The real enemy is ...

oilFactotum

I can only laugh! You have been an avid suppporter of every expansion of the surveillance state during the Bush years. Now, suddenly government spying concerns you. You reap what you sow. When you cheer on a Surveillance State, you have no grounds to complain when it turns its eyes on you. If you create a massive and wildly empowered domestic surveillance apparatus, it's going to monitor and investigate domestic political activity. That's its nature. [^]

oilFactotum

Oakman wrote:

Can you imagine ...

*yawn*, don't have to. Left Wing Extremism[^]

Oakman wrote:

The level of paranoia shown in that document is far beyond anything generated by the Bush administration

Hardly. The report was begun under the Bush administration.

wolfbinary

I wasn't referring to plane high jacking specifically, but it didn't keep the shoe bomber from being stupid or my boss at the time from having a switch blade go through carry on in metal detectors. That was where I was going with that. The machines don't work that well when you have lotion, shampoo, conditioner and other things like that setting off false alarms so often that TSA doesn't know what's going on or anyone else. At the schools with the metal detectors, etc it was students informing on students that got the guns removed. Some people in Texas want guns to be able to be carried on campus, I think. Do you add more guns to the mix. I know there was some calling for teachers to be allowed to carry guns. Now you create a potential for teachers to do shootings? If its guns today, could be bombs tomorrow and then of course we'd need explosives detection. I was also speaking of them as a whole. Are guns anymore prevalent today in homes than 50 years ago or is it just getting more media coverage? I guess for me its a question of at what point do security measures cost more than they benefit and I don't necessarily mean financial cost.

Ilion

Le Centriste wrote:

I remember you calling people that did not agree with you "communists", "leftits", etc, even if they are not.

Perhaps you out to have your recollector looked into.

Ilion

Oakman wrote:

I think there's widespread agreement on that.

Perhaps. But surely no more widespread than the similar agreement as applies to you.

Oakman

oilFactotum wrote:

*yawn*, don't have to. Left Wing Extremism[^]

I'm afraid you do. That document deals only with the history of avowed left-wing terrorist groups. While interesting, detailing what the Black Liberation Front was doing in 1975 is hardly comparable with declaring all returning veterans to be potential terrorists worthy of surveillance. Oily, you really need to read the documents you cite before posting links to them. Otherwise, you get embarrassed.

oilFactotum wrote:

The report was begun under the Bush administration.

Provide proof or retract, please. I could find nothing that indicated that the report was instigated at the request of the outgoing administration.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Mike Gaskey

wolfbinary wrote:

Are guns anymore prevalent today in homes than 50 years ago or is it just getting more media coverage?

yes. 40 years ago I wouldn't have a gun in my home, irrational fear of kids (and an insane wife) getting their hands on same. today I have several, locked / loaded and within reach.

Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.

Oakman

wolfbinary wrote:

I wasn't referring to plane high jacking specifically,

I thought that was the point of the airport security you said was a waste of time. :confused: As to the exceptions you cite, I agree, the system isn't perfect. But, so far, it has not been circumvented by terrorists. I'm sure that some folks think that Osama has turned over a new leaf and is advising his minions to be lovers not assasins. I'm not one of them, and I don't think you are either.

wolfbinary wrote:

At the schools with the metal detectors, etc it was students informing on students that got the guns removed

In every case? There's never been a student caught bringing a weapon in because of the detectors? I find that hard to believe.

wolfbinary wrote:

I know there was some calling for teachers to be allowed to carry guns.

I lived in Englewood, New Jersey for awhile. Had I been forced to teach above the primary school level in that school system, I would have carried a weapon - laws, or no laws. (Stan disaproves of this attitude. He prefers his citizens to be sheeple.) On the other hand, I taught for awhile at New England College in Henniker, NH. It never occurred to me to bring a weapon on campus. Except, of course, the stick I used to beat the coeds away when they became too persistent.

wolfbinary wrote:

Are guns anymore prevalent today in homes than 50 years ago or is it just getting more media coverage?

Not in the South as far as I can tell and, I would venture to guess, not in the non-urban middle west. It's the nice, upstanding, suburbanites on the East and West coast who vote Democratic and think gun control is A Really Good Thing - for everyone else, who have guns now. Of course, taking a class in gun-handling would never cross their minds - that's for nuts like me.

wolfbinary wrote:

I guess for me its a question of at what point do security measures cost more than they benefit and I don't necessarily mean financial cost.

Security vs. freedom is the age old tension in any civilization. I side with Patrick Henry on the issue.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Ilíon wrote:

But surely no more widespread than the similar agreement as applies to you

Sure, Troy. Both of your heads agree, I'm sure. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

oilFactotum

Oakman wrote:

I'm afraid you do.

No, I don't.

Oakman wrote:

That document deals only with the history of avowed left-wing terrorist groups.

false. Do read the report(Including the title:The Current threat) before you embarrass yourself further.

Oakman wrote:

could find nothing

Then you obviously didn't try.

Oakman

oilFactotum wrote:

Do read the report(Including the title:The Current threat) before you embarrass yourself further.

I did. Which makes one of us.

oilFactotum wrote:

Then you obviously didn't try.

My guess is this means you did and your search was as fruitless as mine. Why don't you just admit it when you make a mistake?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Rob Graham

"You did it first" - what a terrific defense of the hypocrisy shown by the left in seizing the surveillance powers they once railed against with more gusto than ever shown by the right... You should be very proud of yourselves.

Synaptrik

Unfortunately the tactic is wrong, but the underlying message I think was lost, which was this is the result of selective support. And why its dangerous to support under any administration. Power received is rarely relinquished. So arguing for surveillance under Bush, which turns out Cheney was using against democrats in office, has the backlash of the next incoming party using it for much the same. If you rail against it at all it should be against all.

This statement is false

oilFactotum

Rob Graham wrote:

"You did it first" - what a terrific defense of the hypocrisy

I made no defense of gov't surveillance. But Stan has, and very vigorously. He really has no room to complain, as a result.

Rob Graham

Synaptrik wrote:

If you rail against it at all it should be against all.

I couldn't agree more, and find defenses like "you started it" and "Serves you right for having started it" to be feeble and hypocritical. Those who make such statements reveal clearly that their objection was a partisan in nature all along, rather than a sincere opposition out of principle. Stan and Oily both fail that test, IMO.

Rob Graham

You certainly don't seem to disapprove now. Silent acceptance differs little from tacit approval, and "you reap what you sow" strongly suggests that you actually approve.

oilFactotum

Rob Graham wrote:

You certainly don't seem to disapprove now.

Why should I care how it seems to you?

Rob Graham wrote:

Silent acceptance differs little from tacit approval

And you have been silent for the past 8 years. Clearly you must really approve.

Rob Graham wrote:

"you reap what you sow" strongly suggests that you actually approve.

What it strongly suggests is schadenfreude.

Oakman

Synaptrik wrote:

So arguing for surveillance under Bush, which turns out Cheney was using against democrats in office, has the backlash of the next incoming party using it for much the same. If you rail against it at all it should be against all.

Well said. But I doubt that any of the True Believers will think you are talking to and about them.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

oilFactotum wrote:

And you have been silent for the past 8 years.

Same technique, just with a twist. But the truth is that you are either lying, if you know - as I do - that Rob has spoken out against government intrusion often during Bush's presidency, or you are making up something to attack him with because you have no better method of countering what he said.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I fully support government surveillance of terrorists of any stripe. I sure as hell hope the Obama administration is keeping tabs on them. You know, people like his buddy Bill Ayers. However, it is very revealing that you are outraged by the notion of government spying on terrorists who are not white christians, but applaude it when they are. As usual, oily, you are the bright shining example of political hypocrisy here, not me.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.