Hey all,
I don't post on political forums much at all. But I am very worried about current trends in the Republican Party and I came here to get some feedback from fellow conservatives. My basic question is this: Why do you support Rand Paul? (but please continue reading before answering)
Unlike many my age, I have considered myself conservative for most of the time since 9/11, not only due to foreign policy issues but I wholeheartedly agree with free market economics, morality in society (no drugs, no abortion), and the belief that America is what is right with the world today. I voted for McCain in 2008 both in the primary and the general election, Newt in the 2012 primary (I felt he had the best ideas and the closest platform to Reagan) and then Romney in 2012. Though I was very upset at Romney's "Kill Newt" strategy, I did enthusiastically support Romney because I felt that experienced, adult leadership was missing from this country. I feel worse about the loss now as I witness the GOP's continued fracturing.
I live in NH, which is not only a swing state but both increasingly Democratic (mostly due to MA carpetbaggers) and has a strand of libertarianism to it. I am in the midst of the sweeping changes taking place to the Republican brand – opposition by democrats, challenges by libertarians, disillusion and skepticism from working and middle class white voters, and conservatives angry over Sen. Ayotte's immigration vote. I am surrounded in my community by the problems this party is facing. When the RNC sent a questionnaire to me asking my opinion on the state of the party (I assume they did this because I volunteered for the Romney campaign in NH), I outlined 11 points, very clearly what I felt was wrong and what needed to be changed.
I would like to know why so many conservatives are flocking to Rand Paul. Though I am very impressed with his oratory and intellectual ability and I do feel he would be the best choice to widen the Republican Party's appeal, I doubt I can support him based on his foreign policy views.
I reject the neoconservative label. I am a student of foreign policy and it is increasingly clear to me today that what America must do going forward is less and less a matter of political ideology and more and more about recognizing simple facts: The rise of China, increasing assertiveness by Russia, and Iran's path to a nuclear weapon greatly worry me. If nothing gets done, these developments will define our times. It is just undeniable at this point.
Though Rand Paul has tried hard to hide his hand on foreign policy, my research has uncovered the following:
-Rand Paul's budget states:
a.) He believes we need a "21st century military" and the "Cold War structure" needs to be dismantled (this, as many of you might remember, is verbatim from the Obama 2008 campaign's stance on defense issues)
b.) He believes that our "global footprint" needs to be reduced, which in his view will lead to less situations where America will intervene simply because it cannot.
c.) He believes that we should cut active duty military strength below the current 1.4 million.
d.) The "size and scope" (undefined) of the military needs to be reduced.
-A lengthy Washington Monthly article states Rand Paul believes the solution to the North Korean crisis is to make a deal whereby America withdraws its bases from South Korean territory in exchange for North Korean nuclear disarmament. Success on such a policy is about as likely as his assertion that Republicans can once again win California's electoral votes, no?
-Toward the end of his Heritage Foundation speech (last 4-5 minutes), Rand Paul seems to "hint" at times at future U.S. missions that need to be curtailed. Given his public focus on the Middle East and non-focus on Asia, it seems obvious what this means.
-Rand Paul has tacitly, though not directly, suggested that Edward Snowden is a hero. This is despite the fact that terrorists know sources and methods now that would assist them in their attacks. Remember – we keep hearing about how terror plots fail because of "mistakes." It seems as though this is one less they could make now that they know about PRISM.
-Rand Paul recently stated he thinks we live in a police state.
-The CATO Institute, which advocates for amnesty and advocates for abandonment of U.S. allies and quasi-isolationism, is very enthused about Rand Paul. It is possible these men and women would make up the cabinet in a Paul Administration.
Given all this information, some of you might think that I've already made up my mind. I freely admit, I mostly have. I have trouble with the idea of supporting Rand in 2016 – very serious trouble, despite the immigration votes by Rubio & crew.
The reason I am asking this question is that I seem to remember conservatives being united in their opposition to Ron Paul back in 2008, and somewhat (but less so) in 2012. Given the fact that their foreign policy stances are the same (in substance, not rhetoric), why should conservatives who said no to Ron say yes to Rand?
If I'm missing something here, what is it?
Sources:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/july_august_2013/features/the_education_of_rand_paul045638.php# (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/july_august_2013/features/the_education_of_rand_paul045638.php#)
Senator Rand Paul: Restoring the Founders' Vision of Foreign Policy - Heritage Foundation 2/6/2013 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dxmH3MW8zA#ws)
http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/MASTERBUDGET.pdf (http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/MASTERBUDGET.pdf)
Rand is NOT Ron. That is the root of your problem. I would never vote for Ron. I will for Rand. I describe myself as a libertarian leaning Conservative. I despise what I call anarchist libertarians.
Rand Paul is the best of a bad lot.
Rand Paul, in spite of how you fell about his foreign policy and use of the military, seems to have the best interest of our country at heart. We are not going to find the perfect candiate and that's what keeps pulling us a part.
Paul, like Oblamer and all other aspiring POTUS candidates, have their own vision of how things should be but their utopian world meets reality when the winner gets the "crossover" brief from the incumbent POTUS. Oblamer came in as some what of a peacenik but look at what has happened since he took office. Nothing militarily has gotten better. Matters of fact nothing has gotten better.
Paul's idea of a nuclear disarmed NK swap for our forces in Korea is a good example of what I call a "Budweiser Vision" or said differently "looks good in the shower". It want happen, he can't make it happen, because there is more to our forces being in SK than just holding the NK's hostage.
The incumbent POTUS starts the crossover briefing by saying "let me tell you how it really is". When he finishes the electee says, "no sh**"!
Quote from: Reality on July 31, 2013, 04:33:43 AM
Rand Paul, in spite of how you fell about his foreign policy and use of the military, seems to have the best interest of our country at heart. We are not going to find the perfect candiate and that's what keeps pulling us a part.
Paul, like Oblamer and all other aspiring POTUS candidates, have their own vision of how things should be but their utopian world meets reality when the winner gets the "crossover" brief from the incumbent POTUS. Oblamer came in as some what of a peacenik but look at what has happened since he took office. Nothing militarily has gotten better. Matters of fact nothing has gotten better.
Paul's idea of a nuclear disarmed NK swap for our forces in Korea is a good example of what I call a "Budweiser Vision" or said differently "looks good in the shower". It want happen, he can't make it happen, because there is more to our forces being in SK than just holding the NK's hostage.
The incumbent POTUS starts the crossover briefing by saying "let me tell you how it really is". When he finishes the electee says, "no sh**"!
There is not one good reason on God's green earth for us to have remained in SK for 60 years. SK has become a wealthy nation, mostly because of our presence, and if they, with their huge army and wealth, can not protect themselves, then let the chips fall where they may. To think a paltry 25000 or so US troops is or will be a deterrent to Little Son Fool Do's Little Son, is a pipe dream.
I come down pretty much aligned with Reality. Rand, being a libertarian, desires less American military involvement worldwide. I don't agree with him totally, but do feel the USA could lessen its footprint, say in Germany and Japan, as those countries should fund their own defense. My support comes primarily from his domestic fiscal positions which align with the conservative approach. Also, he seems to be one to tell it like it is.
Rand is on track in some areas, but then will completely go off the rail, as he did with his two filibusters, each time stating afterwards that the "President has the right to choose whoever he wants for the positions", which is contrary to the fact of the Constitution.
As far as the implication that the CATO institute being some bastion of Conservative thought. It's NOT!
The CATO Institute is largely aligned with Progressive Statist "Libertarian" thought, and it's not at all congruent with the Constitution, or historical fact, and is most definitely not at all "Conservative".
One example of this is a series of articles (clearly an agenda) published by the CATO Institute and written by a guy named Alex Nowrasteh (http://www.cato.org/people/alex-nowrasteh), promoting open borders and anchor babies. There, CATO Institute actually describes Nowrasteh as, " the immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity."
Global Liberty and Prosperity? That's a globalist statist ideology and no one can support this ideology and honestly call themselves a Conservative.
One such article by Nowrasteh, "In Praise of Birthright Citizenship (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/praise-birthright-citizenship)" promotes the corruption that is anchor babies, as some sort of original birthright citizenship and the intent of the 14th Amendment, when it is actually the corrupt fabrication of the Gray Court in Wong Kim Ark, by judicial fiat, in conflict with the repeated indication of Congress over this country's entire history, done in disregard of the 14th Amendment's intent, a full THIRTY YEARS after the 14th Amendment, and no sort of birthright at all!
Those fabricated anchor babies actually represent the abrogation of the federal government's constitutional obligation to responsibly engage the two-way commitment between country and individual that is citizenship.
The only true "birthright" citizenship that has ever existed in this country is birth on American soil by parents (two) who were American citizens -- resulting in a natural born citizen.
Quote from: Stryke on July 30, 2013, 09:16:55 PM
Hey all,
I don't post on political forums much at all. But I am very worried about current trends in the Republican Party and I came here to get some feedback from fellow conservatives. My basic question is this: Why do you support Rand Paul? (but please continue reading before answering)
Unlike many my age, I have considered myself conservative for most of the time since 9/11, not only due to foreign policy issues but I wholeheartedly agree with free market economics, morality in society (no drugs, no abortion), and the belief that America is what is right with the world today. I voted for McCain in 2008 both in the primary and the general election, Newt in the 2012 primary (I felt he had the best ideas and the closest platform to Reagan) and then Romney in 2012. Though I was very upset at Romney's "Kill Newt" strategy, I did enthusiastically support Romney because I felt that experienced, adult leadership was missing from this country. I feel worse about the loss now as I witness the GOP's continued fracturing.
I live in NH, which is not only a swing state but both increasingly Democratic (mostly due to MA carpetbaggers) and has a strand of libertarianism to it. I am in the midst of the sweeping changes taking place to the Republican brand – opposition by democrats, challenges by libertarians, disillusion and skepticism from working and middle class white voters, and conservatives angry over Sen. Ayotte's immigration vote. I am surrounded in my community by the problems this party is facing. When the RNC sent a questionnaire to me asking my opinion on the state of the party (I assume they did this because I volunteered for the Romney campaign in NH), I outlined 11 points, very clearly what I felt was wrong and what needed to be changed.
I would like to know why so many conservatives are flocking to Rand Paul. Though I am very impressed with his oratory and intellectual ability and I do feel he would be the best choice to widen the Republican Party's appeal, I doubt I can support him based on his foreign policy views.
I reject the neoconservative label. I am a student of foreign policy and it is increasingly clear to me today that what America must do going forward is less and less a matter of political ideology and more and more about recognizing simple facts: The rise of China, increasing assertiveness by Russia, and Iran's path to a nuclear weapon greatly worry me. If nothing gets done, these developments will define our times. It is just undeniable at this point.
Though Rand Paul has tried hard to hide his hand on foreign policy, my research has uncovered the following:
-Rand Paul's budget states:
a.) He believes we need a "21st century military" and the "Cold War structure" needs to be dismantled (this, as many of you might remember, is verbatim from the Obama 2008 campaign's stance on defense issues)
b.) He believes that our "global footprint" needs to be reduced, which in his view will lead to less situations where America will intervene simply because it cannot.
c.) He believes that we should cut active duty military strength below the current 1.4 million.
d.) The "size and scope" (undefined) of the military needs to be reduced.
-A lengthy Washington Monthly article states Rand Paul believes the solution to the North Korean crisis is to make a deal whereby America withdraws its bases from South Korean territory in exchange for North Korean nuclear disarmament. Success on such a policy is about as likely as his assertion that Republicans can once again win California's electoral votes, no?
-Toward the end of his Heritage Foundation speech (last 4-5 minutes), Rand Paul seems to "hint" at times at future U.S. missions that need to be curtailed. Given his public focus on the Middle East and non-focus on Asia, it seems obvious what this means.
-Rand Paul has tacitly, though not directly, suggested that Edward Snowden is a hero. This is despite the fact that terrorists know sources and methods now that would assist them in their attacks. Remember – we keep hearing about how terror plots fail because of "mistakes." It seems as though this is one less they could make now that they know about PRISM.
-Rand Paul recently stated he thinks we live in a police state.
-The CATO Institute, which advocates for amnesty and advocates for abandonment of U.S. allies and quasi-isolationism, is very enthused about Rand Paul. It is possible these men and women would make up the cabinet in a Paul Administration.
Given all this information, some of you might think that I've already made up my mind. I freely admit, I mostly have. I have trouble with the idea of supporting Rand in 2016 – very serious trouble, despite the immigration votes by Rubio & crew.
The reason I am asking this question is that I seem to remember conservatives being united in their opposition to Ron Paul back in 2008, and somewhat (but less so) in 2012. Given the fact that their foreign policy stances are the same (in substance, not rhetoric), why should conservatives who said no to Ron say yes to Rand?
If I'm missing something here, what is it?
Sources:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/july_august_2013/features/the_education_of_rand_paul045638.php# (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/july_august_2013/features/the_education_of_rand_paul045638.php#)
Senator Rand Paul: Restoring the Founders' Vision of Foreign Policy - Heritage Foundation 2/6/2013 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dxmH3MW8zA#ws)
http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/MASTERBUDGET.pdf (http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/MASTERBUDGET.pdf)
The answer to that in red, is simple really. Because unlike many who claim to be Constitutional supporting conservatives with their mouths and then vote like a democrat.
Mr. Paul actually backs his words up with his actions, he has no qualms voting no on something that is a violation of our Constitution or something that is beyond the power and scope of the Congress to address Constitutionally.
Anymore questions? Direct them to Senator Pauls offices, they'll tell you all you want to know about him. He's not a lib, who hides and is inaccessible by the people.
Unlike my rep, the Speaker of the House.
He's not perfect, has done/said/endorsed some things that are inexplicable & annoying...........yet, he's the best constitutionalist that we have. We may not like all of his ideas, but if you value the constitution, you'd better be supporting him over whatever else is out there.
It's a small club available to us.......Paul, followed by Cruz, Lee, Gowdy, Issa, and a few others of lesser profile.
At least he stays pretty consistent. Look at the implosion of guys like Ryan, Rubio, McCain, etc.
I'm actually wondering whether "Stryke" is a one-hit wonder, or if it is a sincere discussion from someone intending to be an ongoing member here.
I wonder Why he would care what CPF people think when it's his first post here.
Is he trying to support Rand Paul? Or trying to reject him? His argument ostensibly has severe reservations about Rand, but then he postulates a Rand administration populated by CATO institute progressives, which is a truly scary thought indeed. No one who honestly has "serious trouble" regarding a candidate would actually ponder their cabinet makeup (and applaud it being made of of CATO Institute people).
I don't understand how that "serious trouble" is somehow mitigated by ("despite") the "immigration votes of Rubio and crew". That doesn't make any sense to me at all; does it to anyone else? It almost sounds as if Stryke supports immigration amnesty, which would explain the positive CATO reference.
And this is why I smell Stryke as "rat", a one-hit wonder with a pro-Paul agenda.
As to Rand, I was very impressed by Rand Paul's discussion of the '64 Civil Rights Act with Rachel Maddow (http://youtu.be/9U4FTd-1m-o), and how he managed to defend his accurate position that the federal government had no business dictating terms of "rights" to private individuals and private organizations, while working to avoid Maddow's repeated attempts to label him as some sort of backwards racist.
Unfortunately, Rand has since backtracked and hedged on his original bold position, just as he did on his filibusters.
I'm still waiting to see if Rand Paul is a filly, a gelding, or bust, all too much like his father. The Jury is still out. He definitely is not yet seasoned enough to be Presidential material, not at this point, not by a long shot. Perhaps one day.
Reads like a long, careful re-entry back into CPF by the blueridge drones who've been booted. Or just the next one on the duty roster.
They have many personas and styles to set up their trolling.
Quote from: Yawn on July 31, 2013, 03:31:07 AM
Rand is NOT Ron. That is the root of your problem. I would never vote for Ron. I will for Rand. I describe myself as a libertarian leaning Conservative. I despise what I call anarchist libertarians.
I came at it from the same viewpoint, actually. It wasn't until I read the WM article and his own FY14 that I felt differently. I'm having a hard time seeing the substantive (not rhetorical) difference between Rand and Ron. I want to relate this to something another poster said:
Quote
As far as the implication that the CATO institute being some bastion of Conservative thought. It's NOT!
I couldn't agree more with him that Cato isn't conservative, not just because of it's pro-amnesty stance but because it endorses no role for America in the world.. Yet, many libertarians do feel Cato is conservative. So there seems to be a disconnect here between the libertarian right and traditional conservatives of the Reagan era onwards.
I brought it up because cabinet officials tend to be from think-tanks. There isn't one more supportive of Rand that I can think of or have found than Cato.
Wow, misconceptions.
Quote from: Trip on July 31, 2013, 07:51:51 AM
I'm actually wondering whether "Stryke" is a one-hit wonder, or if it is a sincere discussion from someone intending to be an ongoing member here.
I wonder Why he would care what CPF people think when it's his first post here.
Is he trying to support Rand Paul? Or trying to reject him? His argument ostensibly has severe reservations about Rand, but then he postulates a Rand administration populated by CATO institute progressives, which is a truly scary thought indeed. No one who honestly has "serious trouble" regarding a candidate would actually ponder their cabinet makeup (and applaud it being made of of CATO Institute people).
I am not a troll. I may or may not stay here to discuss other things, I do admit I came here mainly to get a better understanding of why people support Rand Paul mainly. And I did not once approve/applaud the idea that Cato Institute people would be in his cabinet - I was warning against that possibility.
QuoteI don't understand how that "serious trouble" is somehow mitigated by ("despite") the "immigration votes of Rubio and crew". That doesn't make any sense to me at all; does it to anyone else? It almost sounds as if Stryke supports immigration amnesty, which would explain the positive CATO reference.
Once again no positive Cato reference and I am not for any form of amnesty. See what I said about Rubio and Ayotte in the OP. I also think you should at least acknowledge that Rand Paul took a twisted path to opposing the immigration bill. It was not steadfast.
Shooterman, our troops in SK are there for more reasons other than protecting SK from NK.
Why do you think we are keeping a Bomber Force at Quam?
Let's see..... The UN got us into the Korean Conflict and over time the U.S. forgave war debts accrued by us in behalf of certain Allies who also contributed to that effort. It's fair to say we paid for about half of all expenses, directly or by loan forgivance. We pay for South Korean defense.
And we get missile sites for use against China.
Expensive land, but worth it.
Since it's been assumed I am some sort of progressive libertarian or Rubiobamabot, or some democrat in disguise or some conspiratorial Pro-Paul supporter (that for some reason would sow doubts of his own candidate?) I thought I'd post who I think is a positive force in the Republican Party right now, and one I think many here would do well to keep an eye on going forward (see, you did get something out of this! :cool: ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cotton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cotton)
He announced today he'll be running against Mark Pryor. I hope to see a President Cotton someday.
Well, at least you returned and did address a few concerns here. In fairness you could have mentioned your candidate a bit more prominently, to allay such comments.
I don't currently have a candidate for 2016, it is way too early for that and I am hoping we will see a new face. I think something people should keep in mind is that many of the candidates being polled on for 2016 (Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Kelly Ayotte, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee etc) will likely not even run. The numbers don't tell us much and neither does the current lineup. The only "likely runs" are Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio. Somehow I don't think we will end up with a three-way primary from the beginning in 2016.
Though, I admit I don't have the same reaction to Christie that many tea party and libertarian conservatives have, and that feud is kind of what brought out my desire to know more about Paul's supporters. I don't like this idea that if you agree with counter-terrorism policies being managed more by the intelligence community than Obama, that somehow makes you a RINO.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:43:29 AM
I don't currently have a candidate for 2016, it is way too early for that and I am hoping we will see a new face. I think something people should keep in mind is that many of the candidates being polled on for 2016 (Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Kelly Ayotte, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee etc) will likely not even run. The numbers don't tell us much and neither does the current lineup. The only "likely runs" are Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio. Somehow I don't think we will end up with a three-way primary from the beginning in 2016.
Though, I admit I don't have the same reaction to Christie that many tea party and libertarian conservatives have, and that feud is kind of what brought out my desire to know more about Paul's supporters. I don't like this idea that if you agree with counter-terrorism policies being managed more by the intelligence community than Obama, that somehow makes you a RINO.
I don't read everything here but I had not seen that said in those words here, or implied. I
have seen plenty on making certain Obama doesn't run ANYTHING, since he's already run us into the ground.
Sorry what I meant to say is I think the whole NSA PRISM / Snowden thing is becoming an inappropriate litmus test for whether someone is a "true conservative." I don't think it's a good idea to assert ideological purity over a legitimate national security power that, in my view, has become extremely demagogued.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:32:16 AM
Since it's been assumed I am some sort of progressive libertarian or Rubiobamabot, or some democrat in disguise or some conspiratorial Pro-Paul supporter (that for some reason would sow doubts of his own candidate?) I thought I'd post who I think is a positive force in the Republican Party right now, and one I think many here would do well to keep an eye on going forward (see, you did get something out of this! :cool: ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cotton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cotton)
He announced today he'll be running against Mark Pryor. I hope to see a President Cotton someday.
I'm glad that you've returned to post s'more. I wasn't saying that you were necessarily a Troll, or even a troll at all. I was just having a hard time figuring out your overall point, or perspective.
People post leading posts on forums for a whole array of reasons, some of them quasi-legitimate, but often not wanting ongoing membership in that forum community.
I guess President Cotton is more American than King Cotton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton).
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 12:31:32 PM
Sorry what I meant to say is I think the whole NSA PRISM / Snowden thing is becoming an inappropriate litmus test for whether someone is a "true conservative." I don't think it's a good idea to assert ideological purity over a legitimate national security power that, in my view, has become extremely demagogued.
Demagogued?
So you believe it is "legitimate national security" to collect and store every possible piece of information about every American, 24/7, in a mass data complex, and believe those who object are engaging in demagoguery?
I think those people would object to this perspective for a whole array reasons, not the least of which the idea they are in any way appealing to populist desires and prejudices.
You don't think it is an inherent and widely understood right, under the Constitution, which once was at play, for Americans to not be tracked and traced by their government in everything they do?
The purpose of the PRISM program was two fold:
1.) To not allow terrorists to use social media services such as hotmail, yahoo (both of which were used by the 9/11 hijackers)
and
2.) Make sure that anybody domestic - citizen or not - who was calling a terrorist flagged number outside the U.S., from the U.S. could be traced.
The alternative would be to force NSA analysts to turn the machine off whenever a homegrown terrorist called a number overseas. I happen to believe U.S. citizenship means less than it should if it can be used as a shield against counter-terror methods - we should all be against that practice. If not, I direct you to this video - go to 16:01 in the video and listen to his description of what an FBI agent has to do when a terrorist walks into a mosque: Sebastian Gorka: Threat Denial in the Obama Administration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElrsqMMOnuU#ws)
I agree with Dr. Gorka in the video - the constitution can be over-interpreted when it comes to national security.
When radio and telephone was invented, SIGINT services took advantage of it. The same is going to happen for cyberspace no matter who is in office.
Moreover, I think Snowden has undermined internet freedom globally. Because of these revelations, now everybody wants a PRISM, and any dictator anywhere can claim they need one because "the Americans are listening" - whether that is true or not.
As far as the abuse of this - I guess this disagreement I have on this issue with libertarians is more philosophical than legal. I don't believe many of the worst-case scenarios that critics claim will come to pass realistically will. I think the intelligence community has earned our trust after over a decade of war and keeping the homeland safe from terror attacks.
As for the criticism of, "why didn't this stop Boston?" Great question. It didn't stop Boston because an FBI agent sat down with Tamerlan in late 2011. He got spooked and refined his strategy. He got careful. The "mistakes" made by Richard Reid and the underwear bomber did not happen in the case of the Tsarnaevs because they knew they were being watched. We can be sure that thanks to the Snowden leaks, now terrorists won't make the "mistake" of using gmail or facebook to communicate, where they could be intercepted with a program like PRISM.
So when I say "demagogued" I say that because I think the above isn't being considered in this debate. Any national security perspective whatsoever seems to be just written off as control-freak authoritarianism.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 01:33:06 PM
The purpose of the PRISM program was two fold:
1.) To not allow terrorists to use social media services such as hotmail, yahoo (both of which were used by the 9/11 hijackers)
and
2.) Make sure that anybody domestic - citizen or not - who was calling a terrorist flagged number outside the U.S., from the U.S. could be traced.
The alternative would be to force NSA analysts to turn the machine off whenever a homegrown terrorist called a number overseas. I happen to believe U.S. citizenship means less than it should if it can be used as a shield against counter-terror methods - we should all be against that practice.
Given your two points, quite obviously PRISM and whatever other SIGINT program have grossly exceeded their purpose.
And perhaps you've come to notice that "homegrown terrorists" has been modified to ignore Islam, which praises, extols, demands and institutionalizes terrorism, and expanded to include those who call for legitimate government guaranteed by the Constitution.
The problem is that the federal government is not just listening in to anything, and everything, but collecting, cataloging and storing everything 24/7.
Under those terms it is rather easy for the government to accuse virtually anyone of pretty much anything, certainly something, and creates a system of implied guilt wherein a person must prove their innocence, which is technically impossible, rather then that their guilt must be proven -- a Police State.
You have heard the various attributions to the founders about those willing to give up Freedom for security (safety), right?
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 01:33:06 PM
If not, I directs you to this video - go to 16:01 in the video and listen to his description of what an FBI agent has to do when a terrorist walks into a mosque: Sebastian Gorka: Threat Denial in the Obama Administration
=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElrsqMMOnuU#ws (http://=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElrsqMMOnuU#ws)
I agree with Dr. Gorka in the video - the constitution can be over-interpreted when it comes to national security.
Gorka, at that 16 minute mark, is using a hypothetical situation, not even one stated to have actually occurred, involving a corruption of the Constitution, to argue for a further corruption of the Constitution, and claiming it is all legitimized by the Constitution.
There is no "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution, not even implied by the Constitution.
In the only place where that "(wall of) separation between church & state" occurred, Jefferson's 1801 letter to the Danbury Baptist church, that "wall of separation" does not prohibit religion from free expression, is not a wall imprisoning or limiting religion in any way, but only walls off government from intrusion on religion, a one-way wall, and not intrusion in any way shape or form, but specifically addressing government not enacting any law to institutionalize any particular religion.
Gorka is not arguing in favor of national security; he's arguing in favor of national insecurity, and the intrusion of a police state without bounds.
If we had any real regard for national security, then we would actually limit admission to the country, actually follow up on expired visas, actually close our borders, and limit citizenship applications, particularly to exclude those who embrace ideologies entirely in conflict with this nation's ideals of freedom, such as Islam.
The very idea presented by Gorka, that this nation's Founders would in any way support this idea of all-intrusive data collection is not just nonsense, but is a gross anathema to that Constitution and entirely contrary to the primary overriding purpose of our form of government - securing individual freedom.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 01:33:06 PM
When radio and telephone was invented, SIGINT services took advantage of it. The same is going to happen for cyberspace no matter who is in office.
We're not just talking about the data being available through the Internet, or the airwaves, but the government collecting, cataloging, cross-referencing, and storing every piece of data available to be used for whatever purpose government-connected persons might choose, often entirely outside of national security, as we've seen repeatedly in recent exposures.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 01:33:06 PM
Moreover, I think Snowden has undermined internet freedom globally. Because of these revelations, now everybody wants a PRISM, and any dictator anywhere can claim they need one because "the Americans are listening" - whether that is true or not.
HOW could Snowden at all undermined so-called "Internet Freedom" when it generally recognized, and you yourself recognize SIGINT being back to the 60s, that there is no real Internet freedom whatsoever!
What you evidently mean by "Internet freedom" is the inaccurate perception of Internet freedom, which is really irrelevant and false in the first place, by your own admission. What' you're doing is arguing in, in false terms, for Snowden being a traitor, when by your own statement that freedom didn't exist beforehand. You're arguing a non-existent condition to pursue an preordained conclusion involving unbound statist intrusion into every aspect of our lives!
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 01:33:06 PMAs far as the abuse of this - I guess this disagreement I have on this issue with libertarians is more philosophical than legal. I don't believe many of the worst-case scenarios that critics claim will come to pass realistically will. I think the intelligence community has earned our trust after over a decade of war and keeping the homeland safe from terror attacks.
Those attacks haven't been stopped by any sort of prevalent Internet security, and in fact the were often overlooked by government, even as occurred with the Boston Marathon Bombing.
And in fact the "intelligence community" has given us far more cause to distrust that group's actions and motivations, than to imagine that it's acting for our own benefit.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 01:33:06 PM
As for the criticism of, "why didn't this stop Boston?" Great question. It didn't stop Boston because an FBI agent sat down with Tamerlan in late 2011. He got spooked and refined his strategy. He got careful. The "mistakes" made by Richard Reid and the underwear bomber did not happen in the case of the Tsarnaevs because they knew they were being watched. We can be sure that thanks to the Snowden leaks, now terrorists won't make the "mistake" of using gmail or facebook to communicate, where they could be intercepted with a program like PRISM.
The funny thing in your reference to those things like the Boston Bombing and others, is that there is significant evidence that those cases involve government spook agency complicity!
The underwear bomber wasn't even stopped by the intelligence agencies, but rather by people actually on the plane.
And if terrorists didn't know not to use Facebook, Yahoo and Gmail before Snowden, then they're not really terrorists.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 01:33:06 PM
So when I say "demagogued" I say that because I think the above isn't being considered in this debate. Any national security perspective whatsoever seems to be just written off as control-freak authoritarianism.
When you say "demagogued" I believe you're actually applying an inappropriate word, since no one is actually using populist appeal as any sort of rationale anywhere in the "non-debate" that has occurred entirely behind the scenes, and without any legitimate authority whatsoever.
Quote from: Trip on July 31, 2013, 02:30:44 PM
Given your two points, quite obviously PRISM and whatever other SIGINT program have grossly exceeded their purpose.
And perhaps you've come to notice that "homegrown terrorists" has been modified to ignore Islam, which praises, extols, demands and institutionalizes terrorism, and expanded to include those who call for legitimate government guaranteed by the Constitution.
The problem is that the federal government is not just listening in to anything, and everything, but collecting, cataloging and storing everything 24/7.
Under those terms it is rather easy for the government to accuse virtually anyone of pretty much anything, certainly something, and creates a system of implied guilt wherein a person must prove their innocence, which is technically impossible, rather then that their guilt must be proven -- a Police State.
This is a straw man argument. I am not for 'redefining' homegrown Islamic terrorism, if you watched the full length of the video I posted you wouldn't have brought that up. There is still
no evidence - from Snowden or anyone else - that PRISM has been used for any other purpose besides counter-terrorism. You say populism hasn't been applied here but to do so, you'd first have to deny the hysteria-filled rhetoric (what you call "populism" and I am calling demagoguery) out there suggesting that PRISM has indeed been used for other purposes. Nope, there is no evidence of that. Further, you conflate collection with the actual use of the information. The information can't be used unless someone is under investigation: http://tamutimes.tamu.edu/2013/06/12/nsa-surveillance-is-legal-and-not-targeting-average-americans-says-texas-am-professor/ (http://tamutimes.tamu.edu/2013/06/12/nsa-surveillance-is-legal-and-not-targeting-average-americans-says-texas-am-professor/)
QuoteYou have heard the various attributions to the founders about those willing to give up Freedom for security (safety), right?
You should know that the founding fathers were not monolithic regarding that Ben Franklin quote. Furthermore, Franklin died -one year- into Washington's presidency. He never had to face any responsibilities of national security governance, as John Adams and Jefferson did. Consider this quote from Jefferson:
"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."Every time you use the mantle of "the founders" you undermine them because they rarely agreed on anything except the need to fight the Revolution. There is no "platform" for "the founders."
QuoteGorka, at that 16 minute mark, is using a hypothetical situation, not even one stated to have actually occurred, involving a corruption of the Constitution, to argue for a further corruption of the Constitution, and claiming it is all legitimized by the Constitution.
There is no "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution, not even implied by the Constitution.
In the only place where that "(wall of) separation between church & state" occurred, Jefferson's 1801 letter to the Danbury Baptist church, that "wall of separation" does not prohibit religion from free expression, is not a wall imprisoning or limiting religion in any way, but only walls off government from intrusion on religion, a one-way wall, and not intrusion in any way shape or form, but specifically addressing government not enacting any law to institutionalize any particular religion.
Gorka is not arguing in favor of national security; he's arguing in favor of national insecurity, and the intrusion of a police state without bounds.
If we had any real regard for national security, then we would actually limit admission to the country, actually follow up on expired visas, actually close our borders, and limit citizenship applications, particularly to exclude those who embrace ideologies entirely in conflict with this nation's ideals of freedom, such as Islam.
The very idea presented by Gorka, that this nation's Founders would in any way support this idea of all-intrusive data collection is not just nonsense, but is a gross anathema to that Constitution and entirely contrary to the primary overriding purpose of our form of government - securing individual freedom.
You misunderstood this in so many ways I don't even know where to start:
1.) It wasn't a hypothetical. This was a first-hand experience by an FBI agent.
2.) Gorka wasn't defending the excuse of 'separation of church and state.' He was pointing out that bureaucrats were using constitutional stances in absurd ways that would only end up impeding intelligence operations.
3.) He didn't argue what the founders "would have wanted" in this situation - none of us know that, not even you. Instead, he was arguing what they
did not mean.QuoteHOW could Snowden at all undermined so-called "Internet Freedom" when it generally recognized, and you yourself recognize SIGINT being back to the 60s, that there is no real Internet freedom whatsoever!
What you evidently mean by "Internet freedom" is the inaccurate perception of Internet freedom, which is really irrelevant and false in the first place, by your own admission. What' you're doing is arguing in, in false terms, for Snowden being a traitor, when by your own statement that freedom didn't exist beforehand. You're arguing a non-existent condition to pursue an preordained conclusion involving unbound statist intrustion into every aspect of our lives!
These programs didn't come into existence until recently. Not every government had them. Now that it has become an issue of global concern, they will. Less people will have privacy on the internet - it's that simple.
I don't need to "argue" Snowden is a traitor - he disclosed sources and methods of counter-terrorism methods, and fled to a major adversary of the United States. His actions speak for themselves.
QuoteThose attacks haven't been stopped by any sort of prevalent Internet security, and in fact the were often overlooked by government, even as occurred with the Boston Marathon Bombing.
And in fact the "intelligence community" has given us far more cause to distrust that group's actions and motivations, than to imagine that it's acting for our own benefit.
The funny thing in your reference to those things like the Boston Bombing and others, is that there is significant evidence that those cases involve government spook agency complicity!
The underwear bomber wasn't even stopped by the intelligence agencies, but rather by people actually on the plane.
I notice you just completely chose to ignore what I brought up about the FBI interview alerting Tsarnaev. And if you really believe that Boston was "false-flag," well, let's just say I've wasted enough time discussing this with you. We're not going to get anywhere if you believe that.
QuoteAnd if terrorists didn't know not to use Facebook, Yahoo and Gmail before Snowden, then they're not really terrorists.
Oh? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30530283/ns/world_news-terrorism/t/document-alleged-planner-used-hotmail/ (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30530283/ns/world_news-terrorism/t/document-alleged-planner-used-hotmail/)
I'm not a fan of libertarianism, but just when I give them a plus on the scoreboard they come along and say something stupid that pisses me off....like supporting Snowden...and that little weasle Manning.
That said I have been developing a steady respect for Rand Paul, I admire his cojones, I liked his Dad, agreed with a lot of what he said...until he starts saying stupid crap about Islamic terrorists and Iran being "so far away".
I see more common sense in the Son, he is younger and will appeal to the younger generation.
That said, I don't like politicians...I have always wanted to see a BUSINESSMAN run this country, we are a country that runs by and are successful because of capitalism. That is why I have in the past supported Forbes, Voted for Ross Perot and most recently Romney.
I see Rand as a politican rather with a lack of a business background...that said at this point, if he runs, either GOP or Independant...he has my vote.
Billy
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 03:05:53 PM
This is a straw man argument. I am not for 'redefining' homegrown Islamic terrorism, if you watched the full length of the video I posted you wouldn't have brought that up. There is still no evidence - from Snowden or anyone else - that PRISM has been used for any other purpose besides counter-terrorism. You say populism hasn't been applied here but to do so, you'd first have to deny the hysteria-filled rhetoric (what you call "populism" and I am calling demagoguery) out there suggesting that PRISM has indeed been used for other purposes. Nope, there is no evidence of that. Further, you conflate collection with the actual use of the information. The information can't be used unless someone is under investigation: http://tamutimes.tamu.edu/2013/06/12/nsa-surveillance-is-legal-and-not-targeting-average-americans-says-texas-am-professor/ (http://tamutimes.tamu.edu/2013/06/12/nsa-surveillance-is-legal-and-not-targeting-average-americans-says-texas-am-professor/)
Your accusation of a strawman on my part is a itself a misplaced strawman accusation.
I never indicated that you were redefining "homegrown Islamic terrorism", and never even addressed "homegrown Islamic terrorism", but rather indicated the fact that homegrown terrorists has been redefined to IGNORE Islam, and suggested that you might have noticed this.
I don't conflate collection with actual use of the information. I reject that actual collection as illegitimate intrusion, and suggest that it will be abused for illegitimate reasons, as has already occurred.
There's no hysteria-filled rhetoric; there's legitimate outrage over what our government is doing without any legitimate constitutional authority, or even authority under law, to do so.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 03:05:53 PM
You should know that the founding fathers were not monolithic regarding that Ben Franklin quote. Furthermore, Franklin died -one year- into Washington's presidency. He never had to face any responsibilities of national security governance, as John Adams and Jefferson did. Consider this quote from Jefferson:
"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
Every time you use the mantle of "the founders" you undermine them because they rarely agreed on anything except the need to fight the Revolution. There is no "platform" for "the founders."
I'm pretty certain that at 8 posts on this forum you're ill-equipped to speak on "every time" I use the mantle of the founders. And I'm quite certain that you yourself, and Gorka, have grossly abused those founders with any reference to the Constitution at all.
The idea that the founders rarely agreed on anything except the Revolution is long past asinine. They agreed on quite a lot, and that agreement bore fruit that is the Constitution. In fact the founders all but unanimously rejected the sort of statist authoritarianism that is the totalitarian sovereignty of the federal government, when they rejected Madison's Virginia Plan in its entirety at the onset of Constitutional Convention.
The further asinine idea that the founders did not agree on Franklin's quote about essential liberty, is refuted by the Federalist papers, and the totality of those founders expressions on the matter, which resulted in a federal government limited exclusively to enumerated powers, prohibited from any legislation upon the state territories themselves, and involving a interwoven system of checks and balances that entirely intended to totally prohibit this sort of federal government intrusion into the lives of freemen.
It is extremely obtuse to claim that Franklin had no idea of national security when he endured that Revolutionary War, witnessed the inefficiency of the Articles of Confederation, and was influential in the structure of the Constitution and that Bill of Rights.
And you're taking that reference to Jeffersion involving "scrupulous adherence to the written law" grossly out of context, when it really has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. The Constitution's establishment of the sole terms of legitimate government authority are not merely "written law".
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 03:05:53 PM
You misunderstood this in so many ways I don't even know where to start:
1.) It wasn't a hypothetical. This was a first-hand experience by an FBI agent.
2.) Gorka wasn't defending the excuse of 'separation of church and state.' He was pointing out that bureaucrats were using constitutional stances in absurd ways that would only end up impeding intelligence operations.
3.) He didn't argue what the founders "would have wanted" in this situation - none of us know that, not even you. Instead, he was arguing what they did not mean.
Gorka was fabricating an unnamed source, involving a tail on an unknown person, for unspecified reasons, and then claiming that the surveillance was broken off for as a result of entry into a mosque. Do you really believe that any agent would have cut off surveillance on anyone who was highly suspected of being involved in terrorism?
Gorka precedes this irrelevant and unsupported reference, while allegedly decrying the distortions of the 1st amendment protection of religion, with his own corruption of the 1st Amendment, stating that "all it means is that there can be no state religion in America, nor can any group be persecuted for who they are. That's it, Period."
While the first half of that statement is true, the second statement is not at all true.
I did not state that Gorka was "defending the excuse for the separation of church and state", but that he was using that abuse of the Constitution, to further his own abuse of the Constitution, and to promote an agenda of unquestioned statist intrusion in disregard of that Constitution.
It does not take any sort of clairvoyance to know what the founders wanted (not "would have"), and what they actually deliberately enacted, nor any sort of mind reading, nor conversations with the dead. Fortunately what the founders wanted, and instituted, can be known simply by reading their own repeated statements.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 03:05:53 PM
These programs didn't come into existence until recently. Not every government had them. Now that it has become an issue of global concern, they will. Less people will have privacy on the internet - it's that simple.
Ours is not a concern of "every government" but rather our own government, which is a fiction that was brought into existence solely on limited terms, so as to protect individual freedoms, with this recognized as the entire purpose of every form of government. It's not merely about some vague chivelet of privacy, but rather the intrusion of a federal government, that has shown it's willingness to abuse authority, disregard the Constitution, and engage such vile forms of tyranny that it makes those complaints tendered against George in the Declaration of Independence pale by comparison.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 03:05:53 PM
I don't need to "argue" Snowden is a traitor - he disclosed sources and methods of counter-terrorism methods, and fled to a major adversary of the United States. His actions speak for themselves.
Your analysis of Snowden is as superficial as your grasp of the founders and this country's Constituiton.
The purpose of our form of government is not the protection of sources and methods, but rather protection of individual liberty. These methods exposed are not "counter-terrorism" methods at all, but counter freedom methods, and have been used to attack and impugn lawful individuals, along with other gross abuses of the Constitution itself, Snowden fled to those places unable to be coerced by this tyrannous and criminal government, yet still that coercion and bribery has been repeatedly attempted. There is no evidence whatsoever that Snowden is in league with those countries against the United States government, nor intending to harm what legitimacy of that government that still might exist.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 03:05:53 PM
I notice you just completely chose to ignore what I brought up about the FBI interview alerting Tsarnaev. And if you really believe that Boston was "false-flag," well, let's just say I've wasted enough time discussing this with you. We're not going to get anywhere if you believe that.
I didn't have to ignore your comment about the FBI, as it was covered by my reference to the fact that the intelligence agencies have not curtailed real attacks on the American people. when the problem was the fact that people like Tamerlan should never have been admitted to the country in the first place. except for PC ideology incapable of accurately identifying the actual threat. Tamerlan's being "alerted" to being watched has no bearing whatsoever on the intrusion of data collecting by the federal government regarding every aspect of our lives.
If one is not concerned about the fact that a bomb drill was scheduled in the midst of the Boston Marathon, and people were told to not be alarmed by an explosion, and that the media even commented on this notice, and that prior amputees were undeniably seen to be present on site as part of that drill, then that's your choice. However this is not the first time that such amazing coincidences have occurred, with these happening disturbing regularly. I don't buy into Alex Jones hysteria, but when I repeatedly have information brought before me, I do check it out on my own. I'm not implying that the Tsarnaevs are innocent, nor that they are even ignorant dupes. I'm just stating that things are not at all as clear-cut as your conveniently idealized perspective wants, and actually needs, to imagine in order to support this obscene degree of government transgression upon its citizens. The Boston Marathon Bombing, and the events thereafter, involve numerous widespread evidences providing real cause for Americans to be extremely alarmed about the conduct of their government. But then this should be no surprise given the other undeniable evidence that should also cause extreme alarm, such as the declaration that the federal government has de facto ownership over each and every American citizen, ...
... Or the military drills being methodically engaged in cities across the country to practice the institution of Martial Law, with the police being federalized, and these unannounced drills being exercised in reckless disregard to the life and limb of the people there, without any prior warning, and no real explanation offered after the fact:
Los Angeles Jan 26 2012,
Chicago April 17 2012,
St Louis July 3 2012,
Minneapolis Aug 28 2012,
Miami January 24, 2013,
Houston January 28 2013,
If the American military is training for mountainous terrain they go to the mountains, if they are training for desert terrain, they go to the desert, if they are training for coastal terrain they go to the coasts. The reason they are going to American cities, is they plan to operate in American cities. Not only are they training the military to act against American citizens on American soil, and desensitizing the citizens to the military command, they are also militarizing the police, and training them to accept directions from the military, and to not protect the citizenry.
Yeah, sure, the founders would have "no problem" with any of this.
But this is all far-afield from the real fact that government has no authority, nor legitimate purpose, to be collecting and storing this enormous volume of information.
By all means, return your head to the sand and pretend none of this is going on around you. After all, you've a "Constitutional right" to your own opinion ... at least for the moment. :wink:
Neo-cons hate him; that alone puts him at the top of my list so far. However, his stance on illegal immigration is troubling; such a pro illegal, pro amnesty stance is why Rubio is probably not going to get my support, at least early on. Would love to see a Paul/Cruz ticket (or Cruz/Paul)
I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries in past elections despite his more libertarian leanings. Rand Paul is more socially conservative than his father, making him more acceptable to the social conservative base.
We'll have to see how the neo-cons and the big business types (neither are real conservative, by the way) react to a real conservative like Paul.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm)
The Democrat Party is the party of big business.
Quote from: Yawn on July 31, 2013, 04:53:57 PM
The Democrat Party is the party of big business.
Yes they are, but I would also suggest that both parties have prostituted themselves for corporate money, to our detriment. There is a certain element in the GOP that claims to be conservative, but who really worship the almighty dollar above all other ideology. I submit that our last two GOP presidential candidates trended this way.
Quote from: Partisan62 on July 31, 2013, 05:22:03 PM
Yes they are, but I would also suggest that both parties have prostituted themselves for corporate money, to our detriment. There is a certain element in the GOP that claims to be conservative, but who really worship the almighty dollar above all other ideology. I submit that our last two GOP presidential candidates trended this way.
What is wrong with honest profit, derived from supplying goods PEOPLE WANTED at an affordable price, where both sides came away satisfied with the deal? It wasn't like Romney worked at some odious outfit selling counterfeit goods, or robbing people. He made other people tons of money, paid tons in personal taxes, and since money mattered so much, Romney worked free with the Olympics.
Worshiping the almighty dollar can go two ways. You can inculcate a socialist society beholden to others (read, government) and therefore accepting less-than-best work in a society which would discourage incentive (read, Soviet 5-year plan)...
...or (option 2) you can stand back and let the thinkers and inventors and entrepreneurs and venture capitalists all bring us
really really really neat stuff....like the monitor you're reading this on.
Compare that to waiting in line at a Soviet store, just to buy toilet paper.
Quote from: Trip on July 31, 2013, 04:41:12 PM
I don't conflate collection with actual use of the information. I reject that actual collection as illegitimate intrusion, and suggest that it will be abused for illegitimate reasons, as has already occurred.
There's no hysteria-filled rhetoric; there's legitimate outrage over what our government is doing without any legitimate constitutional authority, or even authority under law, to do so.
When did abuse for illegitimate reasons "already occur" and what court decision declared this unconstitutional?
QuoteI'm pretty certain that at 8 posts on this forum you're ill-equipped to speak on "every time" I use the mantle of the founders. And I'm quite certain that you yourself, and Gorka, have grossly abused those founders with any reference to the Constitution at all.
The idea that the founders rarely agreed on anything except the Revolution is long past asinine. They agreed on quite a lot, and that agreement bore fruit that is the Constitution. In fact the founders all but unanimously rejected the sort of statist authoritarianism that is the totalitarian sovereignty of the federal government, when they rejected Madison's Virginia Plan in its entirety at the onset of Constitutional Convention.
The further asinine idea that the founders did not agree on Franklin's quote about essential liberty, is refuted by the Federalist papers, and the totality of those founders expressions on the matter, which resulted in a federal government limited exclusively to enumerated powers, prohibited from any legislation upon the state territories themselves, and involving a interwoven system of checks and balances that entirely intended to totally prohibit this sort of federal government intrusion into the lives of freemen.
It is extremely obtuse to claim that Franklin had no idea of national security when he endured that Revolutionary War, witnessed the inefficiency of the Articles of Confederation, and was influential in the structure of the Constitution and that Bill of Rights.
And you're taking that reference to Jeffersion involving "scrupulous adherence to the written law" grossly out of context, when it really has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. The Constitution's establishment of the sole terms of legitimate government authority are not merely "written law".
When I say "every time" I am speaking of this reflexive libertarian instinct to call anything they disagree with "unconstitutional" and "against the founding fathers." So what about the Alien and Sedition Acts and their continuation under Jefferson? Or will you just dismiss that too like you did his straightforward quote (which WAS about constitutionality and the acquisition of territory - prove that NOW or retract it)? How do you know what the founding fathers would say about PRISM or counter-terrorism methods today? Did you have lunch with them? No? Then don't sit here and act like you do. If anything is asinine, it is that. You can't compare the challenges they faced in the 18th, early 19th century and say "you know" based on "repeated statements" about such challenges. You libertarians sound like high school kids who went on thinkexist and ran with it - no critical thinking whatsoever.
QuoteGorka was fabricating an unnamed source, involving a tail on an unknown person, for unspecified reasons, and then claiming that the surveillance was broken off for as a result of entry into a mosque. Do you really believe that any agent would have cut off surveillance on anyone who was highly suspected of being involved in terrorism?
Gorka precedes this irrelevant and unsupported reference, while allegedly decrying the distortions of the 1st amendment protection of religion, with his own corruption of the 1st Amendment, stating that "all it means is that there can be no state religion in America, nor can any group be persecuted for who they are. That's it, Period."
While the first half of that statement is true, the second statement is not at all true.
Funny - I knew you would claim the source was fabricated. Whatever. I'm not going to sit here and listen to you, a random forum poster, claim that you can be more credibly believed on the supposed non-existence of his source than Gorka himself, who has decades of U.S. national security research and expertise under his belt. The ease with which you dismiss his story just exhibits your massive cognitive dissonance. Like I'm supposed to believe Mr. "Terrorists Don't Use Hotmail" suddenly.
QuoteThere is no evidence whatsoever that Snowden is in league with those countries against the United States government, nor intending to harm what legitimacy of that government that still might exist.
I guess in your universe:
-Russia and China aren't autocratic regimes
-has no adversarial relationship with the United States that benefits from these leaks and his fleeing
-leaking of classified information is not a crime according to the same laws you demand we hold ourselves accountable to.
QuoteI didn't have to ignore your comment about the FBI, as it was covered by my reference to the fact that the intelligence agencies have not curtailed real attacks on the American people. when the problem was the fact that people like Tamerlan should never have been admitted to the country in the first place. except for PC ideology incapable of accurately identifying the actual threat. Tamerlan's being "alerted" to being watched has no bearing whatsoever on the intrusion of data collecting by the federal government regarding every aspect of our lives.
Tamerlan being "alerted" allowed him to evade being captured until after the attacks in the same way that other terrorists are able to evade better because of the Snowden leaks. Don't play stupid. As far as saying intelligence agencies have done nothing - you would know? I'm noticing a pattern here where any information inconvenient to you just gets handily dismissed and you just claim to know better than anyone else, whether they are alive or dead, regardless of their experiences, etc. Like you have some kind of wealth of special knowledge or experience that allows you to make these dismissals. You've demonstrated repeatedly you do not even know basic facts about the operating methods of terrorist organizations and you actually have the gall to claim people who work around the clock defending this country just sit with their thumbs up their asses. If anybody's a RINO it's you. Liberals talked that way for eight years, now you are.
Let me guess: All lies right? http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexander-92971.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexander-92971.html)
QuoteIf one is not concerned about the fact that a bomb drill was scheduled in the midst of the Boston Marathon, and people were told to not be alarmed by an explosion, and that the media even commented on this notice, and that prior amputees were undeniably seen to be present on site as part of that drill, then that's your choice. However this is not the first time that such amazing coincidences have occurred, with these happening disturbing regularly. I don't buy into Alex Jones hysteria, but when I repeatedly have information brought before me, I do check it out on my own. I'm not implying that the Tsarnaevs are innocent, nor that they are even ignorant dupes. I'm just stating that things are not at all as clear-cut as your conveniently idealized perspective wants, and actually needs, to imagine in order to support this obscene degree of government transgression upon its citizens. The Boston Marathon Bombing, and the events thereafter, involve numerous widespread evidences providing real cause for Americans to be extremely alarmed about the conduct of their government. But then this should be no surprise given the other undeniable evidence that should also cause extreme alarm, such as the declaration that the federal government has de facto ownership over each and every American citizen, ...
... Or the military drills being methodically engaged in cities across the country to practice the institution of Martial Law, with the police being federalized, and these unannounced drills being exercised in reckless disregard to the life and limb of the people there, without any prior warning, and no real explanation offered after the fact:
Los Angeles Jan 26 2012,
Chicago April 17 2012,
St Louis July 3 2012,
Minneapolis Aug 28 2012,
Miami January 24, 2013,
Houston January 28 2013,
If the American military is training for mountainous terrain they go to the mountains, if they are training for desert terrain, they go to the desert, if they are training for coastal terrain they go to the coasts. The reason they are going to American cities, is they plan to operate in American cities. Not only are they training the military to act against American citizens on American soil, and desensitizing the citizens to the military command, they are also militarizing the police, and training them to accept directions from the military, and to not protect the citizenry.
So you are one of those nutcases. That explains the lunacy behind the rest of the allegations you made against Dr. Gorka, the U.S. intelligence community, and your continued unsubstantiated claims of abuse. :lol: You should have just said this at the outset so we didn't have to waste all this time and space, and hijack the intent of this thread.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
When did abuse for illegitimate reasons "already occur" and what court decision declared this unconstitutional?
You must have missed the recent misnomered "scandals" or the violation of the previous terms of FISA.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
When I say "every time" I am speaking of this reflexive libertarian instinct to call anything they disagree with "unconstitutional" and "against the founding fathers."
When you say "every time", and then double down on it, you're only demonstrating your skill at trumpeting out your ***. You don't know me, and only embrace the progressive status quo of the Republican party idiots that really don't have any idea of the Constitution, nor any real desire to. Unfortunately you don't seem to take a hint all too well, but fortunately I'm more than content with eviscerate idiots that are nothing but dead weight, and far too slow at picking up what's going on all around them.
I'm no Libertarian and there's actually nothing I enjoy abusing more than Libertarians, beyond the obvious exception of Progressive Marxists. I'm actually a Constitutional Conservative, and if you had even any reasonable perspective of me at "ANY time", you'd know that even today, on this very forum, I indicated my extreme dislike of people using "unconstitutional!" like a magic word, and the scrolled-up Constitution as if it were some sort of wand.
And any time you want to go nose to nose, I'm more than capable of abusing your ignorance of the Constitution in this public arena. However, at this point, you seem to have unwavering compulsion to address me on an entirely inappropriate personal level, having no basis in any actual fact, and even undermined by my brief presence on this forum, so frankly I consider that "flags up" to have a field day with you.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
So what about the Alien and Sedition Acts and their continuation under Jefferson? Or will you just dismiss that too like you did his straightforward quote (which WAS about constitutionality and the acquisition of territory - prove that NOW or retract it)? How do you know what the founding fathers would say about PRISM or counter-terrorism methods today? Did you have lunch with them? No? Then don't sit here and act like you do. If anything is asinine, it is that. You can't compare the challenges they faced in the 18th, early 19th century and say "you know" based on "repeated statements" about such challenges. You libertarians sound like high school kids who went on thinkexist and ran with it - no critical thinking whatsoever.
What about the Alien and Sedition Acts, or are you the sort of tool that imagines that a series of pointless questions serve as some sort of argument? And HOW do you imagine this reference in any way serves your position? This is a notorious leftist tactic, with that penchant unfortunately not being limited to the Democrats. It stems from having a failed understanding, a superficial analysis, and dwelling on iconoclastic preconceptions which have no real foundation and don't even stand up to any sort of verbal reference, even by the claimant themselves.
Prove WHAT now? And how do you imagine that the acquisition of territory was in any way unconstitutional? This is yet another argument implied but without any rationale to support it!
Beyond that, you seem to actually believe that my position somehow involves the government never having done anything unconstitutional prior to the current day, or perhaps even before the Civil War, yet nowhere is this anything I've stated, or even implied, making this reference an irrelevant deflection!
By the way, you're doing the very same thing that you ALLEGEDLY decry and dismiss - calling things you evidently disagree with unconstitutional, without any reference to the Constitution itself on your part to establish how this "grievous" unconstitutionality might be so! ... which tends to display yourself as hypocrite in addition to a political ignoramus. Perhaps you imagine that the "Constitution" somehow limits the country to being only the 13 original colonies, forever ignoring what might lay to the west! However the founders weren't actually that myopic, nor ignorant.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
Funny - I knew you would claim the source was fabricated. Whatever. I'm not going to sit here and listen to you, a random forum poster, claim that you can be more credibly believed on the supposed non-existence of his source than Gorka himself, who has decades of U.S. national security research and expertise under his belt. The ease with which you dismiss his story just exhibits your massive cognitive dissonance. Like I'm supposed to believe Mr. "Terrorists Don't Use Hotmail" suddenly.
That claimed source had no specifics, no reference as to severity, and offered nothing as support, just the idea the audience should accept it at face value, particularly when offered with the boogeyman reference to "Al Quada", while ignoring that Gorka cannot even competently reference the terms of the 1st Amendment, and entirely glossed over the fact that the greatest threat to this country is the government itself, the archetypal enemy within.
I don't have be credible about his unspecified or unstated source! That's actually Gorka's own obligation. In the meantime his entire argument does not serve as justification to validate his obvious intent of grossly violating American's freedoms under the alleged threat of undisclosed boogeymen, when I can here and now put names and faces to the greatest threats to this country, and our very lives.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
I guess in your universe:
-Russia and China aren't autocratic regimes
-has no adversarial relationship with the United States that benefits from these leaks and his fleeing
-leaking of classified information is not a crime according to the same laws you demand we hold ourselves accountable to.
I guess you haven't noticed that these United States are actually operating as an autocratic, Imperial regime, and that the media in Russia is actually far more reliable than is what we have in this country.
All of these references are nothing but vapid deflections, entirely irrelevant to what's going on, and deliberately needing to ignore the fact that our own government is consistently and deliberately acting in an illegitimate manner that in no way compels any sort of allegiance unto it!
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
Tamerlan being "alerted" allowed him to evade being captured until after the attacks in the same way that other terrorists are able to evade better because of the Snowden leaks. Don't play stupid. As far as saying intelligence agencies have done nothing - you would know? I'm noticing a pattern here where any information inconvenient to you just gets handily dismissed and you just claim to know better than anyone else, whether they are alive or dead, regardless of their experiences, etc. Like you have some kind of wealth of special knowledge or experience that allows you to make these dismissals.
I got news for you, Einstein, but Tamerlan wasn't being sought by our government.... "until after the attacks"! Unfortunately he thwarted our omnipotent government yet again by throwing himself under the wheels of an SUV. Imagine that clever Islamic bastard actually thwarting the government a second time by throwing himself under a vehicle; I'm sure he's able to thwart even Moose and Squirrel!
But unfortunately even that is not exactly established fact. Did it even occur to you how Dzhokhar managed to drive over his own brother, and evidently drove away from the scene, but there was no search for Dzhokhar's relocation in the vehicle that night, nor any announcement of having found the vehicle some distance away from that original altercation? Actually that vehicle was strangely still at the location of the interaction, and Dzokhar actually drove over his brother, attempting to run over two cops firing at him, who allegedly had to dive out of the way to save their lives, but then Dzhokhar decided to jump out of transportation able to whisk him away from the barrage of police bullets, and instead chose to exit the vehicle and flee on foot, in an area already under a dragnet. Somehow he decided to play "let's do a footrace and play hide-n-seek"? While you ponder that, wipe the snail trail of drool from the front of your shirt.
In the meantime, the original "person of interest" is strangely intimately tied to the Obama administration, has visited the White House, has ties to Saudi, and the federal government is trying to whisk him out of the country until the media catches wind of what's going on. Who knew that watching a bunch of people run a marathon was all that fascinating to attract such a diverse crowd!
The fact of the matter is there ARE ZERO examples where this PRISM program, and mass data collection, has actually protected Americans from even a hangnail!
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
So you are one of those nutcases. That explains the lunacy behind the rest of the allegations you made against Dr. Gorka, the U.S. intelligence community, and your continued unsubstantiated claims of abuse. :lol: You should have just said this at the outset so we didn't have to waste all this time and space, and hijack the intent of this thread.
Dr Gorka, the guy who cannot even give an accurate rendition of the 1st Amendment, and then wants to validate the federal government's intrusion into every aspect of our lives by reference to boogeymen and utter disregard for the limits on that federal government established by the Constitution, and does not even offer any pause in his doctoral examination of the concerns to even admit that, yeah, it seems that the government's intrusion on every aspect of American's lives might just be a tad too thorough. Strangely "Dr Gorka" manages to avoid specificity there too! That spiel may fly with the simpleminded, but fortunately not all Americans.
The only reason these responses have gone so far afield in a thread that really seems to have no direction of its own, much less any sort of consistent rationale, is from your own deflections and hand-waving.
This is a summary of your argument here:
-The intelligence community hasn't prevented a single attack, because I say so.
-The founding fathers would be against PRISM, because I say so.
-Dr. Gorka's example is a fabrication, because I say so.
-Gen. Alexander is a liar, because I say so.
Indeed, let's watch it pan out:
Quote from: Trip on July 31, 2013, 09:58:20 PM
You must have missed the recent misnomered "scandals" or the violation of the previous terms of FISA.
No examples of confirmed abuse of the PRISM program, no legal case declaring it constitutional, but you say so. Ok, next point:
QuoteWhat about the Alien and Sedition Acts, or are you the sort of tool that imagines that a series of pointless questions serve as some sort of argument? And HOW do you imagine this reference in any way serves your position? This is a notorious leftist tactic, with that penchant unfortunately not being limited to the Democrats. It stems from having a failed understanding, a superficial analysis, and dwelling on iconoclastic preconceptions which have no real foundation and don't even stand up to any sort of verbal reference, even on their claimant's part.
Prove WHAT now? And how do you imagine that the acquisition of territory was in any way unconstitutional? This is yet another argument implied but without any rationale to support it
!
Beyond that, you seem to actually believe that my position somehow involves the government never having done anything unconstitutional prior to the current day, or even before the Civil War, yet nowhere is this anything I've stated, or even implied!
Read this quote again:
"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."He was talking about the Louisiana Purchase and the possibility that the constitution would get in the way of it. Just think how stupid your proposition here is. Do you really think he would go into this much detail and say, "Oh, I didn't mean the constitution"? But then again you don't have any evidence for this, just like everything else, he meant whatever you think he meant because you said so. You cannot definitively prove that this statement did not apply to the constitution through any recorded history, period. The quote also refers to the country facing "danger," so this is not merely about some transaction.
If on the other hand you think this is solely about the constitution versus national security, then that is why I brought up the Alien and Sedition Acts (do you even know what those were?). It was a clear cut case of wartime powers being used to curtail civil liberties under the banner of "national security." It was carried out by one of these founding fathers you keep referring to, and was continued under another, both men whom you claim as the basis for opposing domestic SIGINT. One of the things that is so embarrassing about libertarians or "constitutional conservatives" or whatever you keep rebranding yourself to escape criticism is you demand an obedience to a history that you are a mile wide and an inch deep on when it comes to knowledge. You are no "conservative" of any kind. You are a national security left-libertarian along the same lines as Glenn Greenwald.
QuoteBy the way, you're doing the very same thing that you ALLEGEDLY decry and dismiss - calling things you evidently disagree with unconstitutional, blah blah blah blah blah
This is as ridiculous as your claim that I was praising the Cato institute by criticizing it twice in the same sentence. You have serious comprehension problems. I never once said anything was unconstitutional, you are the one making that argument.
QuoteThat claimed source had no specifics, no reference as to severity, and offered nothing as support, just the idea the audience should accept it at face value, particularly when offered with the boogeyman reference of "Al Quada", while ignoring that Gorka cannot even competently reference the terms of the 1st Amendment, and entirely glossing over the fact that the greatest threat to this country is the government itself, the archetypal enemies within.
I don't have be credible about his unspecified or unstated source! That's actually Gorka's own obligation. In the meantime his entire argument does not serve as justification to validate his obvious intent of grossly violating American's freedoms under the alleged threat of undisclosed boogeymen, when I can here and now put names and faces to the greatest threats to this country, and our very lives.
When you accuse someone of a fabrication, the burden is on you. The burden is doubly on you when you went out and showcased your ignorance by saying "terrorists don't use social media." I notice you clammed up about that one. It's obvious by what you avoid and what you've talked around that you know you are wrong here.
QuoteTamerlan wasn't being sought by our government "until after the attacks".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311953/FBI-interviewed-Boston-Marathon-bombing-suspect-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-26-possible-extremist-ties-years-ago-incriminating-information.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311953/FBI-interviewed-Boston-Marathon-bombing-suspect-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-26-possible-extremist-ties-years-ago-incriminating-information.html)
Despite writing a book about how you think there was a false-flag component to Boston, you apparently didn't even know this basic fact.
QuoteThe fact of the matter is there ARE ZERO examples where this PRISM program, and mass data collection, has actually protected Americans from even a hangnail!
I'll post this again, hopefully you don't ignore it again. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexander-92971.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexander-92971.html)
And once again, ZERO EXAMPLES where this PRISM program, and mass data collection, was abused and used for some other purpose than counter-terrorism.
But hey - you say so!
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
This is a summary of your argument here:
-The intelligence community hasn't prevented a single attack, because I say so.
-The founding fathers would be against PRISM, because I say so.
-Dr. Gorka's example is a fabrication, because I say so.
-Gen. Alexander is a liar, because I say so.
I already addressed these.
I stated that PRISM has not thwarted a single attack.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
No examples of confirmed abuse of the PRISM program, no legal case declaring it constitutional, but you say so. Ok, next point:
Seriously, are you really this obtuse and shallow, when the government is playing "Where's Snowden" because of his exposure of PRISM, that there might actually be "legal cases" involving a clandestine program? I'd be near speechless if not for the fact that this is so thoroughly representative of the braindead that ply the infertile nonsense of the Republican party.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
Read this quote again:
"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
He was talking about the Louisiana Purchase and the possibility that the constitution would get in the way of it. Just think how stupid your proposition here is. Do you really think he would go into this much detail and say, "Oh, I didn't mean the constitution"? But then again you don't have any evidence for this, just like everything else, he meant whatever you think he meant because you said so. You cannot definitively prove that this statement did not apply to the constitution through any recorded history, period.
Uh, I know what Jefferson's talking about. The concern here is whether or not you have "a clue" what you're talking about. This is actually an "are you ****ing kididng me?" moment.
You first introduce the Jefferson quote, as if it made some broad, profound point about the law, which one would assume is somehow applicable to the discussion of sacrificing individual liberty for alleged national security, which might be relevant to Gorka's statements. But you failed to specify anything at all.
Then it's suddenly about the Louisiana Purchase itself, and then the Alien and Sedition acts ..... as if these somehow justify sacrificing individual liberty for alleged national security. But again you failed to specify how this might be relevant to the the original discussion.
This is like following an ADHD Squirrel in a desperate search for a nut, any nut. BUt, oh no, it doesn't stop there! After all this pointless rambling far afield without any clue of a valid point, you have the nerve to accuse *me* of derailing the thread!
The "funny part" is nowhere have I argued that the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional, and In fact I've not seen any sort of coherent argument why such a purchase might be unconstitutional. Which draws into question your statement, "Just think how stupid your proposition here is." What proposition? What stupid? Do you actually imagine that there's any correlation whatsoever, no matter how obscure, between the public purchase of Louisiana, and the clandestine violation of every aspect of person's lives to allegedly gain some sort of "national security"? It's really not hard to find a whole slew of constitutional provisions this violates, not to mention no existing authority for such a massively intrusive endeavor anywhere implied by the constitution, and less so while the federal government is deliberately refusing to secure our borders, has unchecked visa and citizenship entry into this country, and itself is acting in an entirely illegitimate fashion.
And your screwball idea that I might have to actually have "any evidence for this" (what 'this'?) when it is your own half-baked excursion into squirrel territory is mind-boggling.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
If on the other hand you think this is solely about the constitution versus national security, then that is why I brought up the Alien and Sedition Acts (do you even know what those were?). It was a clear cut case of wartime powers being used to curtail civil liberties under the banner of "national security." It was carried out by one of these founding fathers you keep referring to, and was continued under another, both men whom you claim as the basis for opposing domestic SIGINT. One of the things that is so embarrassing about libertarians or "constitutional conservatives" or whatever you keep rebranding yourself to escape criticism is you demand an obedience to a history that you are a mile wide and an inch deep on when it comes to knowledge.
The Alien and Sedition acts were NOT any sort of legitimate reference to wartime powers! The were the gross tyrannous abuse of federal authority to prohibit criticism of the government, particularly the Executive, as well as to demand unflinching compliance with other unsupported federal legislation. There's nothing at all "clear cut" about the A&S acts, and this is why you're the poster child of the blithering Republican party.
Do you imagine the founding fathers were individually somehow angelic? Jefferson was such an idiot that he didn't recognize the profound difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution, and it damn near got him killed.
Unlike halfwit Republicans, I don't have to re-brand anything, and what I stand for is a straight and clear path. The only thing here that is an "inch deep" is your grasp of the Constitution and this country's history.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
This is as ridiculous as your claim that I was praising the Cato institute by criticizing it twice in the same sentence. You have serious comprehension problems. I never once said anything was unconstitutional, you are the one making that argument.
Curiously you introduced the Cato Institute as the possible fill for Rand Paul's cabinet, and somehow people are supposed to intuit this as criticism, when it would be an implied criticism of your own construct -- yet another strawman, and halfwit logic.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
When you accuse someone of a fabrication, the burden is on you. The burden is doubly on you when you went out and showcased your ignorance by saying "terrorists don't use social media." I notice you clammed up about that one. It's obvious by what you avoid and what you've talked around that you know you are wrong here.
No, when Gorka is making a drawn-out assertion by vague reference to some 2nd hand event, with the burden of legitimacy of that assertion resting entirely with him. However the fact remains that his reference to a corrupt application of the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion does not serve any sort of valid rationale for the justification of an all-intrusive police state, violating every aspect of our lives. In point of fact, Gorka's entire argument is nothing but a thin attempt to validate that which is without any validity.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311953/FBI-interviewed-Boston-Marathon-bombing-suspect-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-26-possible-extremist-ties-years-ago-incriminating-information.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311953/FBI-interviewed-Boston-Marathon-bombing-suspect-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-26-possible-extremist-ties-years-ago-incriminating-information.html)
Despite writing a book about how you think there was a false-flag component to Boston, you apparently didn't even know this basic fact.
What fact is that? ONce again you fail to specify, and I'm not about to play go-fish for some unstated fact. If you actually made an effort to express a coherent thought, not just superficial allusions, you might have a hope of recognizing just how asinine your whole argument is.
The idea that Tamerlan was actually examined by the FBI? Yes, we know that. It's common knowledge to anyone remotely familiar with the events. You still don't recognize that this is really not any sort of point whatsoever. There's nothing there that serves as any sort of argument. And somehow this is supposed to have bearing on "false flag", when that term really isn't at all applicable to the consideration.
Quote from: Stryke on July 31, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
I'll post this again, hopefully you don't ignore it again. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexander-92971.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexander-92971.html)
Suddenly the clandestine, top secret program, PRISM, that is so secretive it has the federal government playing "Where's Snowden" across the globe, is now responsible for stopping the 2008 bombing attempt of the NYSE, and the 2009 bombing attempt of the NY subway.
And we're expected to believe this wasn't actually from SIGINT going back to the 60's, and not from its successor Echelon, it was certainly NOT from any sort of field intelligence, and wasn't from the Patriot Act! Nope, it was "all PRISM!"
Somehow we're supposed to accept these claimed successes were ENTIRELY the result of the federal government's shotgun method of gathering, collating, cross-referencing and storing every piece of available data on every American, and every possible foreigner.
And yet somehow, in revealing this program's existence, this program which is nothing but a shotgun method, Snowden has revealed an enormous piece of national security, a thorough traitor, which will actually have this nation's 'real' enemies concluding "Don't do ANYTHING! PRISM is watching everthing!" And this is an enormous breach of national security?
And you just lap this up without a question. "Just sit back and enjoy the Orwellian ride!"
I want to thank you for being the poster child as to why so many halfwit Republicans are such an extreme hazard to themselves, killing that party, gave us McCain and Romney (who you 'enthusiastically supported'), and are such a direct threat to our essential freedoms.
You want to talk Constitution? Do you have any idea whatsoever why Romney's rendition of the 10th Amendment as "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" is such a gross corruption?
QuoteI stated that PRISM has not thwarted a single attack."
Ohh, you "stated." :lol: So I guess that makes it true. Your word over Gen. Alexander's, I see. The problem with you calling BS on what the intelligence community says is it leaves us nowhere. If you won't accept their word, then there's really nothing anyone can do to prove anything to you. Nobody is going to give you an invitation to Ft. Meade.
QuoteAlien and Sedition acts ..... as if these somehow relate to sacrificing individual liberty for alleged national security.
"Constitutional conservative" and you really *don't* know what the Acts were. Indeed, an "are you fucking kidding me?" moment, and one that informs this next response:
As I look over your incoherent responses, I get what is going on here now. You can't accept the idea that maybe what the founding fathers believed isn't opposed to PRISM and it's not unconstitutional. You can't accept that you know less on counter-terrorism than actual professionals. You can't accept the idea PRISM prevented terror attacks and actually is constitutional.
Why? Because all of these things deconstruct the grade-A bull you've posted. You have nothing left in this conversation if you accept those truths, and that explains your evasive responses.We're on a public forum and I understand you've built yourself a little rep here posting ten times a day about the same thing. You have to save face, I get it. But I've given you the facts here. When you turn off the computer, or maybe when you become a mature adult, you can accept them or stay blind. Your choice.
I yield the floor to Tom Cotton, who can explain this whole thing better than I possibly could and in less time: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cotton-nsa-amendment-do-not-take-tool-away-our-warriors_740949.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cotton-nsa-amendment-do-not-take-tool-away-our-warriors_740949.html)
Unlike you, he has actually fought and bled against the enemies of our country, fought for the freedoms that you disgracefully disregard as worthless when you say our country is no better than the Putin regime.
Quote from: Stryke on August 01, 2013, 12:22:49 AM
As I look over your incoherent responses, I get what is going on here now. You can't accept the idea that maybe what the founding fathers believed isn't opposed to PRISM and it's not unconstitutional. You can't accept that you know less on counter-terrorism than actual professionals. You can't accept the idea PRISM prevented terror attacks and actually is constitutional. Why? Because all of these things deconstruct the grade-A bull you've posted. You have nothing left in this conversation if you accept those truths, and that explains your evasive responses.
I've got a simple question here. The founders stated what the sole purpose of government is. Do you have any idea what this purpose was, and where it is stated?
Quote from: Stryke on August 01, 2013, 12:22:49 AM
We're on a public forum and I understand you've built yourself a little rep here posting ten times a day about the same thing. You have to save face, I get it. But I've given you the facts here. When you turn off the computer, or maybe when you become a mature adult, you can accept them or stay blind. Your choice.
You have not provided facts; you evidently don't know what facts are. What you've done is regurgitate the government line, nothing more, and without any thought process whatsoever, much less any coherent rationale.
I don't worry about rep. I gave up being a populist created many years ago, and sometimes have chosen to pay a price rather than kowtow in compliance.
Quote from: Stryke on August 01, 2013, 12:22:49 AM
I yield the floor to Tom Cotton, who can explain this whole thing better than I possibly could and in less time: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cotton-nsa-amendment-do-not-take-tool-away-our-warriors_740949.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cotton-nsa-amendment-do-not-take-tool-away-our-warriors_740949.html)
Unlike you, he has actually fought and bled against the enemies of our country, fought for the freedoms that you disgracefully disregard as worthless when you say our country is no better than the Putin regime.
I guess having been shot somehow endows one with an innate understanding of the appropriate balance between government and freedom. Evidently my sticking myself with pencil lead is what puts me so far ahead of you.
I really don't think you have any clue at all what sort of government we're living under right now. You're just assuming that everything is status quo, and we're sailing right along as usual, meanwhile the rocks are looming and we've got no one competent at the helm.
Two years ago I was shadowed for at least 36 hours by two federal agents in a black SUV. I say "at least 36 hours" because I have no idea how long they'd been there when I happened to notice them in a window reflection. They reason they were following me is that I'd taken publicly available scientific data from Yellowstone, done my own current and historic analysis, and recognized that there was a considerable threat from that volcano. Two days later I got confirmation of my analysis through indirect contact with a Ph.D volcanologist dedictated to Yellowstone, as he headed out the door to do an unscheduled emergency seismic refraction survey of the chamber's volume and explosivity, all with 8 feet of snow on the ground in the middle of winter.
The problem wasn't what I published. The problem wasn't any sort of national security. The problem was a government that has so thoroughly corrupted the scientific process with bureaucratic filtering that scientists can no longer make statements about their conclusions that might conflict with the political determination.
(Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity, Obama, 2009 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-and-agencies-3-9-09))
( Application of Scientific Integrity to DOI, 2010 (http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/09/interior-secretary-salazar-issues-scientific-integrity-order7000))
(Yellowstone Hazard Response Protocols instituting Scientific Integrity (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1351/))
There's a problem with this Orwellian "Scientific Integrity" when it is filtered by political bureaucracy, not just in the thorough corruption of the scientific process itself, but also in removing the public from any Right to Know. But it too is justified under "national security." Yes, they've actually created a Police State for science as well.
The use of PRISM is no different. When it's not done in the full light of day, it quickly becomes corrupt.
Incidentally, I finally got rid of that federal tail by sending an attractive young lady out to their SUV with two coffees, creamers and sugar, along with the tip "get a life". They were quite pissed. One small victory for the good guys.
That isn't America, and I'm quite certain we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. Things are too far advanced for you to not recognize the problems on your own, much less be cocky in your ignorance.
Pit time!
Quote from: Reality on August 01, 2013, 03:25:09 AM
Pit time!
Why?
I'm waiting for someone to post actual proof one way or the other.
In most minds, having the govt spying on it's citizens crosses the line, but sadly most have become used to it because most own cars and have made the disconnect between actual freedom as compared to privilege, privilege is obtaining a license with the stipulation that it is not an extension of the person and does not come with the same Rights afforded the person, so getting pulled over and having ones vehicle searched, by annex they have become accustomed to authority over privilege and connect this as a loss of freedom.
The same thing is happening with the NSA and FISA, and the fact that we have an administration usurping the law and using a Govt entity to effect the outcome of a Presidential race, is evidence alone that the Fed needs to be hamstrung and remove it's stolen power over the privacy of our lives.
If you associate libertarianism or the CATO Institute with progressive or statist thought then there is something seriously wrong with you.
I am no fan of CATO but they are not progressives. That is just silly.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2013, 07:17:04 AM
If you associate libertarianism or the CATO Institute with progressive or statist thought then there is something seriously wrong with you.
I am no fan of CATO but they are not progressives. That is just silly.
Since both involved here are relative newcomers, I'm not going to brand either one a crackpot, progressive, or (*shudder*) a statist. (*ritual spit*) And at the risk of slavishly clinging to Solar's leg here, I agree it's nice to just wait for
either party above to present a little more support for their case.
Those lovable bomb-chuckers in 3-piece suits and powdered wigs over at CATO are
so progressive....
NOT. Deep in their heart of hearts, they're Whigs.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2013, 07:17:04 AM
If you associate libertarianism or the CATO Institute with progressive or statist thought then there is something seriously wrong with you.
I am no fan of CATO but they are not progressives. That is just silly.
I'm just flying blind here, but my telepathy is saying you're addressing me.
There is such a thing as progressive libertarianism, and it pretty much sums up a lot of what's coming from the current populist Libertarians. The idea that contemporary popular Libertarian ideology, entirely too libertine in focus, actually resembles this country's founding principles is nonsense. I mean, gay marriage, and somehow it being a right to redefine a principle as old as human society, stemming from the fact of mankind's biological reproductive necessity, is not at all congruent with the founder's principles, is not exactly a concept the founders would support, and for good reason.
Did you actually read Alex Nowrasteh's article, "In Praise of Birthright Citizenship" (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/praise-birthright-citizenship)? If one ignores what he's advocating, and the open borders. and just focuses on the alleged statements of fact he offers, it's a gross misrepresentation of those facts and history.
His opening statement is utterly false, that the 14th Amendment provides for the grant of birthright citizenship to the American-born children of unauthorized immigrants and lawful immigrants. It nowhere did that, and was never intended by the its authors, nor the Congress. Anchor babies only came about 30 years afterwards, and there are even statements from Congress only 6 years afterwards that recognized that the country has never recognized dual allegiance, thereby making citizenship to those born of both authorized and unauthorized foreigners an impossibility.
Nowrasteh indicates that during the debate, it was understood that the citizenship clause would extend to the children of immigrants who were, under the existing immigration law, unable to naturalize, such as Asians and other nonwhite immigrants. No it was not understood, as those immigrants actually owed allegiance to another country. If they were unable to naturalize, such as Chinese, that was actually resolved by a treaty, not the 14th Amendment.
Nowrasteh then provides a quote from Senator Jacob Howard, "will not, of course, include persons in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Evidently Nowrasteh is parsing that statement made the floor the floor by Howard, failing to recognize that each comma represents a different class of citizens, and not just making a run-on statement excepting only ambassadors or foreign ministers, which would not need to be indicated anyway.
Senator Howard also indicated,: "I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
The statement from Trumbull which Howard a was agreeing with was specifically, "The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Once again we have the consideration of those with dual allegiance, as those who are born of alien parents, are not subject to the complete jurisdiction, do owe allegiance to the country of the parents, and would not be citizens of the United States.
I could dissect the entire nonsense written by Nowrasteh and demonstrate it as corrupt nonsense, as well as provide a long history of supporting references.
Contrary to Nowrasteh's claim, this country never provided birthright citizenship to those born on American soil, not until after the corruption of the Wong Kim Ark ruling.
Quote from: Stryke on August 01, 2013, 12:22:49 AM
Ohh, you "stated." :lol: So I guess that makes it true. Your word over Gen. Alexander's, I see. The problem with you calling BS on what the intelligence community says is it leaves us nowhere. If you won't accept their word, then there's really nothing anyone can do to prove anything to you. Nobody is going to give you an invitation to Ft. Meade.
"Constitutional conservative" and you really *don't* know what the Acts were. Indeed, an "are you fucking kidding me?" moment, and one that informs this next response:
As I look over your incoherent responses, I get what is going on here now. You can't accept the idea that maybe what the founding fathers believed isn't opposed to PRISM and it's not unconstitutional. You can't accept that you know less on counter-terrorism than actual professionals. You can't accept the idea PRISM prevented terror attacks and actually is constitutional. Why? Because all of these things deconstruct the grade-A bull you've posted. You have nothing left in this conversation if you accept those truths, and that explains your evasive responses.
We're on a public forum and I understand you've built yourself a little rep here posting ten times a day about the same thing. You have to save face, I get it. But I've given you the facts here. When you turn off the computer, or maybe when you become a mature adult, you can accept them or stay blind. Your choice.
I yield the floor to Tom Cotton, who can explain this whole thing better than I possibly could and in less time: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cotton-nsa-amendment-do-not-take-tool-away-our-warriors_740949.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cotton-nsa-amendment-do-not-take-tool-away-our-warriors_740949.html)
Unlike you, he has actually fought and bled against the enemies of our country, fought for the freedoms that you disgracefully disregard as worthless when you say our country is no better than the Putin regime.
Stryke, are you actually claiming precedent precedes Constitution as proof that spying on all citizens is Constitutional?
From your link....
"Some of you heard the analogy that if you want to have a search for a needle in the haystack, you have to have haystack. This takes a leaf blower and blows away the entire haystack. You will not have this program if this amendment passes and does so despite all of the safeguards you have already heard. This program is constitutional under Supreme Court precedent--not recent precedent--it goes back to 1979, just two years after I was born, the year that one of the young sponsor's of this amendment was born.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cotton-nsa-amendment-do-not-take-tool-away-our-warriors_740949.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cotton-nsa-amendment-do-not-take-tool-away-our-warriors_740949.html)
Quote from: Trip on August 01, 2013, 07:53:55 AM
I'm just flying blind here, but my telepathy is saying you're addressing me.
There is such a thing as progressive libertarianism, and it pretty much sums up a lot of what's coming from the current populist Libertarians. The idea that contemporary popular Libertarian ideology, entirely too libertine in focus, actually resembles this country's founding principles is nonsense. I mean, gay marriage, and somehow it being a right to redefine a principle as old as human society, stemming from the fact of mankind's biological reproductive necessity, is not at all congruent with the founder's principles, is not exactly a concept the founders would support, and for good reason.
Did you actually read Alex Nowrasteh's article, "In Praise of Birthright Citizenship" (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/praise-birthright-citizenship)? If one ignores what he's advocating, and the open borders. and just focuses on the alleged statements of fact he offers, it's a gross misrepresentation of those facts and history.
His opening statement is utterly false, that the 14th Amendment provides for the grant of birthright citizenship to the American-born children of unauthorized immigrants and lawful immigrants. It nowhere did that, and was never intended by the its authors, nor the Congress. Anchor babies only came about 30 years afterwards, and there are even statements from Congress only 6 years afterwards that recognized that the country has never recognized dual allegiance, thereby making citizenship to those born of both authorized and unauthorized foreigners an impossibility.
Nowrasteh indicates that during the debate, it was understood that the citizenship clause would extend to the children of immigrants who were, under the existing immigration law, unable to naturalize, such as Asians and other nonwhite immigrants. No it was not understood, as those immigrants actually owed allegiance to another country. If they were unable to naturalize, such as Chinese, that was actually resolved by a treaty, not the 14th Amendment.
Nowrasteh then provides a quote from Senator Jacob Howard, "will not, of course, include persons in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Evidently Nowrasteh is parsing that statement made the floor the floor by Howard, failing to recognize that each comma represents a different class of citizens, and not just making a run-on statement excepting only ambassadors or foreign ministers, which would not need to be indicated anyway.
Senator Howard also indicated,: "I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
The statement from Trumbull which Howard a was agreeing with was specifically, "The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Once again we have the consideration of those with dual allegiance, as those who are born of alien parents, are not subject to the complete jurisdiction, do owe allegiance to the country of the parents, and would not be citizens of the United States.
I could dissect the entire nonsense written by Nowrasteh and demonstrate it as corrupt nonsense, as well as provide a long history of supporting references.
Contrary to Nowrasteh's claim, this country never provided birthright citizenship to those born on American soil, not until after the corruption of the Wong Kim Ark ruling.
I can't say I have read his article. My interests are more in the direction of economic theory and ethics rather than
political policy.
I take issue with the characterization of libertarians as supporters of a libertine philosophy. Indeed the libertarian philosophy is based on a very strident system of ethics- that of individual self ownership and the illegitimacy of aggression.
Typically libertarians support individual liberty and freedom of association.
The libertarian could not support forcing others to recognize gay marriage no more than they could support forcing people to pay taxes. With that said it would also be inconsistent with libertarian thought for one group to prevent others from entering into whatever contracts they wished, providing the participants are freely consenting adults.
In the case of immigration, free association necessitates that anyone who could freely contract for a job and a place to stay, in another land, should be free to act on this opportunity.
Indeed this is impossible to characterize as progressive or statist, even if it may seem to be in harmony with certain progressive view points. This is because progressive thought champions collective action and political decision making, with an eye toward improving the alleged deficiencies found in a free society. Freedom is held to be incompatible with social justice, progress and human welfare. So the progressives use the state to improve society. The collective is held to be more important than the individual. And in the process their politics becomes their religion.
So it is clear that anything that lifts up the individual and minimizes the role of the state cannot be progressive or statist. Indeed it is the opposite.
And that is exactly what an open borders perspective does- it minimizes the role of the state in determining who can live where, or what rights people have and which associations they may enter into.
It follows from this that those who champion a larger role for political or collective decision making as it regards the movement of people are the true progressives!
Quote from: Trip on August 01, 2013, 01:03:57 AM
I guess having been shot somehow endows one with an innate understanding of the appropriate balance between government and freedom. Evidently my sticking myself with pencil lead is what puts me so far ahead of you.
Nice to know how you feel about veterans' sacrifices.
QuoteTwo years ago I was shadowed for at least 36 hours by two federal agents in a black SUV. I say "at least 36 hours" because I have no idea how long they'd been there
^ This. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
When I went to bed you were still online, and you're still online now. Should I assume this means you've been on for 36 hours? And ---- hey! It's a second hand story. I thought you didn't like those?
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2013, 08:51:28 AM
I can't say I have read his article. My interests are more in the direction of economic theory and ethics rather than
political policy.
I take issue with the characterization of libertarians as supporters of a libertine philosophy. Indeed the libertarian philosophy is based on a very strident system of ethics- that of individual self ownership and the illegitimacy of aggression.
I'm not the only one describing Libertarians as having far too much of a libertine emphasis to reflect the founders principles, or at least not the only one. Mark Levin and numerous others have recognized this as well.
Libertine: one devoid of most moral restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals. A person who is unrestrained by convention or morality.Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2013, 08:51:28 AM
Typically libertarians support individual liberty and freedom of association.
The libertarian could not support forcing others to recognize gay marriage no more than they could support forcing people to pay taxes. With that said it would also be inconsistent with libertarian thought for one group to prevent others from entering into whatever contracts they wished, providing the participants are freely consenting adults.
In the case of immigration, free association necessitates that anyone who could freely contract for a job and a place to stay, in another land, should be free to act on this opportunity.
You say you take issue with this description of Libertarians as LIBERTINE, but then proceed, above, to follow through with an entirely libertine rationalization of self-gratification, a reconstruction of society by purely vapid rationalization, and pretend this is any sort of morality.
You reduce marriage to a process of individual freedom of association, literally self-gratification, when Marriage has just what gratifies one throughout the history of societies over mankind's history, regardless of those societies being separated by time, culture, and geographical boundaries. In every case the recognition of those man-woman relationships has been because of the benefit the pose to societies in bringing up offspring that necessitate a prolonged developmental period to adolescence, to become proto-citizens.
In the case of immigration, this "free association" you recognize, does not involve any regard for the association that is a society, nor a country, nor regard for the individuals in either of these, but rather the individual gratification of those choosing to come and go wherever, basically resulting in a globalist homogenization, boundary-less statism, and disregard for shared goals of those societies, countries, and individuals.
Truly, that's not "immigration" at all, that's just "migration" where there's no society whatsoever.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2013, 08:51:28 AM
Indeed this is impossible to characterize as progressive or statist, even if it may seem to be in harmony with certain progressive view points. This is because progressive thought champions collective action and political decision making, with an eye toward improving the alleged deficiencies found in a free society. Freedom is held to be incompatible with social justice, progress and human welfare. So the progressives use the state to improve society. The collective is held to be more important than the individual. And in the process their politics becomes their religion.
The only difference between Progressives and Libertarians is that one, Progressives, insists on achieving their Social Engineering of society to suit their gratification by government dictate and force, and the other, Libertarians, achieves virtually identical results of social engineering of society to meet their gratificationm by deconstruction of society to serve enable that gratification, by dictate of no force, no society, and no structure.
Both Progressives and Libertarians share the same disregard for outcome.
At least Progressives are honest in their desire to remake society in their own image, but many, if not most, or even all, of current Libertarians actually have the audacity to claim they're some sort of "original conservatism" embraced by this nation's founders, when they're nothing of the sort, and only embraced a small warped part pf this nation's principle and magnified to the extreme, individual gratification, devoid of responsibility, an ideology entirely rejected by this nation's founders.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2013, 08:51:28 AM
So it is clear that anything that lifts up the individual and minimizes the role of the state cannot be progressive or statist. Indeed it is the opposite.
It doesn't lift the individual up, it tears the society down, all to no intelligent end but self gratification.... without any sort of morality at all, and an utter disregard for outcome. There can be no morality where outcome is no consideration.
No, it is not clear. The absence of a state, results in a globalist governance, which is also the end-goal of statists.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2013, 08:51:28 AM
And that is exactly what an open borders perspective does- it minimizes the role of the state in determining who can live where, or what rights people have and which associations they may enter into.
It follows from this that those who champion a larger role for political or collective decision making as it regards the movement of people are the true progressives!
What an open borders does is remove values from society, such as your individual freedoms, that allow you to engage such a blind self-gratification. This may have escaped your vision, but the rest of the world really doesn't care all that much for that sort of total individual freedom, not to mention those same Progressives that Libertarians curiously (and blindly) find themselves so often siding with, by your own admission.
No, it does not "follow" that those who recognize a place for limited government and borders are the progressives; that's just more warped logic in disregard of real outcome.
This government is founded on the wizened perspective that a limited amount of government is necessary to ensure those individual freedoms, but not one to dictate the terms of society in its own image, or remake it for its own gratification.
And you're the guy who said Cato is not progressive! (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femo%2Flaughing%2Fcrying.gif&hash=7dafaa2c50091bfe3081204643cd24aa5cc44bfc)
Quote from: Stryke on August 01, 2013, 09:16:02 AM
Nice to know how you feel about veterans' sacrifices.
^ This. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
When I went to bed you were still online, and you're still online now. Should I assume this means you've been on for 36 hours? And ---- hey! It's a second hand story. I thought you didn't like those?
Nice. An entire post with nothing but Ad hominem address, and no attempt whatsoever to engage real discussion.
You're looking more and more like a progressive every moment.
Quote from: Trip on August 01, 2013, 10:06:17 AM
I'm not the only one describing Libertarians as having far too much of a libertine emphasis to reflect the founders principles, or at least not the only one. Mark Levin and numerous others have recognized this as well.
Libertine: one devoid of most moral restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals
Well then we can add another person, Mr. Levin, to the list of those critics of libertarianism who do not truly understand their target.
For libertarianism is nothing if not an ethical system with a clear morality.
Indeed it is the accepted morality of the inviolability of individual rights. The difference is the libertarian is consistent in his ethics.
Quote
You say you take issue with this description of Libertarians as LIBERTINE, but then proceed, above, to follow through with an entirely libertine rationalization of self-gratification, a reconstruction of society by purely vapid rationalization, and pretend this is any sort of morality.
Not at all. There is a rational and moral foundation to my comments and it is the ethics of self ownership. There is nothing libertine about this moral code.
And further the justification for free association is not self-gratification, for all sorts of aggressive acts can be self-gratifying. Self ownership and the right of free association are deduced from ontological facts of human existence. One could say this is a vapid rationalization but you can't form an argument against self ownership with out at once demonstrating that you do indeed own yourself, lest you wouldn't be able to marshall the resources of body and mind to form an argument. And further the mere forming of an argument is itself a demonstration of the recognition of the self ownership of the listener, for the goal is to convince the listener of something you want them to believe- implying their will is free to choose.
Quote
You reduce marriage to a process of individual freedom of association, literally self-gratification, when Marriage has just what gratifies one throughout the history of societies over mankind's history, regardless of those societies being separated by time, culture, and geographical boundaries. In every case the recognition of those man-woman relationships has been because of the benefit the pose to societies in bringing up offspring that necessitate a prolonged developmental period to adolescence, to become proto-citizens.
In my view tying marriage to individual choices is uplifting marriage rather than debasing it. I see debasement in the discussion of social benefits- as if a "social" conception of the good was more valuable than that of the individual..
Quote
In the case of immigration, this "free association" you recognize, does not involve any regard for the association that is a society, nor a country, nor regard for the individuals in either of these, but rather the individual gratification of those choosing to come and go wherever, basically resulting in a globalist homogenization, boundary-less statism, and disregard for shared goals of those societies, countries, and individuals.
Truly, that's not "immigration" at all, that's just "migration" where there's no society whatsoever.
You are conflating society with state. Society is nothing but those relationships and associations between free people. The only boundaries necessary for society are private property boundaries, rather than national boundaries.
And this free association I am speaking of is not merely self gratifying for every free exchange is a positive sum game. The person hiring the new worker or renting out/ selling their property is also gaining. So this is a mutual gratification.
And how other people feel about the exchange is a moot point providing they have no claim or title to what is being exchanged.
Quote
The only difference between Progressives and Libertarians is that one, Progressives, insists on achieving their Social Engineering of society to suit their gratification by government dictate and force, and the other, Libertarians, achieves virtually identical results of social engineering of society to meet their gratificationm by deconstruction of society to serve enable that gratification, by dictate of no force, no society, and no structure.
Well that is a pretty big difference. One allows the social pattern to evolve in any way that is peaceful and the other uses the force and authority of the state to dictate how people will live.
And there are other differences regarding the rule of law, the extent of property rights, institutional organization, economic policy, etc.
The claim that a free society involves a form of libertarian social engineering is simply illogical. Libertarians support individual liberty and free association. They recognize individual liberty and private property as the foundation of social cooperation. This means that outcomes are determined in a bottom up rather than top down process. Therefore we have no social engineering.
And the claim that without central planning society will deconstruct as yet to be demonstrated. Though there are many examples of society flourishing as a spontaneous order.
Quote
Both Progressives and Libertarians share the same disregard for outcome.
Libertarians and progressives have specific outcomes they are seeking to achieve and they are mutually exclusive. Progressives want to centrally plan the distribution of income and wealth. Libertarians want it to be market determined.
Quote
At least Progressives are honest in their desire to remake society in their own image, but many, if not most, or even all, of current Libertarians actually have the audacity to claim they're some sort of "original conservatism" embraced by this nation's founders, when they're nothing of the sort, and only embraced a small warped part pf this nation's principle and magnified to the extreme, individual gratification, devoid of responsibility, an ideology entirely rejected by this nation's founders.
I think you may be misreading libertarianism. It is rooted in the natural rights theories that animated the declaration of independence. Libertarian economics is more or less an evolution of the old classically liberal political theory of Locke, Smith, Hume, Turgot, Say, Bastiat, Tracy, etc that so influenced the radicals who founded the US government. Certainly the Hamiltonians are excluded here.
What you call an ideology devoid of responsibility is actually quite the opposite. A society based on private property involves a very clear demarcation of responsibility. Individually we are responsible for the actions that violate the property or rights of another. And the private property society locates the responsibility for individual welfare squarely with the individual, rather than with society or the collective. Since all decision making is individual decision making the responsibility for error is on a single person, rather than on the collective. Indeed the distinction between private property and communal property that characterizes the tragedy of the commons, demonstrates clearly the coordinating effects of private property rights on individual responsibility. We could expand this discussion to talk about public property and externalities, but I think the point has been made.
Just because we can say an act benefits or gratifies those engaging in it, it does not follow that we justify this act based on this gratification. For then we could justify any act no matter how depraved.
The justification that libertarians make for the right to free association is rooted in the ethics of self ownership rather than some shallow belief in the supremacy of gratification.
Quote
It doesn't lift the individual up, it tears the society down, all to no intelligent end but self gratification.... without any sort of morality at all, and an utter disregard for outcome. There can be no morality where outcome is no consideration.
Anytime decisions are made at the collective level rather than at the individual level, we have a diminution of individual liberty. And undoing this state of affairs lifts up the individual vs the state.
And you are wrong to characterize this as without any sort of morality at all. Perhaps it is a morality you are not aware of. But there is a very clear and rational system of ethics justifying the peaceful actions of freely associating individuals. And that is the ethics of self ownership.
So you can stop pretending you are describing a libertine philosophy. That is simply a false charge.
Indeed I would love for you to illustrate just what moral system justifies the use of force to prevent others from associating with who they wish, providing the association is peaceful. Just what moral system is capable of justifying restrictions on the peaceful actions of others?
The only "moral" system, if I can call it a moral system, is the system of statism. It is the morality of "might makes rights." It is the system that holds that whatever is good for the state is an ultimate good and that individual needs are subservient to the needs of the collective.
In my book it is the religion of statism that is the truly libertine philosophy, for it lacks a rational ethics.
Quote
No, it is not clear. The absence of a state, results in a globalist governance, which is also the end-goal of statists.
The absence of state results in a bigger state? How do you figure?
Wouldn't the absence of a state lead to tendencies for further decentralization? If you look to the history of the EU, and what is happening now on the American continent, you will see that global government is a product of an agreement between states, rather than something between stateless entities.
Quote
What an open borders does is remove values from society, such as your individual freedoms, that allow you to engage such a blind self-gratification. This may have escaped your vision, but the rest of the world really doesn't care all that much for that sort of total individual freedom, not to mention those same Progressives that Libertarians curiously (and blindly) find themselves so often siding with, by your own admission.
Values do not come from political boundaries. That you think they do so clearly illustrates how deeply you have intertwined your ethics with your politics.
The rest of the world doesn't value freedom? Well you are no doubt correct as it regards the dear leaders of those other countries, but it does not apply to the common people. I don't pretend to know the opinions of the rest of the global population but I do know that history is light on instances of people thriving under centralized control and it is human nature to want to thrive.
Quote
No, it does not "follow" that those who recognize a place for limited government and borders are the progressives; that's just more warped logic in disregard of real outcome.
It follows that if you support central planning in some sphere you are a progressive or a statist to a degree more than someone who does not.
Quote
This government is founded on the wizened perspective that a limited amount of government is necessary to ensure those individual freedoms, but not one to dictate the terms of society in its own image, or remake it for its own gratification.
Limited government?
Do those words have any meaning post Civil War? Or Post WW1-WW2? Or post 9-11?
I can't help but to laugh!
Quote from: Trip on August 01, 2013, 10:14:31 AM
Nice. An entire post with nothing but Ad hominem address, and no attempt whatsoever to engage real discussion.
You're looking more and more like a progressive every moment.
Anyone who believes Boston was an inside job, thinks he is being followed by government agents, thinks Russia as a freer country than the United States, dismisses national security professionals in favor of his own political biases isn't worth a discussion with. The nonsense is too baked in your cake.
Especially when you truly believe freedom tastes no different to those who have fought for it - that wearing the uniform somehow makes you no more credible than anyone else in a national security discussion. That last point
alone is why you are not a conservative. In fact, I can't believe you even get away with saying something as disrespectful and unpatriotic like that on these forums. Take that avatar down, you don't rate it.
AND, I might add - this thread isn't supposed to be your personal space to give 6-paragraph responses to every sentence you disagree with. You hijacked this thread in legendary ways, yet, I was the one accused of trolling here? Over the guy who registered two weeks ago and has been posting 10 posts a day?
I'm sure that Rand Paul is just overreacting....our government would NEVER use such private information for anything like harassing innocent folks, right? :rolleyes:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlanticwire.com%2Fimg%2Fupload%2F2013%2F08%2F01%2FAP859274038151%2Flarge.jpg&hash=c50b471663558a7cbf15bd147cb955df75568f44)
Michele Catalano was looking for information online about pressure cookers. Her husband, in the same time frame, was Googling backpacks. Wednesday morning, six men from a joint terrorism task force showed up at their house to see if they were terrorists. Which prompts the question: How'd the government know what they were Googling?
The men identified themselves as members of the "joint terrorism task force." The composition of such task forces depend on the region of the country, but, as we outlined after the Boston bombings, include a variety of federal agencies. Among them: the FBI and Homeland Security
They mentioned that they do this about 100 times a week. And that 99 of those visits turn out to be nothing. I don't know what happens on the other 1% of visits and I'm not sure I want to know what my neighbors are up to.
One hundred times a week, groups of six armed men drive to houses in three black SUVs, conducting consented-if-casual searches of the property perhaps in part because of things people looked up online.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/#.UfqCSAXy7zQ.facebook (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/#.UfqCSAXy7zQ.facebook)
Quote from: Stryke on August 01, 2013, 11:14:50 AM
AND, I might add - this thread isn't supposed to be your personal space to give 6-paragraph responses to every sentence you disagree with. You hijacked this thread in legendary ways, yet, I was the one accused of trolling here? Over the guy who registered two weeks ago and has been posting 10 posts a day?
This thread is in Poli, where debate happens. The thread has not been hijacked.
Then I'd have to say I'd be interested in knowing what your definition of a thread being hijacked is. The monologues he's engaged in for more than 2 pages now has zero to do with the original topic of this thread.
Quote from: Stryke on August 01, 2013, 12:10:35 PM
Then I'd have to say I'd be interested in knowing what your definition of a thread being hijacked is. The monologues he's engaged in for more than 2 pages now has zero to do with the original topic of this thread.
You've engaged for 2 pages, and you hit a point where you now want to call it hijacking. It doesn't work that way. The thread, still in the context of your OP in regards to Rand Paul. Try to keep it non-personal, if you will.
The topic that ended up being discussed was PRISM, when the point of the thread was Rand Paul.
Quote from: Stryke on August 01, 2013, 12:10:35 PM
Then I'd have to say I'd be interested in knowing what your definition of a thread being hijacked is. The monologues he's engaged in for more than 2 pages now has zero to do with the original topic of this thread.
Back to your original question about Rand, he is not a RINO, the party is infested with them, they are worse than the Dims of the 60s, and Rand brings a different position than that of the libs.
Would I rather see Cruz leading the party? In a heart beat, but Rand (at this point in time) is our best shot at beating the libs from the party.
Cruz for Senate Majority Leader.
Quote from: Stryke on August 01, 2013, 12:16:40 PM
The topic that ended up being discussed was PRISM, when the point of the thread was Rand Paul.
Yeah and guess you inserted the deflection of Prism. You.
Just as with you did with the Louisiana Purchase, and then the Alien & Sedition Acts....
Your desperate search for a nut, isn't my derailing.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2013, 07:17:04 AM
If you associate libertarianism or the CATO Institute with progressive or statist thought then there is something seriously wrong with you.
I am no fan of CATO but they are not progressives. That is just silly.
TL, you might appreciate this, it's what passes for Libertarianism in many minds today, it's an example of how Libertarianism has been bastardized today and why so many young people lean towards it, never actually understanding it.
However, it is also why the Tea movement will pick up a lot of votes, they equate Rand with this bastardized version.
I may not be explaining this very well, I didn't get any sleep last night. :blink:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/uruguay/10216201/A-guide-to-the-worlds-most-libertarian-countries.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/uruguay/10216201/A-guide-to-the-worlds-most-libertarian-countries.html)
Why, you ask? When a thread gets this far off track and the responses back and forth consume nearly a page of print, WHOGAS what's being said.
Quote from: Reality on August 01, 2013, 01:35:09 PM
Why, you ask? When a thread gets this far off track and the responses back and forth consume nearly a page of print, WHOGAS what's being said.
It's still within the context of the Constitution, if it wanders out of those bounds, then it's off topic.
Quote from: Reality on August 01, 2013, 01:35:09 PM
Why, you ask? When a thread gets this far off track and the responses back and forth consume nearly a page of print, WHOGAS what's being said.
It's good discussion... it's OK...
It maybe a good discussion for the two that are hogging the thread with an off topic verbal battle but I'm not sure others think so.
Quote from: Reality on August 02, 2013, 01:59:40 AM
It maybe a good discussion for the two that are hogging the thread with an off topic verbal battle but I'm not sure others think so.
Generally when a thread devolves to two people, we give it one or two days and move them to the appropriate forum, and this one now qualifies.
Until he is willing to answer about his support of Son of a Bitch McConnell i want nothing to do with him.
If Buck Sexton couldn't nail the guy down on it pretty much no one is going to. Be VERY VERY Careful concerning Rand Paul. I feel like he could be another Rubio in waiting. Just better camouflage.
Quote from: Hyperion on March 19, 2014, 01:20:16 AM
Until he is willing to answer about his support of Son of a Bitch McConnell i want nothing to do with him.
If Buck Sexton couldn't nail the guy down on it pretty much no one is going to. Be VERY VERY Careful concerning Rand Paul. I feel like he could be another Rubio in waiting. Just better camouflage.
I think we all share that thought. Once he backed Mitch over Ted, he just as well tattooed a big fat "RINO" on his forehead.
Quote from: Reality on July 31, 2013, 04:33:43 AM
Rand Paul, in spite of how you fell about his foreign policy and use of the military, seems to have the best interest of our country at heart. We are not going to find the perfect candiate and that's what keeps pulling us a part.
Paul, like Oblamer and all other aspiring POTUS candidates, have their own vision of how things should be but their utopian world meets reality when the winner gets the "crossover" brief from the incumbent POTUS. Oblamer came in as some what of a peacenik but look at what has happened since he took office. Nothing militarily has gotten better. Matters of fact nothing has gotten better.
Paul's idea of a nuclear disarmed NK swap for our forces in Korea is a good example of what I call a "Budweiser Vision" or said differently "looks good in the shower". It want happen, he can't make it happen, because there is more to our forces being in SK than just holding the NK's hostage.
The incumbent POTUS starts the crossover briefing by saying "let me tell you how it really is". When he finishes the electee says, "no sh**"!
Obama was never a "peacenik" he only wanted some deluded fools to think he was for their vote. If you look at what he actually said in his campaign speech's prior to the first election it's clear he's as militant as it gets.
The problem is, his militancy, is one which is also anti-capitalist, anti-libertarian (meaning against liberty, not as in libertarian political movement), anti-Constitutional, and anti-American.
On a broader topic, for those who have mentioned their dislike and that they would "never vote for Ron Paul"
Just as a curiosity, which exactly of Ron Paul's positions on our military do you disagree with?
Would it be his very correct position, and oddly enough also very unpopular position among so called "conservatives" that our military is being used to fight wars un-Constitutionally and thus illegally under our law, and Constitution?
Or his position that the U.S. Military exists to protect and defend the citizens and states of the United States, not to serve and act to defend the interests of foreign sovereignty's, which is I would add also Constitutionally a correct position.
Quote from: daidalos on March 28, 2014, 01:48:58 PM
Obama was never a "peacenik" he only wanted some deluded fools to think he was for their vote. If you look at what he actually said in his campaign speech's prior to the first election it's clear he's as militant as it gets.
The problem is, his militancy, is one which is also anti-capitalist, anti-libertarian (meaning against liberty, not as in libertarian political movement), anti-Constitutional, and anti-American.
On a broader topic, for those who have mentioned their dislike and that they would "never vote for Ron Paul"
Just as a curiosity, which exactly of Ron Paul's positions on our military do you disagree with?
Would it be his very correct position, and oddly enough also very unpopular position among so called "conservatives" that our military is being used to fight wars un-Constitutionally and thus illegally under our law, and Constitution?
Or his position that the U.S. Military exists to protect and defend the citizens and states of the United States, not to serve and act to defend the interests of foreign sovereignty's, which is I would add also Constitutionally a correct position.
It's tough, because we don't like what he's saying, and he's pissing me off. But, he's still voting conservative every time. As long as he keeps voting like he is and preaching conservative positions, he can call himself Karl Marx for all I care.
Heritage Action Scorecard has him at 97%. One of the votes that went against HAS was about taking away Federal Reach over the interstates, so that one was even about making the Fed smaller.
http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com/members/member/P000603 (http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com/members/member/P000603)
I think at this point, he's positioning politics, and that's fine I guess, as long as he keeps voting like he is. I'd really like him to come out and start swinging against McConnell though. It may be he's setting him up. Who knows.
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2014, 11:38:37 AM
As long as he keeps voting conservative positions,
And I believe that will be the path to his success.
Conservatives are all about action, as in a voting record, while the rest are all about "Feel good Talk", and I believe he knows this, and knows it will play well to the libs that just bailed on the Dim party and jumped on the Libertarian band wagon.
Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2014, 06:12:50 PM
And I believe that will be the path to his success.
Conservatives are all about action, as in a voting record, while the rest are all about "Feel good Talk", and I believe he knows this, and knows it will play well to the libs that just bailed on the Dim party and jumped on the Libertarian band wagon.
He is not my first pick, but I would have no problem being for him 100%. I do not necessarily agree with his foreign policy positions, but unlike many on the right, I am not looking for a candidate that is 100% aligned with my thoughts. The goal is to not have a democrat in the WH.
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 30, 2014, 05:06:06 AM
He is not my first pick, but I would have no problem being for him 100%. I do not necessarily agree with his foreign policy positions, but unlike many on the right, I am not looking for a candidate that is 100% aligned with my thoughts. The goal is to not have a democrat in the WH.
Same here, and a Paul POTUS is palatable as compared to another socialist RINO.
Though a Cruz would definitely get me excited. :thumbup: