This is why social issues are so important

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

George W. Bush is President. That's why.

The fact that we have to fight illegal blanket wiretaps without court permission makes this very important.

Bush couldn't follow FISA:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/11/23387/3661

It is time to take back America from fascists like George W. Bush.


We will not comprimise on civil liberties. You social conservatives can go burn your copy of the Constution, but hands off the actual Constitution.

[MaC]

Social issues like privacy are important.  Social issues like gay marriage and flag burning-not really. 

[adam]

I don't consider these social issues more so than security issues. Social issues are for 12 year olds to go on tyraids about to sound intelligent. NSA wiretaps are ligitment debates of our national security and our rigth to privacy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't consider these social issues more so than security issues. Social issues are for 12 year olds to go on tyraids about to sound intelligent. NSA wiretaps are ligitment debates of our national security and our rigth to privacy.

Well, I didn't mean to imply that flag burning was of equal importance.

[opebo]

Social issues like privacy are important.  Social issues like gay marriage and flag burning-not really. 

You only say that because you are not in the group being persecuted.

[MaC]

Social issues like privacy are important.  Social issues like gay marriage and flag burning-not really. 

You only say that because you are not in the group being persecuted.

flag burners are being persecuted?

[David S]

You speak of social issues but you are really talking about constitutional rights. I most certainly agree that we should not allow government to encroach on them. But I suspect that where we disagree is in thinking that the Democrats are protectors of the constitution.

The Democrat party tends to be avidly anti-gun.

The Democrat party endorses social programs which are not mentioned among the powers of government in the constitution and are therefore unconstitutional.

John Kerry and a number of other Democrats are big believers in a national service program wherein Americans would be required to perform service for the government ( not necessarily military service). There is no constitutional basis for such a program and in fact it is banned by the 13th amendment.

If you really support the constitution you won't support either the R's or the D's. This is why I'm a Libertarian.

[jokerman]

Actually, John Kerry proposed a voluntary service program through which American youths could gain college tuition pay.

[MODU]

You speak of social issues but you are really talking about constitutional rights. I most certainly agree that we should not allow government to encroach on them. But I suspect that where we disagree is in thinking that the Democrats are protectors of the constitution.

The Democrat party tends to be avidly anti-gun.

The Democrat party endorses social programs which are not mentioned among the powers of government in the constitution and are therefore unconstitutional.

John Kerry and a number of other Democrats are big believers in a national service program wherein Americans would be required to perform service for the government ( not necessarily military service). There is no constitutional basis for such a program and in fact it is banned by the 13th amendment.

If you really support the constitution you won't support either the R's or the D's. This is why I'm a Libertarian.

^^^^^^^^ 

(Except for the fact that I too have proposed from time to time that our youths should be involved with state/federal service right after high school before heading off to college.  )

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I oppose any form fo national service, conscription or draft. Slavery is illegal, people!

[David S]

Actually, John Kerry proposed a voluntary service program through which American youths could gain college tuition pay.

"Today, I propose not only to build on that tradition, but to go beyond it—because today, our challenges are different and our commitment must be even greater. We need a new era of service—not an effort for one time, one purpose, or one group—but a permanent and national endeavor. For America now, service is not just an option, but an obligation of citizenship." Kerry, John. "A New Era of National Service." Manchester, New Hampshire. May 19, 2003.

As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service.
(Emphasis mine}

Doesn’t sound voluntary to me.

[MaC]

why does John Kerry hate freedom?

[Citizen James]

I don't consider these social issues more so than security issues. Social issues are for 12 year olds to go on tyraids about to sound intelligent. NSA wiretaps are ligitment debates of our national security and our rigth to privacy.

How about constitutional issues kiddo?   The whole idea of checks and ballances is because of concerns about abuse of power.   Richard Nixon was big on 'security issues' as well.  He also bypassed the courts because he knew that spying on his political rivals (enemies in his worldview), would not be considered valuable to national security by any neutral observer.  That's why the FISA court was created.   

Though Jfern's source isn't an unbiased one, his quote about the FISA law is legitimate.  Cornell University Law School has the specifics of the law if you are interested in reviewing it.

As the court is secret (outside of public view), and there are specific provisions for collecting intellegence in an emergency then getting permission, along with the fact that the court has generally been very permissive about granting warrants over the years, one has to wonder why Bush bypass such an easy step.   Everything that comes to the court is already hidden from public view.  All the judges are vetted for security clearances.   They have a history in being lenient on probable cause.  The only threat is if he wanted to flagrantly violate the law in Nixonian style.

There was a time when 'trust me, I'm from the government' would have been met with derisive laughter.  What happened to that?    A natural suspicion of government has been a  part of our national psyche and and wary counter to those whom power would corrupt.   Why would anyone blindly trust a policitican, much less one with a track record of deception and questionable judgement, with absolute unchecked power.  Such an attitude would not only be foolish and dangerous, but downright opposed to the main principles of our nation.

While some social issues to have valid importance to society (civil rights, for example, greatly increases the level of education and pool of tallent for society in general - in addition to fufuilling our core values of 'a more perfect nation' in which all are 'equal before the law'), much of the stuff being floated around right now (gay mariage, flag burning) are little more than distractions to avoid investigations or discussion of some of the more egregious abuses of power.

As for age, I've seen some very intellegent and insightful posts from young'ins in their mid teens; and I've seen middle aged hacks who couldn't construct a cognizent arguement to save their lives.  Age doesn't bring wisdom, only experience from which wisdom may or may not grow.

[ATFFL]

All I am going to say about the librarian situation is the following:

If you do not want the government knowing what books you are reading, do not borrow them from a government agency.  Admittedly, the feds send a miniscule amount to public libraries, but they are still government bodies and it is mind numbingly stupid to think that the government is not going to know about it.

[Nym90]

I strongly support wiretaps and the like that are obtained through a warrant, but I think that going down the road of warrantless searches and domestic surveillance is a dangerous one to go down. It gives the government too much power, which, even if the original intention of the use of that power is positive, eventually will inevitable turn negative.

I tend to be of the mindset that power itself corrupts people, so that even if someone who is a great person is given great power, the power itself will make that person worse. That's why ensuring that checks and balances are in place is absolutely vital, because no one person and no one cause can ever be great enough to overcome the corrupting force of great amounts of political power.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

All I am going to say about the librarian situation is the following:

If you do not want the government knowing what books you are reading, do not borrow them from a government agency.  Admittedly, the feds send a miniscule amount to public libraries, but they are still government bodies and it is mind numbingly stupid to think that the government is not going to know about it.

The feds have no right to spy on people going to a library that they paid for with their local tax dollars.