Tiberius Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) And one more: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/15/fbi-informant-stung-fbi/ I lied, one more: http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/17/8439465/france-surveillance-law-anti-terrorism-charlie-hebdo So in the French proposed law they are using programs to spot patterns that might be suspicious and are allowed to monitor suspected terrorists agents. What problem do you have with that? Edited April 17, 2015 by gatorman
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 So in the French proposed law they are using programs to spot patterns that might be suspicious and are allowed to monitor suspected terrorists agents. What problem do you have with that? What do they consider to be "suspicious patterns?"
....lybob Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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 office? I'm actually interested to hear your thoughts on the issue. :lol: going back, two things I thought people would be outraged about ( revelations about torture and surveillance) have garnered a collective meh.. from the majority of the country and where people do have a strong opinion I think the pro torture pro surveillance people make up a slight majority.
Tiberius Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 What do they consider to be "suspicious patterns?"Much like unwarranted that would be a tricky question and mean different things to different people. I suspect--if I may, lol--that experts in terrorism and the habits of terrorists would determine that
GG Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Oh, but you are so awesome because you can insult! Wow! Deep man! No, it's not the insult. It's the basic fact of life that any discussion gets derailed when you decide to participate in it.
Chef Jim Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Much like unwarranted that would be a tricky question and mean different things to different people. I suspect--if I may, lol--that experts in terrorism and the habits of terrorists would determine that What are your thoughts on torture?
Tiberius Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 going back, two things I thought people would be outraged about ( revelations about torture and surveillance) have garnered a collective meh.. from the majority of the country and where people do have a strong opinion I think the pro torture pro surveillance people make up a slight majority. I'd agree,and I'd also say, not to go off in another direction, but that I have always thought that those that say torture doesn't work are wrong. Of course it works sometimes. But i see it mostly as unwarranted And has no place anywhere inside a system that is suppose to accord due process What are your thoughts on torture?^
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) What are your thoughts on torture? He's torturing the snot out of logical processes in this thread, so I'd have to say he's for it. Edited April 17, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker
Tiberius Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 No, it's not the insult. It's the basic fact of life that any discussion gets derailed when you decide to participate in it. Stupid statement! I get asked more questions that anyone on the f'n board you moron. He's torturing the snot out of logical proceses in this thread, so I'd have to say he's for it.Now that hurts
Chef Jim Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I'd agree,and I'd also say, not to go off in another direction, but that I have always thought that those that say torture doesn't work are wrong. Of course it works sometimes. But i see it mostly as unwarranted And has no place anywhere inside a system that is suppose to accord due process ^ So our government that partakes in torture in secret is not going to use surveillance against it's citizens for their own benefit?
DC Tom Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 STFU, you said something so stupid don't try and dodge. Unwarranted intrusions have been open to ambiguity for centuries you complete idiot. Beautiful definition! "Said something stupid?" I took that from the Oxford English Dictionary, you dumb !@#$. You simply called one word of it "ambiguous," which doesn't at all address the definition of "privacy." It merely moves the discussion to the definition of "unwarranted," WHERE IT BELONGS. But in your warped little world, you can't even discuss topics that are ambiguous. Uh...news flash, space cadet: you don't discuss unambiguous topics, because you don't have to. Because they're unambiguous. Ambiguous topics, like "what is 'unwarranted,'" are the ones you discuss. For example: no one ever discusses whether or not you're an idiot. Because you're unambiguously an idiot. But what people DO discuss is whether you're honestly this stupid (because no one could be this persistently brilliant a troll), or one of the most persistently brilliant trolls ever (because no one could honestly be this stupid and live.) But the ambiguity inherent in the question "Why is gatorman an idiot" doesn't change the fundamental observation that you are, in fact, an idiot. Nobody in their right mind says "Oh, I don't know if gatorman's trolling or dumb as a pile of monkey ****. So I guess he's not an idiot." Likewise, nobody in their right mind says "'Unwarranted intrusion' is ambiguous, so I guess we can't define 'privacy.'" You, of course, say that. But nobody in their right mind does. And FURTHERMORE...how you got to your ridiculous "you said something so stupid and don't try and dodge" nonsense from my observation that you've spent pages being ridiculously UNAMBIGUOUS in your stupid statements, but when presented with a rational and commonly accepted statement you decided to whine about ambiguity? How does that work? Are you brain-damaged? Tell me you're brain-damaged. Tell me you've got a massive, gaping head would with an open skull fracture. Because I'll settle for that. I'll buy it.
Tiberius Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 So our government that partakes in torture in secret is not going to use surveillance against it's citizens for their own benefit? So you distrust the government and it should not have the power to try and fight people that want to harm us? Is that what you are actually saying?
DC Tom Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 No, it's not the insult. It's the basic fact of life that any discussion gets derailed when you decide to participate in it **** all over it. I've never seen him participate in a discussion. What are your thoughts on torture? Clearly he's for it. Look what he's doing to us. So you distrust the government and it should not have the power to try and fight people that want to harm us? You mean like...Republicans?
Tiberius Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 "Said something stupid?" I took that from the Oxford English Dictionary, you dumb !@#$. You simply called one word of it "ambiguous," which doesn't at all address the definition of "privacy." It merely moves the discussion to the definition of "unwarranted," to whine about ambiguity? How does that work? Are you brain-damaged? Tell me you're brain-damaged. Tell me you've got a massive, gaping head would with an open skull fracture. Because I'll settle for that. I'll buy it. get mad and scream and shout all you want, in the CONTEXT we were discussing privacy and unwarranted intrusions thereof, your definition was stupid as hell. The Oxford dictionary is very general for a reason you clown. Wow! What a complete idiot you are! The fact you are even trying to defend your idiocy is laughable! Why, it's down right unwarranted! Lol!! I'm out, have a wonderful Friday night on here Tom
Azalin Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Stupid statement! I get asked more questions that anyone on the f'n board you moron. That's because your responses are so damned entertaining. Your ignorance is of biblical proportions, and your willingness to say anything at all injects pure mental chaos into every thread in which you participate. The combination of the two makes for the most entertaining reading - despite the inevitable headache from doing so - that I've ever seen. What's even funnier is that you seem to think that you're besting everybody. It's like watching someone use their face to pound the crap out of someone else's fists.
....lybob Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 That's because your responses are so damned entertaining. Your ignorance is of biblical proportions, and your willingness to say anything at all injects pure mental chaos into every thread in which you participate. The combination of the two makes for the most entertaining reading - despite the inevitable headache from doing so - that I've ever seen. What's even funnier is that you seem to think that you're besting everybody. It's like watching someone use their face to pound the crap out of someone else's fists. actually faces breaks hands more than you'd think.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 17, 2015 Author Posted April 17, 2015 So is Snowden a criminal in your opinion? Stealing all those documents? Government said it hurt our operations overseas What do you think about Snowden? Or do you just take everything the government tells you as wholesale truth? You have said several times on here that I think Snowden is a hero, something I never said. The fact is it does not matter if Snowden is a traitor or a hero when discussing the information he leaked. It's out there now, there's no excuse to be ignorant of it anymore. The only question is, what do you do with that information once you have it? You've chosen to do nothing, worse than nothing, you've chosen to form an opinion on this subject without even bothering to learn about the issue. That's not recommended. As a guy from a military family, I'm very conflicted about my own feelings about Snowden and what he chose to do. As an American, I'm grateful for the sacrifice he made to bring this information to light because otherwise we would still be in the dark about much of this. This is a serious issue that's hardly being discussed, despite being a month and change away from the deadline to renew the Patriot Act -- which is exactly what the government wants. They don't want us discussing this, they don't want us knowing the true scope of the power they wield. That, at the very least, should make you suspicious, if not alarmed. So in the French proposed law they are using programs to spot patterns that might be suspicious and are allowed to monitor suspected terrorists agents. What problem do you have with that? A sweeping data collection program with zero accountability and limited oversight should be a problem for anyone possessing a fully functioning frontal lobe. Thankfully for you, you don't apply. going back, two things I thought people would be outraged about ( revelations about torture and surveillance) have garnered a collective meh.. from the majority of the country and where people do have a strong opinion I think the pro torture pro surveillance people make up a slight majority. I don't disagree, but also am not surprised based on the limited amount of attention the issue (surveillance specifically) receives. Gatorman's willful ignorance on the issue aside, most people don't want to know about this topic because it's really uncomfortable. Most people don't understand the capabilities the intelligence community possesses in terms of data collection, or if they do (even in a limited sense), they assume "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't care if they're collecting my data," which is pretty much just burying your head in the sand. The powers that be don't want this sort of debate to happen because their position is indefensible and they know it. More than that, they've already won the war with the youngest generations and know they just need to run out the clock in some sense. The world has changed and our expectations of privacy in relation to security certainly need to reflect that change; but to what degree? That's the question we've not been allowed to debate as a nation without the government cramming "the war on terror" down our throats until everyone shuts up. That's not how our system of government is supposed to operate. It's unconstitutional at best, criminal at worst. Stupid statement! I get asked more questions that anyone on the f'n board you moron. You might get asked more questions than anyone on the board, but you answer the least by far. You're not interested in a conversation, you're interested in celebrating your ignorance. For that much, we're all grateful. "Said something stupid?" I took that from the Oxford English Dictionary, you dumb !@#$. You simply called one word of it "ambiguous," which doesn't at all address the definition of "privacy." It merely moves the discussion to the definition of "unwarranted," WHERE IT BELONGS. But in your warped little world, you can't even discuss topics that are ambiguous. Uh...news flash, space cadet: you don't discuss unambiguous topics, because you don't have to. Because they're unambiguous. Ambiguous topics, like "what is 'unwarranted,'" are the ones you discuss. For example: no one ever discusses whether or not you're an idiot. Because you're unambiguously an idiot. But what people DO discuss is whether you're honestly this stupid (because no one could be this persistently brilliant a troll), or one of the most persistently brilliant trolls ever (because no one could honestly be this stupid and live.) But the ambiguity inherent in the question "Why is gatorman an idiot" doesn't change the fundamental observation that you are, in fact, an idiot. Nobody in their right mind says "Oh, I don't know if gatorman's trolling or dumb as a pile of monkey ****. So I guess he's not an idiot." Likewise, nobody in their right mind says "'Unwarranted intrusion' is ambiguous, so I guess we can't define 'privacy.'" You, of course, say that. But nobody in their right mind does. And FURTHERMORE...how you got to your ridiculous "you said something so stupid and don't try and dodge" nonsense from my observation that you've spent pages being ridiculously UNAMBIGUOUS in your stupid statements, but when presented with a rational and commonly accepted statement you decided to whine about ambiguity? How does that work? Are you brain-damaged? Tell me you're brain-damaged. Tell me you've got a massive, gaping head would with an open skull fracture. Because I'll settle for that. I'll buy it. So you distrust the government and it should not have the power to try and fight people that want to harm us? Is that what you are actually saying? No one, absolutely no one is saying that. It's like you only read the first and last word of every sentence and then make up what was said in the middle and then present it as fact. It's an art form you've perfected, but it's not a very good way to go through life.
Azalin Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 actually faces breaks hands more than you'd think. Not the way he does it.
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Stupid statement! I get asked more questions that anyone on the f'n board you moron. Like when we asked you to explain what the government's earnings are. No one asked that for elucidation. We asked that because most of us use the Socratic method to try to get you to realize you make absolutely no !@#$ing sense whatsoever.
Recommended Posts