Bush signs spy bill and draws lawsuit

[Achilles]

And I prefer the mob, especially a well-informed mob, to the elite, even if said elite is elected.

Nope, sorry, I'll still pass.

 

Mobs are fickle. What you're describing sounds like something that's only a hop, skip, and a jump away from anarchy, if not outright anarchy itself.

 

IMO, we're not given much of a choice at election time anymore, as the candidates always seem to end up serving the government's interests instead of the people's.

Again, who's fault is that?

 

Agreed. That and honest politicians (snicker) who'll actually do while they're in office what they say they're going to do while they're running for office.

My point was that well-informed citizens that vote are the ultimate checks and balances. How did we get to where we are? A mixture of uninformed (or poorly-informed) citizens that vote and informed citizens that don't vote.

 

Your forum would have to get it's information from somewhere, wouldn't it?

Indeed. Are you positing that "the media" is the only possible source of information?

 

Or for that matter, aren't we all capable of reading something and being able to distinguish what is fact and what is opinion? Critical reading is a skill. If everyone was taught how to do it, then everyone would be able to do it.

[Litofsky]

I am extremely displeased with the candidates on their votes for this law.

Quote for truth. I think that I mentioned that earlier in the thread. Wouldn't it be great if we actually had leader that would lead instead of rule?

 

My point was that well-informed citizens that vote are the ultimate checks and balances. How did we get to where we are? A mixture of uninformed (or poorly-informed) citizens that vote and informed citizens that don't vote.

 

If I remember correctly, America's turnouts are around 40%, though other 'Western' countries have nearly double that (I believe that Australia has about 95% voter turnout. After all, it's one step away from being mandatory ).

 

 

Or for that matter, aren't we all capable of reading something and being able to distinguish what is fact and what is opinion? Critical reading is a skill. If everyone was taught how to do it, then everyone would be able to do it.

 

That wouldn't be a problem, except most people [that I know] cannot distinguish fact from opinion (or, at least, the line between the two is blurred). If people would take things at face value (and, by that, I mean without prejudices based on previous experiences), we'd be a much happier, much safer world.

[Arcesious]

Well I guess you're right Achilles...

[Achilles]

If I remember correctly, America's turnouts are around 40%, though other 'Western' countries have nearly double that (I believe that Australia has about 95% voter turnout. After all, it's one step away from being mandatory ).

40% of registered voters or 40% of adults eligible to vote? The latter scenario would be sad. The former would be even sadder (IMO).

 

That wouldn't be a problem, except most people [that I know] cannot distinguish fact from opinion (or, at least, the line between the two is blurred).

I've encountered that a few times myself. I still think this is largely because people aren't taught how to differentiate. Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe people are taught how to think critically but choose not to. I hope that isn't the case.

[tk102]

I am extremely displeased with the candidates on their votes for this law.

 

Yet remember prior to yesterday, we had the NSA doing as they pleased under orders from the White House. Would we prefer that Congress not pass anything, furthering a Constitutional stalemate?

 

This law still establishes FISA courts as the sole authority that can grant wiretaps. It has loosened its regulations but it hasn't reliquinshed its authority. Court orders are still required to legitimize surveillance of American citizens including those overseas.

 

I'm not happy with the newly passed legislation, mostly because Bush seems overjoyed by it, but I still carry the hope that the loopholes in the new law will used by a future administration to prosecute those private and public persons who authorized illegally wiretapping under the previous FISA law.

[Arcesious]

I've encountered that a few times myself. I still think this is largely because people aren't taught how to differentiate. Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe people are taught how to think critically but choose not to. I hope that isn't the case.

 

Beleive me, all the problems of the world can be a huge headache. Some people would just rather stay out of it and not worry about it. Then again, some people just don't care enough to check things out for themselves.

[Samuel Dravis]

Yet remember prior to yesterday, we had the NSA doing as they pleased under orders from the White House. Would we prefer that Congress not pass anything, furthering a Constitutional stalemate?

From what I understand, the NSA's 'doing as they pleased' (at least in respect to warrantless wiretaps) was illegal yesterday and is still illegal today. If the telcos participated in illegal actions then the people that are affected should be able to show their grievances through civil means, i.e. civil lawsuits. Telcos are fully aware of what they do and also have lawyers on hand to tell them what they are required to do. Simply because a G-man comes up to me and says it's fine to publish copyrighted material doesn't excuse my doing so, particularly when I am perfectly capable of making sure it is actually ok. I, for example, have access to certain private information about other people. Now, a G-man says "Hand it over, it's important to stop TERRORISM!!1" So I just hand it over, no second thought? Hell no. People are responsible for their actions and should be held so- both criminally and civilly.

 

I really don't care about a constitutional stalemate. If the telcos' actions were illegal then they should get what's coming to them, whether the President likes it or not. If a stalemate results in justice, then I'm all for it.

 

Obama's previous statements on filibustering were purely fluff, as he only said he would support a filibuster on the law in the exact state it was when he released that statement. Any change to the law and he wouldn't be lying-- and of course, there was change. Who could have predicted it? Technically he didn't lie. He seems to have shown an unremarkable lack of integrity.

 

This law still establishes FISA courts as the sole authority that can grant wiretaps. It has loosened its regulations but it hasn't relinquished its authority. Court orders are still required to legitimize surveillance of American citizens including those overseas.

Great. What I see is that it was illegal before, and they did it anyway. And now I should be glad that it's illegal in this new law? Well, since when did they start caring about legality just because Congress passed a new law? Congress passed the previous FISA law and they violated that one seemingly without qualm. What I want is the rule of law. To date, the law has been changing to fit the (distinctly questionable) actions, not the other way around.

 

I'd rather: the government actually follow the law, and THEN, (and only then) if it PROVEN to show that we are missing things with it being too strict, should it be modified to lesser strictness. Note, of course, this course of action is purely hypothetical. It hasn't been tested on this subject, anyway.

 

I'm not happy with the newly passed legislation, mostly because Bush seems overjoyed by it, but I still carry the hope that the loopholes in the new law will used by a future administration to prosecute those private and public persons who authorized illegally wiretapping under the previous FISA law.

Yes, there's a silver lining, but I'd much rather have no clouds whatsoever.

[Litofsky]

40% of registered voters or 40% of adults eligible to vote? The latter scenario would be sad. The former would be even sadder (IMO).

 

I'm afraid that I don't remember. Of course, both situations are sad. Voting is an act of rebellion ('rebellion,' in this context, means you telling your government that you're sick of them, and want a change), if the people realize it or not (at least, that's my opinion of voting).

 

Not voting shows both apathy (which has its hand in destroying civilizations) or laziness (which also has a part in destroying civilizations). It bothers me immensely [when someone doesn't vote].

 

I've encountered that a few times myself. I still think this is largely because people aren't taught how to differentiate. Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe people are taught how to think critically but choose not to. I hope that isn't the case.

 

I think that people's parents have a great part in it (i.g., I want you, my offspring, to follow my views. No questions asked). That's not always so, but in the cases I've encountered, it is. Either way, thinking critically is a key way to survive in the world. Open-mindedness and thinking with a level-head is another good way to keep calm in tough situations.

[Q]

My point was that well-informed citizens that vote are the ultimate checks and balances. How did we get to where we are? A mixture of uninformed (or poorly-informed) citizens that vote and informed citizens that don't vote.

And my point was that the voters are usually limited to a choice between bad and just as bad. That's not much of a choice.

[Achilles]

And my point was that the voters are usually limited to a choice between bad and just as bad. That's not much of a choice.

And my point was that the situation you're describing wouldn't be allowable if people were paying attention (and voting).

 

Going back to my McDonald's analogy; you can complain about the menu or you can choose to cook for yourself.

[Q]

How would that produce better candidates? Just curious.

[TKA-001]

I think Web Rider's post states my views for me pretty nicely.

[Litofsky]

How would that produce better candidates? Just curious.

 

Run yourself. That's not a joke, to be sure. “Be the change you want to see in the world.” ~Gandhi

[El Sitherino]

Any person who would give up their freedom for security does not belong in the US nor any respectable (*hack*) country.

 

The idea that we want to wage war to promote "freedom" yet we deny our very citizens many of these freedoms proves this government and the majority of the American people are emotionally unstable children who need to be re-educated on civil liberties and what it means to be a human being. We should be free to make safe and effective choices, without fear of retribution by money/power-hungry scum.

[Litofsky]

Any person who would give up their freedom for security does not belong in the US nor any respectable (*hack*) country.

 

Respectful is different from influential.

 

The idea that we want to wage war to promote "freedom" yet we deny our very citizens many of these freedoms proves this government and the majority of the American people are emotionally unstable children who need to be re-educated on civil liberties and what it means to be a human being. We should be free to make safe and effective choices, without fear of retribution by money/power-hungry scum.

 

War is the antithesis of freedom (we're destroying another nation for an ideal. Why does that sound familiar?). We're killing in the name of freedom, which is just ironic. Of course, that's my opinion.

 

Either way, this whole business bothers me. The world is, more and more, starting to sound like Britain from "V for Vendetta." Of course, no one cares about that. Why would you? We've got "Halo" and "Call of Duty."

[Achilles]

How would that produce better candidates? Just curious.

Really?

 

It would produce better candidates because people would actually be paying attention (i.e. well-informed citizenry) and therefore would recall their elected representatives (i.e. voting public) if they didn't represent (there's that word again) the interests of their constituencies. In other words, it would send the message that you'd better do what we send you there to do or we'll yank your chain and no funny stuff cuz we're watching.

 

...which isn't happening now.

 

Or to keep things simple: why are there so many McDonald's? Because people keep buying what they are selling. If people didn't buy what they sold, they would have to figure out what the people did want and sell that or go out of business. We keep getting "cheeseburger or chicken sandwich" because that's what we keep buying.

[Litofsky]

Or to keep things simple: why are there so many McDonald's? Because people keep buying what they are selling. If people didn't buy what they sold, they would have to figure out what the people did want and sell that or go out of business. We keep getting "cheeseburger or chicken sandwich" because that's what we keep buying.

 

People are willing to pay for a service-- most will pay for McDonalds, and, therefore, it won't go out of business for quite some time. It's the same with our Government/Congress-- we're willing to pay them extravagant amounts of money (and power! You mustn't forger the power), and they do near squat for us. I draw this conclusion from the fact that both major Presidential Candidates voted for the bill mentioned at the beginning of the thread.

 

Either way, I maintain my "run yourself" stance. Be the change you want to see.

[Achilles]

People are willing to pay for a service-- most will pay for McDonalds, and, therefore, it won't go out of business for quite some time. It's the same with our Government/Congress-- we're willing to pay them extravagant amounts of money (and power! You mustn't forger the power), and they do near squat for us. I draw this conclusion from the fact that both major Presidential Candidates voted for the bill mentioned at the beginning of the thread.

You're going to base your opinion of an entire body of government (dozens and dozens of individual elected officials that may or may not be working hard to "be the change" they want to see) on one vote?

 

Keep in mind that 30+ Senators voted against the measure.

[Q]

Really?

 

It would produce better candidates because people would actually be paying attention (i.e. well-informed citizenry) and therefore would recall their elected representatives (i.e. voting public) if they didn't represent (there's that word again) the interests of their constituencies. In other words, it would send the message that you'd better do what we send you there to do or we'll yank your chain and no funny stuff cuz we're watching.

 

...which isn't happening now.

 

Or to keep things simple: why are there so many McDonald's? Because people keep buying what they are selling. If people didn't buy what they sold, they would have to figure out what the people did want and sell that or go out of business. We keep getting "cheeseburger or chicken sandwich" because that's what we keep buying.

Thank you for explaining. I agree that our system of government would actually work if the citizenry paid attention all of the time instead of just during elections.

[El Sitherino]

Respectful is different from influential.

 

 

 

War is the antithesis of freedom (we're destroying another nation for an ideal. Why does that sound familiar?). We're killing in the name of freedom, which is just ironic. Of course, that's my opinion.

Okay. However none of that disproves my point that such legislation as this is absurd and unconstitutional. As well it completely counters any arguement the US government makes when it claims it wishes freedom.

 

Thank you for explaining. I agree that our system of government would actually work if the citizenry paid attention all of the time instead of just during elections.

 

Judging from the general consensus of the American populace, attention is hardly even paid during elections. They simply hear the things they want, such as "fags don't marry", "war is good for the economy", or "let's look into alternative fuel, like coal"

[Litofsky]

You're going to base your opinion of an entire body of government (dozens and dozens of individual elected officials that may or may not be working hard to "be the change" they want to see) on one vote?

 

Keep in mind that 30+ Senators voted against the measure.

 

I wasn't aware that many Senators voted against it. However, the ones that are planning to run for, arguably, the most powerful position in the United States both supported it (however, a bit of credit to Obama-- he attempted to resist, though he folded in the end...).

 

But I guess I'm not in a situation to change it right now. I'm just another citizen, trying to stay well informed. Hopefully I'll be able to change something... someday...*

 

*But isn't that the goal of everyone, at some point in their life? To make their mark on History. Let's see if anyone knows who Chester Arthur is now.

 

Okay. However none of that disproves my point that such legislation as this is absurd and unconstitutional. As well it completely counters any arguement the US government makes when it claims it wishes freedom.

 

The legislation is absurd and unconstitutional-- just not enough of our elected officials thought so. To top it off, the USA's government gets to claim that it is in the name of "security."

[Achilles]

I wasn't aware that many Senators voted against it. However, the ones that are planning to run for, arguably, the most powerful position in the United States both supported it (however, a bit of credit to Obama-- he attempted to resist, though he folded in the end...).

Whoops, my memory failed me, it was only 28 that voted against it, not 30+. I should have double-checked before I posted. My apologies.

 

And FWIW, despite what several sources have said, McCain chose not to vote on this issue. Whether that is better or worse than Obama's decision to vote for it is up to you to decide.

 

Obama hasn't been very explicit with rationale, which I find to be disheartening considering that a huge part of the reason I've supported him is his Constitutional bona fides. Taken at face value, I'm not very impressed with his decision.

[Litofsky]

Whoops, my memory failed me, it was only 28 that voted against it, not 30+. I should have double-checked before I posted. My apologies.

 

No worries.

 

And FWIW, despite what several sources have said, McCain chose not to vote on this issue. Whether that is better or worse than Obama's decision to vote for it is up to you to decide.

 

I take it as a step in the wrong direction (for Obama, that is. I'm not interested in McCain for this discussion). "Change" is a rather broad term...

 

EDIT: Upon looking further into Achilles' link, I found this: "Clinton (D-NY), Nay." Apparently, Hillary voted it down (or tried to). I just think that is interesting...

 

Obama hasn't been very explicit with rationale, which I find to be disheartening considering that a huge part of the reason I've supported him is his Constitutional bona fides. Taken at face value, I'm not very impressed with his decision.

 

Obama has been rather awkward lately (or, from the information I've seen recently). Apparently, he supports ethanol more than nuclear power (and, from what I've been taught, nuclear power is far safer, cleaner, and more efficient than ethanol.

 

Anyways, I'll be looking forward to Presidential Debates. I want to see some political hot-air.

[Arcesious]

I think we've complained enough about other people not paying attention, and only hearing what they want to hear. The question is- How do you get the majority of Americans to pay attention and seriously and critically think about what they're voting for?

[Litofsky]

I think we've complained enough about other people not paying attention, and only hearing what they want to hear. The question is- How do you get the majority of Americans to pay attention and seriously and critically think about what they're voting for?

 

Well, I know the answer to the opposite of your question ("How do we get Americans to stop paying attention?"): Keep 'em busy. Think about that one.

 

As for getting attention, you'd need to control the media, the entertainment systems, and most other aspects of social life. After that, you'd be able to influence people a great deal. The new question is now, "Is it like that already?" and if no so, "How does one achieve this?"