CosmicBills

You're assuming he was delusional at .083. It's Iowa City, that place is like Sodom during spring break when the sun goes down. Chances are that's his mental state while sober as well.

I find this post to be quite offensive. Put your shirt back on.

It's terrifying on many levels if you allow your mind to wander down the avenues of "what if..."

Already happens. Only it's the telecommunication companies that sell the info to the retailers.

Been jumping in and out of this thread for a bit, definitely haven't read everything in here, but I'd love for you to expound a bit on your point. Just curious about your take.

Don't forget, "smart"phones aren't just tacking devices, they come equipped with microphones that can be remotely turned on by a third party without your knowledge. If God were a spy, he couldn't have created a more perfect surveillance device than the ones we all carry around in our pockets every day. #NWO

Here's the question: did anyone respond to / get the references?

...And there's the rub. As we have become more dependent upon telecommunications for our day to day lives, we have been forced to surrender any right to privacy we once had REGARDLESS of our physical location. As you say in your example, you expect privacy when you're on your own couch talking to your friend. But now, people sit on their couch and talk to their friends on their phone, tablet, email, message board -- all of which are now being defined as "public" venues despite their seemingly private appearance. The rules have changed rapidly in the past decade and change. According to some of the posters in this thread (and talking heads bloviating on TV), we no longer have privacy in our own homes -- at least not if that home has a fiber optic cable running into it or a smart phone within 20 feet of our persons -- and we are supposed to accept this as the new state of the world without batting an eye. We need these restrictions and a new definition of privacy in order to keep us safe in a world filled with evil-doers. It's simply the cost of doing business in a digital world, or so they say. But, very few people are thinking about this in the long term. We are redefining our national identity in a dramatic and potentially cataclysmic manner. Imagine what happens 20 years from now if we continue to willingly surrender our constitutional right to privacy. We started the slide 10 years ago by surrendering our right to due process in order to fight the nebulous "War on Terror". In the decade since, a new generation has come of age that accepts limits to our privacy simply because they've never known anything different. And it's only going to get worse. The deck is stacked against us from an economic and social standpoint. Today it's hard to be efficient or even marketable as a potential employee without an email account, cell phone, tablet or other connected machine. The very nature of our economy and society compels us to use these devices and yet we cannot use these devices without willingly surrendering our 4th Amendment rights when we sign the dotted line on the service provider contracts. We have been conditioned as a populace, in less than two decades, to accept this new reality as a fait accompli. Think about that! In less than twenty years we as a nation have willingly surrendered one of the bedrock principles of what it means to be an American. That's STUNNING to this poster. But the genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in. The question now is what do we do next? At least that's what they tell us. With everything you know of history, do you feel 100% confident that that's all the information the federal government is monitoring? Or, is it more likely that we're only being told a snippet of their true capabilities? I don't ask this as a way of being combative but with honest sincerity. Hasn't it been proven time and time again that the military is at least a decade ahead of the public in terms of technological capability? The NSA clearly has the ability to store and compile as much data as they wish, clearly beyond just the routing information and yet you seem to be taking the line that if they tell us they're not spying on us, they're not spying on us. Isn't that a dangerous way to view the situation? Earlier in the thread you pointed out Lincoln and FDR's assault on due-process in times of war as an illustration for how our country has fought its way back from the brink before. These were men facing monumental threats to our country's survival, in those extreme circumstances they took bold action to do what they felt was right. History judges both of these actions as black marks on their records (moreso FDR's than Lincoln's) but excuses them in light of the historical context. But what about today? Our country does not face a threat anywhere near as dangerous as those epochs and yet the current violations of privacy and due process are light years beyond what FDR or Lincoln did, at least in terms of scope. What happens to our privacy when our nation faces a real threat once again? If this is the new normal, what does it look like when things are cranked up in a time of war? The answer to that should at least be alarming.

:beer: Congrats!!!

DING! Points for well crafted word-play. I guess Canadians know how to write still. Such a shame.

If you stopped reading your own outrageous posts it might help your situation.

I find it at the very least ironic that the question is being posed by the one poster on TBD who cuts and pastes links to articles more often than actually writing a traditional post. #thingsthatamuseonlyme

Rob raised the one point you keep sidestepping, GG: Technology. Do you not see the inherent dangers present in our new digital world? People more than ever are dependant upon the 1s and 0s that make up their world, from their personal correspondences to their bank accounts. Over the past two decades we have gleefully surrendered our right to privacy in exchange for lightening fast communications without ever once considering the downside to our electronic dependence. The Executive has become stronger, not more balanced, since the days of Lincoln or FDR. Neither of those men had the ability to read their citizen's (or enemey's) correspondence as readily as they have today. Neither of those men had the ability to wage war with unmanned (and armed) UAVs capable of depriving citizens of their right to due process with a simple push of the button. It's easier than ever for the people with their hands on the wheel of power to eviserate any private citizen they wish -- literally or metaphorically. I just find it interesting that you choose to disregard the elephant in the room when discussing this. I'm guessing it's because you're over the age of 50 and aren't a child of the information age. (and I don't mean that as a shot to your age if I am indeed correct about that)

Thanks everyone for responding! I'm doing my due dilligence now... much appreciated!

This is my favorite post of yours yet.

Simple poll.

Hey all, Thinking about getting LASIK finally and was curious as to how many folks out there have had the procedure done. Do you reccommend it? I'm interested in anyone who's had it for 10 years or so (to see if they're still happy with it). Thanks in advance!

Hilarious!

Ralph is 96 (? 94?). The team will be sold within the next few years. No serious coach will come to Buffalo knowing that whoever buys the Bills will want to install their own front office, their own GM, their own head coach. Taking a job in Buffalo would be signing on to limbo. No big name coach will come so long as Ralph is here. In fact, I'm betting Chan is still here come kickoff next season.

Is that a racial joke?

Your point has absolutely zero merit. First, the media HAS covered the civil war in Syria. Even if they didn't, comparing a nation embroiled in a brutal and bloody civil war has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. It's a weak argument for weak minded people. Step your game up. And no one is talking about disarming everyone or repealing the second amendment. Not one. That's not why PEOPLE, not the left, went crazy. The reason for the outrage is that the NRA refuses to acknowledge the role that access to these weapons played in the tragedy and instead blamed everything else. What the NRA made clear is they don't care about anything but their own bottom line. They care more about money than they do about the people they are supposed to represent. It's not one thing. It's many. Simplifying it for exclusion purposes or political ones is as cowardly as the criminals who continue to commit these slaughters of innocents. It's time for the lobbyists to STOP dictating policy to the country and time for the weak minded fools like yourself (this based on your long and extensive posting history of absolute ignorance and drivel) to stop hiding behind a LOBBY group that has nothing to do with the second amendment you profess to love. This isn't about the second amendment. No one is arguing to repeal the second amendment. Educate yourself.

You misunderstood me -- I'm not saying mental health issues didn't play a role. I'm saying there are multiple issues at play as there always are in cases such as these. To only talk about one issue, and to only talk about it in a vacuum, is not realistic. Just like it's not realistic to refuse to even DISCUSS the role that semi automatic weapons in the hands of civilians played in this tragedy. But that's exactly what the NRA wishes to do, and I absolutely lost whatever respect I used to have for them. They aren't even pretending to be anything other than driven by profit and greed. See past that. I know you don't believe in that line of thinking. You, as a rational person know that the proliferation and accessibility to weapons certainly played a role. Not the only role, but it was certainly a factor even in the most absurdly literal definition.

Think about the OP. Comparing a nation that's in the midst of a bloody civil war to what happened in Newtown is beyond the pale. It's worse to claim that there is no outrage over the loss of life in Syria. Clearly VA hasn't been paying attention to anything outside his bubble.