talkpolitics | (no subject)

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd
http://www.cato.org/blog/why-nsa-collecting-phone-records-problem
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/00084614407/privacy-is-not-secrecy-debunking-if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-argument.shtml
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

There are a significant number of people who respond to any revelation that government is violating the law (yes, the Constitution is part of the law) with a shrug and "I've got nothing to hide". These people are selfish fools at best. They are not looking at the bigger picture and/or aren't considering other people. Plus, they probably aren't paying attention to the fact that everyone in America is currently a criminal, that everyone violates a law with serious penalties at some point, whether you know it or not. (And the fact that that is the case is another problem, but that's outside the scope of my point here.)

Even Biden and Obama railed against what they are themselves supporting now, before they were in power. That alone should be enough to make you stop and think about what having that kind of power available can do to people.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm not sure who the target of a bullet should be. I think most of us are just getting by, cogging our tiny part, too busy and tired to see the whole machine.

The problem is a system, not people. The only people issue is the reluctance to experience change.

That's strange. People who decry the desire of groups of people like, say, the advocates for LGBT rights, to experience changes in society, usually happen to be the same people who lament the statist status quo. So, does that mean some changes are "fine", while others, not-so-much?

I'm seeing something like a debate forming up-thread on the gun issue. So far guns have been all around the place, with little oversight. The very suggestion that some more oversight should be added into the system is causing massive tantrums in some segments of society. Why are they opposed to change, then?

Curiously, this whole gun debacle has resulted in unprecedented levels of gun sales. So in a sense, the NRA should be building a golden statue of Obama somewhere in Texas or something.

Don't forget the ultimate dream of conservatives. "A government small enough to fit in your uterus".

Yes, that is exactly what it means! And that is the problem. Everyone wants to feel in control and in agreement with changes...as long as they are not too much of a change. PLus, the right is extremely hypocritical. I think you have to pass a hypocrisy test before they let you into their Big Tent™

Hairstyles vs lifestyles. It's all about the intensity.

Pft, let them shoot away. I tend to shy away from the gun issue. I own them, and I believe they should have some regulations. A "well regulated militia" and all that historic drivel...

Weren't the Dems supposed to be the Big Tent, now? (confused)

well..it's a big tent. Difference is the D's have rainbows and ice cream and the R's have elephant shite.

There's a wiki for that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_tent

People who decry the desire of groups of people like, say, the advocates for LGBT rights, to experience changes in society, usually happen to be the same people who lament the statist status quo. So, does that mean some changes are "fine", while others, not-so-much?

No, it means your "observation" is incorrect.

That same observation (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1722274.html?thread=137028258#t137028258) is fully valid for your typical pseudo-rebuttals.

That's a non-sensical comment.

The only thing nonsensical here are your constant trademark "You're wrong, bye" remarks without any follow-up elaboration. That doesn't even approach being a rebuttal of any sort whatsoever. It's just an intellectual laziness which you then proceed to explain with a lack of time. That's the most worthless input one could have in a discussion. And then you go on and complain that "people are not here for the reasonable discussion". Because you are, right? Is this what you mean by "expressing yourself"? Or perhaps it's supposed to be some kind of evidence for your self-proclaimed super-intelligence?

What a joke.

Edited 2013-06-15 09:53 (UTC)

And then you go on and complain that "people are not here for the reasonable discussion". Because you are, right? Is this what you mean by "expressing yourself"?

Yes, when other people refuse to be reasonable, I see no reason to put effort into explaining something that either they won't understand, refuse to try to understand, or don't care to discuss rationally. Those people who try to improve themselves will get effort from me. Others, like you, get merely my opinions without justifications, as the time spent writing out the justification is wasted.

Those people who try to improve themselves will get effort from me

How generous and humble of you. Perhaps they should feel gratitude that you're even considering the possibility of deigning some attention to them.

There's nothing "reasonable" about your "U rrong, kthbai" attitude. Start doing what you're preaching, then we can talk. Until then, the only waste of time here will remain the reading of your worthless comments.

I do. That you don't see it is just more reason to continue not caring what you think.

No no, that's bullshit. You're talking bullshit and it remains as unimpressing as it has ever been.

And yes, I'm aware that you've never cared about what others think. You're not here to discuss things. You're here to dispense your self-serving posturing onto others and help yourself feel good about yourself in the process. It doesn't require too much intelligence for anyone to realize that.

You're no different from Steve_Potocin, only he was at least entertaining.

Edited 2013-06-26 11:15 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that you think you're aware of things that aren't accurate. But do go on with your bad self.

You move your fingers, and all that comes out is yadda-yadda-yadda. Lame.