While the Democrats are running their dog and pony impeachment hearings, they were making sure we continue living in a police state

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Im actually a fan boy of the constitution.... It should not be the business of the government to collect information on everyone. And the constitution secures these rights of its citizens.

Priceless.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Im actually a fan boy of the constitution.... It should not be the business of the government to collect information on everyone. And the constitution secures these rights of its citizens.

Priceless.

Aside from the census (good point), I don't think it is any of your government's business surverying ordinary civilians against their will and without their knowledge, under any handwaving pretense of security. Why do laugh at this? Do you think it's ok?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Im actually a fan boy of the constitution.... It should not be the business of the government to collect information on everyone. And the constitution secures these rights of its citizens.

Priceless.

Aside from the census (good point), I don't think it is any of your government's business surverying ordinary civilians against their will and without their knowledge, under any handwaving pretense of security. Why do laugh at this? Do you think it's ok?

The Constitution includes explicit protections against undue search and seizure... that Mexican Americans are not privvy to. RVonse doesn't give much of a care about that... just the invasions of their own privacy.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not so naive as to believe that government agencies and police are thoroughly benign and that powers are not abused, but by and large I'm fine with the principle of surveillance and collecting data, provided sufficient checks and balances are in place and the powers reasonable and justified.

I admit I don't know the Patriot Act in detail though.

Are the government actually collecting surveillance information on everyone? I thought only google and facebook did that?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Aside from the census (good point), I don't think it is any of your government's business surverying ordinary civilians against their will and without their knowledge, under any handwaving pretense of security. Why do laugh at this? Do you think it's ok?

The Constitution includes explicit protections against undue search and seizure... that Mexican Americans are not privvy to. RVonse doesn't give much of a care about that... just the invasions of their own privacy.

Such an inconsistency, if true, wouldn't invalidate his point here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Aside from the census (good point), I don't think it is any of your government's business surverying ordinary civilians against their will and without their knowledge, under any handwaving pretense of security. Why do laugh at this? Do you think it's ok?

The Constitution includes explicit protections against undue search and seizure... that Mexican Americans are not privvy to. RVonse doesn't give much of a care about that... just the invasions of their own privacy.

Such an inconsistency, if true, wouldn't invalidate his point here.

Sure, it just makes him a self-interested hypocrite.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm not so naive as to believe that government agencies and police are thoroughly benign and that powers are not abused, but by and large I'm fine with the principle of surveillance and collecting data, provided sufficient checks and balances are in place and the powers reasonable and justified.

I admit I don't know the Patriot Act in detail though.

Are the government actually collecting surveillance information on everyone? I thought only google and facebook did that?

It enables them to, and it does away with those checks and balances on abuses of power you speak of.

Snowden blew the whistle on this sort of thing a log time ago now, and yet it's still happening and few seem to care. That this can sneak through under the radar is noteworthy.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Such an inconsistency, if true, wouldn't invalidate his point here.

Sure, it just makes him a self-interested hypocrite.

So what? That's not the topic. The topic is an important one and your diverting from it by attacking the messenger is classic adhom.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not so naive as to believe that government agencies and police are thoroughly benign and that powers are not abused, but by and large I'm fine with the principle of surveillance and collecting data, provided sufficient checks and balances are in place and the powers reasonable and justified.

I admit I don't know the Patriot Act in detail though.

Are the government actually collecting surveillance information on everyone? I thought only google and facebook did that?

It enables them to, and it does away with those checks and balances on abuses of power you speak of.

I'm not against the enabling in principle, if there are checks and balances, including justifications (based on levels of reasonable suspicion, at which point the term 'ordinary civilian' might become questionable). I mean, there has to be enabling of checking on anyone, in theory, otherwise there'd be those who are immune to being checked on.

But without reasonable precautions, justifications, checks and balances, it could be dodgy, imo. I do not know what's in this particular Act or how it has been used, or how it compares to the UK's Counter-Terrorism measures.

In principle, all authorities have to be accountable, in the end.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In principle, all authorities have to be accountable, in the end.

Yes. That's the point. They should need a warrant vetted by a judge, or at least something in that direction. Have you seen Snowden's interview with Jon Oliver I think it was where he talks about your dick pics and how the government sees them ? Lol

That's so perfect it's hilarious. People suddenly care when they realize just how invasive, personal and arbitrary this has become.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm proud of my dick pics and want as many people as possible to see them. Plus, if someone is looking at my dick without me knowing about it, that just makes it even hotter.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm proud of my dick pics and want as many people as possible to see them. Plus, if someone is looking at my dick without me knowing about it, that just makes it hotter.

#toxicmasculinity

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I don't think it is any of your government's business surverying ordinary civilians against their will and without their knowledge

So, you're against a cop in a car driving through your neighborhood looking for any kind of suspicious activity to be investigated further? No, of course you aren't. What you're against--as always with you--is the straw you're stuffing.

In this instance it's the implication of a government agency, like the NSA, spying on you illegally in order to gin up a false case against you. That's the core of this particular strawman.

And not in regard to simply collecting meta-data with an indifferent search algorithm flagging certain key words; in the sense of a Hollywood-style Libertarian fever dream covert operation with a dozen or so nefarious human agents listening to your intimate conversations and remotely turning on your phone's microphone and turning your TV into a camera, so that they can watch your every move as you sit on your couch and jack off and make personal judgements on your actions, because, my god, you're so important and what if? I mean, it's 1984 man! Or, current day China, apparently.

And of course your strawman completely ignores the fact that you have voluntarily given your consent to Facebook and Twitter and every credit card company and Amazon and every other thing you've ever signed--but never read--in our society so that those companies in turn could use your information for marketing and advertising purposes and, yes, if compelled to by law, as also stated in every TOS, the very government agencies you're invoking in your allusions to conspiracy theories past, present and future.

But, of course, it ALL hinges, once again, on the key element; ILLEGAL and what that entails, but that's always obfuscated in the stuffing of the straw.

So you have zero problems with a cop driving his patrol car through your neighborhood looking for suspicious activity that may need to be investigated further, but when he or she does the exact same thing in cyber space, suddenly it's libtard armageddon in spite of the fact that you willingly gave your permission for every corporation in the world to chart your every "like" and "dislike" every nano-second.

And, of course, your straw won't accept for the fact that NO ONE wants anything illegal done at any time, so we're all in agreement that no one should be allowed to do anything illegal at any time, which means we're not even talking about the same thing, but then, with strawmen, no one ever is.

So do you really want to discuss the intricate legality behind granting various policing agencies authority to search for suspicious activity and how it is regulated on a case by case basis, or do you want to just keep to your usual of stuffing of vaguely insinuating alarmist straw from under your bridge?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have written nothing you have projected at me there. Your assigned strawman is itself a strawman. That's pretty meta.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Your assigned strawman is itself a strawman. That's pretty meta.

You keep trying this self-defeating stupidity. Why?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Your assigned strawman is itself a strawman. That's pretty meta.

You keep trying this self-defeating stupidity. Why?

Also a strawman. Is this your strawman class? Big brother is watching. Will there be a test?

So you have zero problems with a cop driving his patrol car through your neighborhood looking for suspicious activity that may need to be investigated further, but when he or she does the exact same thing in cyber space, suddenly it's libtard armageddon in spite of the fact that you willingly gave your permission for every corporation in the world to chart your every "like" and "dislike" every nano-second.

Would you be ok with said cop randomly, with no warrant, going from house to house waltzing through everyone's bedrooms and peeking at them in their showers? If not then your strawman analogy fails pretty hard. I am pretty sure you have laws against cops even pulling people over and searching their cars with no reasonable cause. I give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are for those laws. All I am saying is that the same should apply with government agencies online.

And as for the use of strawmen, here's a tip for everyone. If you find yourself writing paragraphs explaining to somebody what they think and believe, instead of asking them, you're probably engaged in a strawman. And if you quote somebody's words at them, insisting they meant one interpretation of the quote while refusing to listen to clarification, then that's also likely a strawman.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Your assigned strawman is itself a strawman. That's pretty meta.

You keep trying this self-defeating stupidity. Why?

Also a strawman. Is this your strawman class? Big brother is watching. Will there be a test?

One you failed already:

Im actually a fan boy of the constitution.... It should not be the business of the government to collect information on everyone. And the constitution secures these rights of its citizens.

Priceless.

Aside from the census (good point), I don't think it is any of your government's business surverying ordinary civilians against their will and without their knowledge, under any handwaving pretense of security. Why do laugh at this? Do you think it's ok?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Also a strawman. Is this your strawman class? Big brother is watching. Will there be a test?

One you failed already:

Im actually a fan boy of the constitution.... It should not be the business of the government to collect information on everyone. And the constitution secures these rights of its citizens.

Priceless.

Aside from the census (good point), I don't think it is any of your government's business surverying ordinary civilians against their will and without their knowledge, under any handwaving pretense of security. Why do laugh at this? Do you think it's ok?

If I fail for not thinking 1984 was a comedy, that's not a test I'd want to pass.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

One you failed already:

Im actually a fan boy of the constitution.... It should not be the business of the government to collect information on everyone. And the constitution secures these rights of its citizens.

Priceless.

Aside from the census (good point), I don't think it is any of your government's business surverying ordinary civilians against their will and without their knowledge, under any handwaving pretense of security. Why do laugh at this? Do you think it's ok?

If I fail for not thinking 1984 was a comedy, that's not a test I'd want to pass.

And you doubled down again.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Such an inconsistency, if true, wouldn't invalidate his point here.

Sure, it just makes him a self-interested hypocrite.

So what?

I don't particularly care what Constitutional Hypocritii think about the Constitution as their interest in it is merely self-interested.

That's not the topic. The topic is an important one and your diverting from it by attacking the messenger is classic adhom.

Wait, are you saying that speaking out a truth isn't relevant? You seemed to say otherwise elsewhere.