Jump to content

The dangers of our new normal...


Recommended Posts

Yes Greg, it was too hard to understand, lol. You are pathetic! You sound like a teenage girl saying "you just don't understand me..." :rolleyes:

 

No I get it. You are nothing special even though you really think you are deep

It clearly was too hard for you to understand or you could summarize the topic for us. But you can't. Because you have yet to take the time to understand what it is we are discussing. If you think you do know, then prove me wrong and tell me how you define privacy and its benefits to a democratic society as a whole. Then explain to me how the current security apparatus is a threat to individual privacy.

 

The only one making this about me or my "deepness" is you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It clearly was too hard for you to understand or you could summarize the topic for us. But you can't. Because you have yet to take the time to understand what it is we are discussing. If you think you do know, then prove me wrong and tell me how you define privacy and its benefits to a democratic society as a whole. Then explain to me how the current security apparatus is a threat to individual privacy.

 

 

I've continually pointed out the weaknesses of your arguments and you, with a lot of help from other posters, just spit nonsense back. When confronted with the obvious short comings of your logic, the silliness of you link, the pathetic nature of your historical comparisons you respond with, "Oh, you, like, don't get me."

 

You'd like with all you friends helping you could make some sense, but nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've continually pointed out the weaknesses of your arguments and you, with a lot of help from other posters, just spit nonsense back. When confronted with the obvious short comings of your logic, the silliness of you link, the pathetic nature of your historical comparisons you respond with, "Oh, you, like, don't get me."

 

You'd like with all you friends helping you could make some sense, but nope.

 

You haven't pointed out the weakness of my argument because I'm not making one. You've pointed out the weakness of the argument you assume I'm having, only demonstrating (continually) that you don't understand the topic at hand -- or my take on it. The "pathetic nature of your historical comparisons" is funny since you're the one making the historical comparisons (not me) and yes, they were pathetic.

 

Prove to me you know what we're talking about by answering the question (something you have yet to do): How do you define privacy, how does privacy impact the nature of a democratic society, and how does the current security apparatus jeopardize the concept of privacy if at all?

 

 

 

Seriously? You want to bait and switch this argument also? pathetic

 

The only one doing any sort of bait and switching is you. You've responded to post 35 multiple times with different responses each time. So, if you're really as up to speed on this topic as you claim to be, prove it by summarizing your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing to me how political the subject of whether or not we wish to live in a surveillance state has become over the past 8 years. Used to be folks on the left were (rightly) up in arms about the Patriot Act and the ills that have come our way because of that. Now that Obama doubled down on it, it's no big deal.

 

Why is that? What's changed? If the only thing that makes it okay for the state to routinely invade our privacy is the letter in front of the sitting president's name, shouldn't the prospect of an all knowing, all seeing state scare the **** out of you knowing that the electorate in this country routinely swings back and forth between republicans and democrats in the oval

 

:lol: :lol:

 

I'd say you made several arguments here. should I find more? You did make more, you know.

 

You are seriously saying--arguing--you haven't made any arguments? Wow!

 

 

 

And no, it doesn't scare the ****** out of me

 

 

 

 

The only one doing any sort of bait and switching is you. You've responded to post 35 multiple times with different responses each time. So, if you're really as up to speed on this topic as you claim to be, prove it by summarizing your position.

I've summarized my point, again, and again and again and you just drop the little girl thing on me, oh you just don't get it like "we" do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say you made several arguments here. should I find more? You did make more, you know.

You are seriously saying--arguing--you haven't made any arguments? Wow!

And no, it doesn't scare the ****** out of me

 

I've summarized my point, again, and again and again and you just drop the little girl thing on me, oh you just don't get it like "we" do.

Of course it doesn't scare you, you can't be scared of something you're completely and totally ignorant about.

 

You have yet to summarize your point. So I'll wait. Define privacy, it's role in a democratic society, and the threats privacy faces today. I'm not asking you to agree with my stance, just to demonstrate you know what it is we are talking about. So give it to us. Let's hear your summation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Then you complained that Dems don't care anymore because a Dem president is in charge": This is true, and demonstrable. But was brought up specifically to gauge your interest in the matter. Privacy isn't a battle being waged by either party, because the state doesn't think we are grown up enough to discuss it. Clearly, you are proving their point in the manner you're engaging in this ***.

This crap you wrote here. There are arguments and friggin screw ball stuff, too.

 

When some idiot comes along screaming about "the state" like there is some monothilic power out there that...."thinks"???

 

How and in what way does the state think?

 

I think you have been reading too much Greenwald nonsense

Of course it doesn't scare you, you can't be scared of something you're completely and totally ignorant about.

.

Because I don't read the Master Greenwald? Whatever man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This crap you wrote here. There are arguments and friggin screw ball stuff, too.

 

When some idiot comes along screaming about "the state" like there is some monothilic power out there that...."thinks"???

 

How and in what way does the state think?

 

I think you have been reading too much Greenwald nonsense

 

Because I don't read the Master Greenwald? Whatever man

 

You are a very stupid person.

 

Greg, stop encouraging him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This crap you wrote here. There are arguments and friggin screw ball stuff, too.

 

When some idiot comes along screaming about "the state" like there is some monothilic power out there that...."thinks"???

 

How and in what way does the state think?

 

I think you have been reading too much Greenwald nonsense

 

Because I don't read the Master Greenwald? Whatever man

 

So, in other words, you can't define privacy or why it's important to a democratic society or how it's currently being threatened by that security apparatus? And here I thought you might actually have a backbone. I guess I was wrong.

 

You can keep cherry picking responses of mine (and wrongly interpreting them) if it makes you feel better. But everyone can see what you're doing: dodging the issue because you don't understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a very good piece. proof that greenwald and oliver are top of the pack. it's all true. no one here challenges any of the points except to call greenwald treacherous. i wasn't aware he is accused of treason.

 

i like his commentary on the subject here as well: http://www.salon.com/2015/02/23/stupid_and_irresponsible_glenn_greenwald_slams_neil_patrick_harris_treason_joke/

 

“I’m just gonna go ahead and treat it as a joke. I thought it was pretty pitiful, given Hollywood’s fondness for congratulating itself for doing things like standing up for McCarthyism and blacklists. So to just casually spew that sort of accusation against someone who’s not even charged with it, let alone convicted of it, I think is, you know, stupid and irresponsible.

Edited by birdog1960
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You can keep cherry picking responses of mine (and wrongly interpreting them) if it makes you feel better. But everyone can see what you're doing: dodging the issue because you don't understand it.

Cherry pick? You said it! And how can I misinterpret it when I'm asking what the hell you are talking about? Yes, I do not understand what you meant by what the State Thinks. Please explain what you meant. Who, what, where is this "state" you talked about. Gees...

 

So, in other words, you can't define privacy or why it's important to a democratic society or how it's currently being threatened by that security apparatus? And here I thought you might actually have a backbone. I guess I was wrong.

 

Go for it Mr. backbone. Define it then and tell us why its important no one reads my email or knows what toilet paper I buy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the wrong person or persons come to power in this country, we could lose our entire democracy and not even realize it until it's too late.

 

This seems to be the crux of your argument here, right? And I say hogwash. We will still have checks and balances, divided power etc. You claiming "The State" wants this or that, "thinks" a certain way is nutty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cherry pick? You said it! And how can I misinterpret it when I'm asking what the hell you are talking about? Yes, I do not understand what you meant by what the State Thinks. Please explain what you meant. Who, what, where is this "state" you talked about. Gees...

Go for it Mr. backbone. Define it then and tell us why its important no one reads my email or knows what toilet paper I buy

 

So, you can't define what we're talking about, or even summarize it, and you'd like me to do it again even though I've done it for you (post 35) already. The only thing worse than stupid is willful ignorance.

 

We're still waiting for you to define privacy, what it means to a democratic society and how the current security aparatus is a danger to it. It's a fairly simple request for someone who claims to know everything about this subject to such a degree they can gleefully dismiss it. Show us you know what you're talking about:

 

I'll wait.

 

This seems to be the crux of your argument here, right? And I say hogwash. We will still have checks and balances, divided power etc. You claiming "The State" wants this or that, "thinks" a certain way is nutty.

 

The only thing nutty is your ability to read a sentence in English, then regurgitate it back to us in Martian. There are no "checks and balances" on data collection. None. Which is one of the points of this discussion. There's no oversight and there's no "check". Again, you don't know what you're talking about with regards to this subject.

 

Try again to show us why you're the most uninformed person in this forum please.

 

Define privacy, the role it plays in a democratic society and the current threat posed to privacy by the state's surveillance methods.

 

We'll wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...