Do Americans Care About Big Brother?

[Fish]

Pity America's poor civil libertarians. In recent weeks, the papers have been full of stories about the warehousing of information on Americans by the National Security Agency, the interception of financial information by the CIA, the stripping of authority from a civilian intelligence oversight board by the White House, and the compilation of suspicious activity reports from banks by the Treasury Department. On Thursday, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine released a report documenting continuing misuse of Patriot Act powers by the FBI. And to judge from the reaction in the country, nobody cares.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1722537,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

[Platapus]

I think that people care. They just realize that for the next 308 days there is little that will change.

Perhaps in the next election the citizens will give you your reaction

[Ducimus]

Sure people care, trouble is, we are a complacent society - snug and secure in the knowledge that, "This is America, that doesn't happen here."

Big brother, wrong doing, dictator like person taking power, war crimes, etc; all the bad things that have transpired throughout the history of mankind - not possible here. We're raised from birth to believe that only happens in those "other" nations across the seas; never here.

Not saying i believe that, just illustrating how complacent i believe we are. I also beleive that because of that we are also prime pickings for anyone who subscribes to Hermann Goering's philosphy. ( http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp )

edit: eer well at least up until Bush Jr,. People are waking up to some extent. The Boogeyman tactic has been overused. You know i guess well see come election time.

[Wolfehunter]

Problem is as long as the majority of the people have just enough to live comfortably they will let issues get swepped under a rug. Well...untill the corrupted STATE starts knocking on there doors. Then its too late.

Lets face it, people have TV's, computers, maybe a car or two.. and they have enough food do you see a need to revolt? Liberties isn't an issue for them.

What gets me about americans is, its there right to defend themselves agains state and not one american is doing a damb thing about it.:hmm: Or are you guys really that blind that you can't see whats happing in your line of sight?:nope:

I'm not sorry for getting americans upset with what I say. Because maybe thats what you guys need, a slap in the face to wakeup. Maybe you guys being mad is the start to see a good change.

Because your country is powerful and your country influences other nations. These nations watch and learn and may follow your example. You guys beings is a center source, your trickling waves are spreading to my nations and they are also following a similar cycle based on your current events.

I always believe no outside source could significantly destroy the USA but its people could destroy America and give it a new birth. That is America's only real enemy... is itself!;) So what will "We the people," choose?:-?

Goodluck southern neighbours:up:

[bradclark1]

Seriously, democracy is democracy's worst enemy. Thats why rights are slowly being stripped away.

[Blacklight]

There is way too much complacency here in the US. Like the above post states. Most people don't care so long as the government isn't affecting their nice houses, cars, or money directly. And those that ARE feeling the crunch right now (mainly the lower middle class and lower), just don't have enough capital or organisation skills to do anything about it.

It won't be till the upper middle class and the wealthy start feeling the pinch that things will get pushed toward change.

As it stands right now, if we speak out against the president (who a good deal of us HATE) and his administration, we're called un-patriotic and "with the terrorists". The news media is VERY much in George W's pocket and rarely fire anything difficult his way (while the opposite seems true when a Democrat is interviewed). FOX news and CNN are the biggest perpetrators of this (FOX being the worst.. I think the Republican party runs that news channel). Whenever we see any dirt on a Democrat, the news media, especially those two, blow things WAY OUT OF PROPORTION. If a Republican has any dirt revealed, it becomes just a little blurb that the news companies spin doctors away in a short snippet of a report.

I sometimes wish I could go around kicking people around here to do something about things here with me, but everywhere I go, I pretty much get the "It's not affecting me so why should I care ?" look. :nope:

The only people really willing to fight are those crazy anti-government loonies who sit out in their cabin in the woods with their stockpile of guns and refuse to pay taxes.

[Ducimus]

>>And those that ARE feeling the crunch right now (mainly the lower middle class and lower),


What middle class? I saw mention of this middle class you speak of once.....
on the Rare and Endangered Species List. :roll:

[Wolfehunter]

It won't be till the upper middle class and the wealthy start feeling the pinch that things will get pushed toward change.

The only people really willing to fight are those crazy anti-government loonies who sit out in their cabin in the woods with their stockpile of guns and refuse to pay taxes.

Pinch has already started with the plummiting US dolar and who says anyone is normal? I find those crazed loonies more normal than the sheep following the shepherd.:yep:

[Stealth Hunter]

Seriously, democracy is democracy's worst enemy. Thats why rights are slowly being stripped away.

Indeed. Democracy works. You just have to get people that are dedicated to it to run it (not actors...).

[August]

You guys are funny... :lol:

[Tchocky]

This article literally has more factual errors -- pure, retraction-level falsehoods -- than it has paragraphs. It makes Joe Klein look like a knowledgable and conscientious surveillance expert. It's one of the most falsehood-plagued articles I've seen in quite some time.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/17/time/index.html

[Rockstar]

Seriously, democracy is democracy's worst enemy. Thats why rights are slowly being stripped away.

Indeed. Democracy works. You just have to get people that are dedicated to it to run it (not actors...).

Pure democracy truly means majority rule thank the founding fathers for the electoral college every state is represented. Otherwise states with the greatest populations would be ruling over them.

Oh ya back to the subject at hand: Big brother here in the US? Are you kidding? C'mon we don't believe in that stuff. :rotfl: Frankly our technology and communicatiopns infrastructure has provided our government with extraordinary capabilities other countries can only dream about.

[Antiacus]

I see momentum in this area. Consider the success Ron Paul had this election. Imagine a candidate with his message but that wasn't an ubernerdy old geezer with very little charisma.

In 2009 there will be 4 or 5 times the number of libertarian thinking people in America than there was in 2006. What's more, the people who are responding most to him are young people. That means huge momentum and traction going forward into the future.

What people don't understand is that Ron Paul is already hugely, wildly, successful. A perfect storm of circumstances exists that has allowed for his rise this year.

IF Hillary wins it will only seat the hatred of socialism and fear based policy even deeper in the hearts of our newfound brothers and sisters and by the 2012 election we may be looking at an honest to goodness 3 party race for President.

A lot of things have to go right, and sadly, a lot of things will have to go wrong for this to happen, but it's very very possible it could happen.

Looking back, Paul will be viewed as the hero who weathered scathing criticism, hatred, and scorn for decades in American politics but who finally had his day and is now the father of the American Libertarian movement.

My .02 :)

-Antiacus

[Tchocky]

Oh ya back to the subject at hand: Big brother here in the US? Are you kidding? C'mon we don't believe in that stuff. :rotfl: Frankly our technology and communicatiopns infrastructure has provided our government with extraordinary capabilities other countries can only dream about.
Aye, but what happens when the government decides to use such technologies for keeping track of US citizens?

[Antiacus]

Oh ya back to the subject at hand: Big brother here in the US? Are you kidding? C'mon we don't believe in that stuff. :rotfl: Frankly our technology and communicatiopns infrastructure has provided our government with extraordinary capabilities other countries can only dream about.
Aye, but what happens when the government decides to use such technologies for keeping track of US citizens?

When was a long time ago my friend.

[JSLTIGER]

Not saying i believe that, just illustrating how complacent i believe we are. I also beleive that because of that we are also prime pickings for anyone who subscribes to Hermann Goering's philosphy. ( http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp )

Or Adolf Hitler's: "What luck for rulers, that men do not think."

[Sailor Steve]

Pure democracy truly means majority rule thank the founding fathers for the electoral college every state is represented. Otherwise states with the greatest populations would be ruling over them.
Unfortunately the states with the greatest populations rule anyway. When is the last time you heard of Utah (5 votes) determining the outcome?

Something you might not know: the practice of all the votes of one state going to the same candidate is fairly recent (well, 150 years recent). Read some of the results from early elections and you'll see states being split in the electoral vote.

Of course the Electoral College exists, not to make the states equal, but because the Constitution specifies that electors are appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". Originally the electors were directly appointed by the legislatures. The popular vote began to be slowly instituted after 1800.

[Rockstar]

Look at the Bush/Gore debacle. Popular vote verses the electoral college. Bush wins, next thing you hear is Hillary saying we should get rid of the electoral college. Screw change it works, it isn't perfect, but it works.

We also have the bill of rights which is in place to help prevent majority rule. I say help because it's only paper the hard part is holding on to it and our Constitution.

[orwell]

In 2009 there will be 4 or 5 times the number of libertarian thinking people in America than there was in 2006.

I hope by libertarian you mean what conservative in the US used to mean. True libertarianism is just the transitional anarchy from a democracy to a feudal state. If everyone is free to do as he pleases, then who will stand to protect the little guy? Those with drive will come to dominate, and unless they feel particularily democratic, I'd bet that'd be very unlikely if their libertarian in the first place, then they'll become a feudal lord, a monarch, a member of the aristocratic state.

[Blacklight]

The problem with the Electoral Colege is the fact that they aren't required to put their vote in for what the people want. They have it in their power to completely ignore the popular vote for their state and vote for whoever they want. :nope:

They vote for who they "Feel" the people want elected, but they can also be kind of leaning toward one candidate or another unfortunately. This mechanism was put in place in case the Electoral Colege felt that the American public was voting for a really bad candidate who they shouldn't be supporting. It assumes that the American people could be too stuped to vote right. :nope:

[Antiacus]

In 2009 there will be 4 or 5 times the number of libertarian thinking people in America than there was in 2006.

I hope by libertarian you mean what conservative in the US used to mean. True libertarianism is just the transitional anarchy from a democracy to a feudal state. If everyone is free to do as he pleases, then who will stand to protect the little guy? Those with drive will come to dominate, and unless they feel particularily democratic, I'd bet that'd be very unlikely if their libertarian in the first place, then they'll become a feudal lord, a monarch, a member of the aristocratic state.

You've been badly mislead my friend. Modern American Libertarianism is ALL about protecting the little guy. According to Libertarian ideals the truest function of government is the combined defense of the individuals rights.

Libertarianism is a broad collection of political philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) possessing the common themes of limited government and strong individual liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_liberty). Libertarianism's ideals, although often varied in detail, typically center on policies in favor of extensive personal liberties (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of ownership), rejecting compulsory socialism and communism in favor of allowing private property (whether being held on an individual basis or in collective by a group of individuals), promoting personal responsibility and private charity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity) and opposing welfare statism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

[August]

The problem with the Electoral Colege is the fact that they aren't required to put their vote in for what the people want. They have it in their power to completely ignore the popular vote for their state and vote for whoever they want. :nope:

They vote for who they "Feel" the people want elected, but they can also be kind of leaning toward one candidate or another unfortunately. This mechanism was put in place in case the Electoral Colege felt that the American public was voting for a really bad candidate who they shouldn't be supporting. It assumes that the American people could be too stuped to vote right. :nope:

Has the electoral college ever voted against the wishes of the majority of voters in their respective states? Ever?

[Blacklight]

I havn't researched this but it's theroetically possible.

[August]

I havn't researched this but it's theroetically possible.

I suppose, but unless it's obviously the right thing to do, like if the winner of the popular vote appeared at his victory speech wearing a superhero costume, including cape and facemask, and started sccreaming about how he was gonna nuke them dastardly Scandinavians as soon as he got his finger on the button, any such move by the electoral college would be at least 50% less popular than the superdelegates deciding the Dem nominee in opposition to the their primary vote.

[orwell]

In 2009 there will be 4 or 5 times the number of libertarian thinking people in America than there was in 2006.
I hope by libertarian you mean what conservative in the US used to mean. True libertarianism is just the transitional anarchy from a democracy to a feudal state. If everyone is free to do as he pleases, then who will stand to protect the little guy? Those with drive will come to dominate, and unless they feel particularily democratic, I'd bet that'd be very unlikely if their libertarian in the first place, then they'll become a feudal lord, a monarch, a member of the aristocratic state.
You've been badly mislead my friend. Modern American Libertarianism is ALL about protecting the little guy. According to Libertarian ideals the truest function of government is the combined defense of the individuals rights.

Libertarianism is a broad collection of political philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) possessing the common themes of limited government and strong individual liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_liberty). Libertarianism's ideals, although often varied in detail, typically center on policies in favor of extensive personal liberties (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of ownership), rejecting compulsory socialism and communism in favor of allowing private property (whether being held on an individual basis or in collective by a group of individuals), promoting personal responsibility and private charity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity) and opposing welfare statism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Not sure where those libertarians are, all the ones I've met tend to be just extreme no government.

[Antiacus]

In 2009 there will be 4 or 5 times the number of libertarian thinking people in America than there was in 2006.
I hope by libertarian you mean what conservative in the US used to mean. True libertarianism is just the transitional anarchy from a democracy to a feudal state. If everyone is free to do as he pleases, then who will stand to protect the little guy? Those with drive will come to dominate, and unless they feel particularily democratic, I'd bet that'd be very unlikely if their libertarian in the first place, then they'll become a feudal lord, a monarch, a member of the aristocratic state.
You've been badly mislead my friend. Modern American Libertarianism is ALL about protecting the little guy. According to Libertarian ideals the truest function of government is the combined defense of the individuals rights.

Libertarianism is a broad collection of political philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) possessing the common themes of limited government and strong individual liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_liberty). Libertarianism's ideals, although often varied in detail, typically center on policies in favor of extensive personal liberties (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of ownership), rejecting compulsory socialism and communism in favor of allowing private property (whether being held on an individual basis or in collective by a group of individuals), promoting personal responsibility and private charity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity) and opposing welfare statism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Not sure where those libertarians are, all the ones I've met tend to be just extreme no government.

Interesting. If so, they're simply anarchists claiming to be libertarians. Libertarians can come off sounding like that at times though when compared to your typical republican or democrat that needs his hand held from cradle to grave by the government.