Reply #25: Just asking for facts, sir... [View All]

...you can theorize all you'd like, but present it as such...

The fact that you think this won't be an issue demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of its importance to this voter, and I strongly suspect, many, many others.

Show me proof that this will be an issue that will matter.

The issue is about the deterioration of privacy as advanced by the current administration. Clark was clearly supporting something that was correctly labled "one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government."

Clark was supporting a system for airline screeing in the wake of 9/11.

The notion of government working with private enterprises (however legal their actions may be, however much I may "support" them when I shop), in order to build dossiers on American citizens in order to pre-emptively "profle" them (a violation of the Fourth Amendment), is extremely troubling and unpresidented. The issue is about whether or not Clark thinks greater government survelience of its citizens is a good idea or not. Period.

You can't just make a statement then declare it is gospel by stamping it with "period."

Demonstrate to me how this screening process violates the 4th Amendment?

There are really only two choices here:

Dictated by you...

1) The one you've chosen, which is to dismiss privacy concerns as irrelevant, out-dated, or trivial. A huge tactical mistake if Clark should pursue this route, in my opinion.

I didn't dismiss privacy concerns. I dimissed the notion that Clark's indirect involvement in an airport screening process is or will be an issue to the voter - a charge you still have not substantiated.

2) Acknowledge that this type of government survelience is one of the very things that is wrong with the Bush administration, and offer an explaination that acknowledges this type of activity as wrong, and repudiates it as part of Clark's offical policy agenda.

Again, you're not allowed to dictate the terms. Sorry, government surveliance is nothing new. The Bush administration did not invent it. They've carried it further to be sure but the only statement I will make on this issue is that airport security is a necessary evil and the screening process as I understand it isn't real troubling to me.

It's the other possible applications of such a process that can be sinister.

This is my opinion; lacking sources or substantiating data because you are talking now one-on-one to a voter who is giving Clark serious consideration, but finds this Axciom business extremely troubling.

You're suddenly giving Clark consideration? Pardon me, but I don't buy it.

I may be the only voter in America who thinks this way, but is that really a gamble you feel confident Clark should take?

In a word, yes.

Do you think there are millions of voters who reject the Patriot Act but who will be just fine with the government building dossiers of their travel, banking, shopping, communications, movie-watching and reading habits?

This is a practice that predates the patriot act by many many years.
Market studies and demographic trend studies are a tool that has been used for decades.

I think you need to come up with a better answer than, "this doesn't matter." Or if you can't, Clark must.

Again, your opinion.

Please show me proof of how this issue will lose Clark any votes other than yours.

If you are uncomfortable with marketing databases and airport screening procedures as they exist through Acxiom, then take it upon yourself to spread those concerns.

Trying to tie Wesley Clark into shows your bias.

But making such unfounded arguments that this will be a substantial voting issue isn't doing your case much good.