Rubio And NSA

[Tiberius]

 

And you still won't answer the question. That drains your credibility. You're becoming Gator.

 

Where do you stand on this issue? Do you agree with Rubio that 215 and the Patriot act should become permanent without reform? Or do you feel that there is an issue that should be examined?

You don't determine who has credibility you dingbat. What a moron you are

[Deranged Rhino]

You don't determine who has credibility you dingbat. What a moron you are

 

Only you could be so wrong in so few words.

[Tiberius]

If you're not in a movement or hold and forcefully espouse positions that are in opposition of a established monied interest you are probably not going to be spied on.

 

 

 

 

So since Magox is about 99.99999% inline with the corporate elite he of course is all in favor of these spying programs in fact he probably thinks it's a damn good thing to spy on and disrupt- peace protestors, occupy movement, abolish the fed movements, environmental groups, sovereign citizen movement, anti- TPP and T-TIP voices, etc etc

Those movements do attract some kooks

[Dante]

The ridiculous thing is how come we have all these security agencies up our ass and at the same time, borders wide open? It's so laughably absurd. It's like padlocking the fence on your backyard. Electrifying it. Throwing up a gun turret with a guard and not having a front door on your house and leaving the windows open.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Dante

[Tiberius]

Only you could be so wrong in so few words.

I just don't get it. You are the one that wanted to have a civil debate but when anyone says anything against your position you go into instant name calling mode. Seems like you should practice what you preach

[Deranged Rhino]

I just don't get it. You are the one that wanted to have a civil debate but when anyone says anything against your position you go into instant name calling mode. Seems like you should practice what you preach

Who did I call names? I believe you were the only one to call anyone names (you called me one two in your last post).

Edited May 14, 2015 by GreggyT

[DC Tom]

If you're not in a movement or hold and forcefully espouse positions that are in opposition of a established monied interest you are probably not going to be spied on.

 

 

That's kind-of the point. The entire NSA program is designed and intended to spy on EVERYONE.

I just don't get it. You are the one that wanted to have a civil debate but when anyone says anything against your position you go into instant name calling mode. Seems like you should practice what you preach

 

He still wants to have a civil discussion. You're just not capable of it.

Who did I call names? I believe you were the only one to call anyone names (you called me one in your last post).

 

He called you two: dingbat and moron. What, are you missing nine fingers that you can't count to "two?"

[Magox]

 

 

 

 

 

So since Magox is about 99.99999% inline with the corporate elite he of course is all in favor of these spying programs in fact he probably thinks it's a damn good thing to spy on and disrupt- peace protestors, occupy movement, abolish the fed movements, environmental groups, sovereign citizen movement, anti- TPP and T-TIP voices, etc etc

 

At least you are able to stereotype your gibberish into one sentence. For that, I thank you.

[Tiberius]

Who did I call names? I believe you were the only one to call anyone names (you called me one in your last post).

Wow

[Deranged Rhino]

Wow

 

Where did I call anyone names? I'll wait. But I suspect you won't answer this question because you don't like to answer questions posed directly to you. Which is why Mags is being a Gator in this thread.

 

He called you two: dingbat and moron. What, are you missing nine fingers that you can't count to "two?"

 

Edited for accuracy.

Edited May 14, 2015 by GreggyT

[Tiberius]

 

Where did I call anyone names? I'll wait. But I suspect you won't answer this question because you don't like to answer questions posed directly to you. Which is why Mags is being a Gator in this thread.

 

Edited for accuracy.

You called someone me in a negative way? Are you really this stupid?

[Dante]

And this

http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/dhs-caught-busing-in-illegal-somalis-from-mexican-border/#eh3QeJ5xdb6Cpqaw.99

 

But everything's cool. No problem with the NSA having free warrant-less access to my personal info. For the safety of us all you know. Fuggin joke. No Obama's not trying to create chaos by shipping in 3rd world religious nut jobs. He's not trying to incite riots. Crazy conspiracy theorist.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Dante

[Deranged Rhino]

You called someone me in a negative way? Are you really this stupid?

 

In an accurate way. It's only negative to you because you don't understand the difference between a fact (fact: you refused to answer direct questions about your position in numerous threads and instances) and an insult.

[Tiberius]

 

In an accurate way. It's only negative to you because you don't understand the difference between a fact (fact: you refused to answer direct questions about your position in numerous threads and instances) and an insult.

Whatever man

[Deranged Rhino]

Whatever man

 

So, you're proving my point by not answering yet another question. This is why Mags is being you in this thread. Thanks for proving my point. No shake it off and go relax. It's Thursday.

[....lybob]

 

That's kind-of the point. The entire NSA program is designed and intended to spy on EVERYONE.

 

Everyone is having their data gathered and stored - I would suggest that you are not being spied on until an actual human being is interacting with that data - It's a fine point I know, what I'd like to know about is the computer programs that search through that data, are they designed to weed out information that point out terrorist attacks or are there other things they are searching for.

[Magox]

 

And you still won't answer the question. That drains your credibility. You're becoming Gator.

 

Where do you stand on this issue? Do you agree with Rubio that 215 and the Patriot act should become permanent without reform? Or do you feel that there is an issue that should be examined?

 

To answer your questions, I believe that the program should be as transparent as it has to be. Some things I believe are best left a secret. I'm not advocating that the entire program needs to be hidden from the public, and I do support some sort of public way either through public or private hearings to report on the efficacy of the program, but I don't believe that most of the details on this particular program need to be divulged. Maybe it' s just me and the experiences I've had in living in other countries in Europe and South America, but I've come to appreciate the country that we live in.

 

I may disagree with many policy proposals and the way those proposals are pitched, but the laws that are on the books are generally well-intentioned. I believe that in the vast majority of the cases, lawmakers are just trying to do what is best for their constituents. Don't get me wrong, sometimes the narrow focus to appease special interest groups get in the way of this process, but by and large, they are trying to do what's right, just that they have a different way of getting from point A to point B.

 

Is Rubio right to want to permanently extend the program? Well, that depends, do you believe that the world will permanently be a place that doesn't pose a homeland threat to the U.S? I probably wouldn't have advised him to say such a thing, but it's not an absurd thing to say.

 

Do I think it should be further examined? Sure, as long as it doesn't expose details that don't need to be exposed that can help our enemies out, and if the examination is done with an honest attempt to improve the program, rather than score points with their base of supporters.

 

You know, there are probably a slightly higher than a handful of posters on this board that although I may disagree with at times, I can count on what they are saying to be true and backed up by facts. You aren't one of them. That's not to say that you aren't a thoughtful and intelligent poster, there are sentiments that you have communicated that I have been in agreement with on various occasions. It's just that, WORDS MATTER. I'm a big proponent of that statement. Words matter. If someone says things that are untrue and that are without factual basis, then in my view that dims their credibility, specially if it's a consistent ongoing occurrence.

 

That's why anyone who makes proclamations or absolute statements should be wary of doing such things, because people like myself take them at their word until proven otherwise. I've on a number of occasions have had to point out your fictional fallacies. We could have skipped all this crap if you hadn't of done a few things, which is to believe that I originally stated that I supported the program , Not Rubio's statement, to only have you jump to the conclusions that were fabricated in your mind that I was defending the program because of Rubio. THAT, was weak.

 

And if you hadn't of made the false statement that the program hadn't helped in which you went as far as to say that it had in your words "Zero" effect. Which we know isn't true. Then you went on to post a link that suggested that Alexander embellished the amount of times the program has helped, but that did even concede that there has been intelligence gathered that has helped thwart attacks. And then you wanted me to defend his embellishments. No, that's a small thinking man's game, I'm not going to defend one person's statement, I'm going to do what you had asked, which was show you an example of how it has helped. And I did.

 

We can have an honest argument of is it worth the cost of a possible breach in people's privacy vs the cost of the amount of lives saved by the program? That's fair, my view is that it is, simply because I don't believe that our government is trying to infringe upon my rights, and that I believe they are honestly trying to save lives. You may think otherwise, or you may think that the efficacy of the program has and will be inefficient and isn't worth the cost. Even though, I haven't heard what cost that people have had to pay as of yet.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

Of all people I'm surprised you're ok with the government having this kind of power.

 

I never said I was okay with it. What I'm saying is that there are too many people in this country who don't care about their privacy enough to make sacrifices for it.

 

You could spend an afternoon in downtown in any given major metropolitan US city and find at least 100 people would knowingly and willingly give up all of their privacy for the rest of their life in exchange for, oh, say, a free cellphone or tablet. Most people don't put value on their privacy because they can't even put a value on their own self worth.

 

When you spend as much time as our country does doing everything it can to enslave the poor and increase their dependency on the state, the last thing these people care about is if someone is reading their text messages.

 

And until a majority of Americans care about this, it's not going to change.

[Deranged Rhino]

We could have skipped all this crap if you hadn't of done a few things, which is to believe that I originally stated that I supported the program , Not Rubio's statement, to only have you jump to the conclusions that were fabricated in your mind that I was defending the program because of Rubio. THAT, was weak.

 

 

We have 29 pages about this topic hovering near the top of the board since March -- a thread you haven't participated in once. But the moment a Rubio / NSA thread starts you're right in there with this:

 

"Any serious-minded candidate would support the program. It may be politically popular to say otherwise, but the reality on the ground dictates it as a necessary evil."

 

Followed later by: "In regards to reforming the program, who said I wasn't for that?"

 

Well, Rubio isn't for reforming it, and considering your first statement you're either unaware he doesn't wish to reform it or you're being disingenuous with your second statement. Forgive me for jumping to the conclusion that Rubio's name is the only thing that interests you in this topic.

 

We can have an honest argument of is it worth the cost of a possible breach in people's privacy vs the cost of the amount of lives saved by the program? That's fair, my view is that it is, simply because I don't believe that our government is trying to infringe upon my rights, and that I believe they are honestly trying to save lives. You may think otherwise, or you may think that the efficacy of the program has and will be inefficient and isn't worth the cost. Even though, I haven't heard what cost that people have had to pay as of yet.

 

That is the entire point of the debate -- and Rubio has made his stance quite clear that he does not believe it's a debate worth having at all. If you do even the most remedial research into the programs, its lack of oversight and near unlimited power, you'd have an understanding of where the outrage is coming from. I have never once said I believe the NSA's sole purpose is to spy on its citizens -- for someone who believes "words matter" you sure don't like to read mine.

Edited May 14, 2015 by GreggyT

[Magox]

 

We have 29 pages about this topic hovering near the top of the board since March -- a thread you haven't participated in once. But the moment a Rubio / NSA thread starts you're right in there with this:

 

"Any serious-minded candidate would support the program. It may be politically popular to say otherwise, but the reality on the ground dictates it as a necessary evil."

 

Followed later by: "In regards to reforming the program, who said I wasn't for that?"

 

Well, Rubio isn't for reforming it, and considering your first statement you're either unaware he doesn't wish to reform it or you're being disingenuous with your second statement. Forgive me for jumping to the conclusion that Rubio's name is the only thing that interests you in this topic.

How are those two statements in contradiction with one another?

 

Supporting the program is one thing, reforming it is another. You do realize that you can be for a program that could be reformed and improved.

 

In regards to the other thread, the conversations there began to bore me so I stopped reading them. What compelled me to post was this statement from the original post:

 

Anyone who endorses mass warrant less searches is a chump. Enough sacrificing freedom for safety.

 

 

In which I replied:

 

"Any serious-minded candidate would support the program. It may be politically popular to say otherwise, but the reality on the ground dictates it as a necessary evil."

 

 

Words matter.