• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House libertarians blast USA Freedom Act

Bigfoot 88 said:
We reject that the Constitution must be violated in order to keep the country safe.
Click to expand...

And others reject that the constitution was violated. See what happens when your argument rests upon assumptions? You assume it was violated AND you assume that everyone agrees.

Probably that should indicate you should stop assuming.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Those seem people also don't seem to care either way.
Click to expand...

Which would have nothing to do with my statement either way. Don't mind me, I just think it's funny when random guys on the internet arbitrarily decide that people working with intelligence agencies are suddenly enemies of the United States. As if they have any idea.
 
haymarket said:
and none of those Republicans belong to the Libertarian party. At best - or is it worst - they are faux libertarians in Halloween costume without even the courage of their supposed convictions.
Click to expand...

You seem altogether unconcerned with the actual topic of conversation here, which revolves around the content of the bill and how that was transmogrified. Were you similarly unconcerned about this problem circa 2001-2009? Or do your values shift based on which political party occupies the Oval Office?
 
Last edited:
OldWorldOrder said:
And others reject that the constitution was violated. See what happens when your argument rests upon assumptions? You assume it was violated AND you assume that everyone agrees.

Probably that should indicate you should stop assuming.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about law from a technical standpoint. It just seems unreasonable and un-American that the government can search and spy on everything we do digitally just because its easy for them to do so.

This is also a slippery slope. I read not too long ago about how they're using this spying for the war on drugs as well. Once we get used to all this, how long until the local police get to use this as a standard investigation tool? How long until corporations get to use this technology? They're already benefiting from its foreign use, how long until they're doing that here in America? Are they already doing it? I'm sure what we know is only the tip of the iceberg.

This is far too much power and it will be severely and abundantly abused in the future if we don't stop it now. They can find other ways to fight terrorism.
 
Verax said:
I don't know much about law from a technical standpoint. It just seems unreasonable and un-American that the government can search and spy on everything we do digitally just because its easy for them to do so.
Click to expand...

I get that it seems that way. But metadata storage isn't spying. If companies will keep it, that's good enough. But a record needs to be available, one way or another, to piece things together after the fact. If security organizations knew it was possible to keep these records but didn't attempt to have them preserved, they'd be in dereliction of their duties.

This is also a slippery slope. I read not too long ago about how they're using this spying for the war on drugs as well. Once we get used to all this, how long until the local police get to use this as a standard investigation tool? How long until corporations get to use this technology? They're already benefiting from its foreign use, how long until they're doing that here in America? Are they already doing it? I'm sure what we know is only the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...

Well, it's always a slippery slope, isn't it? Fire in a crowded theater? We can both make appeals to emotionality- I could talk about attacks possible simply because someone is in the US when they send a text as a means for much more than metadata collection- but I'm not sure these appeals mean much.

This is far too much power and it will be severely and abundantly abused in the future if we don't stop it now. They can find other ways to fight terrorism.
Click to expand...

WHAT is far too much power? Have you ever read the user's agreement on Gmail? I'm sure lots of people can find lots of ways to do lots of things. But ignoring effective ways is only interesting to people who have no responsibility for ensuring the job is done. I'll venture to say you have no background or experience in national security, so of course it's easy for you to say "find other ways". Most people who do, though, want these things in place. And national level legislators happened to listen to them today. I'm glad they decided to listen to them, but frankly that was never in doubt anyway.
 
Last edited:
Bigfoot 88 said:
I never said they belong to the Libertarian party. Neither did the article. We are talking about ideology.

I know a ton about Amash, Massie, and Sanford. I have followed their careers closely; Amash and Massie from the beginning; and Sanford for a few years, the rest I researched. All are strongly supported by Ron Paul for a reason, and not just because they all supported him.
Click to expand...

And I am talking about frauds who do not even have the courage of their supposed convictions. Ron Paul included.
 
haymarket said:
This thread and the story behind it is based on a LIE. There are no House Libertarians. The people named are Republicans and that is how they were elected and that is their party identification.
Click to expand...

small l libertarians there bud...Not big L...

it's small in the title and in the opening...

House libertarians blast USA Freedom Act

"The three most libertarian members of the House want nothing to do with the so-called “USA Freedom Act.”
 
Ockham said:
Sure it is. They collect data to spy at their leisure sometime in the future.
Click to expand...

Ahahahaha. Depending on your definition of leisure, sure. At my leisure in the future, I'll buy a Lamborghini.

Power that is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on how you want to look at it. Is the power to promote Staff Sergeants to Sergeants First Class specifically in the constitution? Same general idea.

Sure. It's why I don't use Google searches any more nor GMail.
Click to expand...

So you're aware that you have no expectation of privacy in emails? Excellent!
 
Last edited:
ChezC3 said:
small l libertarians there bud...Not big L...

it's small in the title and in the opening...

House libertarians blast USA Freedom Act

"The three most libertarian members of the House want nothing to do with the so-called “USA Freedom Act.”
Click to expand...

I will NOT dignify the Halloween costumed right wingers who pretend to be something they are not with a title they reject for themselves.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Ahahahaha. Depending in your definition of leisure, sure. At my leisure in the future, I'll buy a Lamborghini.
Click to expand...
You're analogy would be correct if you're constantly collecting large sums of money from every American every day.

OldWorldOrder said:
I guess that depends on how you want to look at it. Is the power to promote Staff Sergeants to Sergeants First Class specifically in the constitution? Same general idea.
Click to expand...
Did you just compare executive governmental powers to military promotions? :lamo What a truly dizzying intellect.

OldWorldOrder said:
So you're aware that you have no expectation of privacy in emails? Excellent!
Click to expand...
Duh. You're mixing governmental spying with private corporation policy. I assume you were taught authoritarianism and privacy were necessary - your aware you were lied to?
 
Ockham said:
You're analogy would be correct if you're constantly collecting large sums of money from every American every day.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. What a truly dizzying intellect.

Did you just compare executive governmental powers to military promotions? :lamo What a truly dizzying intellect.
Click to expand...

I just pointed out something that's not explicitly in the constitution that the federal government does. You didn't get that. What a truly dizzying intellect.

Duh. You're mixing governmental spying with private corporation policy. I assume you were taught authoritarianism and privacy were necessary - your aware you were lied to?
Click to expand...

You don't understand what the phrase expectation of privacy has to do with this, do you? What a truly dizzying intellect.
 
Beaudreaux said:
You're welcome.

It appears that he's trying to say - if we didn't compromise, the bill wouldn't make it through the Senate or maybe even be Vetoed by the President. My oldest son said, that would be fine. At least then the country would know where the Senate and the President stand on freedom, liberty, and the Constitution (specifically the 4th Amendment). I think my son is correct in that. They should have let Harry Reid and Obama explain to the nation why their privacy isn't important anymore and why the Constitution is "just a piece of paper."
Click to expand...

Their indifference on this matter has been conspicuous for quite some time.

Liberals have been thumping their chests about this since the 2000 election. Haven't you heard?
 
To me, the Dems and Reps are two sides of the same coin...neither can be trusted for a second.

I assumed that the TSA would be allowed to do more-or-less what it did before.

I figured the Reps would publicly scream murder but then quietly do little.

Both party's leaders (imo) LOVE the TSA doing as much spying on Americans as they can possibly con the masses into accepting.
 
Its one thing to have the ideology, but the article read "House libertarains" of which there are none. If a congressman, like Ron Paul when he served, wanted to call themselves libertarians they should have registered as such and not lied to the conservative based Republican party. One of my biggest issues with Ron Paul was his first and most upfront lie - he was never a Republican he was always a Libertarian, but he'd lie about it to get on the "R" ballot since the "L" ballot is worthless and society wholly rejects (by over 98.9%) their extreme views.


Bigfoot 88 said:
Good grief. Did you not read my interactions with haymarket?

This should all go without saying. There is a "Libertarian" party and "libertarian" ideology. Two separate things.

Ron Paul is the most notable libertarian Republican.
Click to expand...
 
haymarket said:
This thread and the story behind it is based on a LIE. There are no House Libertarians. The people named are Republicans and that is how they were elected and that is their party identification.
Click to expand...

I'm just a Canadian and could be wrong, but I don't believe there's a liberal party in the US Congress, but many call themselves liberals and there isn't a conservative party in the US Congress, yet many call themselves conservatives. The OP speaks to small "l" libertarians, therefore speaking to ideology not political party affiliation - therefore, the only lie appears to be your attempt to change the subject.
 
Henry David said:
Another perfect example of how rotten the government is, how totally in the control of special interests, how contemptuous of the US Constitution and the rule of law. :mad:
Click to expand...

I agree completely.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm just a Canadian and could be wrong, but I don't believe there's a liberal party in the US Congress, but many call themselves liberals and there isn't a conservative party in the US Congress, yet many call themselves conservatives. The OP speaks to small "l" libertarians, therefore speaking to ideology not political party affiliation - therefore, the only lie appears to be your attempt to change the subject.
Click to expand...

But there is indeed a LIBERTARIAN PARTY. And it is made up of libertarians who are proud to be called such and have the courage of their convictions.
 
haymarket said:
But there is indeed a LIBERTARIAN PARTY. And it is made up of libertarians who are proud to be called such and have the courage of their convictions.
Click to expand...

Funny, I personally never thought that I lacked the courage of my convictions simply because I wasn't a card-carrying member of a political collective. Maybe libertarians who are members of the Democrat Party and the Republican Party are trying to expand access to the libertarian view of things rather than simply living in an echo chamber of like-minded, closed-minded souls.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Funny, I personally never thought that I lacked the courage of my convictions simply because I wasn't a card-carrying member of a political collective. Maybe libertarians who are members of the Democrat Party and the Republican Party are trying to expand access to the libertarian view of things rather than simply living in an echo chamber of like-minded, closed-minded souls.
Click to expand...

Many are simply aware that the Libertarian label at election time on a ballot is equal to a skull and crossbones on a bottle of medicine. So they put on the Halloween costume of the republican and try to fool people. Sorry - but that sort of fundamental dishonesty is not cup of tea. No pun intended.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Funny, I personally never thought that I lacked the courage of my convictions simply because I wasn't a card-carrying member of a political collective. Maybe libertarians who are members of the Democrat Party and the Republican Party are trying to expand access to the libertarian view of things rather than simply living in an echo chamber of like-minded, closed-minded souls.
Click to expand...

Good morning, CJ! :2wave:

"The major parties could conduct live human sacrifices on their podiums during prime time, and I doubt anyone would notice." Dave Barry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom