The Five 6/2/2015 - Patriot Act - 2nd section

If you watched the Five tonight and saw the 2nd section, then you know the topic of conversation was about the renewing of the Patriot Act.

For the first time I agreed with Eric Bowling and not Greg Gutfeld. Eric Bowling and Geraldo Rivera stood against renewing it, and Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perino, and Kimberly Guilfoyle stood for renewing it.

The argument for renewing it is that it helps fight terror. It uses data-mining to gather statistics in order to find terrorists.

The argument against renewing it is that it is a violation of our privacy rights. That the information "mined" could be used in instances other than catching terrorists.

Neither side really has a significant foundation:
AGAINST: The data-mining hasn't stopped any terrorist activities.
FOR: You can't prove that.

FOR: They are not reading your e-mails.
AGAINST: You can't prove that.

The other argument FOR the Patriot Act is "How else will you find terrorists?" Which poses an interesting question, but not an insolvable question. The FORs act as if the Patriot Act is the only way to find terrorists. And yet technology today is overwhelming and fascinating. Doesn't ISIS have a facebook page? and a twitter account? How about targeting anyone who connects to those? any repeat viewers? And that's just ONE idea.

AGAINST says "Use Profiling." Let's be clear, "profiling" IS NOT EVIL. The idea of profiling is not a bad thing; yes, it can be abused. But if you have ever watched a crime investigation show, then you have seen how they bring in profilers to profile the extreme criminals (like serial killers). The problem arises when one over-simplifies profiling. When one says, "Oh the terrorists are extremist muslims? Then we should target all muslims." That's insane. It would be like a criminal profiler coming in and saying, "Oh, a bunch of women were killed? Then it must be a man. Target all men." Accurate, intelligent profiling would absolutely work.

The real question is "How much freedom are you willing to give up for your safety?"

Freedom is having choice. Although it is important to remember that that includes choosing the wrong thing as well. The opportunity to make a good choice or a bad choice. Removing choice is not just anti-freedom, it's fascism. Privacy protects our choices. When a person or entity knows our individual secrets, he/she/it/they can manipulate us (whether that's targeted advertising or wrongful arrests). The Patriot Act is an invasion of privacy, but by how much.....

I always recommend less regulations, because it is a slippery slope that is rarely reversed.


Consider this: Patriot Act ends up being used to catch a serial killer. Yay! It becomes a regular tool in catching serial killers. Yay! Then it is used to catch murderers as well. Yay! Then it is used to catch thieves. Yay. Then it is used to catch people who commit identity fraud. yay. Then it is used to catch people who speed. yay? Then it is used to catch you.

Indiana Religious Freedom Law: The Left Needs to Check Themselves, Before They Chick-Ity-Wreck Themselves

SO.....it's ok for the government to discriminate against individuals/private businesses, but it's not ok for an individual to discriminate against other individuals....that about right?

Psychos.

Obviously the government (well the US government) should not be creating any laws that discriminate against anyone as it oppresses their freedom. AND the US Government is supposed to be about protecting freedom.
INCLUDING the freedom to like/dislike/or treat (as individuals, which a private business is an extension of) others how their beliefs dictate.

I, personally, support gay marriage because this is the land of freedom. IF your particular institution (speaking mostly to churches here) do not want to endorse gay marriage...Great! That's your prerogative. But the government shouldn't get involved in such decisions.

This whole backlash against the Indiana Governor and the Indiana law are either full of bigotry or are too simplified to be dealing with the actual issue. We all know that laws are written as convoluted as possible, so is there a possibility that there are elements to this law, nuances perhaps, that do more than I am suggesting here? Possibly, but I'll need an attorney for that (even the politicians can't tell you for sure).

SO, Left? Stop looking like a bunch of bigots who don't like it when you are treated poorly...hell, I've been treated poorly much of my life, but you don't see me whining like a little [female dog], or even abusing a capitalist website for political means, or even wanting everything that "I think" I deserve.

Thank god this will result in a Conservative President.