I have a question for you. Do you think that no one should own a gun because a small percentage of people use them to kill others? Anything can be misused; should there be no telephones in the US because some people harass others by it? Should the internet be banned because many people abuse its priveliges? Should all libraries close because some people never return books? This is the argument presented.
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]" -Wikipedia
You say that people will abuse other privileges and therefore we shouldn't take my argument into consideration, however your counter-examples only superficially resemble the USA PATRIOT Act., because they leave out the inherent power of the state. The people who abuse the internet and telephones to harm others face retribution. The state can use such power without fear of retaliation.
I think he is good but not that good. If he was with McCain, I think that would be better. It is tough to think of a good vice president for Obama. I would say an experienced black man since it is still about "change".
I heard a lot i heard that obama wants to let gay be gay ( fair) and other things that are sexual so i don't know i guess obaam i am a bit informationless about this
I think he is good but not that good. If he was with McCain, I think that would be better. It is tough to think of a good vice president for Obama. I would say an experienced black man since it is still about "change".
I would disagree on this point. In my opinion he has already won the change campaign against McCain and taking a VP who was also big on change would simply be solidifying that voting block that he's already locked down. By choosing Biden he's strengthened his credentials in the departments of experience, foreign policy, and the economy areas where he hadn't been as strong before which will most likely get him more votes then if he'd picked somebody who's more representative of change.
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]" -Wikipedia
You say that people will abuse other privileges and therefore we shouldn't take my argument into consideration, however your counter-examples only superficially resemble the USA PATRIOT Act., because they leave out the inherent power of the state. The people who abuse the internet and telephones to harm others face retribution. The state can use such power without fear of retaliation.
And yet they are allowed to use them until they prove they are unfit to use them. Those who prove that they are unfit to have access to weaponry (those who have been legally required to attend counseling for anger or other issues, or who have been convicted of certain types of felonies) would be denied that privilege, but should we obstruct the rights of those who have given us no reason to do so?
Ah! I hate how people will vote Obama just because he is "black"! Many people do not actually research who they are voting for. They simply choose him because he is "black". I'm not saying everyone is doing it, but there are many people who will.
Ah! I hate how people will vote Obama just because he is "black"! Many people do not actually research who they are voting for. They simply choose him because he is "black". I'm not saying everyone is doing it, but there are many people who will.
There are also quite a few who will not vote for him for exactly the same reason. I honestly have more of a problem with somebody who agrees with his views but won't vote for him because he's black then somebody who is only voting for him because he's black.
And yet they are allowed to use them until they prove they are unfit to use them. Those who prove that they are unfit to have access to weaponry (those who have been legally required to attend counseling for anger or other issues, or who have been convicted of certain types of felonies) would be denied that privilege, but should we obstruct the rights of those who have given us no reason to do so?
Exactly, the government shouldn't disrespect the innocent's right to privacy, which the USA PATRIOT Act does. Furthermore, the government has proven itself time and time again incapable of wielding such power in people's best interests. I could rant all day about failed government schemes that hurt its citizens, such as Vietnam, social security, etc. but the most notable for this case is the use of the similar ECHELON for industrial espionage.
Exactly, the government shouldn't disrespect the innocent's right to privacy, which the USA PATRIOT Act does. Furthermore, the government has proven itself time and time again incapable of wielding such power in people's best interests. I could rant all day about failed government schemes that hurt its citizens, such as Vietnam, social security, etc. but the most notable for this case is the use of the similar ECHELON for industrial espionage.
In any government, your privacy is never truly a right.
Also, the only people who need to fear anything are those who break the law. I'm sure that some FBI agent sitting in that van outside your house doesn't really care about the conversation you're having about how awesome Lord of the Rings is or whatever you're talking about. Dear God, that'd be a boring job.
Personly from an energy crisis they both have similar views. However they are both choosing to convert to nuclear technology. Mccain want's to convert asap, as well as reuse nuclear waste to eliminate polution and radioactivty. Obama wants to slowly convert as the oil is depleated. Once we are looted of all natural resources we will have to use nuclear technology. Also nuclear technology doesn't increase global warming by one bit, in any which way or form.
Mccain: Pro: More energy overall, fixes global warming. Con: Thousands of jobs lost, and an engineering lisence cost $250,000 to work at a Nuclear plant. Obama: Pro: Less public uproar, slowly allows more engineers to become trained and allows people to find jobs. Cons: global warming will still rise, depleated of all natural resources for back-up fuel (future alt. energy)
In any government, your privacy is never truly a right.
In any government, arms are never truly a right.
Also, the only people who need to fear anything are those who break the law. I'm sure that some FBI agent sitting in that van outside your house doesn't really care about the conversation you're having about how awesome Lord of the Rings is or whatever you're talking about. Dear God, that'd be a boring job.
Though you might have something to fear if you said the wrong thing in public so Mr. Vice President decides to release the name of your wife letting 'slip' that she's an covert ops agent in Cambodia right now. He can do that just by pressuring the head of a department with money concerns, image what he could do if he legally could tap your wires, find out everything you've ever searched on the web ever, and get records of all your emails without you knowing, and without any legal reason to do so.
In any government, your privacy is never truly a right.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"- Amendment the Fourth, Ratified 12/15/1791, United States Constitution
Also, the only people who need to fear anything are those who break the law. I'm sure that some FBI agent sitting in that van outside your house doesn't really care about the conversation you're having about how awesome Lord of the Rings is or whatever you're talking about. Dear God, that'd be a boring job.
As I've said before they've used such spy networks to spy on things that are out of the original goals. By presenting such arbitrary power to the government you present a strong potential for its misuse.
