Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (48370)	5/12/2006 3:22:23 PM
From: Ken Adams	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

I really don't think such databases make us any safer, but they sure give more intrusive powers to the government. Gotta get in on this. I actually DO think such databases make us safer. It's probably been going on much longer than any of us would care to know. As to "more intrusive powers", I'd say yes to that one too. At some point, however, we have to trust the collective government to do the right thing for the folks. Risky, I'll give that to you, but it's a risk I guess I'm willing to take. This takes me back to one of my all time favorite movies. "Seven Days in May". A conspiracy by some traitorous military generals to take over the government. I think I'll go to Blockbuster and try to find that. Good time to take another look. We live in scary times...

To: Jim S who wrote (48370)	5/14/2006 1:44:35 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Whatever's the easiest that provides enough evidence is a likely methodology. Finding a guilty person is less important than finding someone to prosecute. You know something? The sad thing is that a lot of times that actually seems to be the way things operate. The cops get some horrific crime they fell they HAVE to solve, so they grab some poor slob and manufacture lies and "evidence" to nail him. Or a DA decides he needs a high-profile conviction to propel him into a new elective office. I know a bit about the history of Hitler's rise to power, and can't imagine (doh!) it happening here. A lot of Germans couldn't imagine it happening there either. After all, it was the land of Goethe, Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven. For one American to be able to get the allegiance of the military and different police forces to that extent, is just beyond my ken. You don't need all of them. Just the right ones. What municipal or state police force could possibly defeat the US Army? I also can't imagine any one person being able to bring our "stir fry" demographics together under one uniting principle like Hitler did. Short of actual armed invasion, that is. How about a national crises? Maybe one you yourself manufactured? Say you have some boys blow up the Capitol, then kill them so they can never talk? You assume too much if you assume "it can't happen here". It can. But, back to the original point, just call me paranoid. I don't like huge amounts of information about me being collated for easy access by bureaucrats. Nor do a lot of other people. Distrust of the gov't can be healthy for a democracy. Just because I've done nothing wrong doesn't mean I won't be accused of something or singled out when I don't want to be singled out. You got it. I really don't think such databases make us any safer, but they sure give more intrusive powers to the government. Maybe they do. But there at least should be sunset provisions on laws authorizing them. Congress should have to act to re-authorize their continued existence if they are needed.