Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm disappointed that so many liberals are defending this. It shouldn't matter whether the foot that is stepping on you is left or right. Obama knows this was wrong, and a violation of our rights. That's why it was kept a secret.
Except that Bush is unlikely to make such educated and upfront statements. THIS is more like him...
"As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein."
(Oct 2002)
That is still moot and you know it. If John McCain or Romney were president and he made the same announcement as Obama, you wouldn't be posting the things you are. You would be complaining how the "NEOCON'S" are working around the Constitution to strip you of your rights. And how Romney's "rich oil pals" were tying to get more power. Yet, because its a liberal democratic president, you support him fully; which is the height of hypocrisy.
Obama was right with that statement. You can't have 100% security and 100% privacy. You either choose complete freedom or complete slavery. Any other choice than complete freedom is just choosing what color leash you prefer.
That's going overboard, I'd say it's a sliding scale. I'd prefer mostly freedom, but a little security is necessary. This specific case is going too far though.
But the left was screaming about due process and all that a few weeks ago with the Boston bomber. Now it's all ok for average citizens to be drag netted?
Come on people. Wake up. This guy is as crooked as it gets.
That one's easy. Our constitution demands due process, as s loosely defined. When charging an individual with a crime, this means Miranda Rights and a fair trial by jury. When it means picking up info that you have shared with a third party...well, it doesn't mean much at all, as far as notifying you goes.
As to why I'm not screaming about it - please, the NSA has been sucking up more info than it could deal with for a long time now. That's basically been their assigned role since at least the last few Clinton years. Intelligence has been a major party of the defense industry for quite some time now, and that's been by the design of both political parties, as well as a pretty large number of businesses, and all pretty obvious to the public. So, I feel the same way as I do when, for example, congress demands the Pentagon to buy weapons that they don't need.
Frankly, if you want to know what worries me most about some "police state", the NSA collecting info and probably not even glancing at most of it pales in comparison to police running up and just attacking random people with impunity - ie, "stop and frisk" policies.
That's going overboard, I'd say it's a sliding scale. I'd prefer mostly freedom, but a little security is necessary. This specific case is going too far though.
TSA goes too far, IMO.
I gave Bush a pass when it came to the Patriot act because of all that was going on.
Going forward, though, I can see where each and every administration is going to be tempted to go overboard. After all, no one wants another 9/11 on their watch.
If we could trust the government and it wasn't corrupt, then the privacy issues wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, it is.
They can spy on us but they go ape **** when anybody tries to watch what they're doing.
I agree with this, but they're taking it way, way, way too far.
Besides, 100% security doesn't exist.
I'm not sure I even agree with it..
My security, might depend on someone else, giving up their privacy.. Isnt that why we make pedophiles register as sex offenders? Their lack of privacy increases my childrens security.
The point of course being I have no problem with people having their privacy violated provided they have just cause to have it done.. I do however have a problem with justifying the nation giving up privacy using security as an excuse.
You know, it's interesting to me that when the Patriot Act was first passed, people were warned this would happen, and labeled pro-terrorist, and unpatriotic.
How the worm has turned.
BTW, how many threads are going to be posted about this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Obama says it's only a "modest encroachment" into your privacy.
And his administration totally scrubbed and vetted the process.
Feel safer now ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
May be he is supporting Patriot Act more now, so republicans will hate it.
I use that trick with my dog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cooper
'You can't have 100% security and 100% privacy'
I agree with this, but they're taking it way, way, way too far.
Besides, 100% security doesn't exist.
Does anyone recall how opposed he was to the Patriot Act when he was running for President? he blasted Bush for it. And here we see he has taken steps that go far beyond that. It's overboard.
If the government can designate those with opposing views as 'enemies', and use agencies to target them, as in the IRS scandal, there's no telling where it would stop -- or if it would.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
