• 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

No point in continuing with this. I reject what you believe and you reject what I believe. You want me to think that the stock market doesn't represent business profits. Then you want me to believe that the government printing money is the same thing as creating wealth. You think I am wrong. I think you are wrong. So be it.
 
haymarket said:
There are no House LIBERTARIANS. Every single one of them declared their affiliation and none did so as a LIBERTARIAN. I have no doubt that some are also baseball fans, or fans of comedy or sci-fi movies, or detective novels, or countless other things that label one. But in electoral politics there is one declared affiliation that stands before all others - and that is the party label you run on. And none chose the LIBERTARIAN label.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately true. I wish we could manage things without political parties.
 
haymarket said:
There are no House LIBERTARIANS. Every single one of them declared their affiliation and none did so as a LIBERTARIAN. I have no doubt that some are also baseball fans, or fans of comedy or sci-fi movies, or detective novels, or countless other things that label one. But in electoral politics there is one declared affiliation that stands before all others - and that is the party label you run on. And none chose the LIBERTARIAN label.
Click to expand...

You noted that the article was wrong. Since the article used small-l libertarian the implication is that that is their political philosophy not their party affiliation so the article is in fact correct as far as their libertarianism is concerned.
 
Last edited:
Gaius46 said:
You noted that the article was wrong. Since the article used small-l libertarian the implication is that that is their political philosophy not their party affiliation so the article is in fact correct as far as their libertarianism is concerned.
Click to expand...

And I was going by what is in reality and runs on to get elected- not what somebody claims to be.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
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.
Click to expand...

This type of short term and narrow minded thinking is why we have a congress who can't even get anything done. Who says the info they collect is only used for good? Who says it isn't accessible for bribery and other uses of that nature. Who gets access to this data and what is it used for? If Ed Snowden can get it, I think just about anyone in the administration or congress could if they wanted. Maybe to find dirt on their competitors? Who knows. Things that are supposed to be for the better of society rarely are.

Just because they are an intelligence agency they should be trusted? Really? That is pretty shaky logic. Maybe I am just to cycnical. One thing is for sure, with the amount of scandalous activity going on right now, I don't trust anyone in .gov.
 
Last edited:
OldWorldOrder said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes it is spying. If someone were to track everything I do online, they can piece together my life. Locations I was at (remember all phones have tracking), travel patterns, people I know, etc. It is criminal. They can create a profile on anyone they want with metadata. Be in dereliction of their duties? HAHAHAHA. Biggest joke of this decade. NOONE is held accountable these days. Just claim ignorance, seems to work for everyone in the administration.

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.
Click to expand...

We don't accept the ToS for NSA collecting data on us unwillingly. Sounds like you aren't too much of an expert on national security, unless you would like to prove more than just throwing out conjecture. They have other means to get data they need to track down criminals and terrorists. They cannot prevent most attacks anyway as we saw with the Boston Marathon bombing, so why the need to collect this data if we can't prevent an attack or crime?
 
JRSaindo said:
This type of short term and narrow minded thinking is why we have a congress who can't even get anything done.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Who says the info they collect is only used for good? Who says it isn't accessible for bribery and other uses of that nature. Who gets access to this data and what is it used for?
Click to expand...

Who says NSA isn't run by an evil clone of Jesus and Stalin's ghost? Who says they don't print your text messages on clay pigeons and shoot at them over the Baltimore-Washington Parkway? Do you have an actual complaint other than "I dunno wut they do and it makez me mad"?

If Ed Snowden can get it, I think just about anyone in the administration or congress could if they wanted. Maybe to find dirt on their competitors? Who knows. Things that are supposed to be for the better of society rarely are.
Click to expand...

What? What did Edward Snowden "get"? You think he "got" metadata in storage? Why do you think that?

Just because they are an intelligence agency they should be trusted? Really? That is pretty shaky logic. Maybe I am just to cycnical. One thing is for sure, with the amount of scandalous activity going on right now, I don't trust anyone in .gov.
Click to expand...

Don't. I don't think NSA really much cares.

JRSaindo said:
Yes it is spying. If someone were to track everything I do online, they can piece together my life. Locations I was at (remember all phones have tracking), travel patterns, people I know, etc. It is criminal. They can create a profile on anyone they want with metadata. Be in dereliction of their duties? HAHAHAHA. Biggest joke of this decade. NOONE is held accountable these days. Just claim ignorance, seems to work for everyone in the administration.
Click to expand...

No, that would be if they analyzed the data. That's different than storing it. Analyzing it is spying. Storing it is not. Two different things. But don't worry, I'll let you claim ignorance.

We don't accept the ToS for NSA collecting data on us unwillingly.
Click to expand...

Who is "we"?

Sounds like you aren't too much of an expert on national security, unless you would like to prove more than just throwing out conjecture.
Click to expand...

Conjecture about what? Didn't the bill pass? Is that conjecture?

They have other means to get data they need to track down criminals and terrorists. They cannot prevent most attacks anyway as we saw with the Boston Marathon bombing, so why the need to collect this data if we can't prevent an attack or crime?
Click to expand...

How do you know they can't prevent most attacks? Or was that...conjecture? lol
 
OldWorldOrder said:
No, that would be if they analyzed the data. That's different than storing it. Analyzing it is spying. Storing it is not. Two different things.
Click to expand...

You'll need an electron microscope to see the hair you're splitting.
 
Napoleon said:
You'll need an electron microscope to see the hair you're splitting.
Click to expand...

Or experience. One or the other.

Analyzing the data takes a court order. That's...ya know...kind of a big deal.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Or experience. One or the other. Analyzing the data takes a court order. That's...ya know...kind of a big deal.
Click to expand...

Spying only requires observation. It doesn't matter if you do anything with the data you've collected; its still spying.
 
Napoleon said:
Spying only requires observation. It doesn't matter if you do anything with the data you've collected; its still spying.
Click to expand...

And it's not observed, that's the point. It's stored.

If no one ever looks at it, if it's not put into a searchable database, if it can't be call-chained, then what is it? If that can only be done with a court order...what is it? Well, it's a storage database because the telecom companies weren't keeping those. If they keep it...cool. No issue.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
And it's not observed, that's the point. It's stored. If no one ever looks at it, if it's not put into a searchable database, if it can't be call-chained, then what is it? If that can only be done with a court order...what is it? Well, it's a storage database because the telecom companies weren't keeping those. If they keep it...cool. No issue.
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter if a person ever looks at it. Programing a machine to make and store observations on your behalf is still spying.
 
Napoleon said:
it doesn't matter if a person ever looks at it. Programing a machine to make and store observations on your behalf is still spying.
Click to expand...

It's not "storing observations".

Anyway, professionals, policy makers, and federal judges disagree with you. But if you want a constitutional amendment to neuter national defense, go for it.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Anyway, professionals, policy makers, and federal judges disagree with you. But if you want a constitutional amendment to neuter national defense, go for it.
Click to expand...

You are welcome to cite a case in which this activity is defined as anything other than spying. Whether or not it is legal is a separate question.
 
Napoleon said:
You are welcome to cite a case in which this activity is defined as anything other than spying. Whether or not it is legal is a separate question.
Click to expand...

Thank you!
 
OldWorldOrder said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now you gonna tell us about the "big picture" and grey areas and other bullcrap. The CIA is an enemy of the USA, at least from the point of view of the average citizen and that's the group you are referring to. The CIA works for Corporate America overseas and now even at home. The big picture says get rid of 144 overseas military bases. Ask the citizens to put a squeeze on energy use until the OILY Nations decide to operate within real world economic parameters and any other resource that is important and operate "for the people." Do the quoted words sound familiar>
 
DaveFagan said:
Now you gonna tell us about the "big picture" and grey areas and other bullcrap. The CIA is an enemy of the USA, at least from the point of view of the average citizen and that's the group you are referring to. The CIA works for Corporate America overseas and now even at home. The big picture says get rid of 144 overseas military bases. Ask the citizens to put a squeeze on energy use until the OILY Nations decide to operate within real world economic parameters and any other resource that is important and operate "for the people." Do the quoted words sound familiar>
Click to expand...

Hahahaha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom