Hillary

[Reddy]

See, here's the thing. I agree with you, at least broadly, that our surveillance state, drone policy, etc. are s***. Our national political landscape is such that both parties largely support these programs. Even Champion of Liberty Rand Paul doesn't care about drone policy beyond his minor objection; he is still 100% onboard with how we are using them internationally.

 

So I can choose to between two candidates, both of whom have troubling civil liberties an foreign policy ideas, but one of which supports gay marriage etc. I have no reason to believe that Republicans wouldn't be just as bad if not worse these grounds as the Democratic candidate, plus they'll bring a whole host of terrible social and economic policies with them.

 

You can keep saying "drones!" all you want, but it's a really shallow criticism because it doesn't actually give me a reason to support your chosen party/candidates.

^

[DukeNukeEm]

It's amazing how short your memory is.

 

Remind me who was it created the Patriot Act? Drone strikes on American citizens is just an expansion of that policy created by your side.

Yeah the democrats really went out and reversed those policies. You know, as much as I loathe the Patriot Act and all the bulls*** that's associated with it at least in the aftermath of 9/11 you could somehow make the argument that like when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus we actually needed a temporary suspension of some rights because the intelligence community had been so thoroughly gutted after the Cold War ended that they were incapable of protecting the country from an external threat. Now that they've gotten their s*** together again they really shouldn't have these broad powers that exist outside the constitutional realm anymore, but for some mysterious reason the current administration seems intent on expanding these programs instead of phasing them out.

 

I'm half playing devil's advocate here. I really dont believe the Patriot Act was necessary to protect the country, I'm just saying.

[southsider2k5]

It's amazing how short your memory is.

 

Remind me who was it created the Patriot Act? Drone strikes on American citizens is just an expansion of that policy created by your side.

 

It is amazing how short your memory is if you think that is really the beginning of the government spying on and targeting American citizens.

[StrangeSox]

It is amazing how short your memory is if you think that is really the beginning of the government spying on and targeting American citizens.

COINTELPRO, surveillance of everyone prominent person within the Civil Rights Movement, etc.

[Reddy]

It is amazing how short your memory is if you think that is really the beginning of the government spying on and targeting American citizens.

i never claimed it was... lol

[southsider2k5]

COINTELPRO, surveillance of everyone prominent person within the Civil Rights Movement, etc.

 

You can go back all of the way to the Alien and Sedition acts. But then again, Bush can't be blamed for any of those things.

[southsider2k5]

i never claimed it was... lol

 

With the claim that it was an expansion of the Patriot Act, and ignoring any other history (recent or old) you essentially picked out a random point in time to start pointing the finger. Why then, exactly, if you knew better?

[DukeNukeEm]

See, here's the thing. I agree with you, at least broadly, that our surveillance state, drone policy, etc. are s***. Our national political landscape is such that both parties largely support these programs. Even Champion of Liberty Rand Paul doesn't care about drone policy beyond his minor objection; he is still 100% onboard with how we are using them internationally.

 

So I can choose to between two candidates, both of whom have troubling civil liberties an foreign policy ideas, but one of which supports gay marriage etc. I have no reason to believe that Republicans wouldn't be just as bad if not worse these grounds as the Democratic candidate, plus they'll bring a whole host of terrible social and economic policies with them.

 

You can keep saying "drones!" all you want, but it's a really shallow criticism because it doesn't actually give me a reason to support your chosen party/candidates.

There is a massive chasm between our use of drones internationally and the proposal of using them domestically within our borders that you just kind of shrug off.

 

But the bigger issue here is that you'll support a side you know is going to erode your rights because to you they're marginally better than the alternative. I mean the least you could do is be less enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, who of all the potential candidates for 2016 is by far the most likely to make zero effort in curtailing governments intrusion into our rights.

[Reddy]

Yeah the democrats really went out and reversed those policies. You know, as much as I loathe the Patriot Act and all the bulls*** that's associated with it at least in the aftermath of 9/11 you could somehow make the argument that like when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus we actually needed a temporary suspension of some rights because the intelligence community had been so thoroughly gutted after the Cold War ended that they were incapable of protecting the country from an external threat. Now that they've gotten their s*** together again they really shouldn't have these broad powers that exist outside the constitutional realm anymore, but for some mysterious reason the current administration seems intent on expanding these programs instead of phasing them out.

 

I'm half playing devil's advocate here. I really dont believe the Patriot Act was necessary to protect the country, I'm just saying.

 

I think the interesting thing is that you lump all democrats together with Obama, when he is, in fact, the most conservative democratic president we've had in a long time. He's very pro-war, pro-expansion of the executive branch, pro-business, etc, etc.

 

Yes, Obama has expanded the Patriot Act, and I - like you - think that's s***. Unfortunately the reality is that the two parties are very, very similar outside of social issues, and neither is willing to stick its neck out from the status quo.

[Reddy]

With the claim that it was an expansion of the Patriot Act, and ignoring any other history (recent or old) you essentially picked out a random point in time to start pointing the finger. Why then, exactly, if you knew better?

Because I wasn't referring to spying on citizens but to the way we treat those who are perceived as a "threat", which was changed (or maybe just made more public) with the inception of the Patriot Act.

[EvilMonkey]

You could compile such a list about literally anyone.

really? You think Reagan or either of the Bushes went out of their way to berate their security details? Hell Ronnie didn't even like saying 'Damn', he sure as hell wouldn't be throwing f-bombs at the help.

[Reddy]

There is a massive chasm between our use of drones internationally and the proposal of using them domestically within our borders that you just kind of shrug off.

 

But the bigger issue here is that you'll support a side you know is going to erode your rights because to you they're marginally better than the alternative. I mean the least you could do is be less enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, who of all the potential candidates for 2016 is by far the most likely to make zero effort in curtailing governments intrusion into our rights.

 

by electing Ted Cruz? who won't restrict ANY rights I'm sure. especially not abortion and gay marriage.

 

it goes both ways, as we've clearly already discussed in depth.

[Reddy]

really? You think Reagan or either of the Bushes went out of their way to berate their security details? Hell Ronnie didn't even like saying 'Damn', he sure as hell wouldn't be throwing f-bombs at the help.

wow, how well did you know him personally? that must be so cool.

[StrangeSox]

There is a massive chasm between our use of drones internationally and the proposal of using them domestically within our borders that you just kind of shrug off.

 

But the bigger issue here is that you'll support a side you know is going to erode your rights because to you they're marginally better than the alternative. I mean the least you could do is be less enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, who of all the potential candidates for 2016 is by far the most likely to make zero effort in curtailing governments intrusion into our rights.

 

I'm missing where I was enthusiastic about Hillary? I'm curious about greg's fears that she'll literally destroy the country, and I think some of the conservatives' talk itt about how hated she is is silly given her levels of approval, but I'm definitely not an enthusiastic Hillary (or DNC) supporter.

[StrangeSox]

really? You think Reagan or either of the Bushes went out of their way to berate their security details? Hell Ronnie didn't even like saying 'Damn', he sure as hell wouldn't be throwing f-bombs at the help.

 

Did you check the snopes link I posted? A lot of these quotes are poorly sourced or, when checked against the original, have a bunch of extra profanity thrown in, e.g. the sunglasses/Marine One 'quote.'

[DukeNukeEm]

by electing Ted Cruz? who won't restrict ANY rights I'm sure. especially not abortion and gay marriage.

 

it goes both ways, as we've clearly already discussed in depth.

This is purely hypothetical for the purpose of avoiding what would otherwise be a meaningful conversation on actual contenders in 2016 (lol).

 

Candidate A: I will curtail the drone program. Their use on American soil will be prohibited and abroad there will be more oversight. I'll also repeal the Patriot Act, dissolve the NSA (which at this point is too rotten to be saved) and repeal the controversial aspects of the 2013 NDAA. But my religion is against gay marriage so there will be no progress at the federal level in that arena during my presidency

 

Candidate B: I will be a champion of gay marriage, oh by the way I've got this great idea to give drones to State PD's which they can use to blow people up who are involved in high speed pursuits or if we have reason to believe they are trafficking drugs on the interstates.

Edited August 26, 2013 by DukeNukeEm

[southsider2k5]

Because I wasn't referring to spying on citizens but to the way we treat those who are perceived as a "threat", which was changed (or maybe just made more public) with the inception of the Patriot Act.

 

We didn't. Again, we have targeted American citizens who weren't perceived as loyal pretty much since the beginning of this country. This didn't start with GW. That is just silly.

[EvilMonkey]

wow, how well did you know him personally? that must be so cool.

Well I am reading the Reagan Diaries. Good enough for me.

[Reddy]

This is purely hypothetical for the purpose of avoiding what would otherwise be a meaningful conversation on actual contenders in 2016 (lol).

 

Candidate A: I will curtail the drone program. Their use on American soil will be prohibited and abroad there will be more oversight. I'll also repeal the Patriot Act, dissolve the NSA (which at this point is too rotten to be saved) and repeal the controversial aspects of the 2013 NDAA. But my religion is against gay marriage so there will be no progress at the federal level in that arena during my presidency

 

Candidate B: I will be a champion of gay marriage, oh by the way I've got this great idea to give drones to State PD's which they can use to blow people up who are involved in high speed pursuits or if we have reason to believe they are trafficking drugs on the interstates.

neither, because Candidate B wouldn't make it past the primaries on that platform.

[southsider2k5]

I'm missing where I was enthusiastic about Hillary? I'm curious about greg's fears that she'll literally destroy the country, and I think some of the conservatives' talk itt about how hated she is is silly given her levels of approval, but I'm definitely not an enthusiastic Hillary (or DNC) supporter.

 

The funny part is that the last damage to her approval rating was done during the Democratic primaries. Those were her lowest numbers since Bill's impeachment.

[DukeNukeEm]

neither, because Candidate B wouldn't make it past the primaries on that platform.

Candidate B is only a slightly hyperbolic depiction of a two term president.

[Reddy]

We didn't. Again, we have targeted American citizens who weren't perceived as loyal pretty much since the beginning of this country. This didn't start with GW. That is just silly.

so then you support the Patriot Act I assume, since it does nothing new that we weren't already doing?

 

guess I was getting my panties in a bunch for the last decade for absolutely no reason at all! Thanks for enlightening me.

 

Honestly my reason for picking out the Patriot Act, is that many republicans who now yell and scream about drones supported it when GWB was president. That's the only point I was making.

[Reddy]

Candidate B is only a slightly hyperbolic depiction of a two term president.

Who didn't run on that platform, and who - if he had - would have lost in the primaries

[Soxbadger]

id vote candidate A.

 

And talking about candidates isnt that fun because every candidate will be the greatest champion of freedom who will solve every problem and make it rain money.

 

There is no unified vision so its basically just going to be status quo until things get worse

[southsider2k5]

so then you support the Patriot Act I assume, since it does nothing new that we weren't already doing?

 

guess I was getting my panties in a bunch for the last decade for absolutely no reason at all! Thanks for enlightening me.

 

Honestly my reason for picking out the Patriot Act, is that many republicans who now yell and scream about drones supported it when GWB was president. That's the only point I was making.

 

And now you are on the opposite side of the coin. You were upset about it, and now are hand-waving away drone strikes on American citizens.