So, just curious...

[RedState]

There was a recent post basing Bush and the Republicans for intruding on Constitutional rights on privacy for certain things established in the Patriot Act....which, by in large, I do not really like. So I'm just curious what those same people think about the current Administration's thought of expanding those "wire-tapping" authorities to individual internet sites such as BB Messenger and Facebook.

According to the NYT and the Wall Street Journal the Administration is debating whether to seek changes through legislation or regulation.

[Lexington]

Sometimes, no answer is the loudest answer.

Lex

[ANightDude]

Bamaboy, I'm curious, why is it you seem to come on here and just make topics or post something simply to start an argument, when you know you're going to get flamed by mostly Emberstone? It doesn't go anywhere.

I respect your opinion, you're certainly entitled to whatever you want, but it doesn't seem to be working out very well when I open a topic and just see you two (You and Emberstone) going at it as to who is better - Republicans or Democrats. Just chill. For once.

[RedState]

Originally Posted by ANightDude

Bamaboy, I'm curious, why is it you seem to come on here and just make topics or post something simply to start an argument, when you know you're going to get flamed by mostly Emberstone? It doesn't go anywhere.

I respect your opinion, you're certainly entitled to whatever you want, but it doesn't seem to be working out very well when I open a topic and just see you two (You and Emberstone) going at it as to who is better - Republicans or Democrats. Just chill. For once.

How is asking an opinion "simply trying to start an argument"?

>>>It doesn't go anywhere.

Well, then why have any type of political discussion on this board at all? If offering something different is considered "starting an argument" well, simply shut down this particular part of the forum.

But, I appreciate you respecting my particular point of view.

>>>You know you are going to get flamed.
I frankly don't care. I'm a big boy. I can take care of myself.

>>>You two (you and Emberstone)
Although I think he is dead wrong on most everything, I enjoy his input and do think he is well versed on current issues, from his point of view...but don't tell him I said that.

[Rikudo]

Originally Posted by ANightDude

Bamaboy, I'm curious, why is it you seem to come on here and just make topics or post something simply to start an argument, when you know you're going to get flamed by mostly Emberstone? It doesn't go anywhere.

I respect your opinion, you're certainly entitled to whatever you want, but it doesn't seem to be working out very well when I open a topic and just see you two (You and Emberstone) going at it as to who is better - Republicans or Democrats. Just chill. For once.

I think it's necessary. I'm sure there are plenty of gay/bi/queer/trans people who identify with having conservative beliefs. But do to circumstances most are afraid that they are gonna be bashed from the almost extreme left attitude that the community has for conservatives.

Which I'll come out and say it straight is why I don't often like posting on this section. I identify more with conservative values(I don't belong to either side). So it's good to see that I'm not alone.

Side-note it's also rather ironic how we in the LGBT community preach acceptance but we don't seem to use it ourselves.

[Lexington]

Still no answer yet. Or even an attempt at an answer. But one person...well, if not attacking the source, questioning why the question was even made.

Think about this.

Lex

[lostinthought9]

I know this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I feel like I have to say something.

I honestly don't see anything wrong with a good healthy debate. I mean, on this forum, when people see a debate starting to occur, they think back to past experiences. The only real debates this forum sees are the ones about religion, which usually end up with a mod shutting it down. But, debating political ideologies are very different from debating religion. Mainly, because people already have pre-conceived notions about it, and nobody is willing to see their opponent's point of view.

It almost seems that the forum discourages any type of debate, big or small. Which I kinda think is wrong of them to do so. If anyone thinks that debate or any type of argumentation is "bad," they can just simply stay out of that thread. There are plenty of threads I avoid because I don't like what's being discussed..

Btw, I say this with respect to everyone and their personal views.
That's my two cents anyway.

[x2x2x2x2y2]

Originally Posted by lostinthought9

The only real debates this forum sees are the ones about religion, which usually end up with a mod shutting it down.

And the ones 'bout Justin Bieber. lol


I don't really pay attention to politics. My theory: everyone involved in politics is full of shit. I'm assuming there's the occasional exception to this theory, but overall I believe it's true. So I just stay away because no one ever wins.


Anyways, wtf am I doing in a politics thread anyways???

[RedState]

Originally Posted by Lexington

Still no answer yet. Or even an attempt at an answer. But one person...well, if not attacking the source, questioning why the question was even made.

Think about this.

Lex

Think about what?

To me it is very simple. The reason why there is not an attempt at an answer is because no one can answer it...or defend it.

I'm guessing this is about Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act right?

Regardless, I'm completely against the govt tapping onto any information I disclose to anyone else via anything (Interwebs, phone calls, txt msgs, emails). It violates my privacy and liberty by making me feel like I have to worry about anything I say pissing them off. While I don't have anything to hide, I don't want to let the govt think they can just do anything they want to me.

[No One]

In my opinion I think the gov't should have the right to monitor phone calls and emails in red zones (airports, gov't buildings, etc.) and to monitor the communications of gov't officials working around sensitive information, as determined by a contract.

I believe the Bush administration took it too far when they started listening in on the everyday conversations of John and Jane Doe. The fact that the Obama administration wants to extend this policy to public places such as Facebook is utterly ridiculous.

This just shows how Obama is moving farther and farther away from the ideals of our party, the party that put him there in the first place. Dont get me wrong, I still support him and see great potential, but I think he needs to reevaluate the direction he is going.

[Lexington]

>>>To me it is very simple. The reason why there is not an attempt at an answer is because no one can answer it...or defend it.

Well, you're the one who asked the question. I knew YOU knew the answer. I was waiting to see if anybody else could come up with it.

Lex

[RedState]

Originally Posted by Lexington

>>>To me it is very simple. The reason why there is not an attempt at an answer is because no one can answer it...or defend it.

Well, you're the one who asked the question. I knew YOU knew the answer. I was waiting to see if anybody else could come up with it.

Lex

I now see your point.
It takes me a while at times

[Dan82]

I tend not to get involved in political discussions online; I find that the people who participate in them tend to have the attitude of “everyone who disagrees with me is evil”. As for the original topic of the thread I’ve been concerned about civil liberties as long as I’ve been politically aware(going back to the Clinton administration) and I find that most people are only concerned about them when the other party is in power. Some trivia when a bill contained most of the provisions of the patriot act was proposed during the Clinton administration the leader of the opposition to it was John Ashcroft.

[RaRa]

It's just as stupid as the Patriot Act, is that what you wanted to hear?

[Filip]

Originally Posted by bamaboy

So I'm just curious what those same people think about the current Administration's thought of expanding those "wire-tapping" authorities to individual internet sites such as BB Messenger and Facebook.

Well, to start with my opinion: it's pretty bad. Those who would exchange essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security, to paraphrase one of the founding fathers.

That's not a new thing, though. It isn't even Bush who opened pandora's box on it. At most he just threw the lid open even more. And it's foolish to expect Obama to give back powers his predessessor gained. Everyone speaks of doing that when they're in the opposition, but powers like these are just too seductive not to use.

So yeah, I'm quite disappointed.

Originally Posted by lostinthought9

It almost seems that the forum discourages any type of debate, big or small. Which I kinda think is wrong of them to do so. If anyone thinks that debate or any type of argumentation is "bad," they can just simply stay out of that thread. There are plenty of threads I avoid because I don't like what's being discussed..

I wouldn't say it's discouraging debate as much as discouraging arguments. And a good debate is hard to have.

Take the original post, for example. It's not so much an invite for a debate as it is a rhetorical question to make a point. A statement of: "So now it turns out Obama isn't a saint either! What do you say to that, huh, democrats?"
Maybe it wasn't consciously intended as such, but it definitely isn't an opening for a debate. It's a trap. If you disagree, you end up in an impossible situation (defending erosion of liberties). If you agree, then you might get hammered for being a hypocrite for not already marching trough the streets of washington DC in protest.

Better questions to ask would be open ones, like: "Can we agree things aren't improving, and what do you think we can do about it?" or "Under what conditions do you think wiretapping is OK?"

And then, you need to stick to the point of the debate. All too often, reasoned discourse gets drowned into no-holds-barred arguments, where people fling everything at each other, from tax policy to gay policy to foreign policy to energy independance to...
In such a mess, good points, worthy to be brought up, just get swamped when people are desperately grabbing for any ammo they can find.

Reading this over again, I'm once more giving a wall of text to rephrase a point Lex made in one line. But I'll leave it as is.
There's nothing wrong with a debate. but if you're in it just to win, and have decided the other side can't possibly hold another opinion except if they're deluded, dumb or malicious, you're never going to get anywhere.

[Shevanel]

Is this what we're talking about?