice Department announced Thursday."

I'll take an Obama administration any day over that kind of Republican terror.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

I'll take an Obama administration any day over that kind of Republican terror.

Well you got it. Glad you are happy with it. I can't imagine why, but we will certainly be enduring another 3 years of it.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

3 years till Hillary Clinton... I bet you can hardly wait.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

The problem is that the president DOES look good, which makes republicans quake in fear because they look so bad.

Paul Krugman actually said it in his opinion piece this morning.

"Conservatives and others on the right are confronting their ultimate nightmare: that Obamacare is probably going to work."


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

As an aside, I am lovin' the fact that the Dems have managed to turn the word "Obamacare" into a positive.......


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

He crossed the aisle, he sat down with the other party and they worked things out, and they got things done.

And look how well that work out with the repeal of Glass-Steagall.




I actually wish the GOP had a program other than make President Obama look bad. The Republicans are setting such a low bar that the Democrats have it too easy -- all they have to do is point to the GOP and say 'we're not them.'


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

vgkg, will you agree with me that Obama is the president? Do you remember when Clinton was the president and he had a republican senate and congress? Do you remember how much got done?

msk do you remember how much got done? Impeachment and Gov't shutdown. It is amazing how people never noticed who their president was and what happened during other presidencies until President Obama was elected.

Continue with the RW talking points. NOW President Clinton was great. Who knew? Not the Republicans back then nor do they know now. But they can put those talking points out there and the RW will eat it up and do that parrot thing.

What Republicans should remember is what happened when they acted like they did when there was a President Clinton. They are as destructive if not more as they were then. They do not know how to deal with losing.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Fri, Jul 26, 13 at 17:43

vgkg, will you agree with me that Obama is the president?"

Yes, I do agree with you on that.

What topic do you think the GOP would "compromise" on with him? Remember now, Boehner doesn't like that word at all, and it can't even pass his lips. Even when Obama likes a GOP idea they'll turn against it just because he might steal their thunder. I'm no big fan of Pelosi but I do agree with her statement that if Boehner was a women he/she would have be given the boot some time ago. Somehow he holds on to a do nothing job. And yet when Obama does show leadership with an executive order to get something done then the GOP labels him as a tyrant.
Saw on cnn a poll yesterday where people who claim to be a repub has dropped 20% since just last year. Bill Vincent was way ahead of the pack.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

Chase: "I have no problem with granting my government access to telephone metadata now and in the future and feel quite strongly that the benefits far outweigh the risks."

That fine with me. I'm glad that you are not in a position to "grant MY (emphasis added) government access to telephone metadata now and in the future."

Alex: "He's a reasonable, well spoken man who cares about his family and his country."

So is the guy who fixes my car; that doesn't mean he's good president material.

"The right wing tea potty are eating their own- it is not the same party as in the past and even if they want to do the right thing, for the country, they can't because they fear they won't win their primary election back home. If just some of them stood up to their Tea Party base, we would have a better America."

Sounds like you think all on the right are Tea Party people, or as you so eloquently (and tactfully) said: "the tea potty." That would be an error on your part. Or perhaps you explained it poorly, or I'm suffering from that infamous "lack of reading comprehension" we conservatives are, according to some here, plagued with here on HT.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

Elvis, I speak only of my thoughts relative to my government in this matter.

See no reason for your snark


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

Sounds like you think all on the right are Tea Party people, or as you so eloquently (and tactfully) said:

When the tail wags the dog you are????? When the dog repeats what his tail said.....you are?????


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

Lol! And so the subject changes.

Hay, I am with you on this, completely. Wish more conservatives were not so willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for some very dubious security. That story has been repeated too many times in too many places and the end has never been good. The risk is not worth it and there are other ways.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

I would be more inclined to believe your reasons for your feelings Hay and sleep if you had pulled out the Nazi related material in 2001 Patriot Act of 2001

What in 2013 that makes some fear they should "not be willing to give up even a little bit of freedom"

What happened in 2013? Hummm.......just curious.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

I just don't see how giving up freedoms will help protect us. Should anything hit the fan, we're all on our own. There are no guarantees.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

"I just don't see how giving up freedoms will help protect us. Should anything hit the fan, we're all on our own. There are no guarantees."

Ah, but there ARE guarantees. Bogus maybe, but guarantees nonetheless. We give up this and this and this and we will be "protected" from the danger without. Maybe. And not from the danger within.

What's gonna hit the fan?


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

A bogus guarantee is not a guarantee.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

"A bogus guarantee is not a guarantee."

A guarantee is nothing more than a promise.


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

Nothing more than? So, promises aren't really meant to be kept? Is that the long and short of it?


 o
RE: Civil liberties loses.

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Sun, Jul 28, 13 at 10:14

Political "promises" certainly aren't meant to be believed.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here