|
ABC: NSA agents admit spying on Americans' private calls (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
I deserve death because I don't agree with you; a bit harsh even for someone who doesn't express his thoughts that well, don't you think? As for calling me stupid, I suggest you reserve your opinions on matter like that because it doesn't exactly make your argument stronger. It is actually counter-productive because it diverts the focus from the issue to irrelevant matters. Any person with minimal intellectual capacity understands that personal attacks merely divert the focus of a discussion because the attacker can't effective support (or perhaps articulate) an argument. But what do I know, I'm stupid! Although, I will admit your claims that your conversations are private are very convincing as to why random phone taps have an impact on your daily routine or that it makes you somehow feel violated even though you are unaware.
Since you clearly missed my point the first time, the point was that while it may be wrong it doesn't really affect your daily life so why get all worked up about it. I don't agree with eavesdropping, but i also don't really care about it. When I prioritize my life, that falls well below anything of significant importance.
EDIT: As for what our founding fathers would think: I could give a ! Our founding fathers owned other human beings and didn't care to give women rights. They were clearly better people than I will ever be. Your boy Thomas Jefferson impregnated a slave while married. What a great guy. James Madison also owned another human being. How about Alexander Hamilton who thought it was a great idea to have duel in public. Classy act! I'm sure the list is long but i'm not going to look for anything more than i already know from memory. |
What you don't seem to understand is that if all your internet activities, phone calls, etc are monitored and saved to a gigantic database, someone out there now has the dirt on you if you've ever expressed any opinion in any way, or your porn site history, or your phone sex log.
So you can kiss that job goodbye if whoever controls that informations deems you a threat.
Besides, we shouldn't need to make reasons why we shouldn't be spied on!
It's absurd! |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
What you don't seem to understand is that if all your internet activities, phone calls, etc are monitored and saved to a gigantic database, someone out there now has the dirt on you if you've ever expressed any opinion in any way, or your porn site history, or your phone sex log.
So you can kiss that job goodbye if whoever controls that informations deems you a threat.
Besides, we shouldn't need to make reasons why we shouldn't be spied on!
It's absurd! |
THIS |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
What you don't seem to understand |
ok john mccain. believe me, i understand. the difference is i highly doubt anyone cares enough about me to ruin my life. I don't cross people's paths and I scratch the right backs. Instead of worrying about who could ruin your lives, you cynics and do-nothings should try to make things happen for yourselves and not worry about that which you can't control. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
ok john mccain. believe me, i understand. the difference is i highly doubt anyone cares enough about me to ruin my life. I don't cross people's paths and I scratch the right backs. Instead of worrying about who could ruin your lives, you cynics and do-nothings should try to make things happen for yourselves and not worry about that which you can't control. |
|
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
ok john mccain. believe me, i understand. the difference is i highly doubt anyone cares enough about me to ruin my life. I don't cross people's paths and I scratch the right backs. Instead of worrying about who could ruin your lives, you cynics and do-nothings should try to make things happen for yourselves and not worry about that which you can't control. |
Wowsers. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Wowsers. |
great rebuttal |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
great rebuttal |
Wowser is a slang expression, most commonly heard in Australian and New Zealand English. It originated in Australia, at first carrying a similar meaning to 'lout', i.e. an annoying or disruptive person, or even a prostitute.
However, around 1900 it shifted to its present meaning: one whose sense of morality drives them to deprive others of their sinful pleasures, especially liquor. The term was particularly applied to members of temperance groups such as the antipodean branches of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union.
South Australians claim the term came from a temperance slogan there, "We Only Want Social Evils Remedied."[1] However John Norton (January 25, 1858 - April 9, 1916), editor of the scandal-magazine Truth, claimed he first used the word in 1899 [2]. "Wowser" was frequently used by artist and author Norman Lindsay, who fought many celebrated battles with "Wowsers" over the sexual content in his art and writing.
The Australian writer C.J. Dennis defined it thus: 'Wowser: an ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warder'.
Historian Stuart Macintyre argues, "the achievements of the wowsers were impressive;" they passed laws that restricted obscenity and juvenile smoking, raised the age of consent, limited gambling, closed down many pubs, and in 1915-16 established a 6pm closing hour for pubs, which lasted for decades.[3]
In recent years, the term has been most often applied to morality-oriented politicians Fred and Elaine Nile and Brian Harradine.[citation needed]
Americans are likely to associate the word with H. L. Mencken:
"In the same way the Archidamian War is more interesting than the fiscal cares of the Four Hundred, and the craft of Pericles takes precedence of his abilities as tax-collector and wowser." American Mercury "The Greeks"
'Wowser' is also the word given to describe a puritanical fanatic [US English] |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
you guys are far too cynical. |
You can never and should never trust the government. Period. Such things as phone calls are personal and important and are no business of the government. You cant pass a weapon over the phone. Besides, US government doesnt really care about the safety of its people. While the borders are open and drugs are flowing in, the government is spying on its citizens. I am being too cynical?
Bush government has already been accused of hiring attorneys based on their political preference. Think about it - if they will have a database on everyone, and they know what your political direction is - they can choose. Its better crowd control. And its only the beginning, if they are allowed to do that, they can push for much more - its human nature.
These people need to know their limits. You cannot trade liberty for security, its very hard to keep the fine line. Once the freedom is gone, a big mess can then set the whole nation back for many decades. Look at some other countries for an example who are still trying to deal with the authoritarian issues of the past. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Wowser is a slang expression, most commonly heard in Australian and New Zealand English. It originated in Australia, at first carrying a similar meaning to 'lout', i.e. an annoying or disruptive person, or even a prostitute.
However, around 1900 it shifted to its present meaning: one whose sense of morality drives them to deprive others of their sinful pleasures, especially liquor. The term was particularly applied to members of temperance groups such as the antipodean branches of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union.
South Australians claim the term came from a temperance slogan there, "We Only Want Social Evils Remedied."[1] However John Norton (January 25, 1858 - April 9, 1916), editor of the scandal-magazine Truth, claimed he first used the word in 1899 [2]. "Wowser" was frequently used by artist and author Norman Lindsay, who fought many celebrated battles with "Wowsers" over the sexual content in his art and writing.
The Australian writer C.J. Dennis defined it thus: 'Wowser: an ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warder'.
Historian Stuart Macintyre argues, "the achievements of the wowsers were impressive;" they passed laws that restricted obscenity and juvenile smoking, raised the age of consent, limited gambling, closed down many pubs, and in 1915-16 established a 6pm closing hour for pubs, which lasted for decades.[3]
In recent years, the term has been most often applied to morality-oriented politicians Fred and Elaine Nile and Brian Harradine.[citation needed]
Americans are likely to associate the word with H. L. Mencken:
"In the same way the Archidamian War is more interesting than the fiscal cares of the Four Hundred, and the craft of Pericles takes precedence of his abilities as tax-collector and wowser." American Mercury "The Greeks"
'Wowser' is also the word given to describe a puritanical fanatic [US English] |
I know. your posts are always so insightful. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
You can never and should never trust the government. Period. Such things as phone calls are personal and important and are no business of the government. You cant pass a weapon over the phone. Besides, US government doesnt really care about the safety of its people. While the borders are open and drugs are flowing in, the government is spying on its citizens. I am being too cynical? |
by what methods should an agency conduct surveillance to prevent terrorism or serious crime then? all areas of crime and terrorism have evolved in their sophistication. if you dont expect your government to prevent attacks or crime then fair enough, some people dont.
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Bush government has already been accused of hiring attorneys based on their political preference. |
that's hardly big news considering how the appointment of supreme court judges goes down ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Think about it - if they will have a database on everyone, and they know what your political direction is - they can choose. Its better crowd control. And its only the beginning, if they are allowed to do that, they can push for much more - its human nature. |
whilst im not dismissing these possibilities, where are all the examples of it happening? liberal democratic governments and their civl servants leak like sieves.
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
These people need to know their limits. You cannot trade liberty for security, its very hard to keep the fine line. Once the freedom is gone, a big mess can then set the whole nation back for many decades. Look at some other countries for an example who are still trying to deal with the authoritarian issues of the past.[/COLOR] |
i think you have a poor opinion of democracy's capability for addressing issues. the US might be a poor example however. but it has survived all kinds of abuses of power in the past, and i see no reason why it will not do the same now. it might be a dark time, but i simply do not accept the premise that what is done cannot be un-done. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
I know. your posts are always so insightful. |
Thank you.
Your posts are very predictable and vapid, generally. ;) |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Thank you.
Your posts are very predictable and vapid, generally. ;) |
logic should always be predictable. |
|
|
|
|
