[quote]Professor X wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Who has had their rights violated by this?
Why would this be the logical question to ask and not, “what are the pontential misuses of this power”? Who cares how it has been violated as of yet? That shouldn’t be the primary concern. The main issue should be HOW it could be violated in the future. This has nothing to do with “hating Bush”. Why do you “hate” personal privacy? Why do you “hate” our civil rights? You wrote that looking to the future at how it could be misused is “shortsighted”. That’s retarded. How could looking to the future at possibilities be “shortsighted”? Shortsighted is only focusing in on how it has misused as of yet when it has the potential to destroy many freedoms depending on who decides to take full advantage of it.
Can you possibly engage in conversation without namecalling and bullying to get your point across.
Namecalling and bullying? What names were you called? You called the act of looking for future possibilities “shortsighted”. It is a comment that makes no sense. It isn’t “namecalling” to point that out. You can NOT look to the future and be shortsighted at the same time. The fact that you took that as a point to focus in on is lame and shows you have no real leg to stand on.
I don’t ‘hate’ anything. Interesting how you try to dismiss others points of view by putting your interpretation on them.
Isn’t that what you did to my previous post above? I didn’t write anything about Bush, yet you accused me of “hating” the man. You did what you just accused me of. Why can’t you see this?
I see nothing wrong with giving up some poersonal privacy if in the big picture we ALL become safer. There have been abuses of power since some started having power. To only look at the negatives of any situation is short-sighted and that was my contention.
No one is ONLY looking at negatives. Once you lose rights, how do you get them back? Should fear of terror lead to us being monitored on a regular basis just in case one of us happens to be a terrorist? Why avoid taking this to the extreme in order to point out how it could be misused? Why do you trust the next president and the next and the one after that to all use this advanced power all to your own satisfaction? This has NOTHING to do with Bush and everything to do with how whoever jumps into power could eventually misuse it. Why is it you can only see “Bush”?
Your statement “who cares how it has been violated yet” is telling. Seeing as there has been no misuse documented to this point this can be your only rallying point. What are you afraid of? Why was this of no concern to you when Clinton was doing it? When Clinton was doing it in a non-war time?
This goes beyond that kind of nonsense. These are serious times.
If I had any knowledge of anyone doing it I would be upset unless the proper legal protocols were inacted. I don’t remember this ever being in the news as a kid or while Clinton was in office. Therefore, how could I get upset about something I didn’t know about? I know about it now so who cares about Clinton? Why do you care so much about Clinton?
How about instead of huffing and puffing and name calling, you get into a true intellectual debate and explain to me how you can make your argument based on “who may decide to misuse it in the future” instead of how it may aid us in the present.
What names were you called? You have brought this up twice and nowhere were you called any names at all. Describing an action made as “retarded” is not name calling. You can’t look to the future and be shortsighted. It is impossible yet that didn’t stop you from stating it. You expected someone to not point that out? Wow.[/quote]
Define name calling and bullying as you wish–you’ve done both and quite frankly I could care how you rationalize it in retrospect.
Using the word ‘future’ and saying shortsighted is most certainly possible. In your case you have used the ‘future’ as your only reason/focus for disagreeing with this action. THAT is shortsighted. To my knowlege, mine nor anyone elses civil rights have been violated at this time. There is and has been for some time the ability of the President to listen in on potential National security calls.
What rights are you losing, then of course why would you care if you get them back. If your actions don’t meet national security criteria you have lost no rights. You have given up nothing. To then spotlight that this MAY lead to (x) or (y) is a nonsense argument. The gov’t and police always have the potential to abuse power. I wouldn’t give them carte blanche here, there would be oversights and regulations.
I don’t care about Clinton, my reference was simply this is not new or even clandestine. This power was given to the office long ago. Why an issue now? If you really believe it is because of some red hering like individuals rights you are mistaken. This was purely political to bring this out to the publics knowlege and now you are all wrapped up in the loss of your precious rights. It was in fact going on before–what rights have you lost.