Why do people need to be pro or anti government?  Couldn't they just be pro good government and anti bad government?

Any government willing to take away your freedoms, is not a good government.

We all have to live together, and sometimes your freedom and my freedom conflict.  That's where the government, with the consent of the governed, has to step in and decide which freedom to take away.  

That's a really simple concept that you radical libertarians don't seem to get.

---

No, we are not. Our digital footprint is nothing more than anonymous bits in a huge pile of data. No one is tracking or giving any special attention to it. I hate to break it to you, but we’re not important enough to track.

Now, should we go on a murder spree, or some other offense which requires law enforcement action, then our previously anonymous data bits become 
a point of investigation.

I understand we are dealing in semantics here, but I am going back to your point of "No one is being tracked unless they want to track you. It’s no different than being surveilled by someone following you."

This is a false statement because we are in fact being tracked, as you gracefully described it as a digital footprint of anonymous bits that only become relevant if we do something unlawful, or maybe even lawful that someone happens to disagree with.

Unless you take into consideration the legal and logistical resources required to track someone. It isn’t a decision made capriciously for those very reasons.

---

Why do people need to be pro or anti government?  Couldn't they just be pro good government and anti bad government?

Any government willing to take away your freedoms, is not a good government.

Nonsense, government's job is to take freedom from criminals.

---

Any government willing to take away your freedoms, is not a good government.

We all have to live together, and sometimes your freedom and my freedom conflict.  That's where the government, with the consent of the governed, has to step in and decide which freedom to take away.  

That's a really simple concept that you radical libertarians don't seem to get.

That isn't radical Libertarianism, it's anarchism. Libertarians recognize the need for limited government and the need to keep it limited.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Eh, I really don't care about this one.. If they wanna track me, have fun.

"That dude literally goes nowhere except for restaurants and the occasional trip to Hustler Hollywood"

~FBI

---

Eh, I really don't care about this one.. If they wanna track me, have fun.

"That dude literally goes nowhere except for restaurants and the occasional trip to Hustler Hollywood"

~FBI

It isn't necessarily this particular act that is troublesome to me, but the fact this acts as a stepping stone for future acts we will blindly accept.

---

Eh, I really don't care about this one.. If they wanna track me, have fun.

"That dude literally goes nowhere except for restaurants and the occasional trip to Hustler Hollywood"

~FBI

It isn't necessarily this particular act that is troublesome to me, but the fact this acts as a stepping stone for future acts we will blindly accept.

A claim which has been made immemorial in U.S. history. But it simply isn't true. 

I myself have made claims of a deep state government and I stand by that. However, my definition concerns organizational bureaucrats who put politics over policy. They strategically leak information and use their authority to deflect and obfuscate, such as the FBI bureaucrat who decided to tip off CNN. You can rest assured that many of the people in the FBI, including the agents involved with the operation, disagreed with it. But that's an entirely different entity than actively surveilling those whose views they disagree with. 

Gaining permission to surveille is an onerous animal - by design. People of all political stripes appreciate and support that design.

---

It isn't necessarily this particular act that is troublesome to me, but the fact this acts as a stepping stone for future acts we will blindly accept.

A claim which has been made immemorial in U.S. history. But it simply isn't true. 

I myself have made claims of a deep state government and I stand by that. However, my definition concerns organizational bureaucrats who put politics over policy. They strategically leak information and use their authority to deflect and obfuscate, such as the FBI bureaucrat who decided to tip off CNN. You can rest assured that many of the people in the FBI, including the agents involved with the operation, disagreed with it. But that's an entirely different entity than actively surveilling those whose views they disagree with. 

Gaining permission to surveille is an onerous animal - by design. People of all political stripes appreciate and support that design.

There was a great comedy about a deep state like the one you describe, on the BBC.  "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister."

---

I'm for the state having these kinds of powers. HOWEVER, there needs to be checks and balances, accountability, and transparency. To the degree they can't be transparent, even more checks and balances need to be implemented.

---

The issue is you are spying on 1 person. How many people are going to get tracked by this and have their rights violated? What happens to those people and their data? Are they deleting it or keeping it for the future? Are they then scanning the data and looking for other criminals that they don't have a warrant for?

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

---

I don't get you. Are you pro government or anti government?

Why do people need to be pro or anti government?  Couldn't they just be pro good government and anti bad government?

Totally agree however too many people are silent when bad government goes after things they personally oppose.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I'm for the state having these kinds of powers. HOWEVER, there needs to be checks and balances, accountability, and transparency. To the degree they can't be transparent, even more checks and balances need to be implemented.

Hahahahahahahahaha. You are expecting the government to be transparent? Lol.

---

No. I am not. That's why it's on us to get loud when they aren't. It's the reason I get so annoyed with TRM, NYC, and the Mikesez's of the world. I can be on board with big government, but if we don't clamor for accountability, transparency, and checks and balances, and if we don't make it a non-negotiable principle, that government will be corrupted.

---

No, we are not. Our digital footprint is nothing more than anonymous bits in a huge pile of data. No one is tracking or giving any special attention to it. I hate to break it to you, but we’re not important enough to track.

Now, should we go on a murder spree, or some other offense which requires law enforcement action, then our previously anonymous data bits become 
a point of investigation.

I understand we are dealing in semantics here, but I am going back to your point of "No one is being tracked unless they want to track you. It’s no different than being surveilled by someone following you."

This is a false statement because we are in fact being tracked, as you gracefully described it as a digital footprint of anonymous bits that only become relevant if we do something unlawful, or maybe even lawful that someone happens to disagree with.

The difference being the Court will no issue a warrant for disagreeable, but lawful, actions.

You're already being "tracked'' whenever you leave your house.  Webcams, traffics cams, store and home surveillance systems, a Tesla on the highway...........your neighbors security camera may be recording you standing in your own backyard.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

I understand we are dealing in semantics here, but I am going back to your point of "No one is being tracked unless they want to track you. It’s no different than being surveilled by someone following you."

This is a false statement because we are in fact being tracked, as you gracefully described it as a digital footprint of anonymous bits that only become relevant if we do something unlawful, or maybe even lawful that someone happens to disagree with.

The difference being the Court will no issue a warrant for disagreeable, but lawful, actions.

You're already being "tracked'' whenever you leave your house.  Webcams, traffics cams, store and home surveillance systems, a Tesla on the highway...........your neighbors security camera may be recording you standing in your own backyard.

If you use any smart phone app for GPS...how do you think google maps/apple maps/waze knows when there's a backup on certain roads?

---