Snowdon is a dummy

@Frank Apisa,

My reply wasn't flippant. It was an obvious response to this regime's machinations.

That we disagree is exactly the point I was expressing.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I think it was flippant...but I acknowledge that you are saying it was not meant to be flippant. I accept that...and the apology I offered stands.

I am not at war with my government...I do not hate my government...I do not spend lots of time disparaging my government.

The government workers and officials do an important and often thankless job.

I compare them to weather forecasters...who do the best they can with the tools they have available...but who hear people deriding them regularly.

Government work in a democracy is not an easy job. Dictatorship is much more efficient. I prefer the "not so easy" kind of government.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Enough of the false outrage Frank. You started it by suggesting that anyone who was opposed to mass surveillance wanted to make a terrorist strike more likely.

You're sounding a bit like McCarthy railing against Socialists and Dubya in the run up to the Iraqi war. Just saying.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Enough of the false outrage Frank.

No "outrage" from me, Izzy. You seem to be the one with outrage...whether real or false.

Quote:

You started it by suggesting that anyone who was opposed to mass surveillance wanted to make a terrorist strike more likely.

Where did I do that?

Can you give a quote?

(Hint: No you cannot.)

Quote:

You're sounding a bit like McCarthy railing against Socialists and Dubya in the run up to the Iraqi war. Just saying.

I love it when people speak their minds, Izzy.

I wish you could get to feel that way.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

That's no comparison, we were at war and nobody knew we'd built colossus. Everyone knows about mass data trawl

We are at war now. Terriosts are solders of some political groups that want to upset our governments so they can tell us what to believe and when.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
You started it by suggesting that anyone who was opposed to mass surveillance wanted to make a terrorist strike more likely.

Where did I do that?

Can you give a quote?

(Hint: No you cannot.)

Your short term memory is shot.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But considering your generally negative attitude toward the United States...maybe you are (consciously or unconsciously) trying to get us to let our guard down so that we make ourselves more vulnerable.

http://able2know.org/reply/post-5965638/<br />

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

We're not at war, elevating criminals to the status of prisoners of war only glorifies the actions of those criminals. We're not at war, we're dealing with criminals.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

A terrorist is a man with a bomb but no air force.

2 Replies

@McTag,

Which is another way of looking at it.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
You started it by suggesting that anyone who was opposed to mass surveillance wanted to make a terrorist strike more likely.

Where did I do that?

Can you give a quote?

(Hint: No you cannot.)

Your short term memory is shot.

Frank Apisa wrote:
But considering your generally negative attitude toward the United States...maybe you are (consciously or unconsciously) trying to get us to let our guard down so that we make ourselves more vulnerable.

http://able2know.org/reply/post-5965638/<br />

Read what I wrote again, Izzy...and tell me how that can reasonably be characterized as me "suggesting that anyone who was opposed to mass surveillance wanted to make a terrorist strike more likely."

It doesn't! Not by a long shot.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You accused me of just that, so it's not much of a stretch to infer you probably think that about anyone who thinks the same as me is in favour of the terrorists.

There is no history whatsoever of people from my country funding terrorist atrocities on yours. Plenty of history the other way, one could almost call it a tradition.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You accused me of just that, so it's not much of a stretch to infer you probably think that about anyone who thinks the same as me is in favour of the terrorists.

As I said, Izzy...you cannot cite me saying what you said I said.

And even now you stretch the truth, because I did not accuse you of it...I merely said "maybe" that is what is happening.

You would have done better to simply acknowledge that you fabricated words for me...and then argued that my words (which you fabricated) were unreasonable. (Which you did again in your reply here.)

Quote:

There is no history whatsoever of people from my country funding terrorist atrocities on yours.

If you are suggesting that I said that has happened, cite where I said it. If it is something you are just fabricating so you can say it is stupid and unreasonable...you ought really to get out of that habit. In any case, it is not going to work with me.
(Hint: I never said any such thing. If you are suggesting I did, you are fabricating it again.)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I've not fabricated anything. I've quoted what you said, and it's pretty clear what you meant. You should at least have the strength of character to stand by what you wrote instead of trying to weasel out of it by pretending you meant something else. That's what Max does.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I've not fabricated anything. I've quoted what you said, and it's pretty clear what you meant. You should at least have the strength of character to stand by what you wrote instead of trying to weasel out of it by pretending you meant something else. That's what Max does.

And what I said does not match up with what you said I said.

You fabricated the original bit...and then fabricated in your response.

Gain some strength of character yourself.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You're starting to sound like Humpty Dumpty.

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

http://www.luckypalm.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/humpty.jpg

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Trusting the powers that be to do the right thing is no substitute for proper judicial oversight.

Actually from what I understood, there was judicial oversight, select committees in congress were kept informed, etcetera. It was the people who were not kept informed. I am not sure it is a good idea to be completely open towards the public as that would seem to give information to the very people the surveillance programs were developed for.

I will agree after information has come out that the vast data collecting doesn't seem to do much good so I really don't see a need to continue it as it cost a lot of money and resources and causes rancor for a large section of people in our country (US) and countries around the world.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

What you said I said...and what I actually said...do not match up.

IF you want to fabricate nonsense and then call it nonsense...fine. Do it. But if you pretend you are quoting me...you are going to get a lot of heat from me.

What you said I said...and what I actually said...do not match up at all.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I understand that is what you are supposing, Olivier. But I would prefer to defer to the people running the organizations charged with doing the protecting and preventing. There is not unanimity of opinion from them... but the majority of them seem to think some kind of surveillance program is desirable.

Their jobs is on the line, so they would say that whether or not it's true. I don't expect anyone to say the truth if doing so involves professional suicide.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I consider that a rather jaundiced opinion, Olivier...although I respect your right to have it. I simply do not share it.

I trust them...I trust government. Government is NOT the enemy.

We've got to get back to where we recognize that...or all is lost, because society only works if we have governance.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Oh please... It's realist, not jaundiced: that's why people can invoke self-incrimination as a reason for not testifying about themselves. That's why we don't ask employees to rate their own job performance. That's why the founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances in government. They knew that human nature is self-serving, and thus that governments and bureaucracies have a tendency to serve their own interest.

How can you ignore this basic human flaw? My guess is you don't. You can't be that naive. You just pretend to.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know