Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (3 Viewers)

[Politician Spock]

Here are some examples of the Supreme Court placing limitations on the Bill of Rights: 1. Schenk vs. United States (1919)- Freedom of Speech can be limited during wartime.

The government made the argument that the right needed to be limited during wartime. The court agreed. Had I been alive back then, I probably would have agreed too. And if some people asked "what would happen if the government had a loose interpretation of the word 'war'?" I probably would have assumed them to be some extremist, populist, or conspiracy theorist whacko and ignored them. In 2013 however, I can say "oops"!

2. New Jersey vs. T.L.O. (1985)- School searches based on "reasonable suspicion" rather than "probable cause" does not violate the 4th Amendment.

The government made the argument that the "non-absolute" line of the 4th amendment needed to be redrawn. Why can't you make that argument today, instead of supporting the government's action of just completely ignoring it?

3. Bethel School District v. Frasier (1986) A school can suspend a student for "vulgar" speech.

Personally I don't think schools should be government run, any more than I think grocery stores should be government run. If the government can help feed the people via the use of food stamps that are then spent in private grocery stores, then certain school stamps that are then spent in private schools could work as well. Granted, people will disagree with me, but that's where I stand on the issue of schools... which is why the fact this even had to be decided in court was stupid to begin with. The biggest problem is our society today is what schools can't do to punish students. It raises the "you can't touch me because you're a government employee attitude" in our young adults, and as such the graduate far less educated than they could have been if schools were allowed to disciplin appropriately.

4. Hazlewood School District vs. Kuhlmeier (1988) A school can censor school newspapers.

Same answer as the above. A school should be private, which automatically means they have the right to censor the school's newspaper. This kind of stuff wouldn't need to be decided in court if schools were not government.

5. Washington vs. Glucksberg (1997) No right to assisted suicide.

I'm not completely sold on the idea that the right existed to begin with, so I don't believe it was taken away. Depends on one's beginning perspective I guess. Seems odd that you think this is a good example for the NSA and the 4th issue. Perhaps if the government was engaged in assiting people with suicide, it would make more sense as an example, but even in that case it's more like the abortion argument than NSA/4th.

6. Kelo vs. New London (2005) The government can seize private property.

I actually agree with eminent domain, but only to a certain degree. When government can show the need to take the property, the eminent domain process allows for it. I would have HUGE issue if some government agency took ownership of every peice of property in the country (let alone doing it without even trying to justify the need to do it first) and claimed eminent domain allowed them to do that. That would be BS! Applying this to the NSA/4th, I am okay when government can use the process, that already exists in the 4th, and show the need to collect private data. When they instead just collect all data, and do it without even trying to justify the need to do it first, I have a big problem with that. That is BS!

Whatever your views on these various decisions (personally, some I like and some I don't) all them served to set limitations on the Bill of Rights, and none of these limitations ended up destroying the Bill of Rights. Why should people here believe that, if a limitation on the Bill of Rights is made in the case of the NSA, it would be any different?

Again, there is already a limitation on our 4th amendment rights. Instead of using it, the government just simply ignored it. You are asking that there be a limitation on the 4th so the government can do what it needs to do... AND THAT LIMITATION IS ALREADY THERE!!!!

 

[Slapdash]

Not this Orwell vs. Kafka crap again The bold is completely circular. No matter how much harm there is, you are going to rationalize that it won't continue. In your mind, the ends justify the means no matter what the means are. As long as the people running these programs believe they are doing the right thing, harm is irrelevant.My point is that evil intentions don't need to be in place to cause harm and for that harm to be morally wrong. Your point seems that the harm doesn't matter as long as people mean well. The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

NO NO NO! It appears I am not getting through to you. Harm can never be justified no matter how it occurs. But using harm as a reason to stop the program requires intent, IMO. Those are two very different points. To use my gun control analogy again: if Diane Feinstein proposed to you banning assault rifles, in order to stop massacres like the one at Newtown, and you argued that most people who buy assault rifles do not use them for such a purpose, and then she replied, "I don't care what their intent is, so long as these guns are legal, this sort of harm might occur," what your response be? Would you accept, in that situation, the argument that intent doesn't matter, and that we should base our decisions on the possibility of unintended consequences?

Wrong. The Bill of Rights places freedom above the potential harm that may result from that freedom. In both cases, you are arguing that freedom should be curtailed as long as the people in power do not intend to do greater harm than what they purport to prevent.Setting aside the Bill of Rights, the government has tons of programs that they constantly evaluate in terms of harm. Unintended consequences are all over the place in our government, but we shouldn't keep them just because they're well meaning. Being a well meaning bureaucrat does not give you carte blance to ignore the consequences. Maybe you think it should.

Regarding your statement, "the Bill of Rights places freedom above the potential harm that may result from that freedom", (which is the whole basis for everything else you argue) I must again raise the question of Oliver Wendall Holmes and shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Or, to repeat an argument made by a Supreme Court justice in a discussion about the 2nd Amendment, should a private citizen be allowed to build a nuclear bomb in his backyard? The justices have long recognized that none of these rights are absolute. All of them have some limitation, and public safety is a justifiable reason for that limitation. It is the proper role of the courts to set up those boundaries.

Sure it isn't absolute. My point is that it is the default posture; you have to make a strong case to put limitations in place. Shouting fire in a crowded theater causes direct harm with no benefits, not a hard justification.On the other hand, the 4th Amendment directly harms no one. Just an obstacle to government that wants to spy on its citizens. It isn't unlimited, warrants can be obtained. Even warrantless searches are allowed, if they are reasonable. If you want to read my emails, get a warrant. Don't make up a secret court with no oversight. Make an arguement why my privacy is directly harming others. Don't have the nerve to tell me it is MY burden to prove why I need that right. The burden is on the state to make that case.

 

[Slapdash]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

 

[Politician Spock]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

Do you honestly think that because pen registers are not considered private data, that means text messages, emails, phone conversations, etc, etc.... is not private data?If I mail a letter to some address in Oregon, it's not reasonable of me to expect that the address, written on the outside of the letter, is private data. That's pretty much what the court rulled about pen registers. They said it's not reasonable of one to expect that the phone number you voluntariy entered into the phone is private data.The conversation you have on that call has always been considered private. The contents of the letter you mail has always been considered private. It is a reasonable expectation of privacy that conversations via phone, text, email, or whatever, is private. The NSA is collecting that without warrant.

 

[Nikki2200]

Nikki wrote:

The fourth amendment is not absolute. The government is allowed to search you and seize your property. BUT they must do so after establishing probable cause and obtaining a warrant from a public court. Which part of PRISM do you not think actually violates the actual words in the Bill of Rights. Where's the loophole? Which quote are you referring to in the text that leads you to say that "My argument is that this program does not violate the Bill of Rights."

Which part of the fourth amendment provides the out for exceptions to it being easy, or not specifically targeted at one person, national security, or whatever other argument you are trying to make. If you don't think this violates the Bill of Rights, then explain the part of the Bill of Rights that allows for warrantless searches in certain circumstances.

OK, please remember I am not a lawyer. But if you want to google "warrantless searches", you will find that over the years the Supreme Court has made all kinds of decisions that allowed for them under certain circumstances. Here is one website that discusses this in detail:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Warrantless+Searches

With specific reference to the issue at hand, Big Steel Thrill earlier provided reference to the Stanford decision, which I believe relates directly to the NSA and allows for this sort of data mining without warrants.

I wasn't talking about court cases. I understand there are circumstances where warrants aren't necessary, but they need a damn good reason not to obtain one and need to prove that that reason is greater than the rights being violated. In the circumstances where warrants are not obtained, they also have to stand up to the public judicial system after the fact and be able to present a good reason why obtaining a warrant was not feasible or whatever evidence they obtained gets thrown out. You keep saying that what they are doing does not violate the fourth amendment. It does. There is nothing in the fourth amendment that provides for special circumstances where a warrant is not needed. I'm not a lawyer either. I can read it though and it's clear as day.

 

[timschochet]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

Do you honestly think that because pen registers are not considered private data, that means text messages, emails, phone conversations, etc, etc.... is not private data?If I mail a letter to some address in Oregon, it's not reasonable of me to expect that the address, written on the outside of the letter, is private data. That's pretty much what the court rulled about pen registers. They said it's not reasonable of one to expect that the phone number you voluntariy entered into the phone is private data.The conversation you have on that call has always been considered private. The contents of the letter you mail has always been considered private. It is a reasonable expectation of privacy that conversations via phone, text, email, or whatever, is private. The NSA is collecting that without warrant.

Well, make that argument before the Supreme Court, and we'll see if they make the distinction you do. I'm betting they won't, but what do I know?

 

[timschochet]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

I see. So in one sentence you completely dismiss the integrity of the Supreme Court- you figure they will decide this, not based on any rights or solid reasoning, but because they are a "rubber stamp" of the government.

If you believe this to be so, then I'm a bit surprised you don't think we live in a dictatorship already. What's the point of having a battle with Congress? Surely, based on your logic, they'll only end up "rubber stamping" the federal government anyway.

 

[timschochet]

Nikki wrote:

The fourth amendment is not absolute. The government is allowed to search you and seize your property. BUT they must do so after establishing probable cause and obtaining a warrant from a public court. Which part of PRISM do you not think actually violates the actual words in the Bill of Rights. Where's the loophole? Which quote are you referring to in the text that leads you to say that "My argument is that this program does not violate the Bill of Rights."

Which part of the fourth amendment provides the out for exceptions to it being easy, or not specifically targeted at one person, national security, or whatever other argument you are trying to make. If you don't think this violates the Bill of Rights, then explain the part of the Bill of Rights that allows for warrantless searches in certain circumstances.

OK, please remember I am not a lawyer. But if you want to google "warrantless searches", you will find that over the years the Supreme Court has made all kinds of decisions that allowed for them under certain circumstances. Here is one website that discusses this in detail:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Warrantless+Searches

With specific reference to the issue at hand, Big Steel Thrill earlier provided reference to the Stanford decision, which I believe relates directly to the NSA and allows for this sort of data mining without warrants.

I wasn't talking about court cases. I understand there are circumstances where warrants aren't necessary, but they need a damn good reason not to obtain one and need to prove that that reason is greater than the rights being violated. In the circumstances where warrants are not obtained, they also have to stand up to the public judicial system after the fact and be able to present a good reason why obtaining a warrant was not feasible or whatever evidence they obtained gets thrown out. You keep saying that what they are doing does not violate the fourth amendment. It does. There is nothing in the fourth amendment that provides for special circumstances where a warrant is not needed. I'm not a lawyer either. I can read it though and it's clear as day.

Well, according to Smith vs. Maryland there doesn't need to be. The courts get to decide whether or not something meats the standards of the 4th Amendment.

 

[timschochet]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

Incidentally, as I've stated numerous times in this thread, I am not comfortable with the secrecy regarding the process involved, and I would like to see more transparency. So I'm with you on that. At the same time, I can see the justification for keeping certain things secret. I would like to find a way to bridge the gap here.

 

[RCon]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

I see. So in one sentence you completely dismiss the integrity of the Supreme Court- you figure they will decide this, not based on any rights or solid reasoning, but because they are a "rubber stamp" of the government.

If you believe this to be so, then I'm a bit surprised you don't think we live in a dictatorship already. What's the point of having a battle with Congress? Surely, based on your logic, they'll only end up "rubber stamping" the federal government anyway.

The courts are wrong sometimes, often blatantly so.

 

[Slapdash]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

I see. So in one sentence you completely dismiss the integrity of the Supreme Court- you figure they will decide this, not based on any rights or solid reasoning, but because they are a "rubber stamp" of the government. If you believe this to be so, then I'm a bit surprised you don't think we live in a dictatorship already. What's the point of having a battle with Congress? Surely, based on your logic, they'll only end up "rubber stamping" the federal government anyway.

I'm not making an observation of their integrity, just their tendancies. The point of the battle with Congress is that they are accoutable to the people, in theory. Judges aren't, they are accountable to those that put them in their chairs or no one at all.I believe our current government is a plutocracy, not a dicatorship.

 

[timschochet]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

I see. So in one sentence you completely dismiss the integrity of the Supreme Court- you figure they will decide this, not based on any rights or solid reasoning, but because they are a "rubber stamp" of the government.

If you believe this to be so, then I'm a bit surprised you don't think we live in a dictatorship already. What's the point of having a battle with Congress? Surely, based on your logic, they'll only end up "rubber stamping" the federal government anyway.

The courts are wrong sometimes, often blatantly so.

Of course they are. But that's very different from asserting that they will "rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do." Slapdash seems to be implying collusion here, unless I am reading it wrong?

 

[Slapdash]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

Incidentally, as I've stated numerous times in this thread, I am not comfortable with the secrecy regarding the process involved, and I would like to see more transparency. So I'm with you on that. At the same time, I can see the justification for keeping certain things secret. I would like to find a way to bridge the gap here.

This two handed argument gets us nowhere. You can't say you want more transparency then say you agree with the justification that prevents it.

 

[timschochet]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

Incidentally, as I've stated numerous times in this thread, I am not comfortable with the secrecy regarding the process involved, and I would like to see more transparency. So I'm with you on that. At the same time, I can see the justification for keeping certain things secret. I would like to find a way to bridge the gap here.

This two handed argument gets us nowhere. You can't say you want more transparency then say you agree with the justification that prevents it.

I want more transparency on the process. I think the information parts should remain secret. I think anything that would threaten national security should remain secret.

For instance, we can learn how data is being mined, how often, how many emails and phone calls we're talking about, what sorts of algorithms are used, how the information is stored, who has access, how long its stored, who is overseeing this and what are the standards, etc. etc. But the specific things they're looking for, how they arrived at the information, what they do when they've established something, what specific terrorist threats we're concerned about- I would keep that secret from the public.

 

[Slapdash]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

Incidentally, as I've stated numerous times in this thread, I am not comfortable with the secrecy regarding the process involved, and I would like to see more transparency. So I'm with you on that. At the same time, I can see the justification for keeping certain things secret. I would like to find a way to bridge the gap here.

This two handed argument gets us nowhere. You can't say you want more transparency then say you agree with the justification that prevents it.

I want more transparency on the process. I think the information parts should remain secret. I think anything that would threaten national security should remain secret. For instance, we can learn how data is being mined, how often, how many emails and phone calls we're talking about, what sorts of algorithms are used, how the information is stored, who has access, how long its stored, who is overseeing this and what are the standards, etc. etc. But the specific things they're looking for, how they arrived at the information, what they do when they've established something, what specific terrorist threats we're concerned about- I would keep that secret from the public.

Your second paragraph is all well and good, but it demonstrates that you don't have the same definition of national security that they do. Particularly with them claiming Snowden threatened it.

The last 12 years should have demonstrated how broadly the government defines national security threats.

 

[Slapdash]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

I see. So in one sentence you completely dismiss the integrity of the Supreme Court- you figure they will decide this, not based on any rights or solid reasoning, but because they are a "rubber stamp" of the government.

If you believe this to be so, then I'm a bit surprised you don't think we live in a dictatorship already. What's the point of having a battle with Congress? Surely, based on your logic, they'll only end up "rubber stamping" the federal government anyway.

The courts are wrong sometimes, often blatantly so.

Of course they are. But that's very different from asserting that they will "rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do." Slapdash seems to be implying collusion here, unless I am reading it wrong?

No collusion needed here. Rubber stamp was probably a poor word choice. My point was that the courts don't often put the breaks on expanding the government's power, particularly on these type of issues.

 

[timschochet]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

Incidentally, as I've stated numerous times in this thread, I am not comfortable with the secrecy regarding the process involved, and I would like to see more transparency. So I'm with you on that. At the same time, I can see the justification for keeping certain things secret. I would like to find a way to bridge the gap here.

This two handed argument gets us nowhere. You can't say you want more transparency then say you agree with the justification that prevents it.

I want more transparency on the process. I think the information parts should remain secret. I think anything that would threaten national security should remain secret. For instance, we can learn how data is being mined, how often, how many emails and phone calls we're talking about, what sorts of algorithms are used, how the information is stored, who has access, how long its stored, who is overseeing this and what are the standards, etc. etc. But the specific things they're looking for, how they arrived at the information, what they do when they've established something, what specific terrorist threats we're concerned about- I would keep that secret from the public.

Your second paragraph is all well and good, but it demonstrates that you don't have the same definition of national security that they do. Particularly with them claiming Snowden threatened it.

The last 12 years should have demonstrated how broadly the government defines national security threats.

I agree. I've stated again and again here that I don't see how Snowden threatened national security, any more than Daniel Ellsberg did. Somebody needs to explain that to me because I don't get it. And you're correct about the last 12 years as well.

You seem to regard me as some sort of shill for the government, and that's not at all accurate. I regard this program, if performed correctly, as a good idea for fighting terrorism, which I regard as an important goal. I would not sacrifice civil liberties in order to achieve that goal. I don't believe that is being done.

 

[Slapdash]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

Incidentally, as I've stated numerous times in this thread, I am not comfortable with the secrecy regarding the process involved, and I would like to see more transparency. So I'm with you on that. At the same time, I can see the justification for keeping certain things secret. I would like to find a way to bridge the gap here.

This two handed argument gets us nowhere. You can't say you want more transparency then say you agree with the justification that prevents it.

I want more transparency on the process. I think the information parts should remain secret. I think anything that would threaten national security should remain secret. For instance, we can learn how data is being mined, how often, how many emails and phone calls we're talking about, what sorts of algorithms are used, how the information is stored, who has access, how long its stored, who is overseeing this and what are the standards, etc. etc. But the specific things they're looking for, how they arrived at the information, what they do when they've established something, what specific terrorist threats we're concerned about- I would keep that secret from the public.

Your second paragraph is all well and good, but it demonstrates that you don't have the same definition of national security that they do. Particularly with them claiming Snowden threatened it.

The last 12 years should have demonstrated how broadly the government defines national security threats.

I agree. I've stated again and again here that I don't see how Snowden threatened national security, any more than Daniel Ellsberg did. Somebody needs to explain that to me because I don't get it. And you're correct about the last 12 years as well.

You seem to regard me as some sort of shill for the government, and that's not at all accurate. I regard this program, if performed correctly, as a good idea for fighting terrorism, which I regard as an important goal. I would not sacrifice civil liberties in order to achieve that goal. I don't believe that is being done.

I am aware of your position on Snowden, I thought you would agree with that post.

Not sure how you would suggest that gap be closed though. When you give the government more power, you invite them to abuse it. Since you are happy with the power, how do you remedy the abuse (abuse being defined as unwillingness to be transparent in this instance).

I don't think you are a shill, but you do have a ####ty definition of what civil liberties are. I don't appreciate you arguing that the rest of the population should lose their privacy because you don't find your losses problematic. I also find it deeply ironic someone who started a thread about the dangers of an anecdotal society is so concerned with terrorism. Especially when you support a foreign policy that makes terrorism much more likely IMO.

 

[RCon]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.

This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

I see. So in one sentence you completely dismiss the integrity of the Supreme Court- you figure they will decide this, not based on any rights or solid reasoning, but because they are a "rubber stamp" of the government.

If you believe this to be so, then I'm a bit surprised you don't think we live in a dictatorship already. What's the point of having a battle with Congress? Surely, based on your logic, they'll only end up "rubber stamping" the federal government anyway.

The courts are wrong sometimes, often blatantly so.

Of course they are. But that's very different from asserting that they will "rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do." Slapdash seems to be implying collusion here, unless I am reading it wrong?

No collusion needed here. Rubber stamp was probably a poor word choice. My point was that the courts don't often put the breaks on expanding the government's power, particularly on these type of issues.

(Tangent alert!) Actually, this is why I despise those who define "activist courts" as those which frequently strike down legislation as unconstitutional. If anything, I'd suggest that the court's specific job is to check legislators when they get uppity overstep their bounds, and that performing that duty is the exact opposite of judicial activism.

 

[timschochet]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

Incidentally, as I've stated numerous times in this thread, I am not comfortable with the secrecy regarding the process involved, and I would like to see more transparency. So I'm with you on that. At the same time, I can see the justification for keeping certain things secret. I would like to find a way to bridge the gap here.

This two handed argument gets us nowhere. You can't say you want more transparency then say you agree with the justification that prevents it.

I want more transparency on the process. I think the information parts should remain secret. I think anything that would threaten national security should remain secret. For instance, we can learn how data is being mined, how often, how many emails and phone calls we're talking about, what sorts of algorithms are used, how the information is stored, who has access, how long its stored, who is overseeing this and what are the standards, etc. etc. But the specific things they're looking for, how they arrived at the information, what they do when they've established something, what specific terrorist threats we're concerned about- I would keep that secret from the public.

Your second paragraph is all well and good, but it demonstrates that you don't have the same definition of national security that they do. Particularly with them claiming Snowden threatened it.

The last 12 years should have demonstrated how broadly the government defines national security threats.

I agree. I've stated again and again here that I don't see how Snowden threatened national security, any more than Daniel Ellsberg did. Somebody needs to explain that to me because I don't get it. And you're correct about the last 12 years as well.

You seem to regard me as some sort of shill for the government, and that's not at all accurate. I regard this program, if performed correctly, as a good idea for fighting terrorism, which I regard as an important goal. I would not sacrifice civil liberties in order to achieve that goal. I don't believe that is being done.

I am aware of your position on Snowden, I thought you would agree with that post.

Not sure how you would suggest that gap be closed though. When you give the government more power, you invite them to abuse it. Since you are happy with the power, how do you remedy the abuse (abuse being defined as unwillingness to be transparent in this instance).

I don't think you are a shill, but you do have a ####ty definition of what civil liberties are. I don't appreciate you arguing that the rest of the population should lose their privacy because you don't find your losses problematic. I also find it deeply ironic someone who started a thread about the dangers of an anecdotal society is so concerned with terrorism. Especially when you support a foreign policy that makes terrorism much more likely IMO.

I'm concerned with terrorism, but I don't want knee jerk reactions to it- that's when the anecdotal stuff bothers me. This data mining doesn't bother me because I see it as rather inevitable in our information age. We're all going to have to learn to live with it, and accept it. Privacy doesn't mean what it once did, and in the years to come it will mean even less. If that makes you uncomfortable it should. It makes me uncomfortable. But I don't think there's anything we can do about it. Overall, I am firmly convinced that the greater information technology makes us more free than we have ever been, and obviously I don't worry too much at all about tyranny and dictatorships.

As far as your last sentence, that's a topic for a different thread. I suspect you're referring to Israel, and I suspect you and I will sharply disagree on that issue. That's fine, if you want to discuss it elsewhere, bring it on.

 

[Slapdash]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

Incidentally, as I've stated numerous times in this thread, I am not comfortable with the secrecy regarding the process involved, and I would like to see more transparency. So I'm with you on that. At the same time, I can see the justification for keeping certain things secret. I would like to find a way to bridge the gap here.

This two handed argument gets us nowhere. You can't say you want more transparency then say you agree with the justification that prevents it.

I want more transparency on the process. I think the information parts should remain secret. I think anything that would threaten national security should remain secret. For instance, we can learn how data is being mined, how often, how many emails and phone calls we're talking about, what sorts of algorithms are used, how the information is stored, who has access, how long its stored, who is overseeing this and what are the standards, etc. etc. But the specific things they're looking for, how they arrived at the information, what they do when they've established something, what specific terrorist threats we're concerned about- I would keep that secret from the public.

Your second paragraph is all well and good, but it demonstrates that you don't have the same definition of national security that they do. Particularly with them claiming Snowden threatened it.

The last 12 years should have demonstrated how broadly the government defines national security threats.

I agree. I've stated again and again here that I don't see how Snowden threatened national security, any more than Daniel Ellsberg did. Somebody needs to explain that to me because I don't get it. And you're correct about the last 12 years as well.

You seem to regard me as some sort of shill for the government, and that's not at all accurate. I regard this program, if performed correctly, as a good idea for fighting terrorism, which I regard as an important goal. I would not sacrifice civil liberties in order to achieve that goal. I don't believe that is being done.

I am aware of your position on Snowden, I thought you would agree with that post.

Not sure how you would suggest that gap be closed though. When you give the government more power, you invite them to abuse it. Since you are happy with the power, how do you remedy the abuse (abuse being defined as unwillingness to be transparent in this instance).

I don't think you are a shill, but you do have a ####ty definition of what civil liberties are. I don't appreciate you arguing that the rest of the population should lose their privacy because you don't find your losses problematic. I also find it deeply ironic someone who started a thread about the dangers of an anecdotal society is so concerned with terrorism. Especially when you support a foreign policy that makes terrorism much more likely IMO.

I'm concerned with terrorism, but I don't want knee jerk reactions to it- that's when the anecdotal stuff bothers me. This data mining doesn't bother me because I see it as rather inevitable in our information age. We're all going to have to learn to live with it, and accept it. Privacy doesn't mean what it once did, and in the years to come it will mean even less. If that makes you uncomfortable it should. It makes me uncomfortable. But I don't think there's anything we can do about it. Overall, I am firmly convinced that the greater information technology makes us more free than we have ever been, and obviously I don't worry too much at all about tyranny and dictatorships.

As far as your last sentence, that's a topic for a different thread. I suspect you're referring to Israel, and I suspect you and I will sharply disagree on that issue. That's fine, if you want to discuss it elsewhere, bring it on.

By saying we have to live with privacy being re-defined is the type of defeatist attitude that pisses people off. If you don't like it stand up to it! Don't sit back and take it. Or agrue it doesn't really matter. Instead, spend your money wisely on companies that don't abuse it and lobby your politicains to put stronger protections in place. If you really don't like it, fight it. Don't just say it.

I'm not referring to Israel in particular with that comment, but it is part of it. Occupation, unprovoked wars, and drone strikes are other biggies. I don't like that we are creating more terrorist out there which will only further justify people giving up their freedoms. I think drone strikes alone are going to create a lot of danger for the US down the line...

 

[Politician Spock]

You seem to regard me as some sort of shill for the government, and that's not at all accurate.

I have to admit, I have more than a few times thought to myself "this guy must be working on the PRISM project... no one can take this much punishment without being paid for it."

 

[Nikki2200]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

Incidentally, as I've stated numerous times in this thread, I am not comfortable with the secrecy regarding the process involved, and I would like to see more transparency. So I'm with you on that. At the same time, I can see the justification for keeping certain things secret. I would like to find a way to bridge the gap here.

This two handed argument gets us nowhere. You can't say you want more transparency then say you agree with the justification that prevents it.

I want more transparency on the process. I think the information parts should remain secret. I think anything that would threaten national security should remain secret.

For instance, we can learn how data is being mined, how often, how many emails and phone calls we're talking about, what sorts of algorithms are used, how the information is stored, who has access, how long its stored, who is overseeing this and what are the standards, etc. etc. But the specific things they're looking for, how they arrived at the information, what they do when they've established something, what specific terrorist threats we're concerned about- I would keep that secret from the public.

Wouldn't that all let the "terrorists" know exactly what we are looking for and to not do whatever that is, assuming we actually think that this program is effective in the first place and they aren't already smart enough to not talk about their plans on their Verizon phones and over gmail.

 

[shader]

Finally some facts to counter all of the fearmongering: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/us/nsa-chief-says-phone-record-logs-halted-terror-threats.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0 WASHINGTON The director of the National Security Agency told Congress on Wednesday that dozens of terrorism threats had been halted by the agencys huge database of the logs of nearly every domestic phone call made by Americans, while a senator briefed on the program disclosed that the telephone records are destroyed after five years. The director, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, who heads both the N.S.A. and United States Cyber Command, which runs the militarys offensive and defensive use of cyberweapons, told skeptical members of the Senate Appropriations Committee that his agency was doing exactly what Congress authorized after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.General Alexander said he welcomed debate over the legal justification for the program because what were doing to protect American citizens here is the right thing. He said the agency takes great pride in protecting this nation and our civil liberties and privacy under the oversight of Congress and the courts. We arent trying to hide it, he said. Were trying to protect America. So we need your help in doing that. This isnt something thats just N.S.A. or the administration doing it on its own. This is what our nation expects our government to do for us.But in his spirited exchanges with committee members, notably Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, General Alexander said he was seeking to declassify many details about the program now that they have been leaked by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor who came forward to say he was the source of documents about the phone log program and other classified matters.Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who is chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was the first to disclose that the records are eventually destroyed. She said that she planned to hold a classified hearing on Thursday on the program. But at the Wednesday hearing, where testimony about the governments planned $13 billion spending on cybersecurity was largely swept aside for a discussion of the surveillance program, Ms. Feinstein also revealed that investigators had used the database for purposes beyond countering terrorism, suggesting it might have also been employed in slowing Irans nuclear program.Analysts can look at the domestic calling data only if there is a reason to suspect it is actually related to Al Qaeda or to Iran, she said, adding: The vast majority of the records in the database are never accessed and are deleted after a period of five years. To look at or use the content of a call, a court warrant must be obtained.In a robust defense of the phone program, General Alexander said that it had been critical in helping to prevent dozens of terrorist attacks both in the United States and abroad and that the intelligence community was considering declassifying examples to better explain the program. He did not clarify whether the records used in such investigations would have been available through individual subpoenas without the database. He also later walked back the assertion slightly, saying the phone log database was used in conjunction with other programs.In his testimony, General Alexander said he had grave concerns about how Mr. Snowden had access to such a wide range of top-secret information, from the details of a secret program called Prism to speed the governments search of Internet materials to a presidential document on cyberstrategy. He said the entire intelligence community was looking at the security of its networks something other government officials vowed to do after the WikiLeaks disclosures three years ago.Under the Prism program, the N.S.A. collects information from American Internet companies like Google without individual court orders if the request is targeted at noncitizens abroad. That program derives from a 2008 surveillance law that was openly debated in Congress.As part of the review from the fallout of leaks about Prism and the phone program, intelligence agencies will seek to determine whether terrorist suspects have increased their use of code words or couriers, have stopped using networks like Facebook or Skype, or have gone silent and can no longer be found, current and former senior American officials said separately from the hearing.The review, which will most likely last for months to determine the long-term impact of the disclosures by Mr. Snowden, will also include a cost benefit analysis of the programs.Now that its out there, it will be looked at in a different way, one of the current officials said. Everyones raising questions about whether they have been compromised and whether to continue with them at the same pace. They are wondering whether or not they are going to continue to yield good information.While senior intelligence officials including James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence have asserted that the disclosures have significantly damaged the governments intelligence capabilities, the current and former officials were far less sure of the lasting impact.Philip Mudd, a former F.B.I. deputy director for national security, said that there could be some short-term impact on the programs but that terrorists would find it very hard to function without using electronic communications. Good luck trying to communicate in this world without leaving a digital exhaust thats not going to happen, he said.Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, called for the prosecution of journalists who published the classified information in the documents leaked by Mr. Snowden. Mr. King told Fox News he was specifically talking about Glenn Greenwald, the columnist for The Guardian, whom he accused of threatening to release the names of covert C.I.A. agents.On Twitter, Mr. Greenwald said it was a lie that he had made such a threat, and shot back with a reference to Mr. Kings past support for the Irish Republican Army: Only in America can a renowned and devoted terrorism supporter like Peter King be the arbiter of national security and treason, he wrote.Public opinion, judging by two polls with differently worded questions that yielded different results, is divided over the governments tracking of the communications of Americans. In a Pew Research Center/Washington Post poll conducted June 6-9, 56 percent of Americans said the N.S.As program tracking the phone records of millions of Americans was an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, while 41 percent said it was unacceptable. But a CBS News poll conducted June 9-10, which instead asked about collecting phone records of ordinary Americans, found that just 38 percent supported it and 58 percent opposed it.

Dozens of terrorist attacks??? That guy is a complete liar.

 

[timschochet]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

No one you are arguing with doubts the Supreme Court will rubber stamp what the government is doing. They normally do.This is why I keep saying the real battle is with Congress and to elect people who will stand up for American's privacy rights. Your continued defense of the program and the great patriots who "oversee" it are an example of our biggest obstacle in that struggle. If people like you protect their ability to decide and evaluate the information behind closed doors, they can never be accountable. The people must have transparency why and how their rights are being infringed on. Otherwise, there is no representation.

Incidentally, as I've stated numerous times in this thread, I am not comfortable with the secrecy regarding the process involved, and I would like to see more transparency. So I'm with you on that. At the same time, I can see the justification for keeping certain things secret. I would like to find a way to bridge the gap here.

This two handed argument gets us nowhere. You can't say you want more transparency then say you agree with the justification that prevents it.

I want more transparency on the process. I think the information parts should remain secret. I think anything that would threaten national security should remain secret.

For instance, we can learn how data is being mined, how often, how many emails and phone calls we're talking about, what sorts of algorithms are used, how the information is stored, who has access, how long its stored, who is overseeing this and what are the standards, etc. etc. But the specific things they're looking for, how they arrived at the information, what they do when they've established something, what specific terrorist threats we're concerned about- I would keep that secret from the public.

Wouldn't that all let the "terrorists" know exactly what we are looking for and to not do whatever that is, assuming we actually think that this program is effective in the first place and they aren't already smart enough to not talk about their plans on their Verizon phones and over gmail.

I don't believe it. Per the article I quoted earlier:

Philip Mudd, a former F.B.I. deputy director for national security, said that there could be some short-term impact on the programs but that terrorists would find it very hard to function without using electronic communications. Good luck trying to communicate in this world without leaving a digital exhaust thats not going to happen, he said.

But I'm curious: why did you put the word terrorists in quotation marks? If you have a point here please be explicit about it.

 

[timschochet]

Michael Gerson's OP ED adds a new point here, one that has been in my mind but which I was unable to enunciate:

This type of conservative argument is not recognizably conservative. Traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles -- in this case, security and privacy -- rather than elevating a single ideal into an absolute. That balance may need occasional readjustment, based on shifting circumstances. But this requires prudence, not the breathless exaggeration of threats for political purposes.

And larger things are at stake. Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. It is offensive for the same reasons it was offensive when elements of the left, in the 1960s and 1970s, talked of the American "regime." Because it distorts America into something unrecognizable in order to advance a partisan ideology. Because this is still the "last best hope of earth," not a police state. Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/the_poisoning_of_patriotism_118813.html#ixzz2WA10HS00Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

When I express the fear that populism is poisoning us, this is exactly what I am talking about. When I express the distinction between intentional and unintentional harm (which so many of you find irrelevant) this is exactly what I am talking about. A reasonable suspicion of the government is healthy. An unreasonable suspicion of the government as malevolent is not.

 

[timschochet]

And as for you thoughtful progressives out there: there is a reason the visceral reaction to this story is so attractive to gun nuts like 5 Digit Know Nothing- because they've already bought into the notion of our government as an evil force ready to impose tyranny at the drop of a hat. That is how they defend their extremist, absolutist views of the 2nd Amendment. Are you guys sure you want to go down this path with them?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Michael Gerson's OP ED adds a new point here, one that has been in my mind but which I was unable to enunciate:

This type of conservative argument is not recognizably conservative. Traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles -- in this case, security and privacy -- rather than elevating a single ideal into an absolute. That balance may need occasional readjustment, based on shifting circumstances. But this requires prudence, not the breathless exaggeration of threats for political purposes.

And larger things are at stake. Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. It is offensive for the same reasons it was offensive when elements of the left, in the 1960s and 1970s, talked of the American "regime." Because it distorts America into something unrecognizable in order to advance a partisan ideology. Because this is still the "last best hope of earth," not a police state. Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/the_poisoning_of_patriotism_118813.html#ixzz2WA10HS00Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

When I express the fear that populism is poisoning us, this is exactly what I am talking about. When I express the distinction between intentional and unintentional harm (which so many of you find irrelevant) this is exactly what I am talking about. A reasonable suspicion of the government is healthy. An unreasonable suspicion of the government as malevolent is not.

 

[StrikeS2k]

And as for you thoughtful progressives out there: there is a reason the visceral reaction to this story is so attractive to gun nuts like 5 Digit Know Nothing- because they've already bought into the notion of our government as an evil force ready to impose tyranny at the drop of a hat. That is how they defend their extremist, absolutist views of the 2nd Amendment. Are you guys sure you want to go down this path with them?

Tim,

I have to admit that I get REALLY sick of you disparaging pretty much ANYONE who disagrees with you, but then whining like a little B**CH when anyone even hints at insulting you. You have to be one of the most condescending POSes I've seen on message boards. You really need to look in the mirror the next time you feel slighted around here.

 

[timschochet]

And as for you thoughtful progressives out there: there is a reason the visceral reaction to this story is so attractive to gun nuts like 5 Digit Know Nothing- because they've already bought into the notion of our government as an evil force ready to impose tyranny at the drop of a hat. That is how they defend their extremist, absolutist views of the 2nd Amendment. Are you guys sure you want to go down this path with them?

Tim,

I have to admit that I get REALLY sick of you disparaging pretty much ANYONE who disagrees with you, but then whining like a little B**CH when anyone even hints at insulting you. You have to be one of the most condescending POSes I've seen on message boards. You really need to look in the mirror the next time you feel slighted around here.

"Gun nut" is certainly not the nicest term, I'll admit, but it refers to a political POV. I don't regard it as a personal attack. If I am called an idiot or a moron or a jerk, I regard that as a personal attack, and I don't like it and I don't use it on others. Also, I don't disparage anyone who disagrees with me. There have been several people in this thread, particularly Slapdash and NC Commish, who strongly disagree with me and I have done nothing but praise them. I have extreme respect for Rich Conway, who disagrees with me on almost every issue that you do. I don't know Politician Spock or Nikki very well, but both of them have made excellent points in this thread.

I admit to having very little respect for you. I've tried. I think I've given you credit when its due- you're consistent in your views, and from time to time I've defended that consistency when you've been accused of hypocrisy. But that's about all I can say in your favor. You almost never make good arguments; you are eager to jump on irrelevancies that you can disagree with rather than addressing the main points in an issue. And when it comes to me you are almost always negative. I know you regard me as a POS. I really don't care what you think. If you want to continue to engage discussing the issues then I will too- otherwise, put me on ignore.

 

[StrikeS2k]

And as for you thoughtful progressives out there: there is a reason the visceral reaction to this story is so attractive to gun nuts like 5 Digit Know Nothing- because they've already bought into the notion of our government as an evil force ready to impose tyranny at the drop of a hat. That is how they defend their extremist, absolutist views of the 2nd Amendment. Are you guys sure you want to go down this path with them?

Tim,

I have to admit that I get REALLY sick of you disparaging pretty much ANYONE who disagrees with you, but then whining like a little B**CH when anyone even hints at insulting you. You have to be one of the most condescending POSes I've seen on message boards. You really need to look in the mirror the next time you feel slighted around here.

"Gun nut" is certainly not the nicest term, I'll admit, but it refers to a political POV. I don't regard it as a personal attack. If I am called an idiot or a moron or a jerk, I regard that as a personal attack, and I don't like it and I don't use it on others. Also, I don't disparage anyone who disagrees with me. There have been several people in this thread, particularly Slapdash and NC Commish, who strongly disagree with me and I have done nothing but praise them. I have extreme respect for Rich Conway, who disagrees with me on almost every issue that you do. I don't know Politician Spock or Nikki very well, but both of them have made excellent points in this thread.

I admit to having very little respect for you. I've tried. I think I've given you credit when its due- you're consistent in your views, and from time to time I've defended that consistency when you've been accused of hypocrisy. But that's about all I can say in your favor. You almost never make good arguments; you are eager to jump on irrelevancies that you can disagree with rather than addressing the main points in an issue. And when it comes to me you are almost always negative. I know you regard me as a POS. I really don't care what you think. If you want to continue to engage discussing the issues then I will too- otherwise, put me on ignore.

Blah Blah Blah. Tell you what Tim. I'm gonna call you out EVERY TIME you disparage or insult someone. I guarantee you it will be much more varied and frequent than "gun nut." How about this. In a month, if I get you to apologize for disparaging/insulting someone 5 times you leave and NEVER come back? You game? I doubt it.

As far as respect goes, I have ZERO for you. Lost it VERY long ago. Look at your posts in this thread. You're the ONLY person arguing an unarguable position. The only reason anyone is continuing this is for the academic entertainment. But you're coming off looking like an idiot. And I'm not calling you an idiot. I'm saying you're coming off as one in this thread. So don't misrepresent this post.

 

[timschochet]

And as for you thoughtful progressives out there: there is a reason the visceral reaction to this story is so attractive to gun nuts like 5 Digit Know Nothing- because they've already bought into the notion of our government as an evil force ready to impose tyranny at the drop of a hat. That is how they defend their extremist, absolutist views of the 2nd Amendment. Are you guys sure you want to go down this path with them?

Tim,

I have to admit that I get REALLY sick of you disparaging pretty much ANYONE who disagrees with you, but then whining like a little B**CH when anyone even hints at insulting you. You have to be one of the most condescending POSes I've seen on message boards. You really need to look in the mirror the next time you feel slighted around here.

"Gun nut" is certainly not the nicest term, I'll admit, but it refers to a political POV. I don't regard it as a personal attack. If I am called an idiot or a moron or a jerk, I regard that as a personal attack, and I don't like it and I don't use it on others. Also, I don't disparage anyone who disagrees with me. There have been several people in this thread, particularly Slapdash and NC Commish, who strongly disagree with me and I have done nothing but praise them. I have extreme respect for Rich Conway, who disagrees with me on almost every issue that you do. I don't know Politician Spock or Nikki very well, but both of them have made excellent points in this thread.

I admit to having very little respect for you. I've tried. I think I've given you credit when its due- you're consistent in your views, and from time to time I've defended that consistency when you've been accused of hypocrisy. But that's about all I can say in your favor. You almost never make good arguments; you are eager to jump on irrelevancies that you can disagree with rather than addressing the main points in an issue. And when it comes to me you are almost always negative. I know you regard me as a POS. I really don't care what you think. If you want to continue to engage discussing the issues then I will too- otherwise, put me on ignore.

Blah Blah Blah. Tell you what Tim. I'm gonna call you out EVERY TIME you disparage or insult someone. I guarantee you it will be much more varied and frequent than "gun nut." How about this. In a month, if I get you to apologize for disparaging/insulting someone 5 times you leave and NEVER come back? You game? I doubt it.

As far as respect goes, I have ZERO for you. Lost it VERY long ago. Look at your posts in this thread. You're the ONLY person arguing an unarguable position. The only reason anyone is continuing this is for the academic entertainment. But you're coming off looking like an idiot. And I'm not calling you an idiot. I'm saying you're coming off as one in this thread. So don't misrepresent this post.

I will accept your terms. I won't even ask for anything in return.

 

[StrikeS2k]

What the heck are you talking about. I assumed you were a bit smarter than 5 digit Know Nothing.

Insult number One.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Yes, you have shown your lack of understanding about this in the gun control thread. Nice to see that you're consistent, and also that you have learned nothing.

Insult number two.

 

[timschochet]

Umm no. I don't consider either of those to be personal insults. But even if they were, it's from this point forward.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Umm no. I don't consider either of those to be personal insults. But even if they were, it's from this point forward.

Blah Blah. And then next you're going to refuse to apologize. But whatever. The point I would like you to consider is that when you're whining about someone insulting YOU, as you've done a lot lately, maybe you should look in the mirror. And, for the next month, you should be very careful about talking down to others as you do daily.

 

[timschochet]

Umm no. I don't consider either of those to be personal insults. But even if they were, it's from this point forward.

Blah Blah. And then next you're going to refuse to apologize. But whatever. The point I would like you to consider is that when you're whining about someone insulting YOU, as you've done a lot lately, maybe you should look in the mirror. And, for the next month, you should be very careful about talking down to others as you do daily.

Guess we'll see, won't we?

 

[RCon]

Michael Gerson's OP ED adds a new point here, one that has been in my mind but which I was unable to enunciate:

This type of conservative argument is not recognizably conservative. Traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles -- in this case, security and privacy -- rather than elevating a single ideal into an absolute. That balance may need occasional readjustment, based on shifting circumstances. But this requires prudence, not the breathless exaggeration of threats for political purposes.

And larger things are at stake. Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. It is offensive for the same reasons it was offensive when elements of the left, in the 1960s and 1970s, talked of the American "regime." Because it distorts America into something unrecognizable in order to advance a partisan ideology. Because this is still the "last best hope of earth," not a police state. Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/the_poisoning_of_patriotism_118813.html#ixzz2WA10HS00Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

When I express the fear that populism is poisoning us, this is exactly what I am talking about. When I express the distinction between intentional and unintentional harm (which so many of you find irrelevant) this is exactly what I am talking about. A reasonable suspicion of the government is healthy. An unreasonable suspicion of the government as malevolent is not.

Even if we buy the premise of your last two sentences, who is the arbiter of the line between reasonable suspicion and unreasonable?

 

[RCon]

In a month, if I get you to apologize for disparaging/insulting someone 5 times you leave and NEVER come back? You game? I doubt it.As far as respect goes, I have ZERO for you. Lost it VERY long ago. Look at your posts in this thread. You're the ONLY person arguing an unarguable position. The only reason anyone is continuing this is for the academic entertainment. But you're coming off looking like an idiot. And I'm not calling you an idiot. I'm saying you're coming off as one in this thread. So don't misrepresent this post.

I will accept your terms. I won't even ask for anything in return.

For the record, I wouldn't consider "gun nut" by itself an insult. Depends greatly on the context of the rest of the paragraph...

 

[RCon]

What the heck are you talking about. I assumed you were a bit smarter than 5 digit Know Nothing.

Insult number One.

Come on dude, you can't go retroactive on this.

 

[Slapdash]

Michael Gerson's OP ED adds a new point here, one that has been in my mind but which I was unable to enunciate:

This type of conservative argument is not recognizably conservative. Traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles -- in this case, security and privacy -- rather than elevating a single ideal into an absolute. That balance may need occasional readjustment, based on shifting circumstances. But this requires prudence, not the breathless exaggeration of threats for political purposes.

And larger things are at stake. Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. It is offensive for the same reasons it was offensive when elements of the left, in the 1960s and 1970s, talked of the American "regime." Because it distorts America into something unrecognizable in order to advance a partisan ideology. Because this is still the "last best hope of earth," not a police state. Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/the_poisoning_of_patriotism_118813.html#ixzz2WA10HS00Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

When I express the fear that populism is poisoning us, this is exactly what I am talking about. When I express the distinction between intentional and unintentional harm (which so many of you find irrelevant) this is exactly what I am talking about. A reasonable suspicion of the government is healthy. An unreasonable suspicion of the government as malevolent is not.

Sounds just like the claptrap leading up to the Iraq War calling dissenters un-American.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Gun nut is a disparaging remark. Not sure how you can argue otherwise.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Umm no. I don't consider either of those to be personal insults. But even if they were, it's from this point forward.

Blah Blah. And then next you're going to refuse to apologize. But whatever. The point I would like you to consider is that when you're whining about someone insulting YOU, as you've done a lot lately, maybe you should look in the mirror. And, for the next month, you should be very careful about talking down to others as you do daily.

Guess we'll see, won't we?

chutzpah

 

[jonessed]

In a month, if I get you to apologize for disparaging/insulting someone 5 times you leave and NEVER come back? You game? I doubt it. As far as respect goes, I have ZERO for you. Lost it VERY long ago. Look at your posts in this thread. You're the ONLY person arguing an unarguable position. The only reason anyone is continuing this is for the academic entertainment. But you're coming off looking like an idiot. And I'm not calling you an idiot. I'm saying you're coming off as one in this thread. So don't misrepresent this post.

I will accept your terms. I won't even ask for anything in return.

For the record, I wouldn't consider "gun nut" by itself an insult. Depends greatly on the context of the rest of the paragraph...

it's intended as a slight. It has become an accepted insult here because it's used so often, but it's still meant to insult.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

1

2

 

[timschochet]

12

So let's see: I called you humorless, and then I used humor to make fun of something you wrote. You offer both up as evidence of personal insults. Ironic, no?

 

[Politician Spock]

Michael Gerson's OP ED adds a new point here, one that has been in my mind but which I was unable to enunciate:

This type of conservative argument is not recognizably conservative. Traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles -- in this case, security and privacy -- rather than elevating a single ideal into an absolute. That balance may need occasional readjustment, based on shifting circumstances. But this requires prudence, not the breathless exaggeration of threats for political purposes.

And larger things are at stake. Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. It is offensive for the same reasons it was offensive when elements of the left, in the 1960s and 1970s, talked of the American "regime." Because it distorts America into something unrecognizable in order to advance a partisan ideology. Because this is still the "last best hope of earth," not a police state. Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/the_poisoning_of_patriotism_118813.html#ixzz2WA10HS00Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

When I express the fear that populism is poisoning us, this is exactly what I am talking about. When I express the distinction between intentional and unintentional harm (which so many of you find irrelevant) this is exactly what I am talking about. A reasonable suspicion of the government is healthy. An unreasonable suspicion of the government as malevolent is not.

I completely disagree with the bolded!!!

We celebrate our country's greatest act of patriotism every July 4th. And it was an act of rejecting the legitamcy of government. When government goes to far, it is patriotism that limits the power of government. It does not defend it.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

12

So let's see: I called you humorless, and then I used humor to make fun of something you wrote. You offer both up as evidence of personal insults. Ironic, no?

chutzpah - fitting, no?

 

[Politician Spock]

And as for you thoughtful progressives out there: there is a reason the visceral reaction to this story is so attractive to gun nuts like 5 Digit Know Nothing- because they've already bought into the notion of our government as an evil force ready to impose tyranny at the drop of a hat. That is how they defend their extremist, absolutist views of the 2nd Amendment. Are you guys sure you want to go down this path with them?

Here you go again suggesting fear should determine what we should do.

I will not reject the right thing to do for FEAR that it groups me with the wrong crowd. I think for myself. I do not group think.

 

[Statorama]

Good news! According to Bloomberg the NSA was selling your data to their "preferred partners"