Big Brother is Watching You

[Guest]

Welcome back. To be fair, you knew that the unregistered were given that handle when you got cute and chose it.

Could be I chose it because it's my real last name. Crap happened.

[Ombudsman]

The sky in my world does not suddenly and conveniently cloud up when I flub. I immediately take responsibility as I did with my failed recall above, even being honest and self aware enough to admit it might be failed before it's proven (what you deceptively edited out).

LOL - Did you type that with a straight face? You implied I was lying when I said you posted Parti's PM. When I linked to it you doubled down on your bullshit. Let's recap.

You posted a PM from Parti/ex-member.
You posted Mad American's IP address thinking you as moderator had the only access to it.
Banni quoted your post and confirmed it.
I then pointed out that Roland's IP, like all of ours, was publicly available and matched the one you and Banni had posted for Mad American.
You then whined endlessly that I had done this and you claimed it was in violation of a rather sarcastically worded forum rule that was posted after the fact.

I don't actually give a shit that you posted Parti's PM because he's a total dick. I do find it funny as hell though that you'd whine about me copying and pasting the IP's you and Banni made public, particularly after, as moderator, you posted Parti's PM. It's your hypocrisy that's the issue. Your lack of basic computer knowledge seems to get you in a lot of trouble. You'd have to backpedal less often if you'd just own it, or perhaps take a basic computer class.

[Ombudsman]

No wonder you're so lonely.

I didn't "deceptively edit" your post. That's what you're making up. I edited it to parts that were relevant to the discussion since you have a habit of filling every post with irrelevant inane bullshit in an attempt to hide your missteps.

[Ombudsman]

LOL - I wasn't the one who was "busted," you were. Damn lady, how the hell do you find your way home at night?

[Ombudsman]

...commenting on my personal life is noted and pitied, again.

Poor baby. Sorry I hit a nerve mentioning your loneliness. There are treatments available for your condition though.

[bannination]

Internet sites join July 4 protest against surveillance

...Reddit and Mozilla...Boing Boing...Internet Defense League, a network of more than 30,000 websites and internet users...nearly 13,500 Twitter users...

But, but, they're not "tech savvy".

[Stinger]

Keep in mind that Stinger is the poster that went on and on about my deleting words that never were deleted even after being proven wrong, then claimed that interjecting a comment in the middle of a sentence and thus giving him the last word was some sort of deceptive "moved them" plot against him.

Keep in mind that Vrede keeps a record of and link to my mistake on her computer and will bring it up when needed until the day she dies, but when she makes a mistake -- i.e. not knowing what her own words were immediately before me quoting her words -- she'll run and blame me for being "confusing."

Right. I quoted your exact words immediately after yours in the post. It's not like you had to work to understand what I was talking about. It was clear as a bell. You just made a stupid mistake.

Were I Vrede, I would record that mistake, keep a link to it, and bring it up endlessly every time I needed help in some argument.

Thank God I'm not Vrede.

[Stinger]

We don't have reason, yet, to believe that they scan and retain the info. on each envelope.


Opps. You have no reason to believe anything if you're uninformed.

a forerunner of a vastly more expansive effort, the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program, in which Postal Service computers photograph the exterior of every piece of paper mail that is processed in the United States — about 160 billion pieces last year.

New York Times

Vrede, the ultimate authority on all things government.

[Ombudsman]

Internet sites join July 4 protest against surveillance

...Reddit and Mozilla...Boing Boing...Internet Defense League, a network of more than 30,000 websites and internet users...nearly 13,500 Twitter users...

But, but, they're not "tech savvy".

But I'm guessing they're not dumb enough to be shocked by it like you are.

[Stinger]

Given that you've avoided for dozens of pages stating whether you oppose what's going on or not - the very heart of this thread - and that you argue with those that do oppose it, that you repeat the 'corporations do it, too' line, and that you do everything you can to minimize what is happening, the conclusion is obvious.

The conclusion is that you believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of factual support, and leap to conclusions that you always deem 100% correct, arrived at by what you deem as logical.

Cluebus says: What you deem isn't always so. Sorry you'll never figure that one out.

It's not my problem if you're so wishy-washy about taking a stand that we have to guess.

Oh, it's not a guess. You have those psycho mind-reading powers, and you're always right. If you don't believe it, just ask yourself.

[Stinger]

Full stupid restored:

:?: :?: :?: I'm confused. What are you ranting about now?

I'm not the least bit surprised. You apparently didn't know what you said then. Denied it. (Lied?)

Vrede:I don't think I've ever once expressed worry about that. Got a quote and link? No, you're making things up, again. It's well known historic, possible current and potential future repression and the fact that it's a 4th Amendment violation whatever they do with the info. that concerns me.


Stinger: Not a fact. An opinion.

Vrede: "historic" is a fact and of course "possible" and "potential" are opinions, goofball. History and English much?

Stinger: "The FACT that it's a 4th Amendment violation ...." Read much? Read your own words much? ROTFLMAO!!!

Vrede: Your reference was unclear, their were several thoughts in that sentence.

There. You stated that it was FACT that it violated the 4th Amendment. I said that was an opinion.

You said that "historic" was a fact, followed by your usual supercilious snark, "...goofball. History and English much?" when it was you who screwed up.

Then you tried to explain it away by saying "their (sic) were several thoughts in the sentence."

Only one was labeled fact.

Now I can file it away and bring it up countless times as proof of .... something. Unhinged OCD?


True, you'd take more care to format intelligibly, not be so fucking whiny when you don't,.

ROTFLMAO!!! Thanks for proving my point.

I think you need to talk to the doc about upping your dosage. "Format intelligibly" "Fucking whiny."

You're babbling about "fucking whiny" and whining about formatting at the same time? Too funny.


Best you can do, I guess.

[Stinger]

Yeah, I saw that when banni posted the same link yesterday (page 34). Hilarious timing. However, that's a July 3 article that I couldn't have known about on June 30 when I wrote the above, and you didn't either or you would have said something when you replied on July 2. Instead, you just posted that they might be doing that. Opps, Stinger was just as "uninformed" as I and the rest of us were, but now he's pretending otherwise.

Nice try. Daily Mail -- JUNE 8, 2013

The Smoking Gun -- JUNE 7, 2013

Gawker -- JUNE 9, 2013

Keep dancing.

[Stinger]

just like the (Edit: 27%, I was wrong earlier) of Dems, according to one pollster, that have flip-flopped.

The polls I can find showed 66% thought Bush's wireless wiretapping without FISA Court approval to be possibly worthy of impeachment. That would leave 34% who didn't think so, or, 34% who were okay with warrantless wiretapping.

This is not warrantless wiretapping without FISA Court approval. Nevertheless, if it was okay with 34% then and okay with 54% now, then only 20% flip-flopped, not the entire 54%.

Math much?

[Stinger]

Yeah, I saw that when banni posted the same link yesterday (page 34). Hilarious timing. However, that's a July 3 article that I couldn't have known about on June 30 when I wrote the above, and you didn't either or you would have said something when you replied on July 2. Instead, you just posted that they might be doing that. Opps, Stinger was just as "uninformed" as I and the rest of us were, but now he's pretending otherwise.

Nice try. Keep dancing.

Psycho mindreader once again knows all.

Content?

[Stinger]

As you know, but conveniently "forgot" again, Psycho mindreader knows what I know AND what I forgot. These powers are fricking amazing. the poll I linked pointed out that 47% of Republicans flip-flopped in the other direction and claimed to not be comparing the apples and oranges you keep fantasizing without getting off your butt to confirm or debunk, thus making the current tally believable to the extent that the pollster and poll are credible.

Math, research, logic, memory and comprehension much? Of course not, sigh, you need such help with the simplest things.

The Majority of Americans Still Don't Care About the NSA Spying on Them

A bit of good news for the 265 sitting members of Congress who voted to extend the legislation that the NSA claims as its mandate to collect phone data: the majority of Americans don't care. Pew Research today released a poll suggesting that 56 percent of the country thinks doing just that is just fine...

Views on the practice differ significantly based on political party. Democrats support such wiretapping by 30 percentage points; Republicans, by only five.

Which is a big change from 2006. At that point, Republicans supported it by a 52 percent margin; Democrats opposed by 24 points...

Interesting, a partisan 47% swing for Republicans and a partisan 54% swing for Democrats. We are consistent. Did someone say that it's just the cons that are being hypocritical?

More:

Pew Research...

The firm, which has clearly been paying closer attention to the history of the NSA than many Americans, asked similar questions about the balance between privacy and terror investigations in 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2010.

You should knock off the Yahoo summaries and actually read the articles.



2006 -- Democrats okay with it -- 37%.
2013 -- Democrats okay with it -- 64%

That's a 27% of Democrats who flip-flopped, not 54%.

Read much? Math much? Think much?

[Stinger]

Get over it, you big baby.

[/quote]

[Stinger]

Wrong, "similar" questions by a reputable firm.

Right. Similar questions about two different topics. Listening to content of domestic calls without even FISA Court approval vs. metadata with FISA Court approval. Real similar. Think much?

[Stinger]

That's what you're still whining about?! Wow. Yes, only one thing was labeled "fact" but more than one thing in that sentence was asserted as fact - "well known historic, possible current and potential future repression". ESL much? I admitted that I guessed the wrong one thanks to your unclear response. Get over it, you big baby. The important thing for adults to discuss is whether the NSA snooping you adore is a violation of the "spirit and/or letter of the 4th Amendment", as I'd posted earlier on the same page and you "missed", as usual.

(childish cartoons)

Or not.

One thing mentioned as fact. I said opinion, not fact. You don't get it.

Now it's my fault.

Thanks for the chuckles. I still liked all the little numbers best.

[Stinger]

The fact is that we now know that the NSA is more intrusive than we knew in 2006,

Right. Collecting metadata via FISA Court warrants is more intrusive than listening to phone calls and reading emails without of U.S. citizens without any court supervision at all.

[O Really]

"supervision" by rubber stamp GOP foxes guarding the hen house.

Who would you find satisfactory to be the hen house guard?