This 'Wiretap' Thing Is Going To Blowback On Dems

[Katzndogz]

The wiretap flap comes directly from democrat equality. If a wiretap can be used on a call originating from a foreign phone, known to be used by terrorists, then it is the equal of calls originating and ending wholly within the United States by citizens suspected of nothing.

 

[Ravi]

Funny thread.

 

[Londoner]

Libertarians understand this problem better than anyone else.

Whenever government wants to expand its powers and budgets, it claims to be protecting citizens.

The Democrats have traditionally "protected" citizens with anti-poverty measures.

The Republicans have traditionally protected citizens with national security measures.

Sometimes government really is protecting citizens. But you have to ask about the law of unintended consequences. What happens when you give a large bureaucracy more power and money?

Listen, it would be great if we lived in a world where there wasn't as much poverty, and it would be great if we lived in a world where we could go in a skyscraper or fly on an airplane in total amniotic government provided safety. Indeed, it would be great if presidents like George Bush and Barack Obama could stamp out all evil and turn all muslims into peaceful patriots of American Democracy.

Problem is, government can't end poverty, and it can't get rid of evil, and it can't change the weather. Worse: if you try to give them more money and power to solve these BIG things, they often make the problem worse. And, they put us in massive debt. (This is why Reagan's Star Wars and Bush's War on Terror were so dangerous, because they functioned on the premise that government was all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly ethical. The result in trusting in this garbage is a bankrupted nation)

Therefore, whenever someone from the government knocks on my door and says, "hi I'm here to protect you", I get a little worried. I get worried because I don't think they have the intelligence or competence or information or honor to use such increased power effectively. You see, government is filled with flawed humans. And, when you give flawed humans more power, you increase the risk that they will use that power in harmful ways - sometimes intentionally, sometimes because they're flawed humans who shouldn't have access to such massive levers of concentrated power.

Look at the old Soviet Union. They used national security threats to build a massive surveillance bureaucracy. And, once that bureaucracy was in place, the people in power used that expanded surveillance capacity to hunt domestic political enemies. A similar thing happened when the Bush surveillance bureaucracy used the Patriot Act, designed exclusively for terrorism, to track the finances of one of its biggest critics, Elliot Spitzer.

Listen, I'm not surprised that Democratic voters are willing to give the government this kind of money and power. After all, Democrats trust in the power of government. What surprised me was how willing Republican voters were to give George Bush expanded power and money. Homeland Security is the largest, most powerful, most secretive bureaucracy we've ever created as a nation - and the Republican voter never questioned it. I mean seriously, the Republicans say the government isn't competent enough to run a laundromat. Yet they gave it the power and money to rebuild the Arab world. Are you fucking kidding me? Are you really telling me that they don't see the contradiction? The Republicans are supposed to be the party which holds back the power of government, yet they've given it more power than anyone in my lifetime. They're supposed to be the realist party who reminds us that government isn't smart enough or powerful enough or ethical enough to get rid of evil. Therefore, it is tragic that Republican voters fell for the oldest trick in the book, used by nations throughout history: "hi I'm from the government and I'm here to protect you. Now give me more power and money." My old Republican Party is dead. It was replaced by a bunch of fucking moronic voters who are endlessly manipulated by paid hacks like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. God help us.

 

[Sallow]

so scared of terrorism that you're willing to let Big Brother tap your phone and read your email with zero probable cause and no need of a legal review?

How would it have hurt Bush to have the wiretaps reviewed by the judge within three days, just so someone, at least, was keeping an eye on Big Brother?

Already, we've learned that the supposedly international-only monitoring was in fact domestic at times (they're claiming computer error).

Where are the libertarian Republicans on this board? Where are the people who believe in a small, unintrusive government? Is everyone here simply in support of everything George Bush does? Has no one noticed that many Republican Senators' stomachs have gotten a bit upset over this wiretapping business? For once, I'd love to hear one of the regulars take an alternative Republican point of view than Bush's.

Mariner.

Only from a 20 some year dolt. I could care less for myself, but would like my kids and unborn progeny to have a chance. You don't get it, they mean to kill YOU! Not me. I'm old and no threat. You however, you are sweet pickings. You think you are atheist, sorry, no can do. Agnostic may be worse. Christian-but willing to sell out quick? regular slave, no hard time. Wanna fight? Cool, hard labor.

Not understanding this thread at all.

Are your railing against government wiretapping? The lack of it? Or religious war?

 

[Sallow]

Libertarians understand this problem better than anyone else.

Whenever government wants to expand its powers and budgets, it claims to be protecting citizens.

The Democrats have traditionally "protected" citizens with anti-poverty measures.

The Republicans have traditionally protected citizens with national security measures.

Sometimes government really is protecting citizens. But you have to ask about the law of unintended consequences. What happens when you give a large bureaucracy more power and money?

Listen, it would be great if we lived in a world where there wasn't as much poverty, and it would be great if we lived in a world where we could go in a skyscraper or fly on an airplane in total amniotic government provided safety. Indeed, it would be great if presidents like George Bush and Barack Obama could stamp out all evil and turn all muslims into peaceful patriots of American Democracy.

Problem is, government can't end poverty, and it can't get rid of evil, and it can't change the weather. Worse: if you try to give them more money and power to solve these BIG things, they often make the problem worse. And, they put us in massive debt. (This is why Reagan's Star Wars and Bush's War on Terror were so dangerous, because they functioned on the premise that government was all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly ethical. The result in trusting in this garbage is a bankrupted nation)

Therefore, whenever someone from the government knocks on my door and says, "hi I'm here to protect you", I get a little worried. I get worried because I don't think they have the intelligence or competence or information or honor to use such increased power effectively. You see, government is filled with flawed humans. And, when you give flawed humans more power, you increase the risk that they will use that power in harmful ways - sometimes intentionally, sometimes because they're flawed humans who shouldn't have access to such massive levers of concentrated power.

Look at the old Soviet Union. They used national security threats to build a massive surveillance bureaucracy. And, once that bureaucracy was in place, the people in power used that expanded surveillance capacity to hunt domestic political enemies. A similar thing happened when the Bush surveillance bureaucracy used the Patriot Act, designed exclusively for terrorism, to track the finances of one of its biggest critics, Elliot Spitzer.

Listen, I'm not surprised that Democratic voters are willing to give the government this kind of money and power. After all, Democrats trust in the power of government. What surprised me was how willing Republican voters were to give George Bush expanded power and money. Homeland Security is the largest, most powerful, most secretive bureaucracy we've ever created as a nation - and the Republican voter never questioned it. I mean seriously, the Republicans say the government isn't competent enough to run a laundromat. Yet they gave it the power and money to rebuild the Arab world. Are you fucking kidding me? Are you really telling me that they don't see the contradiction? The Republicans are supposed to be the party which holds back the power of government, yet they've given it more power than anyone in my lifetime. They're supposed to be the realist party who reminds us that government isn't smart enough or powerful enough or ethical enough to get rid of evil. Therefore, it is tragic that Republican voters fell for the oldest trick in the book, used by nations throughout history: "hi I'm from the government and I'm here to protect you. Now give me more power and money." My old Republican Party is dead. It was replaced by a bunch of fucking moronic voters who are endlessly manipulated by paid hacks like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. God help us.

I just never understand why Libertarians never started their own country.

I mean you guys have such good ideas..it should work out very well.

 

[Sallow]

The wiretap flap comes directly from democrat equality. If a wiretap can be used on a call originating from a foreign phone, known to be used by terrorists, then it is the equal of calls originating and ending wholly within the United States by citizens suspected of nothing.

So you are for profiling now.

 

[Dutch]

Libertarians understand this problem better than anyone else.

Whenever government wants to expand its powers and budgets, it claims to be protecting citizens.

The Democrats have traditionally "protected" citizens with anti-poverty measures.

The Republicans have traditionally protected citizens with national security measures.

Sometimes government really is protecting citizens. But you have to ask about the law of unintended consequences. What happens when you give a large bureaucracy more power and money?

Listen, it would be great if we lived in a world where there wasn't as much poverty, and it would be great if we lived in a world where we could go in a skyscraper or fly on an airplane in total amniotic government provided safety. Indeed, it would be great if presidents like George Bush and Barack Obama could stamp out all evil and turn all muslims into peaceful patriots of American Democracy.

Problem is, government can't end poverty, and it can't get rid of evil, and it can't change the weather. Worse: if you try to give them more money and power to solve these BIG things, they often make the problem worse. And, they put us in massive debt. (This is why Reagan's Star Wars and Bush's War on Terror were so dangerous, because they functioned on the premise that government was all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly ethical. The result in trusting in this garbage is a bankrupted nation)

Therefore, whenever someone from the government knocks on my door and says, "hi I'm here to protect you", I get a little worried. I get worried because I don't think they have the intelligence or competence or information or honor to use such increased power effectively. You see, government is filled with flawed humans. And, when you give flawed humans more power, you increase the risk that they will use that power in harmful ways - sometimes intentionally, sometimes because they're flawed humans who shouldn't have access to such massive levers of concentrated power.

Look at the old Soviet Union. They used national security threats to build a massive surveillance bureaucracy. And, once that bureaucracy was in place, the people in power used that expanded surveillance capacity to hunt domestic political enemies. A similar thing happened when the Bush surveillance bureaucracy used the Patriot Act, designed exclusively for terrorism, to track the finances of one of its biggest critics, Elliot Spitzer.

Listen, I'm not surprised that Democratic voters are willing to give the government this kind of money and power. After all, Democrats trust in the power of government. What surprised me was how willing Republican voters were to give George Bush expanded power and money. Homeland Security is the largest, most powerful, most secretive bureaucracy we've ever created as a nation - and the Republican voter never questioned it. I mean seriously, the Republicans say the government isn't competent enough to run a laundromat. Yet they gave it the power and money to rebuild the Arab world. Are you fucking kidding me? Are you really telling me that they don't see the contradiction? The Republicans are supposed to be the party which holds back the power of government, yet they've given it more power than anyone in my lifetime. They're supposed to be the realist party who reminds us that government isn't smart enough or powerful enough or ethical enough to get rid of evil. Therefore, it is tragic that Republican voters fell for the oldest trick in the book, used by nations throughout history: "hi I'm from the government and I'm here to protect you. Now give me more power and money." My old Republican Party is dead. It was replaced by a bunch of fucking moronic voters who are endlessly manipulated by paid hacks like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. God help us.

I just never understand why Libertarians never started their own country.

I mean you guys have such good ideas..it should work out very well.

My guess is that it would look something akin to the Mad Max Movies.

 

[Londoner]

What's more interesting is Ronald Reagan's ability to build a coalition out of God and Money, or conservativism and libertarianism.

When he spoke to big business, he said "we're gonna boost your profit by restoring competitive labor rates by allowing you to access very cheap overseas labor markets. Granted, this will cause radical de-industrialization across America, and it will destroy many small towns whose factories are shipped to China and Mexico. But, your profit rates will explode due to the cheap labor."

Of course, when Reagan was speaking to those poor people in the rural towns he destroyed through globalization, he sang a different tune. He said he was going to restore family values and bring back the jobs that he helped ship overseas to give his corporate donors the cheap labor they so badly needed to boost their bottom line and inflate their stock values.

It was a complete fucking hoax, And it required an army of utterly stupid voters sitting in front of Fox News, catatonic.

I used to think that only Democrats trusted Washington, but after watching Ronald Reagan, I realized that conservatives trusted their leaders far more than Democrats. Remember: it was the student left the denied Johnson a second term. "Hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today?" Conservative voters would never act out against a sitting republican president before he became a lame duck.

Game over

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What's more interesting is Ronald Reagan's ability to build a coalition out of God and Money, or conservativism and libertarianism.

When he spoke to big business, he said "we're gonna boost your profit by restoring competitive labor rates by allowing you to access very cheap overseas labor markets. Granted, this will cause radical de-industrialization across America, and it will destroy many small towns whose factories are shipped to China and Mexico. But, your profit rates will explode due to the cheap labor."

Of course, when Reagan was speaking to those poor people in the rural towns that he destroyed, He sang a different tune. He said he was going to restore family values and bring back the jobs that he had shipped overseas to help his corporate donors who very badly wanted to cheap labor.

It was a complete fucking hoax, And it required an army of utterly stupid voters sitting in front of Fox News, catatonic.

Game over

Fox news wasn't launched until 1996.

 

[Londoner]

Fox news wasn't launched until 1996.

The infrastructure of movement conservativism started in the late 50s. From there it spread out to think tanks, publishing groups and eventually talk radio and FOX.

FOXNews is the ultimate symbol, indeed archetype of a political party's desire to manipulate voters. If you want to use another symbol, go for it. Hopefully you get my point

 

[Sallow]

Fox news wasn't launched until 1996.

The infrastructure of movement conservativism started in the late 50s. From there it spread out to think tanks, publishing groups and eventually talk radio and FOX.

FOXNews is the ultimate symbol, indeed archetype of a political party's desire to manipulate voters. If you want to use another symbol, go for it. Hopefully you get my point

It's been going on a lot longer than that, ace.

 

[Sallow]

Libertarians understand this problem better than anyone else.

Whenever government wants to expand its powers and budgets, it claims to be protecting citizens.

The Democrats have traditionally "protected" citizens with anti-poverty measures.

The Republicans have traditionally protected citizens with national security measures.

Sometimes government really is protecting citizens. But you have to ask about the law of unintended consequences. What happens when you give a large bureaucracy more power and money?

Listen, it would be great if we lived in a world where there wasn't as much poverty, and it would be great if we lived in a world where we could go in a skyscraper or fly on an airplane in total amniotic government provided safety. Indeed, it would be great if presidents like George Bush and Barack Obama could stamp out all evil and turn all muslims into peaceful patriots of American Democracy.

Problem is, government can't end poverty, and it can't get rid of evil, and it can't change the weather. Worse: if you try to give them more money and power to solve these BIG things, they often make the problem worse. And, they put us in massive debt. (This is why Reagan's Star Wars and Bush's War on Terror were so dangerous, because they functioned on the premise that government was all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly ethical. The result in trusting in this garbage is a bankrupted nation)

Therefore, whenever someone from the government knocks on my door and says, "hi I'm here to protect you", I get a little worried. I get worried because I don't think they have the intelligence or competence or information or honor to use such increased power effectively. You see, government is filled with flawed humans. And, when you give flawed humans more power, you increase the risk that they will use that power in harmful ways - sometimes intentionally, sometimes because they're flawed humans who shouldn't have access to such massive levers of concentrated power.

Look at the old Soviet Union. They used national security threats to build a massive surveillance bureaucracy. And, once that bureaucracy was in place, the people in power used that expanded surveillance capacity to hunt domestic political enemies. A similar thing happened when the Bush surveillance bureaucracy used the Patriot Act, designed exclusively for terrorism, to track the finances of one of its biggest critics, Elliot Spitzer.

Listen, I'm not surprised that Democratic voters are willing to give the government this kind of money and power. After all, Democrats trust in the power of government. What surprised me was how willing Republican voters were to give George Bush expanded power and money. Homeland Security is the largest, most powerful, most secretive bureaucracy we've ever created as a nation - and the Republican voter never questioned it. I mean seriously, the Republicans say the government isn't competent enough to run a laundromat. Yet they gave it the power and money to rebuild the Arab world. Are you fucking kidding me? Are you really telling me that they don't see the contradiction? The Republicans are supposed to be the party which holds back the power of government, yet they've given it more power than anyone in my lifetime. They're supposed to be the realist party who reminds us that government isn't smart enough or powerful enough or ethical enough to get rid of evil. Therefore, it is tragic that Republican voters fell for the oldest trick in the book, used by nations throughout history: "hi I'm from the government and I'm here to protect you. Now give me more power and money." My old Republican Party is dead. It was replaced by a bunch of fucking moronic voters who are endlessly manipulated by paid hacks like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. God help us.

I just never understand why Libertarians never started their own country.

I mean you guys have such good ideas..it should work out very well.

My guess is that it would look something akin to the Mad Max Movies.

Funny, that's what I keep telling Oddball.