Show of HandsShow of Hands

Squidboy August 8th, 2015 2:49pm

In the GOP debate Chris Christie & Rand Paul debated security vs privacy. Each represented the overriding concern of their constituency. Which do you think should be the primary concern of the country, privacy or security?

12 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

BenedictPius Pennsylvania
08/09/15 12:25 am

The data they collect is superficial. It's the height of arrogance to believe that out of the millions of data points someone will be purposely reading yours. I'd no wrong is being committed there I'd nothing to fear, especially if it keeps us safe.

elianastar FreeSpeech
08/09/15 8:47 am

The only problem w/that argument is having insufficient understanding degree of no can be constructed from *only* data points.

elianastar FreeSpeech
08/09/15 8:49 am

"Reading" actual email or "listening" to actual phone calls is technologically unnecessary. The argument - from either side - depends on the average person's ignorance of this technical reality.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
08/08/15 9:04 pm

I'm tired of living in a world full of fear and I'm tired of this false argument that we have to bomb people, invade countries, spy on citizens, and prop up governments in order to be safe. We're less safe and our policies have created ISIS.

malibog 12309
08/08/15 6:41 pm

The Constitution! (Paul's point)

08/08/15 4:25 pm

You need security before you can have privacy. Without security, you have nothing to protect your privacy. Common sense people.

4boot LaTrineodeur, MN
08/08/15 4:43 pm

Yes, but focused security that doesn't violate the Constitution. We don't need government spies monitoring everyone's communications.

saliemster California
08/08/15 3:23 pm

Christie- 9/11!!!!!

saliemster California
08/08/15 3:23 pm

But muh hugging families

BatmansParents Monarch Theater
08/08/15 7:52 pm

He give hugs for donuts

Advil sc
08/08/15 3:18 pm

Old Ben was entirely correct (dale41). We must have sufficient security and law in order for us to exist. Otherwise "privacy " will not be an issue. There won't be any. It's a tough question.

dale41 Lets play two
08/08/15 2:42 pm

As Ben Franklin said, "those who surrender freedom for security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one".

TheParthian Omaha, NE
08/08/15 2:11 pm

Liberty* or security

elianastar FreeSpeech
08/08/15 1:10 pm

False choice. We don't *have* to choose one over the other. But we're being led to believe if *everyone's* Constitutional rights are not violated, the swarming hordes will destroy us all.

elianastar FreeSpeech
08/08/15 1:11 pm

They have *surely* already collected enough info to have excellent ideas about where to look for who. Get *warrants* to tack *those* ppl's internet/cell/whatever traffic & leave the rest of us the hell alone.

bluerum29 optimistic idealist
08/08/15 12:33 pm

This one is hard for me

RB20 Indiana
08/08/15 12:19 pm

My thought process is that privacy was put in the Constitution, so this doesn't have to be a debate.

bethanyq Ess Eff
08/08/15 12:05 pm

Neither. Privacy as a concept needs to be replaced with an ownership model.

jvc1133 61535
08/08/15 11:11 am

Security we're at war. 😎

jvc1133 61535
08/08/15 4:33 pm

Oh, sorry dummy has declared peace.

VoteLibertarian Marble Falls, Texas
08/09/15 7:53 pm

Congress has not declared war, nor has the President mobilized troops. We may be "threatened" by ISIS, but we are most definitely not at war.

VoteLibertarian Marble Falls, Texas
08/09/15 8:53 pm

Whoop-dee-freaking-do; you know how many nations have "declared war" against us? Far more than we've gone to war with. Considering we are the most powerful nation on earth, yes - we DO decide when we're at war or not.

VoteLibertarian Marble Falls, Texas
08/11/15 7:50 pm

But if a rogue collection of bandits with nothing more than small arms and pick up trucks "declare holy war" on the U.S., it doesn't hold much weight, does it?

VoteLibertarian Marble Falls, Texas
08/12/15 5:34 am

So I assume you'd say we are "at war" if a cult of 30 people in Canada "declare war" on the United States? That's laughable. ISIS is not a nation, and therefore does not have legitimate grounds to "declare war." ISIS is no threat to the United States

OhTheIrony Learning from you
08/08/15 9:37 am

I'm firmly on the privacy side, but not because of ideological reasons like Rand.

Threats to America are greatly exaggerated and we overcompensate to prevent relatively minor risks.

OhTheIrony Learning from you
08/08/15 9:40 am

Unlike many on this app, I do recognize the value of security. It is important for our citizens to feel safe and protected.

But if we secure our borders out of fear and if we use the TSA to protect our planes out of fear, we need to be sure that...

OhTheIrony Learning from you
08/08/15 9:41 am

the fear is substantiated by a clear and present danger.

I just don't the risks are great enough to warrant the unbelievable amount of of money we spend on security in this country.

Maj Worth Economist
08/08/15 10:09 am

I want to say privacy, but I'm having a hard time feeling it because we also live in the age of social media. Because of that, we need it more than ever, and yet we pay attention to it less than ever. 😕

MachoMatt84 Mountain climbing
08/08/15 8:14 am

Rand Paul was on top of that exchange! Loved the jab about Christie hugging the president too.

08/08/15 8:43 am

Really? I agree with him on this issue but I feel like he really dropped the ball on this debate

MachoMatt84 Mountain climbing
08/08/15 8:45 am

It was about the only part of the debate I caught so I can't speak for the rest.

elianastar FreeSpeech
08/08/15 1:19 pm

I'm seeing "Republican Presidential Debate" today & tomorrow on the FoxNews lineup. I *think* today's is the Happy Hour Debate & tomorrow will be the Primetime Debate.

croopertrooper Greater Cincinnati Area
08/08/15 1:42 pm

I agree with you smithy, I like Paul and agree with his stance but I don't think he did well in the debate at all.