[QUOTE=catbarf;43003081]Generally, yes, that is how rational people think. 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, aliens never landed at Roswell, and Obama isn't secretly a reptilian overlord.[/QUOTE]
If you only rely on other people to connect the dots for you then you are at other people's whim when it comes to uncovering truth. Rational people also deal with uncertainties in very rational ways: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability[/url]. I'm not saying for sure that Obama was put in power by them, but it's not a stretch to consider this possibility.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43003081]
Untrustworthy to whom? In what way? Government organizations lie to protect classified information, especially when it comes to national security, but that doesn't mean they aren't accountable to their people. I can list plenty of agencies that lie off their asses to other governments but have been reliable in working for the good of their people, from a number of countries. It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of evidence. Politicians lie too but that doesn't mean every politician secretly wants to become a fascist dictator and we ought to kill them all now before it's too late (evidence be damned).
[/QUOTE]
Well, go look at the timeline I linked previously and see if in this particular case the NSA has been always acting for the good of their people. You'll find out that it hasn't. I mean, watch this video if you're not able to read a bunch of different news and put things together:
[video=youtube;9CqVYUOjHLw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CqVYUOjHLw[/video]
[QUOTE=catbarf;43003081]
Obviously you should be keeping a close eye on organizations and people that lie for a living, but that doesn't mean you can start assuming the worst simply because you can envision it as a possibility. You need direct evidence, not fearmongering and slippery slope arguments.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it has already been shown that they are breaking many laws and invading people's privacy. If you personally think that's okay, fine, but don't go around telling other people that they shouldn't be pissed off.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43003081]
Of course not. That's why we have all kinds of checks and balances inherent in the system. Go take a look at just how many organizations can legally serve as whistleblowing agencies, or how many people there are between agencies keeping watch on one another. For a conspiracy of the type you're suggesting to be pulled off would require the absolute complicity of everyone operating on the project, everyone overseeing the project, and everyone keeping tabs from other agencies- and in the case of intelligence agencies, these are young people chosen for independent critical-thinking ability, because yes-men make fuckawful analysts and problem-solvers. Does that kind of conspiracy seem likely to you?[/QUOTE]
Many whistleblowers tried going through legal means about their actions and they were met with punishment. The system doesn't work anymore and it's out of control. All information released this year points to that. And as for the conspiracy, if I were smart at all about going around and blackmailing people, I would try to involve as few people as possible, no? And think about this: the actual domestic spying happened for >10 years and they were able to keep it quiet for that long. This involved A LOT of people in that agency and only a dozen of whistleblowers actually came out. Do you seriously believe a smaller operation (like whatever conspiracy you're talking about) would get out?
[QUOTE=catbarf;43003081]
I don't think the government is perfect. I don't think the people running the show necessarily have pure altruism at heart. But I expect [i]evidence[/i] for strong claims, not wild speculation with the tacit admission (with the 'wake up sheeple' style rhetoric) that it's all just an asspull.[/QUOTE]
Some types of issues are dangerous not because they are, in fact, dangerous, but because of the possibilities they put forward. Any organization that has too much information/power (like the NSA) is a possible threat in the future. For instance:
[URL="http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/394348/Internet-porn-to-be-blocked-in-public-as-David-Cameron-promotes-good-clean-Wi-fi"]Internet porn to be blocked in public as David Cameron promotes 'good clean Wi-fi' [/URL]
[B]You:[/B] Well, this seems reasonable, right? Free public wi-fi maybe shouldn't have porn. It's not an issue and there's little wrong with this. [B]Me:[/B] except you're wrong: this means that they have to know what is and isn't porn, so they have to watch your traffic and this could easily become a problem in the future, since they could start banning more things other than porn. [B]You:[/B] well, give me EVIDENCE they're doing that, stupid!
[URL="http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/17/rape-porn-possession-to-be-punished-by-three-years-in-jail-david-cameron-to-announce-4189512/"]‘Rape porn’ possession to be punished by three years in jail, David Cameron to announce[/URL]
[B]You:[/B] ok, this is a bit weirder, but maybe it's just an over sensationalized headline, news do that! And even if it isn't, child molesters and rapists should be jailed. Fuck those guys! [B]Me:[/B] just another step towards more control for them... [B]You:[/B] yea right stop being stupid, there's no evidence they're doing that, fucking retard.
[URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131023/debtext/131023-0001.htm#13102356000002"]UK Prime Minister David Cameron Announces That Filters Used to Block Porn Will Also Block Websites Espousing "Extremist" Views in Order "to Keep Our Country Safe"[/URL]
[B]You:[/B] OHHHHHHH SNAPPPPPPPP [B]Me:[/B] OHHHHHHH SNAPPPPPPPPPP
See how it was useful for me to extrapolate and see the possibilities months/years ago (on the first bit of news) instead of just waiting for things to happen? If more people thought like me, maybe David Cameron wouldn't be able to pull the shit he's pulling now. But no, everyone's really rational like you, so let's just wait that we have evidence that we're being fucked, and then let's keep getting fucked! Yay!
[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;43003269]If you only rely on other people to connect the dots for you then you are at other people's whim when it comes to uncovering truth. Rational people also deal with uncertainties in very rational ways: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability[/url]. I'm not saying for sure that Obama was put in power by them, but it's not a stretch to consider this possibility.[/QUOTE]
Sure, it's a possibility. It's also a possibility that 9/11 was a conspiracy and aliens landed at Roswell. Extraordinary claims, however, require extraordinary evidence. Where's yours?
[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;43003269][b]Many whistleblowers tried going through legal means about their actions and they were met with punishment[/b]. The system doesn't work anymore and it's out of control. All information released this year points to that. And as for the conspiracy, if I were smart at all about going around and blackmailing people, I would try to involve as few people as possible, no? And think about this: the actual domestic spying happened for >10 years and they were able to keep it quiet for that long. This involved A LOT of people in that agency and only a dozen of whistleblowers actually came out. Do you seriously believe a smaller operation (like whatever conspiracy you're talking about) would get out?[/QUOTE]
You got a source on the bolded part? If whistleblowing works as intended, you'd never know about it, because the point is to keep secrets secret while still allowing for accountability. If an FBI agent working on an NSA project finds something sketchy, reports it to the DoS, and the project gets shut down or altered, it would never reach the news.
The fact that the domestic data collection was kept secret for ten years shows one of two things: Either literally everybody involved (mostly politically active fresh-out-of-college programmers and analysts) went along with a far-reaching, privacy-violating, Big-Brother-emulating assault on FREEDOM with gusto for a decade with absolutely no dissent whatsoever, or maybe it's a little less invasive than the sensationalist media would imply. Take your pick.
And I don't understand why you're saying 'like whatever conspiracy you're talking about', because I'm referring to the conspiracy you're proposing, which is that the entire government is colluding in a conspiracy to spy on Americans and use that information as blackmail for political ends. And what's the evidence? Obama flip-flopped on his position right as he started running for office. Wow, how atypical for a politician!
[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;43003269]Some types of issues are dangerous not because they are, in fact, dangerous, but because of the possibilities they put forward. Any organization that has too much information/power (like the NSA) is a possible threat in the future. For instance:
[URL="http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/394348/Internet-porn-to-be-blocked-in-public-as-David-Cameron-promotes-good-clean-Wi-fi"]Internet porn to be blocked in public as David Cameron promotes 'good clean Wi-fi' [/URL]
[B]You:[/B] Well, this seems reasonable, right? Free public wi-fi maybe shouldn't have porn. It's not an issue and there's little wrong with this. [B]Me:[/B] except you're wrong: this means that they have to know what is and isn't porn, so they have to watch your traffic and this could easily become a problem in the future, since they could start banning more things other than porn. [B]You:[/B] well, give me EVIDENCE they're doing that, stupid!
[URL="http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/17/rape-porn-possession-to-be-punished-by-three-years-in-jail-david-cameron-to-announce-4189512/"]‘Rape porn’ possession to be punished by three years in jail, David Cameron to announce[/URL]
[B]You:[/B] ok, this is a bit weirder, but maybe it's just an over sensationalized headline, news do that! And even if it isn't, child molesters and rapists should be jailed. Fuck those guys! [B]Me:[/B] just another step towards more control for them... [B]You:[/B] yea right stop being stupid, there's no evidence they're doing that, fucking retard.
[URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131023/debtext/131023-0001.htm#13102356000002"]UK Prime Minister David Cameron Announces That Filters Used to Block Porn Will Also Block Websites Espousing "Extremist" Views in Order "to Keep Our Country Safe"[/URL]
[B]You:[/B] OHHHHHHH SNAPPPPPPPP [B]Me:[/B] OHHHHHHH SNAPPPPPPPPPP
See how it was useful for me to extrapolate and see the possibilities months/years ago (on the first bit of news) instead of just waiting for things to happen? If more people thought like me, maybe David Cameron wouldn't be able to pull the shit he's pulling now. But no, everyone's really rational like you, so let's just wait that we have evidence that we're being fucked, and then let's keep getting fucked! Yay![/QUOTE]
You are actually, seriously using a slippery slope as the basis for an argument.
'We can't let the gays marry or next thing it'll be men marrying dogs!'
Maybe the government regulating water quality is just a step towards spiking it with mind control drugs! Maybe drones are being developed so Obama can assassinate Americans! Maybe the Affordable Care Act is to prepare the nation for communism! Maybe IRS records are being collated to allow dissidents to be rounded up and sent to FEMA internment camps!
'[X] is bad because it could lead to [Y]' is universally regarded as a logical fallacy. [X] does not imply [Y], they are separate events even if there is a necessary relationship between the two. The ability for a system to be potentially exploited for evil does not imply that the system itself is evil, it implies that the system requires oversight and accountability to ensure that it is not abused. There's a HUGE difference between that and the kind of '[Y] could potentially happen SO IT MUST BE HAPPENING TIME TO OVERTHROW THE GUBBAMINT' kind of tinfoil-hat-wearing nonsense you're espousing.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43003421]
Maybe the government regulating water quality is just a step towards spiking it with mind control drugs! Maybe drones are being developed so Obama can assassinate Americans! Maybe the Affordable Care Act is to prepare the nation for communism! Maybe IRS records are being collated to allow dissidents to be rounded up and sent to FEMA internment camps!
'[X] is bad because it could lead to [Y]' is universally regarded as a logical fallacy. [X] does not imply [Y], they are separate events even if there is a necessary relationship between the two. The ability for a system to be potentially exploited for evil does not imply that the system itself is evil, it implies that the system requires oversight and accountability to ensure that it is not abused. There's a HUGE difference between that and the kind of '[Y] could potentially happen SO IT MUST BE HAPPENING TIME TO OVERTHROW THE GUBBAMINT' kind of tinfoil-hat-wearing nonsense you're espousing.[/QUOTE]
you are using the same logic to say that it's nothing, though.
[IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71376000/jpg/_71376419_nsa1.jpg[/IMG]
that guy's ponytail looks like a fat peanuty turd
[editline]s[/editline]
wait is that an animal
what is that
[QUOTE=catbarf;43003421]
You got a source on the bolded part? If whistleblowing works as intended, you'd never know about it, because the point is to keep secrets secret while still allowing for accountability. If an FBI agent working on an NSA project finds something sketchy, reports it to the DoS, and the project gets shut down or altered, it would never reach the news.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure if you'll accept this as source, but he's able to speak more clearly about this than me: [url]www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yB3n9fu-rM&hd=1#t=4m4s[/url]
[QUOTE=catbarf;43003421]
The fact that the domestic data collection was kept secret for ten years shows one of two things: Either literally everybody involved (mostly politically active fresh-out-of-college programmers and analysts) went along with a far-reaching, privacy-violating, Big-Brother-emulating assault on FREEDOM with gusto for a decade with absolutely no dissent whatsoever, or maybe it's a little less invasive than the sensationalist media would imply. Take your pick.[/QUOTE]
People are motivated by different things. Look at this image:
[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_404h/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/10/30/Local/Images/GOOGLE-CLOUD-EXPLOITATION1383148810.jpg[/IMG]
The smile there means that this is an engineer/programmer who is happy to tackle a hard problem such as the one of hacking Google. He doesn't care about how wrong this is, he only cares about the problem at hand. You underestimate how people have different motives for working somewhere and you underestimate people's want to live comfortable lives.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43003421]
You are actually, seriously using a slippery slope as the basis for an argument.
'We can't let the gays marry or next thing it'll be men marrying dogs!'
Maybe the government regulating water quality is just a step towards spiking it with mind control drugs! Maybe drones are being developed so Obama can assassinate Americans! Maybe the Affordable Care Act is to prepare the nation for communism! Maybe IRS records are being collated to allow dissidents to be rounded up and sent to FEMA internment camps!
'[X] is bad because it could lead to [Y]' is universally regarded as a logical fallacy. [X] does not imply [Y], they are separate events even if there is a necessary relationship between the two. The ability for a system to be potentially exploited for evil does not imply that the system itself is evil, it implies that the system requires oversight and accountability to ensure that it is not abused. There's a HUGE difference between that and the kind of '[Y] could potentially happen SO IT MUST BE HAPPENING TIME TO OVERTHROW THE GUBBAMINT' kind of tinfoil-hat-wearing nonsense you're espousing.[/QUOTE]
While you worry about not committing logical fallacies, I'm gonna worry about the issue at hand. I showed you how this slippery slope that is so wrong to use in arguments actually happened in the UK, yet you ignored it. I GAVE YOU DATA AND YOU IGNORED IT. Honestly, there's no reasoning with you.
What does the U.S. have to gain by trying to have a dictatorship?
Political attack ads are gonna get really good.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;43003580]What does the U.S. have to gain by trying to have a dictatorship?[/QUOTE]
What does China gain by having their [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project"]great firewall[/URL]? You get cheap iPhones, but what do the chinese people get?
[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;43003538]People are motivated by different things. Look at this image:
[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_404h/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/10/30/Local/Images/GOOGLE-CLOUD-EXPLOITATION1383148810.jpg[/IMG]
The smile there means that this is an engineer/programmer who is happy to tackle a hard problem such as the one of hacking Google. He doesn't care about how wrong this is, he only cares about the problem at hand. You underestimate how people have different motives for working somewhere and you underestimate people's want to live comfortable lives.[/QUOTE]
How many people? How bland are their motives? I've worked with people from the US government in some pretty high-up places at times and the people there are just as varied as in everyday life. Most college students in the US have seen NSA recruiters on campus- they're hiring people from college campuses, people just full of political ideas and youthful activism. You're suggesting that these agencies are composed entirely of yes-men or tech geeks who only care about solving problems and that's just not true. It only takes one whistleblower to end an entire operation if it's not on the level.
Consider how Congress has sworn up and down that they were unaware of PRISM. Now, since Congress is legally authorized as a protected avenue of whistleblowing, does it seem likely that if they're telling the truth that they would ignore and sweep under the rug an employee bringing them evidence of unauthorized, far-reaching programs? Or if they're lying, if Congress knew about it, does it seem likely that [I]every[/I] Congressman is in on it and will hush it up? How about the Department of State, or Department of Justice, or any of the other dozens of agencies that participate in whistleblowing? Are they [I]all[/I] in on it, and keen to cover it up?
There's just too many people involved. We're talking about the same government that couldn't cover up a blowjob during the Clinton presidency. I don't think it's changed that much in a decade.
[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;43003538]While you worry about not committing logical fallacies, I'm gonna worry about the issue at hand. I showed you how this slippery slope that is so wrong to use in arguments actually happened in the UK, yet you ignored it. I GAVE YOU DATA AND YOU IGNORED IT. Honestly, there's no reasoning with you.[/QUOTE]
'My argument doesn't need to be logical if I can find one example that sorta supports my point'? That's what you're reducing your argument to? Come on, you've brought up some interesting points, I already know you're smarter than this.
Or to use your argument a different way:
'Look at the Soviet Union, it started with just implementing social welfare and food production reforms, and then boom! Communism! This is what will happen if we allow Obama to socialize healthcare!'
The fact that one particular circumstance has led to one of many predictable outcomes does not imply that it [I]always[/I] will or that the initial circumstance was a bad one [I]simply because it could be exploited[/I]. This is why slippery slopes are a FALLACY. This is why they are USELESS as an argument.
You're right, the UK went down a particular path that did not end well. But other countries (Germany! France!) have enacted similar initial reforms without the ultimate conclusion of outright censorship. The key is that there be someone looking out to make sure that they go as far as is permissible and [I]not any farther[/I]. Some oversight. Some control. Not some lunatic in the rafters insisting that the end is nigh because the FDA started regulating beef.
By your reasoning one could infer that police are requesting more modern assault rifles and body armor so that they can oppress the populace and step above the law, rather than the stated reasons of staying contemporary and facing well-armed criminals. Is the hypothetical scenario a possibility? Absolutely, it's happened around the world and it's sure to happen again. Is there evidence for it? Besides the circumstance, no. Is that a reason to deny police the ability to upgun if necessary? No- but it's a very good reason to keep close tabs and proper oversight, and yank on the leash the instant they overstep the bounds.
The same applies to the NSA. As far as I'm concerned, nothing they've shown so far is radically far and above their usual MO. If you can give me evidence, sufficient reason to believe that they're stepping beyond their intended role (not the mere possibility or speculation, but the [I]likelihood[/I]), then I'll be right there with you in condemning them. If they've intruded on personal privacy, as opposed to anonymized datasets. If they've used their abilities against their own people for political ends. Basically if there's evidence that they've operated directly against the American people, rather than against other nations. Then it'll be time to shoot the bastards. But at the moment I think you're jumping the gun.
It wasn't the NSA that hacked into Google's network (And Yahoo, etc.), it was the British spy agency.
The NSA just provided the tech for it.
when I reach climax I stare dead-straight into my webcam and ejaculate even harder, knowing the fact that someone probably was forced to watch me because it's their job
I actually don't think this is funny at all. This just goes to show how far they'll go to stop their political enemies and keep the status quo to keep themselves in power. It's scary. And again, this is only what we [i]do[/i] know. There's probably a ton we don't know.
[QUOTE=deathstarboot;43005773]I actually don't think this is funny at all. This just goes to show how far they'll go to stop their political enemies and keep the status quo to keep themselves in power. It's scary. And again, this is only what we [i]do[/i] know. There's probably a ton we don't know.[/QUOTE]
These recent actions will inevitably lead to more people becoming whistleblowers. Hopefully more countries stand up against the US and help shelter them. I can't see the US embargoing the world.
[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;43001900]Jesus. Some of the justifications people give to shit like this are just really scary. And I'm assuming most of you are pretty young (since that's the demographic of this website). There's no hope. Nothing that gets released will make americans get out of their asses and do anything. Enjoy what your life will be like in 20 years and remember that you didn't do anything to stop it. gl hf[/QUOTE]
You guys don't know how to have fun. When you see a new injustice forming, especially one that affects you, try to encourage it to see how far it will go. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some important business to attend to: Mainly, crying myself back to sleep and furthering my efforts to cut myself off from the rest of the world.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43003727]'My argument doesn't need to be logical if I can find one example that sorta supports my point'? That's what you're reducing your argument to? Come on, you've brought up some interesting points, I already know you're smarter than this.
Or to use your argument a different way:
'Look at the Soviet Union, it started with just implementing social welfare and food production reforms, and then boom! Communism! This is what will happen if we allow Obama to socialize healthcare!'
The fact that one particular circumstance has led to one of many predictable outcomes does not imply that it [I]always[/I] will or that the initial circumstance was a bad one [I]simply because it could be exploited[/I]. This is why slippery slopes are a FALLACY. This is why they are USELESS as an argument.
You're right, the UK went down a particular path that did not end well. But other countries (Germany! France!) have enacted similar initial reforms without the ultimate conclusion of outright censorship. The key is that there be someone looking out to make sure that they go as far as is permissible and [I]not any farther[/I]. Some oversight. Some control. Not some lunatic in the rafters insisting that the end is nigh because the FDA started regulating beef.
By your reasoning one could infer that police are requesting more modern assault rifles and body armor so that they can oppress the populace and step above the law, rather than the stated reasons of staying contemporary and facing well-armed criminals. Is the hypothetical scenario a possibility? Absolutely, it's happened around the world and it's sure to happen again. Is there evidence for it? Besides the circumstance, no. Is that a reason to deny police the ability to upgun if necessary? No- but it's a very good reason to keep close tabs and proper oversight, and yank on the leash the instant they overstep the bounds.
The same applies to the NSA. As far as I'm concerned, nothing they've shown so far is radically far and above their usual MO. If you can give me evidence, sufficient reason to believe that they're stepping beyond their intended role (not the mere possibility or speculation, but the [I]likelihood[/I]), then I'll be right there with you in condemning them. If they've intruded on personal privacy, as opposed to anonymized datasets. If they've used their abilities against their own people for political ends. Basically if there's evidence that they've operated directly against the American people, rather than against other nations. Then it'll be time to shoot the bastards. But at the moment I think you're jumping the gun.[/QUOTE]
Just gonna fly in and note the idea of hanging onto the fact: "Oh you are using a fallacy to support your argument" is a fallacy in some cases.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy[/url]
This whole NSA fiasco is probably awesome to exhibitionists.
[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;42998656]How can you be that dense? It has been shown in previous news that they've been tracking Obama since 2004 and Merkel way before she was chancellor. Do you really believe they haven't used stuff like this domestically? Stop being so fucking naive.[/QUOTE]
fun fact: every world power has a portion of their intelligence agency working domestically
You guys are seriously just a bunch of fucking children who love to leap on the next biggest thing in the media without thinking, I mean SERIOUSLY, you guys are getting worked up over a government doing what governments have always done. You're gonna grow up to be yawmamen v2 or something, because governments are soooo evil because they have functioning intelligence agencies
Have you seen the comments on porn websites? These people have no shame.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;43007444]fun fact: every world power has a portion of their intelligence agency working domestically
You guys are seriously just a bunch of fucking children who love to leap on the next biggest thing in the media without thinking, I mean SERIOUSLY, you guys are getting worked up over a government doing what governments have always done. You're gonna grow up to be yawmamen v2 or something, because governments are soooo evil because they have functioning intelligence agencies[/QUOTE]
And here we observe the specimen No Party Hats: willingly submitting himself to be fucked in the ass by the government.
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;43006648]Just gonna fly in and note the idea of hanging onto the fact: "Oh you are using a fallacy to support your argument" is a fallacy in some cases.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy[/url][/QUOTE]
That is completely irrelevant to what I said. Read your own link. The fallacy is in stating that because the argument is invalid, that the conclusion is necessarily false. A fallacious argument for why the sky is blue doesn't necessarily mean the sky isn't blue, but it means the argument is still invalid.
If I said that because adn's argument is fallacious, it is 100% impossible that Obama was being blackmailed by the NSA, then that would be an argument from fallacy and it would be incorrect. It's still possible, but without a credible argument to back it up it remains improbable and is dismissed by rational people on the basis of a lack of evidence.
So, wait, is NSA trying to make people like Edward Snowden look less trustworthy based on the porn they watch? Or did I just fail at reading the topic again
that's some playground-grade bullshit
What if you have a voyeur fetish? Do they hire you on the spot for that?
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;43006648]Just gonna fly in and note the idea of hanging onto the fact: "Oh you are using a fallacy to support your argument" is a fallacy in some cases.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy[/url][/QUOTE]Good thing he wasn't using that fallacy then?
I like big tits, sue me.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;43007444]fun fact: every world power has a portion of their intelligence agency working domestically
You guys are seriously just a bunch of fucking children who love to leap on the next biggest thing in the media without thinking, I mean SERIOUSLY, you guys are getting worked up over a government doing what governments have always done. You're gonna grow up to be yawmamen v2 or something, because governments are soooo evil because they have functioning intelligence agencies[/QUOTE]
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - President
"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. [So help me God.]" - Federal Judges
"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]" - Federal Judges, Congress, Servicemen
Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution reads:
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[/URL]
Fun fact: government invasion of your privacy without just cause or warrant is a violation of the US Constitution, which all federal judges, politicians, and servicemen swear to uphold.
Anyone who knowingly participates in or defends unwarranted spying is breaking US law, defying the Constitution they swore to uphold, and is a traitor to the people.
But I guess Americans who are complaining about their own government violating the defining document and rules of their country are just "fucking children".
[QUOTE=Mingebox;43009889]Good thing he wasn't using that fallacy then?[/QUOTE]
"'My argument doesn't need to be logical if I can find one example that sorta supports my point'? That's what you're reducing your argument to?"
"this program is specifically to target terrorists nobody wants to see your freaky fetishes GOSH"
"well actually that's really the only reason we're doing this"
[QUOTE=Vasili;43007536]And here we observe the specimen No Party Hats: willingly submitting himself to be fucked in the ass by the government.[/QUOTE]
oof you really got me vasili! i'm really submitting myself to be fucked in the ass because i have a grasp on reality!
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;43010773] i have a grasp on reality![/QUOTE]
you really dont
Im really proud of my fetishes
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;43007444]fun fact: every world power has a portion of their intelligence agency working domestically
You guys are seriously just a bunch of fucking children who love to leap on the next biggest thing in the media without thinking, I mean SERIOUSLY, you guys are getting worked up over a government doing what governments have always done. You're gonna grow up to be yawmamen v2 or something, because governments are soooo evil because they have functioning intelligence agencies[/QUOTE]
I dont think the govermment is evil. I think they are extremely petty, greedy, and incompetent, and i dont trust those kinds of people in powerful positions.
And what the fuck kind of argument is that? A government that spies on its own people is something i should be expecting? And theyve always been doing it so that justifies it?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.