pt0217

Uptown please post any links you can to support that.

Check out this video. A room of Clinton cool-aid drinkers boos a marine for questioning Bill Clinton on How Hillary handled Benghazi. http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/02/27/shocking-video-us-marine-booed-removed-from-clinton-rally-for-asking-legitimate-question-310714

For me it has nothing to do with whether I have something. It's about Liberty. I'm not willing to give it away.

Otto, sounds like your happy that the government has all of your phone conversations and computer communications. Why? I don't want the government knowing anything I'm communicating. It's none of their business.

I have held back my opinion but I side with Apple. They designed a phone that protected ones right to privacy. The federal government comes along and says "no good. You have to design a way to for us to get into that phone". Apple is responsible to their customer to protect the product they sold. I have no problem with the Government finding their own way into that phone. But you can't force Apple to destroy their own product. The unintended consequences of Apple being forced into doing this will be very damaging. Is it worth it?

What if a foreign government gets a court order to do exactly what the American Government wants, and the phone belongs to an American Citizen that is being accused of a crime? Would you expect Apple to protect the rights of the American Citizen?

Good points JRM. I think that gets to the heart of the issue. What is the downside to Apple complying? I'm sure one could think of endless possibilities.

Black Bellamy, I posed this question to the lefties on the site because I was curious if they felt Apple should ultimately ignore the courts and stand up for what they believe. I feel this issue is interesting because it finds many on the right who scream about civil liberties, saying Apple should do what the government says. The left on the other hand, when it comes to big business against the government will come down on the side of the government, looking out for what's good for the people. I saw this issue as a time when people on the left may agree with people on the right.

Not saying it's a "left issue". I think this case creates a great opportunity to debate whether or not the law is over stepping. Many of the lefties on this site have been very critical of others that have challenged the law.

I'm wondering what those on the left of this site are thinking on this issue? Should Apple follow the law and do what the court order says, or is it ok to ignore it?

I think for the most part the city is still a safe fun place to go. However, I think the rise in these incidents is a result of the lack of respect towards police officers.

Get well soon Fast Eddie. Can I come up and shoot my bow in your basement while you heal? Lol!

Welcome Lou

Problem I've had with my back tag is when hunting in layers I would likely take off the jacket that has it. I've resorted to putting it on my backpack.

With Obama, you ignore what he says and watch what he does. That's when his true character comes out. He's not the uniter he says he is.

Don't know about Ants, but I don't think your a hater. I just think you've made your mind up about the Bundys and Hammonds based in part on biased sources. I'm sure many of the things your saying about the Bundys and Hammonds may be true. However, I don't think they are the evil people they are being made out to be by those that disagree with what they are doing, including Field and Stream.

I disagreed with the article you posted. I don't believe they are evil. The article would lead you to believe they are.

You are very clear that you don't like these people or anyone that agrees with them.

I get that you don't like them. No Biggie. Plenty of people don't like plenty of other people. I am going to pass on reading the transcript. My concerns with this whole event have nothing to do with the character of the Hammonds'.

Funny. I was thinking the same thing after I posted. No my point is, Field and Stream are taking an editorial position that have labeled the Bundys as the bad guy. They are using that and spinning it into a discussion about conservation. I feel this is disingenuous. This issue is out of their area. It's like they are looking for an angle to justify them to get involved. I think enough people respect the magazine they don't need to alienate those that support the Bundys and others to push for Conservation.

Fair points made. The Bundys and people like them are not evil people. I believe they have a valid point as well. Somewhere in there, there is room for compromise. The article that wildcat posted simply brands the Bundys and the like, as bad people. Editorial articles like that don't help solve the problem they only divide. Field and Stream should stay out of politics.

Wildcat your position is that we should have more public land rather than less. So people will have places to hunt. Also, you believe that the fossil fuel industry, the timber industry, agriculture industry are all bad for our country. With the national debt at 19 trillion dollars and all of these millions of acres only costing taxpayers money to maintain them. Don't you feel there is room to compromise that would help everyone?

I agree with skillet. Hunting was survival in those days. It would be like amending the constitution to give us the right to garden.

May work for rural areas. Suburban areas have tried many different ideas for getting people to volunteer. I'm involved. Problem with Fd's is you need a college degree to be a firefighter

Fast Eddie, Rather than censorship, maybe you can convince uptown redneck to become a productive member of society, then he wouldn't have so much time to post so much negativity. Lol!