The dangers of our new normal...

[FireChan]

 

 

It's one of those issues that we should be openly debating as a country -- but we won't, or can't. Won't because some people see it as a necessary evil, can't because others (mainly the younger generations) have already accepted it as the price we pay for being online 24/7. You can't operate in this society, either in business or in your personal life, without leaving some sort of electronic footprint because we've become so interconnected and dependent upon our technology. I'm no Luddite, I'm clearly a fan of posting online and all things digital. And I'm completely open to hearing counter arguments, but right now we're not even having the conversation, let alone a debate.

 

What's nuts to me is that out of all the issues we debate in this country, from Health Care to gun control to whatever other political lightning rod you wish to choose, this issue is undoubtedly the most imperative issue we face as a society and civilization entering the 21st century. It's something that will absolutely define our lifetimes and our children's.The issues we call privacy today were once essential elements in how we as a nation defined liberty and freedom. Now, we've surrendered it without even a public debate. If information is power then the surveillance apparatus operating today is absolute power.

 

Yet, we can't even talk about it. It's insane to me.

What was the last law or act that the federal government wrote or created that actually limited its own power? I honestly can't remember.

[Azalin]

 

 

It's one of those issues that we should be openly debating as a country -- but we won't, or can't. Won't because some people see it as a necessary evil, can't because others (mainly the younger generations) have already accepted it as the price we pay for being online 24/7. You can't operate in this society, either in business or in your personal life, without leaving some sort of electronic footprint because we've become so interconnected and dependent upon our technology. I'm no Luddite, I'm clearly a fan of posting online and all things digital. And I'm completely open to hearing counter arguments, but right now we're not even having the conversation, let alone a debate.

 

What's nuts to me is that out of all the issues we debate in this country, from Health Care to gun control to whatever other political lightning rod you wish to choose, this issue is undoubtedly the most imperative issue we face as a society and civilization entering the 21st century. It's something that will absolutely define our lifetimes and our children's.The issues we call privacy today were once essential elements in how we as a nation defined liberty and freedom. Now, we've surrendered it without even a public debate. If information is power then the surveillance apparatus operating today is absolute power.

 

Yet, we can't even talk about it. It's insane to me.

 

I'm with you 100%. New federal regulation of the internet isn't going to help any, either. It's all sold the same way, and people just lap it up, accusing dissenters of partisanship. It's beyond pathetic.

[TakeYouToTasker]

What was the last law or act that the federal government wrote or created that actually limited its own power? I honestly can't remember.

The Articles of Confederation. Everything since has expanded it's powers.

[Tiberius]

The Articles of Confederation. Everything since has expanded it's powers.

I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights were after that, Mr Constitution

I'm with you 100%. New federal regulation of the internet isn't going to help any, either. It's all sold the same way, and people just lap it up, accusing dissenters of partisanship. It's beyond pathetic.

What should be done about this problem? Greggy poo seems to think blaming the Democrats helps, but not sure that's a solution. You have any?

[Deranged Rhino]

I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights were after that, Mr ConstitutionWhat should be done about this problem? Greggy poo seems to think blaming the Democrats helps, but not sure that's a solution. You have any?

If you understood my posts in this thread to be blaming one party or the other, you haven't understood anything I've written.

[Tiberius]

If you understood my posts in this thread to be blaming one party or the other, you haven't understood anything I've written.

I've understood you are whining about the Internet and how information through it can be recorded. Then you complained that Dems don't care anymore because a Dem president is in charge. What about the anti government people, shouldn't they be upset about the modern era also?

 

And I'll admit I don't understand any solutions you have at all...oh wait, you haven't even proposed anything to undo whatever it is that has absolute power over all of us we slaves

[Tiberius]

This. Big time.

So you respond positively to the post where he bashes Obama, yawn

 

Ok, I'll be on board to make it illegal to keep information about what deodorant we bay and how much beer we purchase. Sure, that will release us from the hold of the all powerful state

[Deranged Rhino]

I've understood you are whining about the Internet and how information through it can be recorded. Then you complained that Dems don't care anymore because a Dem president is in charge. What about the anti government people, shouldn't they be upset about the modern era also?

 

And I'll admit I don't understand any solutions you have at all...oh wait, you haven't even proposed anything to undo whatever it is that has absolute power over all of us we slaves

 

"I've understood you are whining about the Internet and how information through it can be recorded.": This is not correct, nor my complaint.

 

"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 topic.

 

"What about the anti government people, shouldn't they be upset about the modern era also?": My point, which you'd understand if you read my posts, is that ALL Americans, regardless of party or political affiliation are being impacted by this and thus should be gravely concerned. But they're not. Because it's not a debate we're having as a nation, let alone individual political parties.

 

"And I'll admit I don't understand any solutions you have at all...oh wait, you haven't even proposed anything": It's tough to propose solutions when there isn't a conversation being had about the problem. Which is the point. Instead of having a discussion about the limits we are going to impose on state run surveillance, the majority of the population has already thrown up their hands and deemed the problem either hopeless, impossible to rectify, or not worth worrying about because they're not on any terrorist watch lists. All of which are absolutely stupid mentalities for a democratic populace to hold when discussing an issue that directly relates to the people's ability to exercise their democratic powers.

 

"...to undo whatever it is that has absolute power over all of us we slaves": Slaves... see, immediately you group this into some sort of nutty conspiracy -- despite the now nearly two years of documented proof that this is the reality we're living in. I've never said we're slaves, but we have willingly surrendered our constitutional protections of due process and the fourth amendment without even blinking an eye.

 

And you don't even understand the topic being discussed, yet you have an absolute opinion on the matter and are unwilling to even entertain the notion that we are now very much living in the most powerful surveillance state ever imagined by mankind. So it's no wonder you haven't done the math and figured out where this new variable could potentially lead us.

So you respond positively to the post where he bashes Obama, yawn

 

Ok, I'll be on board to make it illegal to keep information about what deodorant we bay and how much beer we purchase. Sure, that will release us from the hold of the all powerful state

 

What post did I bash Obama?! Holy ****.

[Deranged Rhino]

Absolute power? To do what?

 

Since you don't understand the scope of the security apparatus that's currently operating, I'm not sure this will help but I'll try. Answer me this without getting into personal specifics: where is the bulk of your money right now? Your liquid cash? In a bank, I'd presume? Is your paycheck automatically deposited into your bank account or are you given an actual check by your employer? What do you do with that check when you get it? Do you pay for most of your purchases with cash or some form of debit/credit card? How many pieces of technology are in the room you're sitting in right now with microphones, GPS devices, and internet connections? Three or more? How many of those devices do you carry on your person during your typical day?

 

 

 

Right now, there are very few Ds with a chance of winning the POTUS who would correct the NSA. OTOH, a number of Rs, not all, but still most, would take immediate action to correct them.

 

This is absolute and complete bull ****. Neither side wants to fix this because neither side (other than Paul) is even willing to discuss this topic in a legitimate political setting. Politicians don't like to talk about the ways they're !@#$ing over their constituents. And there is ZERO shot Bush (Jeb or otherwise) or any GOP current front runner will do anything but strengthen the NSA and security apparatus of the state. Paul might try, but he won't get the support unless there is a national debate on the issue.

 

(Edit: Just to avoid your emoticon rage... : Hilary will have as much interest as Jeb when it comes to this issue, which is zero. So don't take this as just piling on to one side of the aisle)

 

 

And I thought it was climate change

 

Colored bubbles.

 

I'm with you 100%. New federal regulation of the internet isn't going to help any, either. It's all sold the same way, and people just lap it up, accusing dissenters of partisanship. It's beyond pathetic.

 

Exactly. I understand it's a complex issue, there are certain security and intelligence gathering applications that must be done to keep our nation safe. I understand the role these technologies and collection methods can play in thwarting violence -- but at what cost? Is it worth giving the state unfettered access to every piece of digital information about us as individuals in order to protect us against a handful of nutters?

 

Right now the only thing keeping the United States government from operating like the Gestapo or KGB of the 60's-70s, are the policies in place by the current elected representatives. Those policies which determine how they can collect information and how they can use it, are not known to the public. They're classified and handled in the secret court system set up by 43 and strengthened by 44. There is no mechanism in place that forces the elected representatives to inform us of any changes they make to those oversights, so there's no way to know how or why they're using these tools. And if you bring up this point you're painted as either a conspiracy nut (which is odd because it's become such common knowledge we make jokes about ending up on watch lists in texts and emails) or dismissed because the subject is too uncomfortable to talk about.

 

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.

 

But you're right, Gator (not you Azalin), it's no big deal...

Edited March 15, 2015 by GreggyT

[Tiberius]

Since you don't understand the scope of the security apparatus that's currently operating, I'm not sure this will help but I'll try. Answer me this without getting into personal specifics: where is the bulk of your money right now? Your liquid cash? In a bank, I'd presume? Is your paycheck automatically deposited into your bank account or are you given an actual check by your employer? What do you do with that check when you get it? Do you pay for most of your purchases with cash or some form of debit/credit card? How many pieces of technology are in the room you're sitting in right now with microphones, GPS devices, and internet connections? Three or more? How many of those devices do you carry on your person during your typical day?

 

al...

let's say worst case. All of the above, whatever. So what's your point? What the hell is your point and solution?

 

 

Talk about deflecting! You were the one that wanted to have the conversation we were supposedly afraid of, now tell us!

[OCinBuffalo]

 

This is absolute and complete bull ****. Neither side wants to fix this because neither side (other than Paul) is even willing to discuss this topic in a legitimate political setting. Politicians don't like to talk about the ways they're !@#$ing over their constituents. And there is ZERO shot Bush (Jeb or otherwise) or any GOP current front runner will do anything but strengthen the NSA and security apparatus of the state. Paul might try, but he won't get the support unless there is a national debate on the issue.

 

 

 

Well then you aren't paying attention. Which is BS as well. We've already had the national debate, and the Rs have had their debate as well. Thus, as I said, not all, but many would move on this. I'll give you Jeb Bush...and Christie would use 9/11 as his excuse to do limited reform, but really ONLY Bush is not on board. Literally everybody else, has at one point or another sided with Rand Paul on this issue.

 

But, reforming the NSA isn't the issue or what they are actually talking about. Reason: how can we have this discussion, while doing nothing about the IRS? State Department? ATF? DHS/TSA? FBI? Justice Department? Secret Service? HHS? VA? We cannot. Every single one of these organizations, and others, have proven they are either unmanageable, are out of control, or see themselves as accountable to no one, and that's only in the last 6 years. The EPA thinks it can write laws by fiat.

 

The establishment Rs? Who knows? But the conservatives and libertarians agree: why should we limit our reform effort to the NSA?

 

That's why you are misreading what is being said. You are looking for specifics about the NSA, when in reality, the entire right, and most of its presumed candidates, are talking about a complete overhaul of the entire Federal government, cuttng it's scope back to something that can be managed, and therefore, be held accountable, to include cancelling entire agencies wholesale.

 

Reforming the NSA is seen as merely treating a symptom of a much larger disease.

 

You'll see.

Edited March 15, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[Deranged Rhino]

 

This is absolute and complete bull ****. Neither side wants to fix this because neither side (other than Paul) is even willing to discuss this topic in a legitimate political setting. Politicians don't like to talk about the ways they're !@#$ing over their constituents. And there is ZERO shot Bush (Jeb or otherwise) or any GOP current front runner will do anything but strengthen the NSA and security apparatus of the state. Paul might try, but he won't get the support unless there is a national debate on the issue.

 

 

 

Well then you aren't paying attention. Which is BS as well. We've already had the national debate, and the Rs have had their debate as well. Thus, as I said, not all, but many would move on this. I'll give you Jeb Bush...and Christie would use 9/11 as his excuse to do limited reform, but really ONLY Bush is not on board. Literally everybody else, has at one point or another sided with Rand Paul on this issue.

 

But, reforming the NSA isn't the issue or what they are actually talking about. Reason: how can we have this discussion, while doing nothing about the IRS? State Department? ATF? DHS/TSA? FBI? Justice Department? Secret Service? HHS? VA? We cannot. Every single one of these organizations, and others, have proven they are either unmanageable, are out of control, or see themselves as accountable to no one, and that's only in the last 6 years. The EPA thinks it can write laws by fiat.

 

The establishment Rs? Who knows? But the conservatives and libertarians agree: why should we limit our reform effort to the NSA?

 

That's why you are misreading what is being said. You are looking for specifics about the NSA, when in reality, the entire right, and most of its presumed candidates, are talking about a complete overhaul of the entire Federal government, cuttng it's scope back to something that can be managed, and therefore, be held accountable, to include cancelling entire agencies wholesale.

 

Reforming the NSA is seen as merely treating a symptom of a much larger disease.

 

You'll see.

 

 

I'm quite aware of that principle tenet of folks on the right to desire more limited government, but bringing that wholesale into this issue only serves to make it even more opaque. This isn't an issue about just the NSA, but the entire intelligence community. There are reasonable solutions that can be found, I'm certain, but not unless we can have an open discussion about the issue. What you're suggesting may well be true, but widening the scope of this discussion to all government only makes this a more politically hostile issue to discuss.

 

This diagnosis you're proposing existed before the events of the past decade and a half, but the issue of the surveillance state is new -- at least in the scope we're talking about -- because of how connected we've become as a society in that same time frame. There was a very limited debate about the Patriot Act that was clouded by fear mongerers on every side of the issue, a measure was forced down the public's throats while we were still very much in a state of mourning and confusion over the events of 9/11. To call that a true debate is disingenuous. A limited debate occurred in the run up to 2008 where Obama ran on repealing it. Once he was elected, that debate stopped and instead of repealing, he doubled down on the issue and buried it from the general public's view with even more layers of secrecy.

[OCinBuffalo]

Another thing: there is a genuine political opportunity here. These don't come along very often. I don't mean "elect a black man to the WH, regardless of his quality". That was a canard.

 

I'm talking about an opportunity. Whoever seizes it will win. And, Hillary can seize it too.

 

It's called: Reform.

 

Just like with "Change", it's a single word that can summarize what a candidate is about, and therefore galvanize his supporters. Libertarians will not quibble with conservatives over a candidate who owns the word Reform. Both agree, hence, it's easy to galvanize both. You do that, and you win, because independents will get behind that simple message as well.

 

Whichever candidate can lay claim to "Reform", or, should I say #Reform, will be unstoppable. Now, Hillary has a mountain to climb to try and say that she's going to reform...herself and her own party's behavior of the last 8 years. But, we are talking Clintons here...and with media assistance? It's possible.

 

When you consider that Paul Ryan has been working dilligently, meeting with the inner city poor and those who work with them, for years, all in an effort to come up with a better way to address poverty, child hunger, etc.? It's the most honest, and largest, work anyone has done on poverty in decades.

 

You have to figure that the Reform candidate is going to co-opt that plan. (And don't forget Clinton triangulation: Hillary is just as likely to co-opt it as anyone else) So, now, we aren't just talking about reforming the NSA, and the other things I mentioned....we are talking about a better "user experience" for the poor with government.

 

That's real Reform, and who will argue with it, since it comes from the poor themselves? See? Where does that leave the media/Ds? Ryan has spent more time with the poor, and is now a better representative of their interests, than any D alive. You can't call him out of touch...when he's been in touch...for years.

 

Whichever candidate lays claim to Total Reform...will essentially be immune to all media bias. Why? Because they won't be able to pin their tired, old, anti-R tails on that donkey. "It doesn't matter what Rs have done in the past, we are about Reform going forward, everything is on the table, and the past is irrelevant." And there ends the media's character assassination. They can't attack something that hasn't happened yet.

 

I don't know if anyone will go all out with Reform. Christie and Walker have a head start, as they can show the net + results in their states, as well as being able to work with, or defeat, their opponents as necessary, overcome barriers, and get the job done.

But, I do know: there's been so many government F ups in the last 6 years, that Reform is the way to the WH. NSA reform is merely one cog in the wheels of that war machine.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

I'm quite aware of that principle tenet of folks on the right to desire more limited government, but bringing that wholesale into this issue only serves to make it even more opaque. This isn't an issue about just the NSA, but the entire intelligence community. There are reasonable solutions that can be found, I'm certain, but not unless we can have an open discussion about the issue. What you're suggesting may well be true, but widening the scope of this discussion to all government only makes this a more politically hostile issue to discuss.

 

This diagnosis you're proposing existed before the events of the past decade and a half, but the issue of the surveillance state is new -- at least in the scope we're talking about -- because of how connected we've become as a society in that same time frame. There was a very limited debate about the Patriot Act that was clouded by fear mongerers on every side of the issue, a measure was forced down the public's throats while we were still very much in a state of mourning and confusion over the events of 9/11. To call that a true debate is disingenuous. A limited debate occurred in the run up to 2008 where Obama ran on repealing it. Once he was elected, that debate stopped and instead of repealing, he doubled down on the issue and buried it from the general public's view with even more layers of secrecy.

Well then you know the problem: Ds merely use these kinds of issues to get elected. They do nothing afterwards, because it always means more $ to spend/more useless turds to hire.

 

If you want real action on this, you have to look to the right, like it or not.

 

As I said above, whoever lays genuine, believable, claim the Mantle of Reform? That candidate will win, and, that candidate will probably be able to do just about anything the first 2 years, including fixing the surveillance state. Think about it: obstruction to reform by anyone? == That person is protecting corruption/self interest/political allies/doesn't care about what's best for the country.

 

Easy. The Reform candidate, after winning should pick 3 unrelated issues, like the NSA, Welfare, and the EPA, and begin immediately reforming all 3. The media/their D surrogates won't know WTF to do, because so much is being fixed so fast, there will hardly be time to cry about this 1k useless turds losing their government jobs/consulting contracts, before another 1k do. Meanwhile, to keep the debate from getting out of hand, you don't have one: keep it simple. Cause-->effect, cause-->effect. etc.

 

For example:

Cause: The Obama administration used NSA wiretapping to tap the phones of a reporter and his family.

Effect: I need a new law from Congress that reforms the current law. Or, I need a law that removes any enforcement wiggle room wrt the current law, and, also a law that mandates an after-action report on any and all domestic taps be sent to the Senate Intel comittee. Hehehe. Now that is a deterrent. You know Congress can't keep it's mouth shut. So, the only time a domestic tap will be used, is when it's 100% defensible.

 

And that's your problem: solved.

[Deranged Rhino]

let's say worst case. All of the above, whatever. So what's your point? What the hell is your point?

 

Let's walk this out a bit more. The bulk of your assets are in 1s and 0s on a computer, you access this through your debit cards and credit cards. All of that is logged and stored for analysis whenever it's deemed necessary. More and more of your bills are paid with automatic debits from your accounts, increasing your dependency upon being connected each passing day. So far you've never tripped any alarms or alerts at the state level because you live an otherwise normal life and abide by the laws of the land. You're not a killer, you're not a terrorist, you're not a kook plotting to blow someone up for whatever reason. You're Gatorman, US citizen, going about your day.

 

Cut to 2016. Unless something mildly historic happens, the GOP (whom you seemingly don't like very much, go along with it if that's not entirely accurate for the sake of this example) is going to win the presidency. Now, imagine that they ran your WORST nightmare, doesn't matter who -- it could be W again -- and he won. Now the GOP is in power, controlling the senate, house and executive. Now imagine that the new president is every bit the bastard you fear he would become, he's overturning gay marriages, he's repealing the ACA, he's about to start WW3 by bombing Iran because he had a bad BM to start his morning -- I'm talking your absolute worst nightmare of a president. Still with me?

 

Rightfully enraged by #45's new policies, you begin to exercise your right to free speech by donating money to the opposition party. The new president, as part of his scheme, wrote an executive order (classified top secret) that added "alerts" to all the watch lists of the surveillance apparatus. These alerts create a list of anyone who donates to the opposition party, or anyone who mentions going to a rally on the phone/email/text/social media. Even in jest. The moment you begin to move those 1s and 0s around in your bank account towards Elizabeth Warren's campaign, you're added to their watch list. Without needing a warrant, or without you having any knowledge they're doing so, the intelligence apparatus begins to go back through your entire history to see who you are. To look for ways to discredit you should they need to. Let's say this bastard of a president wants to take it one step further and freeze anyone's assets who pop up on the watch list (regardless of reason). So, your bank accounts are frozen (without warning), your mortgage payments, car payments, all your bills begin to mount up with no way to pay them. When you go to the bank to solve the problem, the bank tells you their hands are tied. The government doesn't have to tell them why they ordered your accounts frozen, that's classified. The bank has to comply and you're !@#$ed. No access to your money, no understanding of why this happened... all because you tried to voice an opposition opinion as is your right as a US citizen.

 

All of this, right now, today, is legal and possible without a warrant or need for judicial oversight. Think about that. Without due process, the US Government can declare you a threat to national security (without having to prove anything more than a suspicion) and completely remove your democratic means of expressing yourself. This has always been possible on some scale, history is full of tyrants imprisoning innocents. But no tyrant has ever had the amount of control today's US Government is capable of. I said it earlier and you scoffed, but if information is power then what the government has today is absolute power. And that always leads to absolute control.

 

While the idea of the above scenario seems unlikely to go that bad in a year's time, what happens 10 years from now? Twenty? Say it's 2035, it's been over two decades without a terrorist attack on US soil. ISIS / whoever is the boogeyman of the day has been defeated. But these policies are still on the books because the public has already considered them a fait accompli -- who's stopping the powers that be in 2035 from amending these laws and powers to suit their own political interests? Especially when they don't have to tell us (as the law is written today) that they've changed it at all?

 

You'll read this and think it's paranoia, but I urge you to inform yourself on the realities of the world you're living in first. If you do, you'll see that everything I walked out in this scenario is legal and possible today. The only thing that has prevented it from happening are the people currently in power. How much faith in those elected representatives keeping to the straight and narrow without abusing what essentially is unlimited power over the individual do you actually have? Hasn't there been enough political malfeasance over your lifetime to make you at least a little suspicious or hesitant to willingly surrender your individual right to privacy and due process to a faceless, nameless government entity with zero oversight?

 

You ask me for solutions and I have some. But not many. Why? Because this is an issue that isn't even being debated, it's difficult if not impossible to find a solution to something without understanding the full picture. Bits and pieces of that picture are now public but not the entire thing. We're not allowed to be fully aware of all the issues because our government doesn't think we're capable of making such choices for ourselves.

 

And attitudes like the one you're demonstrating in this thread are exactly why they may ultimately be right.

And once you absorb that... imagine what happens when it's not the US Government at the wheel of this kind of apparatus, but the Chinese/Russians/Iranians/Exxon/Apple/Google et al. If you don't think government is capable of overstepping their power and limits, how much faith do you have in corporations or criminal enterprises exerting the same type of restraint?

 

That's another reason why this is such an important issue. We might be the first perhaps only government to have this kind of capability presently, but we certainly won't be the last.

[Tiberius]

 

 

"And I'll admit I don't understand any solutions you have at all...oh wait, you haven't even proposed anything": It's tough to propose solutions when there isn't a conversation being had about the problem. Which is the point. Instead of having a discussion about the limits we are going to impose on state run surveillance, the majority of the population has already thrown up their hands and deemed the problem either hopeless, impossible to rectify, or not worth worrying about because they're not on any terrorist watch lists. All of which are absolutely stupid mentalities for a democratic populace to hold when discussing an issue that directly relates to the people's ability to exercise their democratic powers.

 

maybe no one cares because its no where near as big of a problem as you make it out to be. You speak in such wild generalities that its hard to take any threat you are conjuring up seriously. Can you give us stupid sheep some specifics of the abuses you are worried about?

[Deranged Rhino]

Can you give us stupid sheep some specifics of the abuses you are worried about?

 

Look up.

maybe no one cares because its no where near as big of a problem as you make it out to be.

 

Plenty of people care and the evidence is overwhelming that it's a massive problem. The reason it isn't being discussed is because the state has convinced the country that their spying is the only thing preventing terrorist attacks, and spent enormous time and treasure stomping down any and all whistleblowers who dared bring up the truth. Men like Snowden and Binney specifically.

[Tiberius]

Look up.

 

Plenty of people care and the evidence is overwhelming that it's a massive problem. The reason it isn't being discussed is because the state has convinced the country that their spying is the only thing preventing terrorist attacks, and spent enormous time and treasure stomping down any and all whistleblowers who dared bring up the truth. Men like Snowden and Binney specifically.

 

I did look up and didn't see anything.

 

Snowden? Ok...

[Deranged Rhino]

I did look up and didn't see anything.

 

Snowden? Ok...

 

I meant at post 35, the super long drawn out and specific answer to your question.

[IDBillzFan]

If you understood my posts in this thread to be blaming one party or the other, you haven't understood anything I've written.

 

He doesn't even understand what HE'S written. He's a copy/paste nutsucking tool of the highest order. His next original thought will be his first.

 

If anything, at least he didn't try to insult you with his go-to "I'm rubber, you're glue..." rhetoric.