The Conservative - Liberal Debate Thread

[arminnie]

I just do not understand this whole fingerprint issue.

I was fingerprinted to receive a secret security clearance FORTY YEARS ago. So what.

I truly do not understand one thing that I have given up by doing that.

DNA of course is a different issue. There are more than a few people out there with paternity that could be challenged by DNA results - but fingerprints?

 

[Planogirl]

I thought that Conservatives tended to be in favor of LESS government. Is that only true if it doesn't involve security?

 

[TCPluto]

That will be addressed right after we are told that we were correct about the fingerprints.

Not today...

 

[Chicago526]

People who feel passionately one way or the other about this or any other issue, need to hold all of their elected officials accountable. You can debate all you want who got the ball rolling on this, but now it's time to look at members of Congress to enact the will of the people. JMHO

You bet! I'm voting this Saturday in a special election to fill departing former Speaker Denny Haserts empty seat.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I just do not understand this whole fingerprint issue.

I was fingerprinted to receive a secret security clearance FORTY YEARS ago. So what.

I truly do not understand one thing that I have given up by doing that.

DNA of course is a different issue. There are more than a few people out there with paternity that could be challenged by DNA results - but fingerprints?

It's not really the fingerprints for most of us. It's about the ability of this or any future government to imprison people, render people, listen to their phone calls, read their emails, check out their borrowing history from the library or track their purchases without a warrant and for no other reason than the nebulous "threat to national security."

What kind of threat? Who decides what constitutes a threat? What governmental branch balances that power?

 

[punkin]

Well, I thought I did that in 2006....

Yeah, me too.

 

[TCPluto]

It's not really the fingerprints for most of us. It's about the ability of this or any future government to imprison people, render people, listen to their phone calls, read their emails, check out their borrowing history from the library or track their purchases without a warrant and for no other reason than the nebulous "threat to national security."
What kind of threat? Who decides what constitutes a threat? What governmental branch balances that power?

I think that federal law enforcement, a number in the low 10's of thousands, is not going to waste their time trying to make a case against any of the high
10's of millions (Just in the USA) people, becasue of their reasding lsit or internet surfing. It just doesn't work that way in the real world.

 

[Chicago526]

I think that federal law enforcement, a number in the low 10's of thousands, is not going to waste their time trying to make a case against any of the high
10's of millions (Just in the USA) people, becasue of their reasding lsit or internet surfing. It just doesn't work that way in the real world.

It's not that they are trying to make a criminal case against anyone. It's having access people's private communications. What if a President want to know what the leaders of his opposing party were saying to eachother about the next election (and it's not like we haven't had a President try EXACTLY that, by the way...). What if a high ranking politician had a journalist on their back, and they wanted private info to black mail them with, or just use true info to start rumors to discredit them? All sorts of very nasty things can be done with this wealth of information beside criminal prosecutions.

Paranoid? Maybe. But why take the risk on the extremly small chance that we might overhear something worthwhile? Isn't it better to focus our attention on suspicious people and just get a FISA warrent as needed? Isn't that a better use of our intelligence community resources? Under FISA, if it's an emergency, you can start the tap and have 3 days to get the warrent after the fact, so "imminant threat" isn't an excuse either.

 

[TCPluto]

It's not that they are trying to make a criminal case against anyone. It's having access people's private communications. What if a President want to know what the leaders of his opposing party were saying to eachother about the next election (and it's not like we haven't had a President try EXACTLY that, by the way...). What if a high ranking politician had a journalist on their back, and they wanted private info to black mail them with, or just use true info to start rumors to discredit them? All sorts of very nasty things can be done with this wealth of information beside criminal prosecutions.

Paranoid? Maybe. But why take the risk on the extremly small chance that we might overhear something worthwhile? Isn't it better to focus our attention on suspicious people and just get a FISA warrent as needed? Isn't that a better use of our intelligence community resources? Under FISA, if it's an emergency, you can start the tap and have 3 days to get the warrent after the fact, so "imminant threat" isn't an excuse either.

I agree, paranoid. What a political leader does with his own party people, you're right, we saw what Nixon did.

With the FBI, CIS, Secret Service, CIA (whatever agency), it can't happen.

You're not going to draw career law enforcement, the guys that would be doing the work, into that conspiracy. And no one would try anyway, because of the trust that would be required and unable to be secured.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

I think that federal law enforcement, a number in the low 10's of thousands, is not going to waste their time trying to make a case against any of the high
10's of millions (Just in the USA) people, becasue of their reasding lsit or internet surfing. It just doesn't work that way in the real world.

So you trust the big bad government on this issue - but not for universal health care, welfare programs, and so on and so forth.

Looking at the past - i don't trust our government with worrying about my innocence or guilt.

~amanda

 

[TCPluto]

So you trust the big bad government on this issue - but not for universal health care, welfare programs, and so on and so forth.

Looking at the past - i don't trust our government with worrying about my innocence or guilt.
~amanda

The real point, that you miss, is that it's not even being considered at all.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

The real point, that you miss, is that it's not even being considered at all.

That doesn't mean that it should be an open forum where it could. You want to hand over your life to the government you trust so much - be my guest.

~Amanda

 

[TCPluto]

That doesn't mean that it should be an open forum where it could. You want to hand over your life to the government you trust so much - be my guest.

~Amanda

The other point you miss is that it's going to happen regardless whether you want it to or not. And you'll never be the wiser.

The fact remains, you're safe to peruse the net for recipes and left wing propaganda, check out whatever you want at the library, and talk on the phone about the neighbor's unruly kids next door or your boss' affair.

Have fun, know that you'll be safe and protected.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

I've searched and searched and can't find anything more recent than this two year old poll, and it only addresses wiretapping. You'd think this is something of interest that the pollsters would be gauging in an election season.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/11/poll.wiretaps/index.html

This poll is more inclusive, but almost three years old.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/PollVault/story?id=833703

I think this passage would indicate support is decreasing, but I'd still be interested to know current polling trends if anyone else can find them.

But there are some compunctions behind that support: Just half the public now says the United States government is doing enough to protect the rights of Americans citizens as it conducts the war on terrorism, down from 61 percent to 74 percent in polls in 2002 and 2003. That's not unexpected; most Americans in the past have accepted possible privacy intrusions at times of national crisis -- but not on an unlimited or permanent basis. As the immediacy of the sense of crisis wanes, interest in privacy rights can reassert itself.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

The other point you miss is that it's going to happen regardless whether you want it to or not. And you'll never be the wiser.

The fact remains, you're safe to peruse the net for recipes and left wing propaganda, check out whatever you want at the library, and talk on the phone about the neighbor's unruly kids next door or your boss' affair.

Have fun, know that you'll be safe and protected.

You miss the point that I don't care if anything is ever found on me. The fact is that we have laws in this country - and the government is not above them. So you can make all the sarcastic comments you want - it isn't going to make one bit of difference to me.

You also miss the point that whether I am wiser or not - still makes it illegal to do so without a warrant.

But please - by all means keep wasting your breath.

~Amanda

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Interesting findings on campaign media coverage.

http://www.cmpa.com/election news 2_1_08.htm

CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

MEDIA BOOST OBAMA, BASH “BILLARY”

NBC Is Toughest on Hillary; FOX Has Heaviest Coverage

Hillary Clinton is getting the worst press and Barack Obama the best press of any major presidential candidate, and Bill Clinton is also getting negative reviews, while the gap in good press between John McCain and Mitt Romney is narrowing, according to a new study of TV news election coverage by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. The study also finds that FOX’s evening news show had the most coverage of policy issues and the least coverage of the campaign horse race.

These results are from CMPA’s 2008 ElectionNewsWatch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of 765 election news stories (22 hours 15 minutes of airtime) that aired on the flagship evening news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX (the first 30 minutes of “Special Report with Brit Hume”, which is most like the network news shows in content and presentation) from December 16, 2007 through January 27, 2008.

MAJOR FINDINGS:

Hillary Pilloried?

Since mid-December, when the presidential candidates turned their full attention to the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Barack Obama has led the race for good press and Sen. Hillary Clinton has lagged the farthest behind. From Dec 16 through Jan 27 five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84%) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51%) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton. Examples:

“[Obama’s] message is one of change and reconciliation, not protest and looking back at old wounds.” – Donna Brazile, ABC

“In the face of two staggering defeats, two questions loom: Is Hillary’s campaign in crisis? And is a massive shakeup necessary?” – Brit Hume, FOX

The gap in good press has widened since the New Hampshire primary, with Clinton dropping to 47% positive comments and Obama holding steady at 83% positive. NBC’s coverage has been the most critical of Clinton – nearly 2 to 1 negative (36% positive and to 64% negative) Conversely, ABC’s coverage was most supportive -- nearly 2 to 1 positive (63% v. 37%). CBS and FOX were more balanced – 50% positive comments on FOX and 56% positive on CBS. Examples:

“[Bill Clinton’s] prominence in the campaign underscores Obama’s key argument that he represents the future; Hillary Clinton is the past. – John Harwood, NBC

“[Sen. Clinton] is the person that can best keep the country going and improve things.” – voter, ABC

Bill Bashed

Once he hit the hustings for Hillary, Bill Clinton attracted more attention (27 stories) than also-rans Rudy Giuliani (21) and John Edwards (18). But 74% of comments were critical of him. Example:

“[Hillary] should be the focal point… I think Bill Clinton is a little too involved.” – voter, CBS

McCain Express Slows

John McCain leads the Republican race for good press with 3 to 1 positive evaluations (73% positive v 27% negative) compared to only a minority of favorable comments (47%) for Mitt Romney. (Huckabee is in between with 57% positive comments.) Since the New Hampshire primary, however, their fortunes have changed, with Romney getting 75% and McLain only 58% positive comments. Examples:

“Voters … are buying his economic message, the can-do CEO to turn around the country like he did the Olympics.” – Bill Whitaker, CBS

“John McCain and his agents want to restrict free speech in America…” – voter, NBC

“We need [McCain] big time!” – voter, CBS

Here’s The Good News

Overall the presidential field has received more good than bad press – 62% combined positive comments on the Democrats and 58% positive about the Republicans. The broadcast networks and FOX both treated the Democrats slightly better than the Republicans, but FOX’s coverage was more negative toward candidates of both parties -- only 53% favorable evaluations of all candidates combined vs. 63% favorable evaluations by the other networks.

Where’s the Beef?

Only 1 in 5 stories (20%) contained a discussion of any policy issue. By contrast, a majority of stories (57%) discussed the strategy and tactics of the contenders and nearly half (47%) discussed their prospects for becoming the party’s nominee, i.e., the campaign horse race.

Economic issues dominated the news agenda

The most heavily covered issue was the condition and prospects of the economy with 36 stories, followed by the war in Iraq (20 stories), race relations (18), electoral reform (13), illegal immigration (12), unemployment (12), and taxes (10).

The Fox Factor

Perhaps surprisingly, coverage of the candidates on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report with Brit Hume” was very similar to that of the broadcast networks. FOX’s coverage of Hillary Clinton was evenly balanced – 50% positive and 50% negative comments, compared to 51% positive and 49% negative on the “big three” networks. The tone of FOX’s coverage of Romney and Obama was also within one percentage point of the broadcast networks.

Instead, FOX stands out for having the heaviest and most issue-oriented election coverage. The first half-hour of “Special Report” has devoted 7 hours 52 minutes to election news since mid-December, an average of over 11 minutes per night, nearly half the newscast after commercial breaks. By contrast, the broadcast networks have averaged 5 hrs 8 min, or seven minutes a night.

FOX was also twice as substantive as the broadcast networks. Almost one-third of all stories on FOX (30%) dealt with policy issues, nearly double the proportion (16%) on the networks. FOX also carried less coverage of the horse race and candidate tactics than any of broadcast networks.

CMPA has monitored every presidential election since 1988 using the same methodology, in which trained coders tally all mentions of candidates and issues and all evaluations of candidates. We report the evaluations by non-partisan sources, excluding comments by the candidates and campaigns about each other, because research shows that non-partisan sources have the most influence on public opinion, and they are also more subject to the discretion of reporters. However, we maintain data files on partisan evaluations as well.

 

[dejr_8]

I thought that Conservatives tended to be in favor of LESS government. Is that only true if it doesn't involve security?

There is this Document called the Constitution and in the text are the words

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So yea I support the Gov doing what the Gov is authorized to do by the Constitution.

 

[wardfamily1]

There is this Document called the Constitution and in the text are the words

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So yea I support the Gov doing what the Gov is authorized to do by the Constitution.

Unfortunately the libs took this part to mean we need to give handouts to anyone and everyone who doesn't want to help themselves.

 

[Fitswimmer]

There is this Document called the Constitution and in the text are the words

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So yea I support the Gov doing what the Gov is authorized to do by the Constitution.

Here's another part of that Constitution:

[SIZE=+1]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [/SIZE]

 

[Fitswimmer]

then there is also the Writ of Habeus Corpus:

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences.