I'm thinking about voting for Bush- talk me out of it

[Rex Little]

Why exactly do you consider Badnarik unqualified, Diss? I'm going to vote for him--talk me out of it.

If you absolutely must choose Bush or Kerry, I'd recommend Kerry just to get some gridlock going. A Republican House of Reps won't roll over for Kerry like it did for Bush.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Dissident


There was some confusion amongst the hillbillies. Can you blame them? with Guntamano Bay Bush said we didn't need to treat those prisoners in accordance with the Geneva convention. Perhaps the soldiers felt the same way about the Iraqi prisoners. They didn't know better. Dumb rednecks.

I don't like Bush bending the rules- even if it is for a good cause. It weakens the system as a whole.

This administration seems strange. Why have so many people jumped ship? Many people have left. Including Colin Powel (possibly- he said he might come back).

Dis. Bush memo said to treat them in accordance even those we don't have to according to the Justice Dept.

[Q Classic]

Maybe it would be possible to enjoy the best of both worlds. I think perhaps we should grant immunity from practically all government constraint and proscription within the confines of our own homes. The individual would be soverign in their private residence and within any direct extensions there of. Then the patriot act could not be used to police our home lives. The only use i want to see made of the patriot act is as a means of finding and preventing massive acts of violence in advance, especially domestic terrorism which seems to have been forgotten in the wake of the more recent itnernational terrorism.

Where does the home end? Some people, myself included, find ourselves more at home at the school library or the internet than we do around our parents. If I have a cable modem, I can point my browser and have a direct connection--hell, an extension, to any website I want, be it Google, to the AOL website, to Islamic Fundamentalist sites, to Child Porn sites, to the IRS website, to the Teletubbies website. It's the same with a phone line. If I talk to my girlfriend over the phone, and I am "at home" and she is "at home", and we are planning on merging those two into a single unit, would that not count as a direct extension?

To limit the Patriot Act like that would be to kill it. I for one support killing the Patriot Act, but I fail to see how this position helps you at all.

======

I accept no government contraints on my actions apart from my actions that do violence to others. I'm not satisfied to simply get away with doing what I want rather I reject any law the government passes which constrains those actions of myself or others which do no violence to anyone. I'd rather die than have my life run by a police state and would die fighting one that attempted to run my life.

We do not disagree here.

Yet I don't wish to hide or hide my life from everyone. Does this mean I do not love liberty? Is a life that is 'free' only because it is lived in hiding truly free at all?

I don't wish to hide anything except maybe my personal habits (the occasional cigarette and the social drinking, for example) from my parents.
The fact that I have that measure of privacy, the fact that I have control over who sees what parts of me, that is itself a form of liberty.

Just because you have liberty does not mean you have to cast a million-watt halogen spotlight on your life. You may not have any fears of being exhibitionist. Sure, you don't have to hide anything. But others, say, a Tracy Bacon, may want to hide some queer parts of their lives, simply because it's easier for them to do so, and because it really isn't anyone else's business--least of all the government's.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Is it finger waving which will prevent the eventual use of WMD in a terract?

Avoiding the question? Do you actually think the government will be prevented from abusing the info given to them by us saying don't do that.

I honestly think that if they won't be constrained from illegally using the information once it is legally gathered then it follows that they won't be constrained from illegally gathering the information in the first place either in the event such spying is outlawed. As I have said before if the government isn't going to follow the law why write laws that we already assume will be broken? It seems almost paradoxal to say "outlaw spying by the government because it will break laws against misuing such information anyway."

[Velociryx]

But by allowing such laws to stand unchallenged, we send a signal TO the "Watchers" that it's okay.

It legitimizes their activities.

If they do it anyway, then at least they are forced to do so via deception and subterfuge, and if instances OF that deception and subterfuge get out, then change can be affected.

On the other hand, if we roll over and pretend it does not matter, then who's to raise a finger when they come get you in the night for doing something that some nameless info-broker on the Hill deemed "improper"?

-=Vel=-

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Geronimo....I used the chip-installation example for that very reason.

I guess my question is....what's the difference?

If you're okay with allowing the government unfettered access to spy on anyone, then why not make it even easier, by installing something in our bodies? Just another small nibble into the realm of privacy, yes? (after all, what could be more private than ourselves?)

The problem is that once we start down that path, the line will keep getting pushed back.

Best not to start down the path at all.

-=Vel=-

When you say "(after all, what could be more private than ourselves?)" are you stating that you agree with that statement as well or just observing that I seem to believe that? I'll assume we both agree on that statement and say that it makes sense to start protecting our privacy at the level that is most private and work our way out from there to successively less intimate areas of privacy with less and less protection at each stage.

When you speak of the path you don't want to see the government start down at all do you mean a path representing a starting point of total government ignorance and an end point of total government ominiscience about our lives? If so we started down that path almost at the founding of our consititution with the census and later with the IRS and social security numbers and god only knows what all else. I think a government only goes as far down that path as public resistance allows and I think the further down that path the greater resistance becomes. That is why I have little fear that there will be a slippery slope. If the slope is slippery then I think it is a slope the government is climbing uphill.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Maybe it would be possible to enjoy the best of both worlds. I think perhaps we should grant immunity from practically all government constraint and proscription within the confines of our own homes. The individual would be soverign in their private residence and within any direct extensions there of. Then the patriot act could not be used to police our home lives. The only use i want to see made of the patriot act is as a means of finding and preventing massive acts of violence in advance, especially domestic terrorism which seems to have been forgotten in the wake of the more recent itnernational terrorism.

Where does the home end? Some people, myself included, find ourselves more at home at the school library or the internet than we do around our parents. If I have a cable modem, I can point my browser and have a direct connection--hell, an extension, to any website I want, be it Google, to the AOL website, to Islamic Fundamentalist sites, to Child Porn sites, to the IRS website, to the Teletubbies website. It's the same with a phone line. If I talk to my girlfriend over the phone, and I am "at home" and she is "at home", and we are planning on merging those two into a single unit, would that not count as a direct extension?

To limit the Patriot Act like that would be to kill it. I for one support killing the Patriot Act, but I fail to see how this position helps you at all.

======

I accept no government contraints on my actions apart from my actions that do violence to others. I'm not satisfied to simply get away with doing what I want rather I reject any law the government passes which constrains those actions of myself or others which do no violence to anyone. I'd rather die than have my life run by a police state and would die fighting one that attempted to run my life.

We do not disagree here.

Yet I don't wish to hide or hide my life from everyone. Does this mean I do not love liberty? Is a life that is 'free' only because it is lived in hiding truly free at all?

I don't wish to hide anything except maybe my personal habits (the occasional cigarette and the social drinking, for example) from my parents.
The fact that I have that measure of privacy, the fact that I have control over who sees what parts of me, that is itself a form of liberty.

Just because you have liberty does not mean you have to cast a million-watt halogen spotlight on your life. You may not have any fears of being exhibitionist. Sure, you don't have to hide anything. But others, say, a Tracy Bacon, may want to hide some queer parts of their lives, simply because it's easier for them to do so, and because it really isn't anyone else's business--least of all the government's.

I'm not sure we disagree on anything substantiative. I'm still mulling over the implications of the privacy system I postulated in response to AH's post. As to the bottom of the post I agree that it's very important the government be required to keep its domestic intelligence information at least as secret as it keeps our personal income tax forms or our census questionaires or our ss#. the government seems to find keeping secrets to be second nature.

[Velociryx]

But then...why take another step toward the abyss?

What does it gain?

Our intelligence gathering capabilities are not the problem.

The Shrub was handed...HANDED a report outlining the possibility of folks from the ME coming over here and using big airplanes as guided missiles on targets on US soil.

We got that information before the PatAct was even a glimmer in anyone's eye, therefore, to assert that the PatAct is necessary for the prevention of Terracts in the future is to turn a blind eye to the facts.

Greater freedom to spy on U.S. citizens will not magically prevent terracts, but paying attention to reports that are placed right under your nose surely will.

The system itself was not the problem. It was never broken. The report got made...WITHOUT handing a blank check to the Watchers.

That it was never read, and never taken seriously was the problem.

So...perhaps we should pass a law allowing for Impeachment for gross dereliction of duty? Immediate votes of no confidence when our national leaders perform in sub-par fashion?

Ahhh, but that's not so easy, cos you and I don't have veto powers. Far easier, in this instance to take another bite from the little guy and pretend it makes the world safer.



-=Vel=-

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But by allowing such laws to stand unchallenged, we send a signal TO the "Watchers" that it's okay.

It legitimizes their activities.

If they do it anyway, then at least they are forced to do so via deception and subterfuge, and if instances OF that deception and subterfuge get out, then change can be affected.

You are the first to address this objection of mine in this thread. thanks. legitimacy based on legality is one of the reasons that I object to using privacy as a way of skirting around laws I don't like. Just because I can get away with something in no way means that I am willing to accept it being illegal in the first place.

Originally posted by Velociryx
On the other hand, if we roll over and pretend it does not matter, then who's to raise a finger when they come get you in the night for doing something that some nameless info-broker on the Hill deemed "improper"?

-=Vel=-

This is almost worthy of another thread. the ability to arrest a citizen without charges is indeed of
grave concern to me and in fact is the main reason I will probably hold my nose and cast a very reluctant vote for Kerry this election. I don't think the two issues are inseparable though. In the absence of spying the goverment will as it stands now simply arrest someone it doesn't like "just to be safe" rather than wait to see if in fact there is any reason to be suspicious.

I'd much rather the government spy on me if it decides it doesn't like me and wring its hands in frustration as nothing I do incriminates me than have it somehow unable to spy and so simply lock me up when it decides it doesn't like me.


Important issue and it probably deserves more mention in a thread about reasons not to vote for Bush.

[Geronimo]

impeachment of our leaders

[Dis]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
[blatant incendinary rightwing scaremongering]

Your past posst seem to indicate that you are not a feminist, Diss. However, John Kerry is. Himself henpecked to a wealthier and more forceful wife, John Kerry will use his power to advance the agenda of the hardline feminists.

John Kerry states on his website that he wishes to close the pay gap, the whole women supposedly earning 77 cents for every dollar a man earns deal. Never mind that that is mostly due to different career choices and that the gap can close naturally due to women doing bettering in education then men, John Kerry would invoke government's hand to try to intervene. And we can see with Affirmative Action that when the government creates discriminatory programs they can be rather hard to get rid of. If John Kerry gets elected, an employer might have to give a promotion to a women instead of you, or give a contract to a women instead of you, to avoid brining down the wrath of the federal government.

Now, granted, John Kerry is not going to talk about radical feminism on the campaign trail. But the radical feminists are a key part of the democratic coalition, and if Kerry is elected he will owe them, and the people he brings to Washington will sympathize with him. The types of feminists who don't believe in due process for rape cases, who support feminist judges who take father's children away in divorce cases and leave the fathers with impovershing child support/alimony, and who would see your romantic troubles as a feminine triumph with females being able to frustrate your man, will have greater acsess to Washington under a Kerry administration.

Also consider the types of judges Kerry would appoint. He would appoint activist feminist judges who would use their judicial powers to legislate from the bench for greater power for women. If Due process is violated in a rape or sexual harrasment case, I don't think any Kerry appointee would correct the error. And don't assume your porn would be safe under a liberal administartion either; Remember Tipper Gore was a huge anti-porn crusader. Feminists oppose porn because they feel it is degrading to women, feminist kerry appointees in the courts and in the regulatory agencies would surely oppose them.

Just remember, a vote for Kerry is a vote for you to become a second class citizen.

[/blatant incendinary rightwing scaremongering]

nothing wrong with feminism.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Thue
How about the fact that Bush invaded Iraq on false premises. A big part of the argumentation was that Iraq was connected to 9/11, a claim informed people now know have little basis in reality (though it seems that 50% af Americans still believe there were Iraqies among the hijackers).

Or the whole weapons of mass destruction thing.

In either case the Bush administration was either lying to the public, knowing better but letting themselves be decieved, or grossly incompetent. Take your pick.

I know one can argue that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy who deserved to be overthrown, and I agree to some degree. But that doesn't change the fact that administrations way to sell the war was wrong. I don't trust leaders who act that way. While John Kerry may not be the most inspirering leader, he sounds like he wouldn't make mistakes like that.

this is a big problem with me. And in most cases this would clinch it. But Kerry is a left wing nutjob.

I was considering voting for him under the pretense that under a republican congress he can't do much damage. I shudder to think what would happen if the democrats gain control.

[Dis]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Yea, but he isn't going to win anyways, so you don't have to worry about him becoming President. A vote for Badnarik is more a protest vote than anything. If enough people vote for Badnarik, the Repubs will wake up and realize their "borrow, spend & conquer" policies are alienating voters that could potentially be part of their coalition (libertarians) and may seek to adjust their policies accordingly.

If you are dissatisfied with Bush, then by all means don't vote for him. A vote for Bush sends the message that you agree with him. If you don't, let him know by voting Badnarik.

perhaps you are right. I was thinking about abstaining, but I may vote for Badnarik instead.

[Dis]

as for the other subject.

I *gasp* agree with Horse. And Vel of course.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But then...why take another step toward the abyss?

What does it gain?

Our intelligence gathering capabilities are not the problem.

The Shrub was handed...HANDED a report outlining the possibility of folks from the ME coming over here and using big airplanes as guided missiles on targets on US soil.

We got that information before the PatAct was even a glimmer in anyone's eye, therefore, to assert that the PatAct is necessary for the prevention of Terracts in the future is to turn a blind eye to the facts.

Greater freedom to spy on U.S. citizens will not magically prevent terracts, but paying attention to reports that are placed right under your nose surely will.

The system itself was not the problem. It was never broken. The report got made...WITHOUT handing a blank check to the Watchers.

That it was never read, and never taken seriously was the problem.

So...perhaps we should pass a law allowing for Impeachment for gross dereliction of duty? Immediate votes of no confidence when our national leaders perform in sub-par fashion?

Ahhh, but that's not so easy, cos you and I don't have veto powers. Far easier, in this instance to take another bite from the little guy and pretend it makes the world safer.



-=Vel=-

I actually view the Patriot act as being more effective against Tim Mc Veigh style domestic terrorism than against international terrorism like we saw in 2001. In international terrorism we can often rely on our foreign intelligence gathering capabilities and upon those of our allies. Didn't the report you are refering to get provided by foreign intelligence rahter than by any domestic law enforcement agency?