• 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!

Should the government ban conspiracy theorizing?

Should the government ban conspiracy theorizing?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 52 100.0%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    52
Montecresto said:
There's no part of domestic government surveillance that I like, except upon open and credible evidence that a person or group is planing to harm an American or Americans.

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)
Click to expand...

And add on top of all that, they can throw you in jail indefinitely if they think you are a threat. What this country is coming to is very disturbing.
 
MildSteel said:
Neither do I. And remember, this is from a guy who is a close advisor to the so called "change we can believe in" President. I really think Obama needs to come forward and make some sort of statement on how he feels about this type of thinking. Honestly, until today, I had no idea this is actually the type of thinking that his advisors engage in. Very, very disturbing.
Click to expand...

Check out Jonathan Turleys 10 points that have transformed America. All ten of which are continuations of Bush administration establishments.
 
Montecresto said:
There's no part of domestic government surveillance that I like, except upon open and credible evidence that a person or group is planing to harm an American or Americans.

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)
Click to expand...

A noble idea coming up, fair warning.
Instead of spying on citizens and digging for whatever suits their notion of a theoretical threat, how about disproving conspiracies with actual facts, as in FOIA?
 
MildSteel said:
And add on top of all that, they can throw you in jail indefinitely if they think you are a threat. What this country is coming to is very disturbing.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that too is on Turleys list!!!!
 
Lovebug said:
A noble idea coming up, fair warning.
Instead of spying on citizens and digging for whatever suits their notion of a theoretical threat, how about disproving conspiracies with actual facts, as in FOIA?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be wonderful!
 
15 votes in and no trolls voting yes yet.
What are the odds that we will have one before it gets to 25? And who can I place my bets with?
 
MildSteel said:
Neither do I. And remember, this is from a guy who is a close advisor to the so called "change we can believe in" President. I really think Obama needs to come forward and make some sort of statement on how he feels about this type of thinking. Honestly, until today, I had no idea this is actually the type of thinking that his advisors engage in. Very, very disturbing.
Click to expand...
Of course he does. Look at Sharpton and Gruber. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if he'd invite MalcolmX, were he still around. But I suppose we all do that, surrounding ourselves with like minded people
Not to change the topic, but it goes right along the lines of
I got a pen and will use it. To hell with the constitution.
or
How about making voting mandatory.
Yes, he may have just been babbling to distract from other issues, but he does make me very suspicious, which brings me right back to conspiracy.
He does what he wants, we have seen that.
 
Lovebug said:
Of course he does. Look at Sharpton and Gruber. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if he'd invite MalcolmX, were he still around. But I suppose we all do that, surrounding ourselves with like minded people
Not to change the topic, but it goes right along the lines of
I got a pen and will use it. To hell with the constitution.
or
How about making voting mandatory.
Yes, he may have just been babbling to distract from other issues, but he does make me very suspicious, which brings me right back to conspiracy.
He does what he wants, we have seen that.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and except for the blindness of partisans, we saw it with Bush as well. (Not suggesting that of you, I don't know much of your positions.)

Partisans are more dangerous than the government can potentially be, because they enable wrong doing.

A non-partisan 11-member ABA task force found that since the founding of the American Republic 230 years ago, 42 previous presidents issued "signing statements" challenging parts or all of 600 laws.
But since 2001 when Bush the Junior took office, the ABA estimates he's issued "signing statements" to ignore all or part of 800 laws, including rejecting Sen. John McCain's legislation banning the use of torture of war detainees.
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
15 votes in and no trolls voting yes yet.
What are the odds that we will have one before it gets to 25? And who can I place my bets with?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. Is it not possible that there could be someone who thinks that the government should ban that form of expression, and they not be a "troll"?
 
Granted, there are a lot of crackpot conspiracy theories out there, but I could see the government purposely suppressing speech it doesn't like by simply proclaiming it a conspiracy theory.

This post would probably qualify. :mrgreen:
 
Montecresto said:
Not sure what you mean. Is it not possible that there could be someone who thinks that the government should ban that form of expression, and they not be a "troll"?
Click to expand...

No it is not
 
MildSteel said:
Here's some background on Cass Sunstein



In addition, Mr Sunstein has been under consideration by the Obama administration as a possible Supreme Court Justice.

Sunstein co-authored a book that suggested the following



Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazing! Tax people who put forward conspiracy theories!

Any rate, that aside, what do you think? Should the government ban conspiracy theorizing?
Click to expand...



Oh, it is tempting to put a lid on all the stupidity that flows.


But, 1st Amendment.

:shrug:
 
Montecresto said:
Well gee, thanks. I was hoping for more an explanation. Guess I'll settle for nothing.
Click to expand...

Americais a free country with free speech, you cannot ban speech just because it is silly.
Anyone who suggests doing so is either mentally retarded to the point of being unable to figure out how to use a computer (thus they wouldnt be able to post it) or they are trolling.
 
MildSteel said:
The fact is that what you posted was simply not true. You said that



That is simply not the case. What he does is list a number of the actions that the government might take, including banning conspiracy theorizing, and discusses what he thinks the results might be. With regards to banning conspiracy theorizing, although he does say it MIGHT be self defeating, he clearly says the he can imagine a scenario where it becomes thinkable.
Click to expand...

Oooh look!! Another example of you quoting something out of context and claiming it supports your dishonest claims while leaving out the sentences the immediately follow because they prove your claim is a lie
The most direct response to a dangerous
conspiracy theories is censorship. That response is unavailable in an open society,
because it is inconsistent with principles of freedom of expression. We could imagine
circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that
censorship would be thinkable. But in an open society, the need for censorship would be
correspondingly reduced. In any case censorship may well turn out to be self-defeating.
The effort to censor the theory might well be taken as evidence that the theory is true, and
censorship of speech is notoriously difficult
Click to expand...
 
MildSteel said:
Oh really? Here's the one that you conveniently neglected to post, or perhaps did not read
Click to expand...

Yes, really. Here's the one that you dishonestly neglected to post
The most direct response to a dangerous
conspiracy theories is censorship. That response is unavailable in an open society,
because it is inconsistent with principles of freedom of expression. We could imagine
circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that
censorship would be thinkable. But in an open society, the need for censorship would be
correspondingly reduced. In any case censorship may well turn out to be self-defeating.
The effort to censor the theory might well be taken as evidence that the theory is true, and
censorship of speech is notoriously difficult
Click to expand...
 
Constitutional right of free speech aside, human right of free speech aside, no government should ever have the authority to determine for its own purposes what the truth is.

Attack conspiracy theories with truth and reason, not force.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Constitutional right of free speech aside, human right of free speech aside, no government should ever have the authority to determine for its own purposes what the truth is.

Attack conspiracy theories with truth and reason, not force.
Click to expand...

That can be difficult with those conspiracies that are truths and not theories.
 
Last edited:
Lovebug said:
Facts are facts, no matter what we call it.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. Here's a classic example of a portion of our government, engaging in a conspiracy.

Democrats have rounded on revelations about a private dinner of House Republicans on inauguration day in 2009 in which they plotted a campaign of obstruction against newly installed president Barack Obama.

Yes, these Newt Gingrich led republicans conspired to devise a plan that would limit Obama to a one term presidency.

This was no conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
governments already create such conspiracy tales in order to manipulate the events
 
sangha said:
Yes, really. Here's the one that you dishonestly neglected to post
Click to expand...

Sorry Charlie! What you forgot was this

What he does is list a number of the actions that the government might take, including banning conspiracy theorizing, and discusses what he thinks the results might be. With regards to banning conspiracy theorizing, although he does say it MIGHT be self defeating, he clearly says the he can imagine a scenario where it becomes thinkable.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/219858-should-government-ban-conspiracy-theorizing-2.html#post1064446822

That is not a dishonest summary of what was said.
 
Montecresto said:
Funny thing. That paragraph doesn't make me feel any better.
Click to expand...

Again, this is glaring

We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable.
Click to expand...

Damn! I hope that guy never makes it to the Supreme Court. Imagine Scalia, Thomas, and Sunstein. WOW!!!!
 
MildSteel said:
Sorry Charlie! What you forgot was this



http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/219858-should-government-ban-conspiracy-theorizing-2.html#post1064446822

That is not a dishonest summary of what was said.
Click to expand...

Compare that with this:

In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.
If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

Church Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom