Magox

I view American Politics as a Ying and a Yang. Two contrary forces that compliment one another that serve as a counterbalance. I don't see there being a huge imbalance for an extended period of time. It's possible that the two parties may both drift in a certain direction, as what we are seeing today on the social aspect, but I believe that's as far it will go.

Honest people can have honest disagreements. Of course it's debatable topic to have, is the world better without Saddam? If you were to apply facts to the argument, you could easily make the argument that the world is better. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/magazine/07MAKIYA-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Not to mention all the other atrocities that occurred under his watch such as the An-Anfal campaign that is said to have killed around 200k kurds. Whereas ISIS is responsible for less than 10% of the total mass atrocities that Saddam is responsible for. Also, considering that Iran is looking to obtain a nuclear weapon, everyone, raise your hand if you believe that Saddam wouldn't have also looked to obtain nuclear capabilities as well and would have just allowed their avowed enemies to the east go unabated toward their quest to nuclear dominance in the region. The bottom line, the only way that you could possibly make the argument that this is not a debatable topic is if you were to make the case that the civilians that Saddam killed had less value than the one's ISIS have murdered. Which of course would make that person a dumbass. This is clearly a debatable topic for any well-reasoned thinking person.

Kids

So I guess this means, no more private messages of respect?

You've lost this argument. And fyi, you are taking the same position as Dante

If you would have came out with that simple question on wanting to know my view of his opinion. Then no, that would have been perfectly reasonable. But that's not what happened. I suppose it's unfortunate for you that this thread does record what was typed. And if you look back, I made a simple view of my opinion on the overall program. In which you responded : You support Rubio. Who is wrong on this issue -- and continues to show why he's going to lose. You see? You didn't do that. Your obsession to link me to Rubio is what clouded this entire conversation. I never made mention of Rubio nor his stance, the only one who wanted to lump him into the discussion, was you. And that's a fact. Words matter

The logical one.

The only unhinged aspect of this dialogue between you and I are your fallacies and your obsession to have me speak about Rubio.

So I read it, and I guess you came away with a different interpretation than what was said in the article. You said: That's not what was said, at all. What was said was he was against that specific legislative reform. There is a difference. Words matter. That's not to say that he wouldn't be against any reform, that may end up being the case, but it isn't clear that he feels that the NSA needs any reforms. That was once again you editorializing your views on what was actually said. You also stated: That's an overstatement. You could make the argument that there needs to be more oversight, which that would be arguable, but to say there is little to no oversight simply isn't true. Congress does oversee portions of the NSA, again, the argument isn't that there isn't enough oversight but responding to what you said, which basically there is no oversight.

You don't have to worry about me looking bad, focus on yourself. You keep wanting to goad me into giving an opinion on Rubio's stance. To be honest with you, I haven't even cared enough to read what his exact stance is other than what you are stating. The only reason why I posted was in response to Dante's post, in which I voiced my opinion of the overall program, not what Rubio said. You are desperate to get me to state my opinion about his stance, I said that I am against anyone that is closed-minded about reforming any program to improve it. You said that he was against reforming it. If that is indeed the case, then yes, I'm against his position. You happy? Did you just blow a wad in your pants now? I didn't say you were against the NSA, just that you mischaracterized the facts in that you basically said there has never been any results from the NSA that have been beneficial. We have now seen that was wrong, and to be honest I just posted that not so much to make a point of it's efficacy but to point out to you that you again made a false statement. In regards to the program that Rubio is supporting, which you claim that he wants "little to no oversight" and transparency, again, if that is the case, and I'm gonna check, then I'm against that statement. But if he is saying that he supports basically what I had said earlier, which I can defend a program that doesn't have full transparency and only the necessary oversight through congress, then I'm for that. I'm gonna read it now.

Stop with the bull ****. People often respond to what was said in the post more so than the topic of the thread. Happens all the time. In regards to Rubio being wrong, I think anyone's closed-mindedness to reforming any program to improve it isn't wise. But I'm not talking about Rubio. You are. You are fixated on wanting me to discuss him. Throughout this entire conversation I have been speaking of the value of the NSA program. Focus man. Focus

How are those two statements in contradiction with one another? Supporting the program is one thing, reforming it is another. You do realize that you can be for a program that could be reformed and improved. In regards to the other thread, the conversations there began to bore me so I stopped reading them. What compelled me to post was this statement from the original post: In which I replied: Words matter.

To answer your questions, I believe that the program should be as transparent as it has to be. Some things I believe are best left a secret. I'm not advocating that the entire program needs to be hidden from the public, and I do support some sort of public way either through public or private hearings to report on the efficacy of the program, but I don't believe that most of the details on this particular program need to be divulged. Maybe it' s just me and the experiences I've had in living in other countries in Europe and South America, but I've come to appreciate the country that we live in. I may disagree with many policy proposals and the way those proposals are pitched, but the laws that are on the books are generally well-intentioned. I believe that in the vast majority of the cases, lawmakers are just trying to do what is best for their constituents. Don't get me wrong, sometimes the narrow focus to appease special interest groups get in the way of this process, but by and large, they are trying to do what's right, just that they have a different way of getting from point A to point B. Is Rubio right to want to permanently extend the program? Well, that depends, do you believe that the world will permanently be a place that doesn't pose a homeland threat to the U.S? I probably wouldn't have advised him to say such a thing, but it's not an absurd thing to say. Do I think it should be further examined? Sure, as long as it doesn't expose details that don't need to be exposed that can help our enemies out, and if the examination is done with an honest attempt to improve the program, rather than score points with their base of supporters. You know, there are probably a slightly higher than a handful of posters on this board that although I may disagree with at times, I can count on what they are saying to be true and backed up by facts. You aren't one of them. That's not to say that you aren't a thoughtful and intelligent poster, there are sentiments that you have communicated that I have been in agreement with on various occasions. It's just that, WORDS MATTER. I'm a big proponent of that statement. Words matter. If someone says things that are untrue and that are without factual basis, then in my view that dims their credibility, specially if it's a consistent ongoing occurrence. That's why anyone who makes proclamations or absolute statements should be wary of doing such things, because people like myself take them at their word until proven otherwise. I've on a number of occasions have had to point out your fictional fallacies. We could have skipped all this crap if you hadn't of done a few things, which is to believe that I originally stated that I supported the program , Not Rubio's statement, to only have you jump to the conclusions that were fabricated in your mind that I was defending the program because of Rubio. THAT, was weak. And if you hadn't of made the false statement that the program hadn't helped in which you went as far as to say that it had in your words "Zero" effect. Which we know isn't true. Then you went on to post a link that suggested that Alexander embellished the amount of times the program has helped, but that did even concede that there has been intelligence gathered that has helped thwart attacks. And then you wanted me to defend his embellishments. No, that's a small thinking man's game, I'm not going to defend one person's statement, I'm going to do what you had asked, which was show you an example of how it has helped. And I did. We can have an honest argument of is it worth the cost of a possible breach in people's privacy vs the cost of the amount of lives saved by the program? That's fair, my view is that it is, simply because I don't believe that our government is trying to infringe upon my rights, and that I believe they are honestly trying to save lives. You may think otherwise, or you may think that the efficacy of the program has and will be inefficient and isn't worth the cost. Even though, I haven't heard what cost that people have had to pay as of yet.

At least you are able to stereotype your gibberish into one sentence. For that, I thank you.

The only thing that is running here are your inaccuracies. Your credibility continues to go down the drain.

In other words, you admit that it has helped. Now that we've proven that it has helped and that your statement is unequivocally false thanks to the link you provided. Again, I recommend for you to not post about things that make you appear to be ill-informed. All it does is water down anything else you say moving forward, simply because it is a hit on your credibility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/politics/nsa-chief-says-surveillance-has-stopped-dozens-of-plots.html?_r=0 Now that we've proven that you YET again make baseless assumptions without doing your due diligence, please, I implore you to stop making posts that do nothing other than make you appear to be ill-informed. That goes for you as well.

No, THIS is a bunch of noise. It goes against any semblance of logic to believe that if you have access to this meta data and that you have a suspect that you believe is intent to do harm to the citizens of this country, that looking into that data can not or has not been of any help in thwarting that attempt. If that's what you are saying, then your thought process needs some rejiggering.

You couldn't be further off. It has absolutely nothing to do with Rubio and the fact that you state that shows how little you know how my thought process works. If you are looking for a candidate that doesn't support the NSA, then you can support Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders, because those are the only two that don't. In regards to reforming the program, who said I wasn't for that? Oh, I know, it was the little voice in your head that assumed that to be the case. *Note to the voice in your head, stop making baseless assumptions* In regards to not having assisted in any attempted terrorist attacks. How the !@#$ do you know? Oooooh ooooh, I know the answer, You don't know! So, since it hasn't thwarted every single attempted terrorist attack, the program isn't without merit. Well, that's good to know, considering that's your threshold of success, I know that there was a robbery that just occurred in uhhhh , just about every damn city so let's just call the police force an abysmal failure. Hell, let's just lump every other single law enforcement agency, because they aren't batting nearly 1000% on rooting out their suspects. I'll tell you what's a fraud, are the lacking in substance proclamations that the NSA achieves one single purpose, which is the nefarious intent to spy on it's citizens. That's what's fraudulent.

Give me specifics.

You got me, I'm not a paranoid person.

If that's what you got out of what I have been saying, then I would say to you, re read what I wrote and then get back to me.

What some individuals have done in that case is inexcusable. Aside from the IRS being terribly inefficient, which is a whole another matter, the vast majority of the people who work there are public servants who are just doing their jobs. Let's not pretend that what some of these corrupt individuals did was something so bad that it has irreparably damaged our nation. The best thing that could have come out of this would have been if the DOJ assigned a special investigator to the case and that if wrong doing had occurred, which I believe it did, to have then thrown them in prison. In that case, let's get rid of the CIA and FBI, if you want to go by those metrics. They certainly don't operate under "transparency".

No where does the program state that they would target anyone that is without justifiable suspicion. Your argument is predicated on a hypothetical situation that the program is without merit because some bad apple abuses the power that is possibly granted under the program. Under your scenario and thinking, if you were to remain consistent with that thought, we should just abolish the police force as well. I mean, they have the power to infringe on people's civil liberties, and since they have that capability the police force should cease to exist. There will always be bad apples, but the actions of a few shouldn't discredit the intent and the results of the program. Screw it! Let's just disband the entire government. Since we know that there will always be people who can abuse power, there shouldn't be any power available from the government that could be abused.

Abuse happens, but I'm not paranoid enough to think that they are going to target me. I believe that the program does more good than harm, I also believe that it wasn't created with nefarious intentions and that the intent is to save lives, which I also believe has happened. So, I support it.