Pliny Posted June 13, 2013 Report Posted June 13, 2013 The split on the surveillance fiasco is interesting to say the least. The likes of Al Gore and Michael Moore are siding with Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. Odd? Here is a list of how they are split. I think I have copied it right. Think it's Ok: Sen. Lindsay Graham - Republican Rudy Giuliani - Republican Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain - Republican Sen. Dianne Feinstein - Democrat Sen. Harry Reid - Democrat Newt Gingrich - Republican Presidential Candidate Dana Perino - Republican Bush Press Secretary Greg Gutfeld - Libertarian/Republican Political Analyst Fox News Sen. Jeff Medley - Democrat The list that think it is not ok is even weirder: Michael Moore - Liberal political activist Al Gore - Former Vice President Rush Limbaugh - Conservative Talk Show Host Glen Beck - The Blaze Ariana Huffington - Huffington Post Ron Paul - Republican/Libertarian Rand Paul - Republican Congressman Bob Beckell - Democrat Political Analyst on Fox News Rep. John Conyers - Dem Rep. Jerry Nadler - Dem Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
kimmy Posted June 15, 2013 Report Posted June 15, 2013 There's people who were against massive surveillance under Bush but will support it now because it's Obama. There's also people who supported massive surveillance under Bush but now oppose it because it's Obama. Weed out the partisan hackery going on, and you get down to a clash of two sometimes contradictory priorities: liberty, and security. Not really a new conundrum (refer to Pierre Trudeau "just watch me" during the FLQ crisis or Benjamin Franklin "those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither".) It does seem that many current members of Congress have been consistently on the "security" side of that debate, as the PATRIOT Act received strong support from Congress back then just as NSA surveillance has received strong support from Congress right now. But why? It seems like people are pretty angry about this. Why are members of Congress supporting a policy that's so unpopular with their constituents? -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Michael Hardner Posted June 15, 2013 Report Posted June 15, 2013 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22764-us-is-spying-on-its-citizens-and-others/?p=904263 Kimmy - did you see Bush_Cheney's explanation of the Franklin quote ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Pliny Posted June 15, 2013 Author Report Posted June 15, 2013 (edited) There's people who were against massive surveillance under Bush but will support it now because it's Obama. There's also people who supported massive surveillance under Bush but now oppose it because it's Obama. There are probably those who think like that. I don't think the massive surveillance was intended to be as massive as Obama made it. But just a guess. A subsequent Administration, and not necessarily the antecedent, can generally be counted on to abuse powers established by former Administrations sooner than later. Bush, in my opinion, did make a mistake enacting the Patriot Act, that and invading Iraq were his two biggest mistakes besides "Fool me once. Shame on - Shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again!" http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/top10bushisms.htm Weed out the partisan hackery going on, and you get down to a clash of two sometimes contradictory priorities: liberty, and security. Not really a new conundrum (refer to Pierre Trudeau "just watch me" during the FLQ crisis or Benjamin Franklin "those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither".) It does seem that many current members of Congress have been consistently on the "security" side of that debate, as the PATRIOT Act received strong support from Congress back then just as NSA surveillance has received strong support from Congress right now. But why? It seems like people are pretty angry about this. Why are members of Congress supporting a policy that's so unpopular with their constituents? -k I don't know. I just found it surprising what side of the issue some of the individuals noted were on. Al Gore? A big government guy against it! Whodda thunk it? I guess he is just for government engineering society but respecting civil liberties. I suppose some deem it the government's mandate to ensure national security any way they can. Edited June 15, 2013 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
dre Posted June 17, 2013 Report Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) The reason the mix is weird is because this issue breaks down on the north/south access of the political spectrum, not the left/right. Its people with an authoritarian bent and an inability to think rationally that support this kind of thing and those exist on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. Edited June 17, 2013 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Pliny Posted June 18, 2013 Author Report Posted June 18, 2013 The reason the mix is weird is because this issue breaks down on the north/south access of the political spectrum, not the left/right. Its people with an authoritarian bent and an inability to think rationally that support this kind of thing and those exist on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. So you are saying Obama has an authoritarian bent and an inability to think rationally? I think that the authoritarian part may be right as the issue concerns defense. I think the pro faction is composed of "Hawks" and believe in military force and the power position of America globally to solve problems and the cons are comprised of "Doves" including the extreme peaceniks, Moore and Gore. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.