Magox

I enjoy the discussion Greg, and I share some of the concerns that you have, specifically the slippery slope aspect of it all and the need for more oversight. But as of right now, there is no definitive proof that shows that the government's NSA data collection program is spying on its citizens for purposes outside of its intended goal and that the motive to create such a program was for reasons not related to the defense of the homeland. That sir, is A fact. Doesn't mean that at the end of the day that is the correct position, just that what has been released doesn't prove that case. I think some people lose sight that the NSA data collection program is just a tool. Sort of like the debate about guns, does a gun kill people or do people kill people? Often people want to go after ways of regulating gun control with the hopes of reducing crime (or playing to their political base). And the other side blames it on the people in the hopes of preserving their gun rights. It's not a perfect analogy but I see the NSA data collection as something similar, the collection of data in itself doesn't do anyone harm. It's how that collection of data is to be used where the problems can arise. My view of the government is that often times its very incompetent and that politicians with their advocacies, proposed bills and moments of broadcasted faux rage can make things worse. But by in large, I believe that the overall intent of the government is to try to do some good. We aren't talking about a despot government but a government that has many checks and balances in place and a very curious privately owned media that helps in this regard as well. Its good that the media is shining a light on this, I welcome that. Helps keeps things more honest.

You've yet to present anything that effectively makes the case that the government is systemically breaching people's privacy rights outside of the 4th amendment. GG and I have both asked for you to present something that unequivocally backs up this claim but the only thing you have done is make your own opinionated case (which is fine because it adds your context, but doesn't prove anything) and provide a few links that offer opinions from other people that share your view. I thought that was part of your argument, then if it isn't part of your argument then why make it part of your case. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, I know it's pretty clear that your believe that the 4th amendment is being broken, that's fine, I disagree. But to my understanding you are taking it to a different level. Which is that the government is systemically spying on its own people for the purpose of "power". If I have misunderstood you, then why do you believe they are spying on us?

The closest thing you've produced to backing your assertion that the government is systemically legally breaching peoples privacy in order to spy on them for purposes of "power" outside of their stated confines has been this: I think the key word here is "routinely". If that is the case, then I would consider this to be a breach. However, the problem is this is her opinion, which not only was rejected by the court but hasn't even been brought back on appeal. I've done my homework and I've concluded that there is no such breach. Not to say that this is definitive, because there is a possibility that it exists, but I have yet to see any evidence that proves your argument that the government is spying on its citizens for purposes of "power".

Just copy and paste an example of the government involved in a definitive systemic legal breach of peoples privacy. I want to give what you are saying a shot of being true. Nothing you have provided shows this or even comes close to proving your point.

It may help make the case but it doesn't prove anything.

Yep, that's a ringing endorsement. Yes, it will be awesome to witness the epic smack down and meltdown come November.

I am looking forward to the race, should be very entertaining. But more importantly, it should lead to a lot of introspection among conservative voters and hopefully the conservative media hucksters influence will be more diminished.

I'm surprised OC believes Trump has a real shot at winning the general election. He doesn't.

Wow

We've been reading about this for years and I have yet to see any proof that suggests the government is involved in a coordinated scheme to spy on its citizens for the nefarious purposes that Greg believes it to be.

This is unlawful and it's not something that the government is in on, but rather some rogue agents breaking the law for their own purposes. Nothing I have ever read about the NSA surveillance program has ever shown me that the government has attempted and/or been approved by FISA to spy on its own citizens for any purposes outside of its intended goal. All I have read is a few security experts that assume that some wrongdoing is occuring and instances of rogue agents abusing the tools that are available to them. That is why I was asking if you could copy and paste me some of the instances that you were referring to that show a systematic legal breach of peoples privacy. Yes, you could make an argument that a few agents breaking the law is a systematic breach, but I don't consider that to be an example of what I am talking about. I am referring to a coordinated effort by the government to snoop on its own citizens to "remain in power" as you say. I have never read anything close to being definitive backing what you claim, aside from assumptions. I will gladly change my view on this if I could actually see proof of your assertions.

I read through that link and there is nothing definitive that shows there is a systemic legal breach of peoples privacy in there. The closest thing that I found other than a few security experts assumptions of systemic breaches was an instance where a FISA judge questioned the government's possible overreach on a particular case. I must have missed it, can you copy and paste me where there is a definitive systemic legal breach of peoples privacy from that link or anywhere else? Data collection in a lock box doesn't count. To believe what you are propagating is to believe that several different levels of government are in on a systemic scheme of spying on US citizens. From the Judicial branch (in which FISA has to sign off on it), intelligence services, congress to the executive branch. In other words, it would be conspiratorial. Aside from the NSA's clear objective of protecting the homeland, what is the motive behind the NSA to do what you believe that they do? It appears from what you have been saying and definitely in that link (which by the way, they somehow make the connection that white judges are to blame and considering that they made the racial link, I'm guessing they are insinuating that white people don't care about matters of privacy) that the NSA has been collecting data under the guise of fighting terror. So why is there a conspiracy from the government to "snoop" on US citizens if it isn't for protecting the homeland?

Give me an example of what Snowden leaked that shows there is a systemic legal breach of peoples privacy. I don't doubt what you say, just would like to know of these troves of information that show otherwise.

100%. Both sides do it. That's what I implied.

Are you referring to the spying?

What you and other liberals are proposing is a wealth distribution scheme on the private sector by federal fiat. If A has the money, lets mandate them to share more of the pie to B. Which should equal more economic growth, right? Considering that A will just horde their money and stuff it away somewhere in Panama, doing no good for the overall well being of the economy. Whereas if they just shared the wealth by mandate, B the deserving party will actually use that money and pump it back into the economy. That's the thinking, right? I say this in all seriousness, liberal economic orthodoxy is so linear and full of holes. Anyone thinking that the government is going to help drive the economy through some sort of minimum wage scheme really has no grasp of the economy. The minimum wage is there in my view to help stop abuses by some employers, not as some sort of economic panacea. It's a regulatory measure to help around the edges, nothing more.

If the government is monitoring our movements, correspondence, and phone calls 24/7, it's not because of any sort of legislation or executive action instituted by the government, but because of some rogue government employees abusing the tools provided to them. There is no legal form of monitoring of our phone calls, movement or correspondence only unless there is reasonable suspicion of potential harm to the homeland. In other words, there is nothing different today than at any time before us other than improved technology. Storing data in a lock box does not constitute a breach of privacy.

I'm still trying to figure out whose fault the 2008 economic collapse should be attributed to.

I think it's becoming clearer by the day that federal one-size-fits-all mandates are impractical and nonsensical. I know it gets old hearing conservatives push for states rights solutions, but if you really think about it, makes a whole lot more sense. If the federal government wants to get involved and push the country a certain direction, they shouldn't do it through these mandates, but more so with a carrot and stick approach through incentives.

Who is responsible for the 2008 economic collapse?

Which is precisely one of the main problems with instituting a minimum "living wage". I had posted something considerably longer largely on this very same topic and at the last moment decided to delete it. For arguments sake, lets just say that a minimum federal "living wage" is $18 an hour. Which of course means that this is the new minimum wage for low skill workers such as burger flippers, cashiers etc. That is approximately about a 100% increase above the old minimum wage. How many higher skilled positions exist today between the current minimum wage and the new proposed $18 an hour "living wage"? Tons, right? So of course, this would mean that virtually all these positions would need to be raised substantially, correct? How does every small business and corporation absorb such a cost? Even the really profitable companies, do they just eat it? Of course not, they probably cut some costs around the edges (such as benefits for employees) and raise the cost of the underlying product or service they provide. What about the semi profitable companies? They cut costs and benefits for their employees, raise costs of their products and probably look at ways to cut human capital. Less Jobs, more automation. What about those borderline profitable companies? Many of those simply go under. Any new startup will now look at a brand new huge obstacle along with the healthcare law as impediments to succeeding. The cost of capital opportunity suddenly becomes that much more risky. Without doubt, you get less startups, innovation and less overall job creation. Jobs that are being provided should never be about a "living wage" but a fair wage. I can't think of a more fair system than the market dictating your value. It's not perfect and there are certain cases and instances that employers abuse the market for their purposes. But just like anything in a market, sometimes prices get over inflated and vice versa under priced but at the end of the day they end up correcting themselves to a more optimum price level. Same as the job market.

I support reforms that address many of the undocumented immigrants that are here, I do not support a president who unilaterally tries to do it on his own, specially one of this magnitude. Executive orders I've always believed were to supposed to help around the edges, this takes it to a whole new level. Something like this should go through the proper channels of how government typically works, and if you don't have the votes, too bad. It will most likely be overturned.

It will be blocked, as it should.

I assume that many uber liberals such as yourself think this way...... "How can anyone support a policy if it doesn't clearly and linearly help them?"

It doesn't.