Fox News: "In order to have a safe society, you must give up some freedoms"

[hillelslovak87]

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go home and put some water in Salty Fawlty's momma's dish!

0/10

 

[BEER]

Do you think that any individual citizen should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon if he got rich enough to buy or manufacture one? No matter how dingbatty or over-the-moon that eccentric rich person was?

Yes.

 

[dontsnitch]

Yea Fox News is garbage too. But CNN is going for the belt.

They're the defending champions without a doubt, but ask yourself if Wolf Blitzer or Don Lemon had said the exact same thing verbatim, how would people react to this?

 

[Madmick]

My thread title is a direct quote, so I'm not seeing a problem there. My OP is bare and sardonic, I admit it, but I'm not seeing a problem.

It's a minute-long clip talking about restricting freedoms for security in the context of intelligence gathering, which I assumed we can all agree is internet-related. I think it's a generally bad idea, and I welcome opinions. And since people are always crapping on CNN, I took a shot at Fox, I'll also admit that much.

The tension between security and freedom is eternal. I don't find the quote to be that controversial, especially within the context of American history.

Furthermore, the point I raised (about nukes) is relevant regardless of how you frame this.

 

[Phr3121]

I don't know what it is about Kimberly Guilfoyle, but I can't concentrate on what she is saying when she is talking. She has 'fuck me' written all over her face and body. She looks like she came out of the porn industry but she didn't. She has a law degree from the University of San Francisco. She looks great for 48. Two failed marriages. Probably leans towards the 'bitch' side. What a contrast to Dana Perino on 'The Five', a classy babe.

By the way, didn't we give up some freedom after 9/11?

 

[dontsnitch]

The tension between security and freedom is eternal. I don't find the quote to be that controversial, especially within the context of American history.

Furthermore, the point I raised (about nukes) is relevant regardless of how you frame this.

Given that @BEER answered in the affirmative, to my surprise, your question has more merit that I give it credit for.

Sorry for a lazy OP.

 

[lookslikeseen]

For starters, people will adapt. If we get to a place where the Government has unrestricted access to your internet activities, terrorists are just going to work around it, so it will just lead to a restriction of freedom with little impact on actual terrorism in the long run.

If you're asking me what should we do about terrorism, there is nothing to be done because there will always be terrorism. Now, we can always adopt reasonable immigration policies and stop screwing with the Middle East, but as far as information gathering, I'm not seeing Uncle Sam looking over my shoulder as any sort of solution.

You take out the internet and cell phone communications, what are they going to use? Paper mail? That doesn't sound very efficient.

Of course it won't cut out all terrorism (lone wolves, impromptu vans), but it'll cut down on the instant communication people are able to use without fear.

 

[dontsnitch]

You take out the internet and cell phone communications, what are they going to use? Paper mail? That doesn't sound very efficient.

Of course it won't cut out all terrorism (lone wolves, impromptu vans), but it'll cut down on the instant communication people are able to use without fear.

They can still use the internet to locate terrorists, but to invade someone's privacy should require a search warrant. They can still search through social media, forums, and just general information gathering. Hell, they can get a Chris Hansen to catch a terrorist sting going.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Just a daily reminder that it's not just CNN that's terrible, but the entire MSM is garbage.

Can we all agree that we shouldn't revisit the Patriot Act?

Wtf... the man who gives up freedom for security deserves neither

 

[K1levelgrappler]

If you're one of those people who's constantly pants shitting over terrorism, and there's plenty around here, I don't think you can really complain about surveillance with any credibility.

It's a dangerous world right? Scary Muslims want to kill us.

 

[dontsnitch]

If you're one of those people who's constantly pants shitting over terrorism, and there's plenty around here, I don't think you can really complain about surveillance with any credibility.

It's a dangerous world right? Scary Muslims want to kill us.

Not sure I agree, the ends don't need to justify the means, even if you believe the end is catastrophic. Theoretically, one can see terrorism as a greater threat than it is and still reject drastic measures to combat it. It's less likely that they would perhaps, but it's not a dichotomy.

 

[lookslikeseen]

They can still use the internet to locate terrorists, but to invade someone's privacy should require a search warrant. They can still search through social media, forums, and just general information gathering. Hell, they can get a Chris Hansen to catch a terrorist sting going.

And I, the hypothetical terrorist, know that. So all I have to do is communicate with all my hypothetical terrorist buddies and we can plan a bombing via text message without worry.

That sucks. My initial and only point was that I don't blame people for thinking that it wouldn't be a terrible thing if the gov could see that and prevent the next 9/11 from happening.

I want to take this moment to clarify that I'm not advocating for one side or the other. I'm just saying I get where both sides are coming from.

 

[Literally Bricked]

Really don't understand why anyone would argue that. I cannot willie nillie cross into the US and vice-versa.

Maybe you guys don't need that wall with Mexico?

 

[dontsnitch]

And I, the hypothetical terrorist, know that. So all I have to do is communicate with all my hypothetical terrorist buddies and we can plan a bombing via text message without worry.

That sucks. My initial and only point was that I don't blame people for thinking that it wouldn't be a terrible thing if the gov could see that and prevent the next 9/11 from happening.

I want to take this moment to clarify that I'm not advocating for one side or the other. I'm just saying I get where both sides are coming from.

Yeah, I get your devil's advocate. I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that the State be given access to your cell phone. It will just mean the State will be reading my text messages and your terrorist buddies will meet at Starbucks instead of texting each other. Boo-urns to that. I get the mentality, though.

It is odd to make this motion in the wake of a terrorist attack in Spain and not the US. That struck me as weird, but who knows what Fox is thinking.

 

[Lex Bigelow]

Fox news is zio controlled opposition.

 

[lookslikeseen]

Yeah, I get your devil's advocate. I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that the State be given access to your cell phone. It will just mean the State will be reading my text messages and your terrorist buddies will meet at Starbucks instead of texting each other. Boo-urns to that. I get the mentality, though.

It is odd to make this motion in the wake of a terrorist attack in Spain and not the US. That struck me as weird, but who knows what Fox is thinking.

Drawing them into the open would be the best possible scenario. Take away the privacy and they're more likely to be found out. The issue, conundrum if you will, is how can you do that without infringing on civil liberties.

I'm also one of those weird "I have nothing to hide so you can dig through my shit and I won't care" types, so admittedly there is some bias here. But I know that's not how most people are so I'm not going to sit here and call other people wrong for not agreeing. I'll dig in my heels for some stuff, but that's sure as shit not one of them.

And for God's sake, HYPOTHETICAL terrorist buddies. Geez.

 

[AviatorShades]

Just a daily reminder that it's not just CNN that's terrible, but the entire MSM is garbage.

Can we all agree that we shouldn't revisit the Patriot Act?

Every conservative I've ever met agrees Fox is trash but the left dumps it into our laps just because it's not as far-left as all of its competitors and lets a guy like Tucker on.

That the entire MSM is garbage is easily explained by its incestuous ownership/basically being one company with 20 different logos.

 

[dontsnitch]

Drawing them into the open would be the best possible scenario. Take away the privacy and they're more likely to be found out. The issue, conundrum if you will, is how can you do that without infringing on civil liberties.

I'm also one of those weird "I have nothing to hide so you can dig through my shit and I won't care" types, so admittedly there is some bias here. But I know that's not how most people are so I'm not going to sit here and call other people wrong for not agreeing. I'll dig in my heels for some stuff, but that's sure as shit not one of them.

And for God's sake, HYPOTHETICAL terrorist buddies. Geez.

Haha, yeah, that's my bad, hypothetical indeed.

Here's my question- if we decide that the State should be granted greater access to your private life, should those that are caught doing things that are illegal, other than terrorist-related activities, be convicted for their crimes?

 

[dontsnitch]

Every conservative I've ever met agrees Fox is trash but the left dumps it into our laps just because it's not as far-left as all of its competitors and lets a guy like Tucker on.

That the entire MSM is garbage is easily explained by its incestuous ownership/basically being one company with 20 different logos.

Pretty girls, though.

I don't mind Fox, but that's only cause it's a welcome balance. Truth be told, I'm starting to get my news from YT "pundits".

 

[spin]

Yes.

Well that's really really stupid.



Good thing we don't do that