I think the U.S. goes too far overboard. They overdo things. I think there should be limits on what "they" are able to do because obviously this Homeland Security thing has gone too far in its zeal to protect citizens from terrorism. It's the same thing as with little kids kissing each other and other innocent actions that get some people all excited -- authorities, teachers, etc. don't seem to have much common sense these days.

Oh what a great survey! and yes our freedom of speech is being taken away from us and this is America????

This is the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

One thing that you should understand about freedom of speech is that constitutionally, it's the government that's not supposed to interfere with your right to say what you want. Not the guy who runs a web site who doesn't like what you're saying.

"Freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can say anything anywhere you like. It means that the government should not make laws prohibiting you from saying what you want.

It has nothing to do with private citizens or businesses deciding who can say what in their spaces.

Freedom of speech has probably been under attack from the day it was introduced.

I think there does need to be a line drawn on what we can say. The line being where our freedom of speech infringes on someone's unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I have no problem knowing the government is eavesdropping on my calls because I have nothing to be guilty of. If tapping my phone means they're that much closer to catching terrorists then so be it. Absolute freedom is anarchy and our freedom of speech is free enough. There has to be bounds on how free our freedoms are.

> I feel our freedom of speech is free. I think
> there does need to be a line drawn. The line
> being where our freedom of speech infringes on
> someone's unalienable rights of life, liberty,
> and the pursuit of happiness. I have no problem
> knowing the government is eavesdropping on my
> calls because I have nothing to be guilty of.

There are about million dead jews who thought the same way.

> If tapping my phone means they're that much closer
> to catching terrorists then so be it.

Um, no. Stupid, they started this illegal wiretapping BEFORE 9-11. This isn't about catching terrorists. Stop beleiving the hype.

> Absolute
> freedom is anarchy. There has to be bounds on
> how free our freedoms are.

George Bush agrees with you, adn so does Osama Bin Laden.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "million dead jews" feeling the same way as me.

So what if they started wire tapping before 9-11. Are you insinuating that terrorism didn't exist before 9-11? I'm pretty sure it did and has always been a threat. If it's not about catching terrorists then what is it about according to you?

I'm pretty sure that the very idea of government agrees with me that absolute freedom is anarchy and bounds have to be set, so the fact that you think george bush and osama bin laden agree with me only validates my point.

I don't think a person who is not guilty of anything has no reason to worry about being eavesdropped on, spied on, etc. Would you let them search your house? Stop innocent people for random car searches? Sift through your mail?
Just because you have no fear of getting caught on anything (because you are innocent) that doesn't mean there are no other aspects of privacy invasion to worry about.

> I'm not sure what you mean by the "million dead
> jews" feeling the same way as me.
>

That was suppsoed to say 6 million.

> So what if they started wire tapping before 9-11.

So, it's okay for people to break the law, so long as they make you feel safer even though you really aren't?

> Are you insinuating that terrorism didn't exist
> before 9-11?

What? How did your brain make that leap?

> I'm pretty sure it did and has always
> been a threat. If it's not about catching terrorists
> then what is it about according to you?
>

It's about following the law! It's about not spying on inncoent people! It's about retards like you who take liars and fearmongers at face value. THEY FUDGING LIED! This is not about catching terrorists, this is about keeping us afraid, beucase Republicans can't win unless morons like you are scared witless.

> I'm pretty sure that the very idea of government
> agrees with me that absolute freedom is anarchy
> and bounds have to be set, so the fact that you
> think george bush and osama bin laden agree with
> me only validates my point.

Actually that last one was just being snarky. The rest of my point about your ignorant support of illegal wiretapping stands.

I don't know why I even bother replying to your comments. Time after time all you do is come back with some kind of insult followed by attributing my stupidity to me being a republican. Perhaps I have the hope that some day we may reach a higher plane of understanding one another. A doomed hope I fear.

Nevertheless I will continue this "discussion".

So if I understand you correctly, you feel that wire tapping is a ploy to try to keep us afraid so that Republicans can win? Interesting should come to mind when reading that, but the word bogus is the only thing I'm getting. I'm not afraid. Knowing that super computers may be monitoring my conversations does little more then make me blink. Like I said, I have nothing to hide, they can listen in on my conversations all they want. I'd have no problem calling up the government right now to give them unregulated eavesdropping of my phone conversations and emails and any other form of communication I have. I have nothing to hide. Only the wicked are fearful.

I'm not ignorant to my support of wire tapping. I know what I'm supporting. The fact that they passed a law advocating wire tapping means it's not illegal.

> Only the wicked are fearful.
>
That's presumptive and inaccurate.

I see how that can be inaccurate, this is what I meant to say: Only the wicked should be fearful.

I do stand by that thought.

You don't think the authorities can get 'false positives' from phone conversations, interrupt/raid innocent activities, or use two innocent people's conversation about a third party to go after the third party? You don't see how phone conversations can be misunderstood or wiretapping can be abused?

> I don't know why I even bother replying to your
> comments. Time after time all you do is come
> back with some kind of insult followed by attributing
> my stupidity to me being a republican. Perhaps
> I have the hope that some day we may reach a higher
> plane of understanding one another. A doomed
> hope I fear.
>

You repeat faulty talking points as gospel. I submit that my statements are more accurate than insulting.


> Nevertheless I will continue this "discussion".
>
>
> So if I understand you correctly, you feel that
> wire tapping is a ploy to try to keep us afraid
> so that Republicans can win? Interesting should
> come to mind when reading that, but the word bogus
> is the only thing I'm getting.

Of course it would.

> I'm not afraid.
> Knowing that super computers may be monitoring
> my conversations does little more then make me
> blink.

And that is not a good thing.

> Like I said, I have nothing to hide, they
> can listen in on my conversations all they want.

That is dangerous thinking. Have you ever read 1984?

> I'd have no problem calling up the government
> right now to give them unregulated eavesdropping
> of my phone conversations and emails and any other
> form of communication I have. I have nothing
> to hide. Only the wicked are fearful.
>

And yet I can't call you stupid? Privacy, discretion, confidentiality, and prudence are hallmarks of civilization. Privacy permits you to be yourself. Of coruse, Right Wingers don't want people to be themselves, they don't like things they can't control. You can be a good German all you want (based on your own statements, I submit that Godwin's Law does not apply here), the reality is "nothing to hide" indicates a misunderstanding of what privacy was meant to be. It was never meant to protect illegal behavior. It was meant to hinder governmental tyrrany.

> I'm not ignorant to my support of wire tapping.

Yes, you are. You endorse illegal acts on the baseless grounds that spying on innocent people will keep us safe. This is bullcrap, as this program was put in place MONTHS befoore 9/11. It failed then, it will fail in the future. This is about a grab for power, and you supporting them. I'm actually being generous when I call you stupid, because the alternative is you are a fascist apologist. So which is it?

> I know what I'm supporting. The fact that they
> passed a law advocating wire tapping means it's
> not illegal.
>

Again, basic ignorance. The law was an amendment regarding international calls that go through a U.S based router. I love how you avoid a literal untruth to hide your bad idea; i.e. you support having no freedom and giving all power to your government. You wave your flag even as you piss on all it stand's for.

> You don't think the authorities can get 'false
> positives' from phone conversations, interrupt/raid
> innocent activities, or use two innocent people's
> conversation about a third party to go after the
> third party? You don't see how phone conversations
> can be misunderstood or wiretapping can be abused?

Of course he doesn't. In his black and white world only bad people do things they don't want others to know about. I think he should hold to that, and divulge to us all of his personal habits, right down to who he thinks about when he amsturbates. After all, he has "nothing to hide."

I do see how that can be a problem. However, at the same time it seems to me it'd have to be a pretty serious discussion for the government to give it much credence.

I personally haven't heard of anything like you described happening, if you have something you can cite, I'd love to hear about it.

I was just thinking about how people say that they have nothing to hide. It implies they don't value their privacy. The only people who need to value privacy are criminals? Privacy and anonymity are valuable to anyone who wants to be autonomous and have control over our own selves. If my friends and I want to plan a giant event somewhere, we don't need cops knowing about it in advance and showing up, just because it's gonna be big, and maybe political.
I don't want people to be on the phone gossipping and speculating amongst themselves about what they think a (very private hermit-like) neighbor might be doing, and all their unfounded reasoning, and then having the government beef up surveillance on an innocent person's house.

I think you're purposes in replying to me are to test my patience. I report that you have failed miserably.

Don't bother replying to me until you learn to have a civilized discussion with me.

I haven't heard of it either, but the possibility is there, and it wouldn't surprise me. I don't think they are going to follow around everyone who uses a trigger word, but I think if someone makes non-criminal plans that some government official, for whatever reasons, doesn't like, they could use that to harrass innocent people.
I have heard of them going after anti-fur folks and small political-based groups before.

I understand your points of view. We should be a society that values privacy. Believe it or not, I do value my privacy; I just can't picture the government ever listening in on my conversations. I also understand that I should have the whole country in perspective when I formulate my ideas. I just haven't seen any credible evidence that tells me the government has ulterior motives with this act. Until I see this evidence I will continue to support it.

No idea

I don't think the Government (the feds) as an entity have alterior motives. I just think wiretapping/eavesdropping has the potential for abuse. I think even the possibility of being falsely suspected is scary, with that kind of surveillence in place to 'check on' suspicions and red flags. If you said the wrong thing or telephoned or talked about the wrong people, maybe they would start listening in.

Our Constitution? You can keep it to yourself, thanks.

You know, you're spoilt. About 20% of the world's population aren't allowed to google 'Democracy'. Get over it.

A big problem is that telecommunication companies are allowed to ban and censor communications, for instance text messages informing people about anti-abortion protests. The amount of society shaping power there is immense.

Carriers have also censored out political content of concerts being distributed.

Also alarming is the concept of 'Free Speech Zones'. It used to be that everywhere was a free-speech zone and the existence of some non-free-speech-zone was cause for concern.

It has been ruled that speech shopping malls are not public places in respect to the free-speech right to wear political t-shirts. This is a problem because increasingly every location is private property. Conceivably even schools, sidewalks, and parks will be privatised and considered subsidized services rather than public-commons.

Most disturbing is the recent 'Homegrown Terrorism' act, which makes it a terrorism crime to even suggest violent protests. Violent may merely mean blocking traffic. The associated notes for this bill suggested that they specifically had WTO type protests in mind. Compound this with other recent legislation which makes 'terrorists' subject to military rather than civil prosecution, and this implies that you could rot in jail without a trial for merely suggesting on the internet a political protest of any physical consequence.

Seen in this light, freedom of speech is already no longer a civil right.

I propose that we have an unofficial national annual holiday called "RIGHT to FREE-SPEECH and ASSEMBLY" day, in which people agree to assemble at parks and speak what's on their mind on a stage at a future date. If it turns out that they aren't free to gather and say whatever they want at that time, it might become a holiday more remeniscent of the French revolution.

"Only the wicked should be fearful."

Alas, that's not entirely the case. The government has been known to stomp down on people trying to create utopia. In one instance Clinton's former Secretary of HUD attempted saving impoverished communities by creating local community-credit unions to bolster local businesses and keep the interest and profits within the community rather than be siphoned out by distant investors and franchise corporations. The SEC froze the millions in community assets she had gathered, opposed to the concept of limiting the rights of distant capitalists to participating in profitting from local community development.

Likewise the federal government has stomped down on local communities choice to legalize marijuana, even when they do so by referendum.

Surveillance combined with interference in public communications and protests potentially prevents well-intended people from even attempting to legally change the laws, when those changes are in opposition to the curent administration. Typically most every elected official implicitly represents some corporate interest. The public does not have such economic backing to compete against corporate interests, especially if political activist organizations are being targetted by freedom of speech policies.

A solid case of this was the presidential campaign of Dennis Kucinich. By numerous reputable surveys, including those done by the top media, 60% of those who saw Kucinich debate felt he won the dabate, and yet because he was defending the public against the interests of the media and the corporations like the insurance and nuclear power industries which were privately contracted to sponser the caucuses, they and the media refused to let him participate in further public debates. They went as far as changing the rules to disclude him when it became apparent at the last moment that he qualified for their participation tests.

Just as nearly half of our Iraqi soldiers are private contractors, increasingly the media and telecommunications industries are in collusion with the federal government, not so much that the goverment controls them, but rather that they themselves are increasingly becoming the government. For instance media and defense industries are owned by the same parties.

Conceivably the right to surveillance and censorship could be extended to telecoms to the extent that emails protesting defense spending could be pulled from circulation.

It is quite conceivable that a non-violent Christian may wish to speak publicly against the war industry with 'Nothing to hide', and increasingly less likely that they will have the legal right to do so.

Privatizing government to circumnavigate constitutional rights subjects the populace to masters they have no say in. If surveillance, censorship, and an open society were administrated by an open democratic society, things wouldn't be so bad, but there is littlle democracy in the governmental trend at all.

"Absolute freedom is anarchy". Has it ever occurred to you that if everyone reported directly to god in their choice of actions, that from a mortal political perspective we would have pure anarchy?

For decades I was a huge fan of centralized populist democratized socialism, but I have increasingly come to realize that only though a Xth amendment style democratized comunally-centric element of anarchy can democracy and human rights even stand a chance in the face of monopolistic corporations wielding increasing political powers.

~ ~

I don't have a problem with surveillance per so. Rather I have a problem with surveiilance in the hands of a secretive unchecked administration which doesn't remotely values I would vote for. The problem is they can spy on us, and we have no idea what they are really up to. Same for corporations. They have software which can immediately notify them the moment bad press appears in a blog anywhere.

I think surveillance could play a part in a truly open society in which the public and activists groups/PACs had just as much awareness of what went on in private board meetings and the oval office as they have on our bedroom activities. In such a case we could eliminate the power of discretionary prosecution. As is, a reputable orchestra conductor or actor will be left alone for their usage of drugs, and yet surveillance data on an activist's drug use can be used to neutralize them. In an open society, where it was publically apparent that super-computers identify 20% of the public as occasional drug users, we would have to eliminate prosecution of home drug usage.

It's roughly legal to be gay now, but that could never have come to be if prosecution based on unwarranted suveillance was legal in the 1950's. I don't know that your feelings on gay rights are, but the fact is that the concept applies to any aspect in which the public may wish to evolve.

Unwarranted surveillance is the first step in making societal evolution illegal.

If surveillance were only used to protect us from individuals that the public 'unanimously' considered to be a public threat, that would be fine, but historically that has never proved to be the implementation. Rather it has been a tool to leverage conflicting interests which should be a part of open public debate.

You say you have nothing to hide or fear because you are roughly in line with the administration. Suppose though in a Zero Population Growth initiative, abortions were made mandatory, and you were opposed to his policy. Suppose it was considered a hate crime to speak against the publics interest (like the ZPG policy they voted for). Surveillance could then be used to determine where you would be gathering and bust you all for hate crimes.

Be wary of the latest bills. It's not just about surveillance, it's in conjunction with the recent ability to deny civil trials to those accused of being 'terrorists'. Protesting recent telecom acts might put you in this category. Congressman Kucinich voted against these bills and attempted to warn the public about how far reaching their scary wording was, but as you see, the media banned his public access. The few headlines he gets on web media make him out to be a non-concern. They wouldn't even dare bring us his genuine concerns with a 'fruitcake' headline, lest word get out at all.

When the government, after operating smoothly for two centuries, suddenly enacts the right to operate like the Nazi SS, you have to consider the possibility that in some respect they suddenly have become the Nazi SS.

It is the responsibility of the public as government watchdogs to consider if we are following that same pattern, because if we are, it's too late to prevent it or halt it once it's fully in motion.

You have to ask why the government suddenly requires these capacities apparently aimed at quelling internal revolution. It would suggest to me that they anticipate internal revolution, as if they expect the public to suddenly figure something out and get pissed off, and that they hope to cut off and gag any such movement and preempt it with Target commercials before it can even take shape. I consider this all suspiciously alarming, even if I weren't aware that the administration backs many internal and global activiies that the public might reject if better informed.

"About 20% of the world's population aren't allowed to google 'Democracy'. Get over it."

Whoa, where do you draw the line? "Pharoah forces us to die building pyramids. Get over it."

Can't you see that any encroachment on human rights at all is a foot in the door along a sliding spectrum?

Security is an illusion. Freedom is worth fighting for. If we let fear guide us, we are doomed.

Sorry, it was rant time.

Nice rhetorical question, by the way. It really made me feel quite fuzzy.

Exactly. People like dilfreak frighten me with what their willing to accept from their government. Helping the downtrodden is bad, but spying on the inncoent is a-okay? Talk about messed up priorities. And this guy votes, that's the terrifying part. I'm all for government, I am very pro-government, but not without checks in place, much the same way I'm pro-military as long as we don't use it to attack nations that are of no threat to us.

> I just haven't seen any credible evidence that
> tells me the government has ulterior motives with
> this act. Until I see this evidence I will continue
> to support it.

How about patterns of behavior? Terror alerts coming out only during election cycles or to coincide with bad news being published about the adminsitration for example. Or the FBI's admission that the vast majority of the information this illegal warrantless wiretapping is useless. Or the fact that the Right Wing has lied about the expiration of the Orwellian named Protect America Act (it was enacted in August and is good for 1 year; so why was Bush telling us it expired this month? No, what expired this month was the immunity for the law breaking of certain tellecomm companies, who gives tons of money ot the GOP). Where there is smoke, there's corruption.

> A big problem is that telecommunication companies
> are allowed to ban and censor communications,
> for instance text messages informing people about
> anti-abortion protests. The amount of society
> shaping power there is immense.
>
> Carriers have also censored out political content
> of concerts being distributed.
>
> Also alarming is the concept of 'Free Speech Zones'.
> It used to be that everywhere was a free-speech
> zone and the existence of some non-free-speech-zone
> was cause for concern.
>
> It has been ruled that speech shopping malls are
> not public places in respect to the free-speech
> right to wear political t-shirts. This is a problem
> because increasingly every location is private
> property. Conceivably even schools, sidewalks,
> and parks will be privatised and considered subsidized
> services rather than public-commons.
>
> Most disturbing is the recent 'Homegrown Terrorism'
> act, which makes it a terrorism crime to even
> suggest violent protests. Violent may merely mean
> blocking traffic. The associated notes for this
> bill suggested that they specifically had WTO
> type protests in mind. Compound this with other
> recent legislation which makes 'terrorists' subject
> to military rather than civil prosecution, and
> this implies that you could rot in jail without
> a trial for merely suggesting on the internet
> a political protest of any physical consequence.
>
> Seen in this light, freedom of speech is already
> no longer a civil right.
>
> I propose that we have an unofficial national
> annual holiday called "RIGHT to FREE-SPEECH and
> ASSEMBLY" day, in which people agree to assemble
> at parks and speak what's on their mind on a stage
> at a future date. If it turns out that they aren't
> free to gather and say whatever they want at that
> time, it might become a holiday more remeniscent
> of the French revolution.

Good idea.

There is no such thing anymore, even reporters can't report the real news.

It's a sorry state that we're in. If we can't inform the people properly; how can they know what's really going on? So many important decisions are being taken by our governments right now and all I see are stupid articles about Paris Hilton...

Have you heard about the National ID Card? It will be in effect come May of this year... I was thinking about doing a survey on that very subject to see who has heard of it.

I've heard of it but then I also read a few reviews and commentaries which said that it really isn't necessary, that one's regular SS card and ID, etc. are sufficient -- and why go to all that trouble and spend all that money for this. From what I read I got the impression that it wouldn't really benefit me to go to the trouble to get one. What, exactly, is it supposed to help, or do? Is this some harebrained idea that will supposedly weed out "terrorists?"

Free enough.

I wonder how it applies to what people can/can't say on a public bus.

Yep that's supposed to be what it's for; another way of keeping us safe... I hate the idea of being chipped, either with a card, on my body - they're even looking into the possibility of chipping cash money so it will loose it's anonymity too. All that's really about is for them to know what you do with your money, where it goes and where it comes from to make sure that they're getting their share of your money! Did you know that the federal income tax isn't even on the books? That there is no law that obliges you to pay it? If I were American; I'd stop paying it now... The Federal Reserve isn't even Federal; it's all privately owned and they dictate to the government how to tax the people more... Gawd! The people have been put to sleep in the last century, I hope it's not too late for us to wake up and revolt!!

I wish I could have not paid income tax before, but when I tried to ignore it, I got huge penalties. I was deathly afraid that if I continued to ignore and not pay, it would keep being added on, like my credit card is now because I'm unable to pay it on time and enough of it at a time. And I always had to pay someone to do the taxes for me. Now I can't get ANY money back NOR can I get that promised $600 and up per person because it's only for working Americans, not retired ones. Thanks for the info.

Saying patterns of behavior is evidence of the governments ulterior motives sounds like conspiracy theory to me. I recall when the winter olympics were in SLC in 2002 there were hightened terror alerts and it had nothing to do with election cycles.

If the FBI has admitted wiretapping as useless then I'd like a reference that they said that.

I feel obligated to make a post being my survey and all, but I think Kristal_Rose pretty much summed up any and all ideas I was thinking,

Going back to the sixties and anti-war rallies, just wearing propaganda on a tee shirt could get you physically accosted and thrown in jail without due process. The idea of ‘big brother’ deciding what constitutes their ability to search and seize is dangerous. The fear of criminal intent does not constitute a crime. The concept of innocents before proven guilty is lost when I can monitor your activities and use that to prosecute you based on your ideals. Freedom is just that, freedom! Any infringement on that basic definition changes freedom to something less than freedom. Modern society has become much more complicated than when our forefathers initialized the Constitution and ratified the Bill of Rights. They could not anticipate technology both in communication and in the ability to mass destruct. The people bind the government, not the other way around.

> Saying patterns of behavior is evidence of the
> governments ulterior motives sounds like conspiracy
> theory to me. I recall when the winter olympics
> were in SLC in 2002 there were hightened terror
> alerts and it had nothing to do with election
> cycles.
>
> If the FBI has admitted wiretapping as useless
> then I'd like a reference that they said that.
>

Sure thing. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.h... That was just the firs tresult in Google. I have to go to bed soon so I'll just start you of with that.

And after you read that keep in mind, many of the very few CIA translators of Farsi, Arabic and other Mideastern and Central Asian languages have been fired, not for incompetence, or for security breaches, but for being gay.

These are the poepl you trust; people who put their fear of two men kisisng over the safety of the American people. People who, when they were warned about 9/11, decided to stay on vacation. These are the poeple you put your turst in. That is why I say it is not an insult to call you stupid. I say calling you stupid is in fact being kind.

That's valid. I think we can agree that the government needs to take an active role in trying to stop terrorism. Do you think giving up certain freedoms is necessary in order to ensure security from terrorism? What do you think the government needs to do to thwart terrorism?

That is interesting that CIA translators would be fired for being gay. I don't agree with that in the least, however, I'll admit that homosexuality in our society is something I have much difficulty grasping. I guess that's a result of the fact that I don't know anyone who is gay and have been around few.

I think there are very few people in politics who can be trusted. Both republicans and democrats. When I vote for someone I base that decision on who's views line up closest with mine. Like I've said before, generally I line up with republicans. More then anything I vote for candidates who's focus is on the family. I originally was rooting for Romney in the primaries as he is a family man, however as he undoubtedly will not make it, Obama seems like the best candidate. I believe change in our government is necessary and would be healthy. Regardless of my conflicting views with Obama on controversial issues, I do believe he is the best candidate to bring healthy change.

> That's valid. I think we can agree that the government
> needs to take an active role in trying to stop
> terrorism. Do you think giving up certain freedoms
> is necessary in order to ensure security from
> terrorism? What do you think the government needs
> to do to thwart terrorism?
>

Not invade coutnries that didn't attack us, don't prop up dictators in the Middle East and Asia, don't manipualte foreign econmies, interfere in legitamte electiosn because we don't like the result, don't legitamize terorist groups by using the military against them which only reinforces their bleifs in ther righteuosness, law enforcement, and proven intellgience gathering techniques of which your favorite illegal wiretapping program isn't, toning down fiery rhetoric in our leader's public speeches, not backhanding countries who try to help us, like Iran after 9-11 or Cuba after Katrina...

> That is interesting that CIA translators would
> be fired for being gay. I don't agree with that
> in the least, however, I'll admit that homosexuality
> in our society is something I have much difficulty
> grasping. I guess that's a result of the fact
> that I don't know anyone who is gay and have been
> around few.

Well grow up. They ar eout there, they are not inhuamn monsters, and they are not out to "destroy heterosexual marriage."

> I think there are very few people in politics
> who can be trusted. Both republicans and democrats.
> When I vote for someone I base that decision
> on who's views line up closest with mine. Like
> I've said before, generally I line up with republicans.

Why? All they have is empty rhetoric. They crow about national secuirty, but it took Democrats taking control of Congress to implement the reccomendations of the 9-11 Comission.

> More then anything I vote for candidates who's
> focus is on the family.

By which you mean those who hate gays, becuase that's what "family values" means to Republcians like Larry Craig, and Ted Haggard, and Mark Foley, and....

> I originally was rooting
> for Romney in the primaries as he is a family
> man, however as he undoubtedly will not make it,

Especially sicne he's already dropped out, and spent what amounts to roughly $1.6 million per delegate (some business man huh?). But why would you suppor tthat guy? He'd more likely fire you and pocket the profits than give a crap about you.

> Obama seems like the best candidate. I believe
> change in our government is necessary and would
> be healthy. Regardless of my conflicting views
> with Obama on controversial issues, I do believe
> he is the best candidate to bring healthy change.
>

On that at least we agree.

Don't make assumptions. Wiretapping is not my favorite, I just don't have a problem with it. Also, when I say I vote for candidates who's focus is on the family I DO NOT mean those who hate gays. Do you realize that when you tell me to grow up it shows me that you are unwilling to see things from my perspective? or do you not care about anyone else's point of view besides your own?

What do people say when they mean 'focus on the family' and 'family values'?

"What do people say when they mean 'focus on the family' and 'family values'?"
I'd be interested in knowing that too. All I know is Frostbrand's definition of that phrase. I don't see that the government has much influence on families aside from forcing immunizations and making child abuse illegal, and I don't think I'd want them too. Taxes usually favor married couples filing jointly when one member stays at home. What more could one want?

I see the role of government as creating common public infrastructure like currency and roads, and protecting people from each other, not as a means of imposing one sect's ethical values on others. (of course even highways are a value for which taxes are imposed, but even bicyclists like me appreciate distribution of consumer goods).

Oops, perhaps you meant "What do people 'mean when they say' (not 'say when they mean') 'focus on the family' and 'family values'?" - What they probably 'say' in such cases is 'lower taxes for the poor'.

Yeah. I meant, what do they mean when they say...?

I'm telling you that I know Right Wing codewords and buzz phrases, and "family values" is always the phrase they use to couch anti-gay agendas.

I never hear them talk about doing anything to discourage divorce or help families earn enough for one parent to stay home with the kids. Those are more important to family than anything. I always thought of family values as being what's best for families with kids. I don't think anyone (government, society) should be caring one way or the other about the stability or strength of families without kids. Until kids are involved, it's a personal (couples) matter. Not a socially detrimental thing. That's what gets me about the whole anti gay thing- what's it hurt? To me, a 'family' is bigger than a couple.

i'm constantly consciously censoring myself and my words. I'm continually choosing which words will least likely be misconstrued by any and all.

I tend to blurt stuff out without thinking. I am misinterpreted a lot.

"Family values" and the "focus on the family" are areas that have a significant impact on how I vote. For me, in a political sense, this means things like
Supporting the concept of parents as first teachers and encourage the expansion of credible programmes to families other than those deemed to be at-risk
heavily subsidised early childhood education
significant support (financial and others) for single parents
encouraging mothers (and in relevant cases fathers) to stay home with children (ie recognition of the role of parents in raising young children & financial incentives for staying at home with children)
implementing free family support services that include parental mentoring and training, budgeting plans and accountability measures
effective level of healthcare for the aging population
financial assistance for people buying their first homes, etc.

The family is the primary unit for a sustainable society. When the family is working well, the community and the country are working well.

This side of the pond, those are all things Democrats tend to favor.

Ok - I have to admit, I don't know much about the Democrat / Republican thing. Here in NZ it's pretty different - one significant difference here is that we don't tend to "identify" as having a particular political leaning (ie Democrat or Republican). We tend to vote based on issues at the time. We have an MMP government, meaning we not only have the 2 major parties, but several smaller parties which have a significant impact on parliamentary processes. It's quite different to you guys

> Ok - I have to admit, I don't know much about
> the Democrat / Republican thing. Here in NZ it's
> pretty different - one significant difference
> here is that we don't tend to "identify" as having
> a particular political leaning (ie Democrat or
> Republican). We tend to vote based on issues
> at the time. We have an MMP government, meaning
> we not only have the 2 major parties, but several
> smaller parties which have a significant impact
> on parliamentary processes. It's quite different
> to you guys

Yeah, I wish we had a more parlimentary system here. The two party system is pretty fudgeed up.

The interesting thing about much of your choices there is that I'm quite sure that many people mean exactly the opposite implementation when speaking of 'Family Values'. They fear that liberal socialist big brother is taking too great a hand in shaping children with various welfare programs, and want the total authority for child raising back in the hands of parents. Likewise they fear that any programs which support mothers and children merely encourage irresponsible unwed mothers.

Because of that polarization, it seems that 'Family Values' is a meaningless term in most any tangible sense.

If you ask me, the route to go is the same as in Venezuela and parts of Europe where one parent is subsidized to stay home for child-care. (I think rotating parental day-care pools would be even better, at job sites for instance). When I was a kid it was a concern that both parents worked with a child of any age. Now it's not at all uncommon to put babies in childcare before they can even crawl, and yet we wonder why today's children behave so detachedly.

People think two incomes are required to pay the bills, but if one parent stayed home, labor would be be worth nearly twice as much. Alas, that only works if everyone agrees to stay home when they have toddlers. The U.S. gov't realized this at after WWII, and attempted a campaign to reverse the Rosie-the-Riveter campaign, but to no avail. It seems to be a lost forgotten cause now, and now we even get many people compounding the problem by taking on two or three jobs each to pay the rent. the problem can be remedied, but not with any free-market civil-liberties approach. (Subsidizing universal child-care through taxes is not a free-market civil-liberties approach either).

Conservative republicans, the ones whom tout 'Family Values', are also the ones against socialism. The anti-gay sentiment thus seems to be the only aspect left with any agreed-upon tangible-implementation meaning. Everything else is just a subjective sentiment, and to those of us already in support of socialism, just a rhetorical double-speak buzzword.

Ya know, I have a wild plan to tear apart the two party system here, to replace it with a platform issues system, and all without any legal or administrative changes necessary. That plan is to have all of us, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens.. - register as Republicans. You would then have Republicans running for the primary (which would be the only consequential race) with socialist or libertarian platform sentiments, and all of us choosing the 'Republican' who most closely matched our platform values. Kucinich or Camejo could run as a republican. I find my plan humorously insidious. Alas, just like the problem of throwing away votes on a third party candidate, it too only works if people agree on a landslide to adopt the notion, otherwise it merely ensures the election of a republican 'Republican' (unless everyone backs out and reregisters with their original party depending on how the primary went.. Hmm, party isn't an issue for secondaries, so maybe it could work after all without landslide commitment).

I don't know if you were aware what a farce open primaries turned out to be (at least here in California). It turned out that primaries aren't even an official government operation, but rather a convenience offered to parties on their behalf. If one was registered Republican, it didn't really matter who you voted for in an open primary; If it wasn't for a republican they would simply discard your vote. All it really amounted to was a vote of no confidence and inconsequential popularity polls. Most voters never even knew that though.

I never thought I'd say this, but I totally agree with you, Brian

yeah...my gut wants to do that. but i must do otherwise, for if i don't, i end up spending way too much time explaining/discussing something that really should have been clear as day. have a lot of conversation in my head due to this word sorting...hmm

I get in too much of a hurry to get a conversation started or keep it going. If I think too much, things don't get said.

exactly....like w/ really good smoke. i find myself calm, of course, but the crap in my head in running at the speed of light and then some. difficult to pinpoint any one thing, for by the time the one thing is even said, 5 more things have raced by.

Censorship will cause more problems than letting people talk crazy if they want to.

I'm not sure that I understand the question.

"How free is the freedom of speech?"

Is there a generally understood measurement of freedom?

How do I express this? The citizens of the United States of America have 3.72 freedom units in regard to their freedom of speech.

It's down to 2.68 lately.

Well, if nobody is around to hear you, you can have all the freedom that you want.

Not free at all. When people are getting sued for hate crimes for speaking their mind there is something wrong. FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS ALMOST DEAD. Do your part don't let it die. Speak your mind...don't be a PC bootlicker. Think for yourself. Now do it!