Jump to content

The dangers of our new normal...


Recommended Posts

 

And what did I plagiarize?

 

 

Your post:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/190211-the-election-recount/?p=4139519

 

This post on FB that Tom linked to:

 

https://www.facebook.com/MattWalshBlog/photos/a.599201390112975.1073741827.570092813023833/1364413466925093/?type=3&theater

 

Ok now I'll ask again. Are you Matt Walsh and if so how's the alpaca grooming going?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your post:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/190211-the-election-recount/?p=4139519

 

This post on FB that Tom linked to:

 

https://www.facebook.com/MattWalshBlog/photos/a.599201390112975.1073741827.570092813023833/1364413466925093/?type=3&theater

 

Ok now I'll ask again. Are you Matt Walsh and if so how's the alpaca grooming going?

Got me there, thought you meant after that. I didn't want to link the FB page but probably should have. And no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, it is a system that can absolutely be abused. It is a danger.

 

So then logically wouldn't it follow that it's important for us as citizens to remain aware, be proactive and push back against the expansion of these surveillance powers regardless of whether or not one of "our guys" is in the White House?

 

Had more people on the left held Obama to his 2008 campaign promises to curtail the surveillance state rather than expand it, 45 wouldn't have as much power to abuse a system that poses a direct and immediate threat to every single citizen's freedom and liberty. Just like had more people on the right pushed back in 2003 when W and Cheney started rolling this particular boulder down that slippery slope.

 

From the beginning of this thread through today this has been the point I'm trying to make with you (and everyone). This issue isn't about politics. It's not a left or right issue. It's about whether or not we want to continue living in a true democratic republic or an authoritarian regime with democratic wrapping paper.

 

 

Just so you know, you're replying to a plagiarized cut & paste job.

 

I just might have to take him off ignore - the stuff I'm seeing quoted is highly amusing.

 

D'oh! Thanks for that. Totally missed it. :beer:

Edited by Deranged Rhino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you do

 

Please point out where I said we don't. And let me ask you a question (and yes I still do this). Which would you consider more of a collective mentality? When people agree with each other or when they actually copy someone else's writings as post as their own?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So then logically wouldn't it follow that it's important for us as citizens to remain aware, be proactive and push back against the expansion of these surveillance powers regardless of whether or not one of "our guys" is in the White House?

 

Had more people on the left held Obama to his 2008 campaign promises to curtail the surveillance state rather than expand it, 45 wouldn't have as much power to abuse a system that poses a direct and immediate threat to every single citizen's freedom and liberty. Just like had more people on the right pushed back in 2003 when W and Cheney started rolling this particular boulder down that slippery slope.

 

From the beginning of this thread through today this has been the point I'm trying to make with you (and everyone). This issue isn't about politics. It's not a left or right issue. It's about whether or not we want to continue living in a true democratic republic or an authoritarian regime with democratic wrapping paper.

 

 

 

I agree its not about politics, but it's also not just cut and dry where we can just say no to government power of surveillance. We need the government doing spying and looking for attackers and such. Look at the foreign hacking of our intellectual property rights. What if it takes surveillance methods to track that? Let me ask you this, what do you think Trump can/might do? Spy on his opponents? Sure, but it looks like that's being done by private interests already. And foreign governments perhaps. Nothing Bush, Cheney, Obama could have done to prevent Trump from being President, and surveillance state or not, he could abuse his opponents. Nixon did it before the internet. So really, the problem is who is elected, not just what powers the government has. Sorry if that is a jumble, but its not an easy thing to say one way or the other.

 

Please point out where I said we don't. And let me ask you a question (and yes I still do this). Which would you consider more of a collective mentality? When people agree with each other or when they actually copy someone else's writings as post as their own?

When?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still playing dumb I see. Still can't answer questions I see. Because you know when you've been called out for lies, dumbassery and now flat out 100% against TOS plagiarism you've got nothing.

 

Oh and BTW.......Trump won and Hillary lost. :w00t::w00t::w00t:

Congrats on your idiot winning. Surprised you admit that makes you so happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree its not about politics, but it's also not just cut and dry where we can just say no to government power of surveillance. We need the government doing spying and looking for attackers and such. Look at the foreign hacking of our intellectual property rights. What if it takes surveillance methods to track that? Let me ask you this, what do you think Trump can/might do? Spy on his opponents? Sure, but it looks like that's being done by private interests already. And foreign governments perhaps. Nothing Bush, Cheney, Obama could have done to prevent Trump from being President, and surveillance state or not, he could abuse his opponents. Nixon did it before the internet. So really, the problem is who is elected, not just what powers the government has. Sorry if that is a jumble, but its not an easy thing to say one way or the other.

 

It's a difficult topic for a number of reasons, so no worries. The political rhetoric brought into it from both sides makes it all the more difficult to discuss... which I'd argue is intentional to make passing these laws easier (but that's the nutter in me so I digress 0:) ).

 

For the record though, I'm not arguing -- nor have I ever been arguing -- that the government shouldn't be trusted with any surveillance powers, nor do I believe that there's never any need for LEO's to access people's digital footprint. Quite the opposite. I firmly believe that overwhelming majority of the people who are in the business of keeping us safe are good people who are just trying to save lives. There just simply must be oversight and checks to ensure individual rights aren't trampled in the process of trying to stop the bad guys.

 

Freedom is difficult. We cannot afford to give away the very protections that ensure our personal freedoms to fight "the war on terror", regardless of who's sitting in the oval because once they're gone we never get them back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...