The Black Helicopter Left and Its Disconnect from the Constitution

[LostOne4Ever]

142. The author of this article could care less about have a frank conversation

I am a pretty big Obama supporter and realize there are political realities he has to deal with, so I generally excuse his stance on these things because I KNOW that republicans would be far worse.

However, that does not mean that I find the government encroachment on our privacy rights to be acceptable. Its not. Further, I find this article to be nothing more than a cynical attempt at name calling and division.

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/08/the-black-helicopter-left-and-its.html [div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Join the real conversation about liberty and security, and focus on what is actually being done. If you are concerned about potential abuses, discuss the ways of preventing those abuses through checks and balances, not through handicapping law enforcement - and actually try to find out what checks and balances are currently available.

Okay, if the author really wanted to have a conversation he would't do it through name calling, declaring all their position legitimate (when they are not) and by trying to force us to concede half our arguments before we even get started talking. All he cares about is dividing us.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]
We continue to hear counterfactual arguments made as fact: that the government could abuse its broad surveillance powers to, for example, track down bloggers in their PJs and reveal their porn browsing history in the press or blackmail people in some modern version of McCarthyism.

And here again we come to another example of the author not really caring about our concerns. Much less that the author is not coming close to using the words counter factual or conspiracy theory correctly. How does raising a very real concern go against facts? Showing how something could be abused is in what way equivalent to alleging that something that has already occurred is the result of a grand conspiracy? Lets not ignore that a great many of the concerns that have been raised have been confirmed.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]This isn't to say that we need no debates about civil liberties, national security, and the balance between them. But that debate must be informed by facts, not based on conspiracy theories.

Which I would agree with. The problem is, again, the author does not understand what the word conspiracy theory means and is creating a fake definition to include every argument he/she does not agree with while asserting that his/her views are legitimate whether they have been tested or not. Want to talk? Talk. But you won't get any discussion going when you refuse to even consider the other sides positions and want to declare all your own positions as settled and beyond reproach.


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]And so, when the government exercises its powers, our focus should be on the proper exercise of that power and the process of balancing executive authority with the checks of Congressional and judicial oversight. The focus should be on putting in place the checks and balances to ensure that the powers aren't abused. Our focus should not be on denying the essential powers altogether. .


And when the government exceeds those checks and balances we have a duty to call attention to those abuses and curtail them.