So here's the thing
 

In my imperfect understanding of US politics I tend to infer that Democrats are left of centre and favour higher taxes, more government control, social services etc, whilst Republicans are right of centre and favour lower taxes, pro-business legislation, less government control, "help yourself" social system etc.

Now, before you go biting my head off, I know this is a sweeping generalization, but I'm sure it will suffice for my question.

Based upon the assumption that "Republicans" don't like the government poking their noses into "personal freedoms" etc, how do people feel about the current administration's profiling and "biometric passport" plans?

If anything, this will create a bigger, more sinister government database on you than anything any liberal minded (if misguided) democrat would think up.


Thoughts?


Mr Mephisto

PS - I'm just curious. I have no agenda, so don't waste your time accusing me of criticising Bush or blah blah blah...


Mr Mephisto

I think there can be an argument made that this administration is going against almost all of the supposed republican principles that you listed -- I think much of this trend can be attributed to the influence that the Christian conservatives have had on the party and I think it may (some years down the road) inspire a split in the party similar to when the democrats battled the dixiecrats.

That's what I see, except I don't think it will be years down the road. The populist message is rubbing the margins raw when it collides with corporate sponsorship and the American Taliban. The contradictions seem to be becoming apparent.

To directly answer the post's question, however, I don't think this technology differs significantly from past tracking technologies, such as, fingerprints and regular passports. Tracking movement may become easier, but it certaintly wasn't impossible before--this just seems to make it more efficient. I do understand our drive to do things more efficiently even though I am not necessarily supportive of monitoring.

Basically, it works like this:

Democrats are the people who give money to the poor so they'll stay away.
Republicans are the people who give money to the cops to KEEP the poor away.

cynical? me?

lol

That made me laugh. :)


Mr Mephisto

Well I'll add my own broad generalizations to the mix here. Conservative/Republicans generally want smaller government, less social programs etc. Liberals are traditionally the opposite. BUT when it comes to crime and justice the conservatives usually come down with a harder hand than liberals. Liberals like to forgive and forget, or give the criminal a second chance to turn over a new leaf. Conservatives are less likely to grant that second chance. So, interestingly enough, when it comes to the war on terror, conservitives are more likely to say "bigger government when it comes to security is better, if your not a terrorist you have nothing to worry about, we're just trying to protect you" and liberals are more likely to see a problem with over zealous government meddling in the lives of your average citizen (mabye because they all were LSD using, pot smoking hippies with dirty feet back in the day;) Im kidding of course.. not flaming. its a joke.. laugh!).

Again, these are broad generalizations so theres probably not much truth to that theory. Just thinking out loud really.

How can I not laugh given how stoned I must be right now! ;)

Out of date. Recent behaviour:

Republicans: Pro-social control.
Democrats: Pro-political correctness.
Democrats: Pro-affermative action.

Economically, both Democrats and Republicans are quite close. They both are pro-pork, pro-business, and effectively pro-free-trade, and pro-China engagement.

Most companies simply donate to both parties, and donate more to the party in power. I would guess if a party didn't toe the business line in legislation they would reduce spending on that party.

Democrats: Pro-balanced budget
Republicans: Pro-cutting taxes
Republicans: Pro-military spending

Republicans have discovered that cutting social programs can be seen negatively. By cutting revenue and increasing military expendatures, they can put the squeeze on, and justify social program cuts in the future because "we can't afford them, look at the debt!"

Republicans: Pro-unilateralism
Democrats: Pro-multilateralism.

Democrats use and are restricted by international institutions.

Republicans view international institutions as uncomfortable straitjackets, infringing on American soverienty.

i'll withhold my laughter until you explain how Christian conservatives influence fosters the creation of population controlling databases.

I don't think anyone has really addressed what the topic talked about. Granted, one can attack a line of reasoning by damaging its premises, but I don't think anyone has shown that the premises are so off base that the point made doesn't really work.

That said, here are my thoughts on the issue.

First off, it strikes me that technology, not ideology is driving this debate. I hope we can all agree that there is something inherently bad about the government (or anyone else) possessing an extensive database of information about every american, and the ability to identify everyone easily. With that in mind, what might tempt us, or the people in power to establish such a system? In this case, it's the need for "security" that the administration desires. Here, I might dust off a few arguments used against gun control, and apply them to great effect. Requiring everyone to be put into this system will compromise the privacy of a large number of Americans, and do relatively little to curtail the behavior of "the enemy," in this case. This is quite similar to the way that strong gun control laws do more to keep guns out of the hands of the innocent, and don't cut off the means by which criminals acquire them.

Needless to say, technological innovation is inevitable, and the temptation to create such an information system will only grow.

(Now, some of you might argue that such a system already exists, but its current form is nothing compared to what might be possible in the next 10 years, or indeed, compared to what is already possible, but not yet implemented.)

Um...to keep track of who is chosen when the rapture takes place? Just a guess...

:crazy:

I will always be a Republican due to the fact that if ppl are on government programs I want them to learn how to work in the real world and get off the program and live with out aid! Because then If they could do that they would feel better about them self.

I wasn't specifically replying the case of the tracking database but more to the change in ideals of the republican party. however, i could make many hypothetical arguments as to how the Christian right would support such a database. Right wing Christians seem more and more interested in the personal lives of others (gay marriage/sodomy, abortion, "being patriotic", etc). While I'm sure that some of the more extreme anti-government Christian groups are against the biometric passport I have yet to see the Christian community register much concern at all over this issue or any other attack of civil liberties. Most Christian fundimentalists* seem happy to poke into the personal lives of other -- after all, the' re going to hell anyway.

*note I am only referring to fundamentalist Christians in this post -- I do not extend these opinions to all Christians.

Specifically on right wing Christians, you are wrong about any support for such a database.

They universally denounce any such govt. tracking for fear of the "number of the Beast".

yeah lebell... that is exactly what i was hoping that portion of this thread would walk into.

fundamentalist christians are extremely opposed to any of this sort of monitoring for precisely that reason. that is why i found the post on it so outlandish.

don't ask me how or why fundamentalists think they can postpone the apocalypse...

ok, let me clarify. I did some googling and I did find some references to state id cards being a sign of the apocalypse and a few upset extreme Christians, I even found a site stating that the Christian coalition is against state sponsored id. However, the issue did not make it to their 19 biggest issues list (http://www.cc.org/issues.cfm) and searching on their website produced no official stance on the issue. anyway, i concede, I'm no expert on the views of the Christian right wing I was only stating how I felt about the issue given the fair amount of news that i read. If mainstream and fundamentalist Christian organizations are so against state sponsored ID and by extension the eroding of civil liberties that is being done by this administration why arn't they more vocal about it? and why do they only care about civil liberties as applied to Christians? why are they so willing to work to: ban homosexuals from caring for children, stop adults form looking at pornography, protect religious sites in Israel, allow prayer in schools, keep equal rights out of reach for homosexuals, and generally force their beliefs upon the populous (domestic and foriegn)? I can't say that just because many Christian organization view state sponsored ID as a sign of the appocalyse that they should be declared defenders of civil liberties. I still stand by my first statement that the desires of the right wing Christian establishment often run counter to the traditional ideals of the republican party.

brianna,

thanks... i'm being serious, thanks.

thanks for admitting that you were wrong about something you posted. thanks for bothering to actually do some research before you fired off a hotheaded reply. thanks for sticking to your guns while maintaining a good deal of intellectual honesty.

and i agree, fundamentalist Christian and Republican agendas often do not match.

a breath of fresh air.

lol, where did brianna admit she was wrong?

For that matter, where were her statements wrong?

Why not just quit giving her a hard time.