[lfmunoz4]

Okay so you care, do you think politicians who are now pretending to be concerned for privacy reasons care? Think the average american realizes that they have never cared about privacy and they look like clowns pretending like all the sudden they do.

[nmz]

The average american citizen doesn't care about privacy? Go outside and look through the window inside peoples homes. See how long you last until the cops are called on you.

[lfmunoz4]

I was trying to say that the average american does care, but the average politician does not care. But the point is that recently there has been a reason to pretend to care. i.e, to oppose dodge. They need a reason to oppose dodge and concerned for privacy has that "for the people" tone to it. So the insane part is how a cause like privacy suddenly is important when there is a political need for it to be important, i.e, to find a reason to oppose dodge. When the opposing party is trying to solve a problem you as a politician you need to oppose it. It doesn't matter if it is good or bad. You as the opposing party need to find the bad side of it. And the reason cannot be "I am in the opposing party" or "because I want to be the one to solve the problem". It has to be a possible real reason. So which came first actual concern for privacy or the need to be concerned for privacy. Clearly the need to be concerned for privacy. This kind of why two party system works, because you always have someone opposing what you are doing even if it is right, just to keep it in check.

[tech_ken]

Why does other peoples' sincerity or lack thereof dictate what I am allowed to be outraged by? "Whatabout whatabout whatabout"; what about you worry less whether other people meet your standards for legitimate outrage and worry more about an unelected billionaire giving the federal government the old private equity pump 'n dump?