Big Obama is watching you browse the web. Even Bush wasn't this power mad.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The problem is how do you really know someone like Ron Paul isn't just a good speaker too? It's okay for him to support privacy, but if he did gain power what's to stop him from going against his word. The problem is its very different being a political candidate and being the actual president, it's something I could never do because you have to make difficult decisions.

Look at his record.

Granted if you're voting for somebody who has never been in Congress/The Senate before then you are taking a risk - but someone like Ron Paul has a voting record that is decades long that can be checked up on the internet, and it's air tight really.

I just don't understand why people would select someone like Obama over somebody with a record like that.

Take privacy for example. A lot of the people who complain about privacy and the lack of it are the same people who complain about how government's weren't able to discover terrorists plans. How do you monitor suspicious behaviour without invading privacy? It's a difficult question and in my opinion could lead to someone like Ron Paul doing the opposite of what he said.

I wouldn't say it's the same people, but you do have a point that after events like terrorist attacks there are parts of the population who call for crazy measures to be introduced - and the problem is that we have people in office (Obama, Cameron etc) who seek to expand state control... which is what a terrorist attack gives them the excuse to do.

It's like on Farenheit 9/11 (not sure if you've ever seen) but one Congressman basically says the US Government had basically been waiting for the right moment (a tragic event) to implement certain state controls, and when 9/11 happened they thought 'heres our chance'. That's why I think it's always important to have somebody with a good record in power who actually doesn't want more executive power, somebody who wants less (Ron Paul to cite one example - he even said he didn't really want to be President).

[Shockwave.2CC]

Ow no, I have to be careful what I go on now :p

http://www.channel4.com/news/interne...ple-access-nsa

[peteyt]

I wouldn't say it's the same people, but you do have a point that after events like terrorist attacks there are parts of the population who call for crazy measures to be introduced - and the problem is that we have people in office (Obama, Cameron etc) who seek to expand state control... which is what a terrorist attack gives them the excuse to do.

It's like on Farenheit 9/11 (not sure if you've ever seen) but one Congressman basically says the US Government had basically been waiting for the right moment (a tragic event) to implement certain state controls, and when 9/11 happened they thought 'heres our chance'. That's why I think it's always important to have somebody with a good record in power who actually doesn't want more executive power, somebody who wants less (Ron Paul to cite one example - he even said he didn't really want to be President).

The problem is its easy to promise something when your on the outside but when you get the power its completely different. Remember the promise to get rid of University fees and then suddenly their actually raised. I can just imagine someone being for privacy then getting into power and realising they had to tackle terrorism and so going against their promise. Also at the end of the day the president is just really a spokesperson and he has to listen to those around him, some who could force pressure to get what they wanted especially if it was agreed by the majority.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The problem is its easy to promise something when your on the outside but when you get the power its completely different. Remember the promise to get rid of University fees and then suddenly their actually raised. I can just imagine someone being for privacy then getting into power and realising they had to tackle terrorism and so going against their promise. Also at the end of the day the president is just really a spokesperson and he has to listen to those around him, some who could force pressure to get what they wanted especially if it was agreed by the majority.

But that premise assumes all within or who enter government must be bad - and I don't think it's entirely true. I mean, with Obama a lot of people think he's suddenly changed and joined the establishment after gaining office when the truth is he was always part of the establishment but was just painted as somebody so radically different when infact, he wasn't.

I mean you have a point, I suppose sometimes when people join government they can be corrupted or were just complete liars (the Libera Democrats... but only somebody with rose tinted glasses didn't see that coming) - absolutely. But then throughout history you have different examples where people have achieved office/influenced office away from the path it is following with examples including the English Baron's Revolt against the King, the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers who sought and achieved a completely different system to the then-British one they were previously under, US President Calvin Coolidge in rolling back the power of the state state, Thatcher battling (and winning) against the post-war consensus and the Referendum Party of Sir James Goldsmith (along with the Business for Sterling group in the early 2000s) who helped change the course of history indirectly and steered Britain away from joining the Euro. So many more examples but I won't write a story.

Just some examples really of why I don't think everybody deserves scourn poured on them for the sake of it. I mean, i'm pretty.. well very harsh on politicians and Ron Paul is one of the few I like because he actually has a voting record that matches what he preaches. The same goes for Tony Benn (former Labour MP) who I barely agree with, but who at least has always stood solid rather than sacrifice principles for office.

[Daltron]

Obama if you are reading this

hey

[Chippiewill]

It's a bit of a mistake to place all of the blame on the executive. Obama may be a hypocrite but Congress is responsible also.

[MKR&*42]

Not dreadfully shocked lmao, least the media is finally bringing it out to the public.

[Mikey]

This is madness, people should be told what data is being collected and how protected the data is. Also hey obama. love you.

[dbgtz]

Rand Paul is supposedly suing over this.

[peteyt]

But that premise assumes all within or who enter government must be bad - and I don't think it's entirely true. I mean, with Obama a lot of people think he's suddenly changed and joined the establishment after gaining office when the truth is he was always part of the establishment but was just painted as somebody so radically different when infact, he wasn't.

I mean you have a point, I suppose sometimes when people join government they can be corrupted or were just complete liars (the Libera Democrats... but only somebody with rose tinted glasses didn't see that coming) - absolutely. But then throughout history you have different examples where people have achieved office/influenced office away from the path it is following with examples including the English Baron's Revolt against the King, the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers who sought and achieved a completely different system to the then-British one they were previously under, US President Calvin Coolidge in rolling back the power of the state state, Thatcher battling (and winning) against the post-war consensus and the Referendum Party of Sir James Goldsmith (along with the Business for Sterling group in the early 2000s) who helped change the course of history indirectly and steered Britain away from joining the Euro. So many more examples but I won't write a story.

Just some examples really of why I don't think everybody deserves scourn poured on them for the sake of it. I mean, i'm pretty.. well very harsh on politicians and Ron Paul is one of the few I like because he actually has a voting record that matches what he preaches. The same goes for Tony Benn (former Labour MP) who I barely agree with, but who at least has always stood solid rather than sacrifice principles for office.

I think with me I'm just too much of a pessimist when it comes to the government. I never know which one to trust, and so rarely sadly vote. Interestingly I saw something on question time which stated a lot of people were moving support to UKIP not because of their policies but because they felt that the parties they had originally supported had let them down - a lot didn't even know their actual policies.