TakeYouToTasker Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 That wasn't hard was it? First link googlebot provided. Normally I wouldn't have done Sue's homework for her, but I was getting tired of listening to her B word.
reddogblitz Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 That wasn't hard was it? Thanks. Pointing me to the Government site selling the Patriot Act doesn't prove your point. You said 90% of Patriot Act was already legal. I didn't find any info like that. Just reading the firstpage however did highlight new investigative powers. I'm not going to read the whole thing and see if "90%" of it was already on the books. You made the assertion, back it up. So far you've given me a lot of excuses and buried me in virtual paper.
GG Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Thanks. Pointing me to the Government site selling the Patriot Act doesn't prove your point. You said 90% of Patriot Act was already legal. I didn't find any info like that. Just reading the firstpage however did highlight new investigative powers. I'm not going to read the whole thing and see if "90%" of it was already on the books. You made the assertion, back it up. So far you've given me a lot of excuses and buried me in virtual paper. Since you don't like to trust summaries, read the damn thing for yourself and make your own decision.
reddogblitz Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Since you don't like to trust summaries, read the damn thing for yourself and make your own decision. In other words you can't back up your point or choose not to. I'll just go with it's hogwash. Again, its not my job to prove your points. Over and out.
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 In other words you can't back up your point or choose not to. I'll just go with it's hogwash. Again, its not my job to prove your points. Over and out. You've been provided with both the law itself and a cliff's notes version of the law as source material. At this point any argument that you haven't been provided with evidence of claims is an outright lie. Further, having an opinion about a law you haven't been assed to read or understand is the approaching the pinnacle of stupid. You've been given the materials. Now read them.
Magox Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 In other words you can't back up your point or choose not to. I'll just go with it's hogwash. Again, its not my job to prove your points. Over and out. He just provided you the links, and you don't want to read them.
GG Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I'll throw you a bone - in a 277 page document, the word "amend" appears 327 times and "enhance" appears 22 times, while "create" appears 8 times. Idiot.
reddogblitz Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) You've been provided with both the law itself and a cliff's notes version of the law as source material. At this point any argument that you haven't been provided with evidence of claims is an outright lie. Further, having an opinion about a law you haven't been assed to read or understand is the approaching the pinnacle of stupid. You've been given the materials. Now read them. Stating opinions that you can't even bother to explain is the essence of being a blow hard. If you believe this so strongly I would think putting together a paragraph or two explaining it wouldn't be hard instead of pointing me to read the law. The people who passed it didn't even read it. And you're lieing because I did read the cliff notes version and stated: reading the firstpage however did highlight new investigative powers. hrow you a bone - in a 277 page document, the word "amend" appears 327 times and "enhance" appears 22 times, while "create" appears 8 times. Idiot. It's your point. You do it. I'm not your research assistant. Edited July 30, 2015 by reddogblitz
GG Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Stating opinions that you can't even bother to explain is the essence of being a blow hard. If you believe this so strongly I would think putting together a paragraph or two explaining it wouldn't be hard instead of pointing me to read the law. The people who passed it didn't even read it. It's your point. You do it. I'm not your research assistant. I gave you enough. Reading just the headings pages will give you enough information. Also judging from your inane commentary, you have as many issues with FISA and Protect America laws as you do with PATRIOT, but God forbid you educate yourself on issues you seem indignant about. You deserve Bernie as your POTUS.
reddogblitz Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) I gave you enough. In your beady little mind perhaps, but you haven't explained $hit. And you have no idea on what I have read and what I haven't as I've already demonstrated. Heading page proved my point that new investigative powers have been established. But yeah, trust 'em that they didn't. You deserve Donald Duck as your POTUS. Edited July 30, 2015 by reddogblitz
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Stating opinions that you can't even bother to explain is the essence of being a blow hard. If you believe this so strongly I would think putting together a paragraph or two explaining it wouldn't be hard instead of pointing me to read the law. Because it's absolutely meritless to debate a law with someone who hasn't read the law. Why would anyone put effort into such a fruitless undertaking. You've been told what the law says and does already, but have then denied the truth of those statements without reading the law. Now you want me, or someone else, to put together a more verbose summary of the same material, just so you can say: "No. I don't believe you." without reading or understanding the source material? Really? The people who passed it didn't even read it. Even if true, do you think this is somehow meritorious? Do you think it somehow would qualify your opinions about something you haven't read? And you're lieing because I did read the cliff notes version and stated: reading the firstpage however did highlight new investigative powers.... You either didn't read it or your comprehension is very poor. There were very few, if any, new investigative powers discussed. As GG stated earlier, the Act did little more than streamline and make useful investigative powers that law enforcement already enjoyed. Each bullet starts with that exact statement, and then goes on to explain itself. I don't recall being assed to read anything. For someone who can't be assed to read and understand the law, you sure do have a lot of opinions on it.
Deranged Rhino Posted August 3, 2015 Author Posted August 3, 2015 Wikileaks Latest Info-Dump Shows, Again, That The NSA Indeed Engages In Economic Espionage Against Allies It's just more egg on the face of government and security officials who have claimed to have kept their hands clean of economic espionage. There's sure to be more of interest in the documents as they get parsed out, but if nothing else we can be reminded that the NSA is a spy agency and that its officials have been caught lying over and over again. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150731/09240231811/wikileaks-latest-info-dump-shows-again-that-nsa-indeed-engages-economic-espionage-against-allies.shtml
DC Tom Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 Wikileaks Latest Info-Dump Shows, Again, That The NSA Indeed Engages In Economic Espionage Against Allies https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150731/09240231811/wikileaks-latest-info-dump-shows-again-that-nsa-indeed-engages-economic-espionage-against-allies.shtml Just like they do against us... I don't know why anyone should be surprised by this. It's how the world works.
Magox Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 Just like they do against us... I don't know why anyone should be surprised by this. It's how the world works. You've got to, if you don't you are unilaterally disarming yourself against one of the fastest and most potent ways of gaining a leg up against your competition.
Keukasmallies Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 Stating opinions that you can't even bother to explain is the essence of being a blow hard. If you believe this so strongly I would think putting together a paragraph or two explaining it wouldn't be hard instead of pointing me to read the law. The people who passed it didn't even read it. And you're lieing because I did read the cliff notes version and stated: It's your point. You do it. I'm not your research assistant. So, after someone reads information, and forms an opinion based on that information; your position is that their opinion is invalid unless you can be convinced to hold the same point of view? That's a strange way to defend whatever you believe in at present.
/dev/null Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 Wikileaks Latest Info-Dump Shows, Again, That The NSA Indeed Engages In Economic Espionage Against Allies https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150731/09240231811/wikileaks-latest-info-dump-shows-again-that-nsa-indeed-engages-economic-espionage-against-allies.shtml
GG Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I don't know why anyone should be surprised by this. Apparently all Snowden & Assange fanboys.
Deranged Rhino Posted August 4, 2015 Author Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Apparently all Snowden & Assange fanboys. It's not about the fact they're doing it, it's about the fact they've been lying about it -- even when everyone already knows they're doing it. Which makes it hard to trust anything they say about their domestic spying programs. It's a continued pattern of abuse and deceit of the American public. That's the point of posting the article (in a thread littered with similar examples of outright lies and perjury before a Congressional committee). Edited August 4, 2015 by GreggyT
GG Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 It's not about the fact they're doing it, it's about the fact they've been lying about it -- even when everyone already knows they're doing it. Which makes it hard to trust anything they say about their domestic spying programs. It's a continued pattern of abuse and deceit of the American public. That's the point of posting the article (in a thread littered with similar examples of outright lies and perjury before a Congressional committee). Are they lying about it or trying to keep it secret. AFAIK, FISA and cleared members of Foreign Policy committees in Congress knew.
Joe Miner Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 It's not about the fact they're doing it, it's about the fact they've been lying about it -- even when everyone already knows they're doing it. Which makes it hard to trust anything they say about their domestic spying programs. It's a continued pattern of abuse and deceit of the American public. That's the point of posting the article (in a thread littered with similar examples of outright lies and perjury before a Congressional committee). A spying program would be much less successful if you told everyone you were doing it.
Recommended Posts