Who Do You Side With...?
Comments
-
It's not an issue that I pay too much attention to.
I'm about 99% certain that whether it is the NSA, TSA, _SA, or whatever, the government can and should run it better.
That being said, I've got no problem sacrificing some rights for greater security. I will always side on trying to find ways to stop activities before they happen than after they happen. I fully realize that you can't always do that ... and even at that probably can't do it at any kind of high rate.
But at the same time, take what happened in San Bernadino. There were plenty of warning signs available to see that something wasn't right. If that event can be prevented, then I'm all for it. You can't place a value on lives. -
If the government checked internet activity I'm sure 95% of this board, me included would be on the "no fly" list, let alone allowed to own a gun.Tequilla said:
Is the NSA not gaining because it is infringing on privacy or because we're not utilizing it effectively?ThomasFremont said:
Sorry, no. I assume I scored so well with Bernie (and Paul was my top GOP) because I think the NSA is shitting on our privacy rights (for no gain), our foreign policy is retarded, and that corporate campaign contributions and gerrymandering are corrupt and undemocratic.DuckHHunterisafag said:
So you're a lazy gubermint saggy tit sucker. Fuck youThomasFremont said:95% Feelin the Bern.
Also, I have a LOT more money than you do.
Is it Friday yet?
Although we all have our own skeletons one way or another, I guess I look at privacy as the type of thing that it's not a huge issue if you have nothing to hide. And in a world where "the enemy" is completely changing the way in which the game is played, you have to change the way that you think about the game as well.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't have a problem standing in line at the airport for an hour to go through security if it is being done effectively. And likewise, I don't have a problem with people scanning through my phone records for messages or calls that I may make. I don't have anything to hide in that regard and if somehow I am in communication with someone that does have something to hide and get contacted, then I'd be interested in doing what I could do to my part. -
Fixed that typo for you.Tequilla said:It's not an issue that I pay too much attention to.
I'm about 99% certain that whether it is the NSA, TSA, _SA, or whatever, the government can and should run it better.
That being said, I've got no problem sacrificing some rights for greater security. I will always side on trying to find ways to stop activities before they happen than after they happen. I fully realize that you can't always do that ... and even at that probably can't do it at any kind of high rate.
But at the same time, take what happened in San Bernadino. There were plenty of warning signs available to see that something wasn't right. If that event can be prevented, then I'm all for it. You can't place a value on freedom
-
This thread triggered a memory that Tequilla was questioning whether to go to Dallas because of Ebola. I'm ashamed that I remember that, but I do. It all makes sense now.
-
RoadDawg55 said:
This thread triggered a memory that Tequilla was questioning whether to go to Dallas because of Ebola. I'm ashamed that I remember that, but I do. It all makes sense now.
A trigger warning for this drivel would be nice next time.Tequilla said:It's not an issue that I pay too much attention to.
I'm about 99% certain that whether it is the NSA, TSA, _SA, or whatever, the government can and should run it better.
That being said, I've got no problem sacrificing some rights for greater security. I will always side on trying to find ways to stop activities before they happen than after they happen. I fully realize that you can't always do that ... and even at that probably can't do it at any kind of high rate.
But at the same time, take what happened in San Bernadino. There were plenty of warning signs available to see that something wasn't right. If that event can be prevented, then I'm all for it. You can't place a value on lives. -
Our slave owning ancestors respectfully disagree.Tequilla said:It's not an issue that I pay too much attention to.
I'm about 99% certain that whether it is the NSA, TSA, _SA, or whatever, the government can and should run it better.
That being said, I've got no problem sacrificing some rights for greater security. I will always side on trying to find ways to stop activities before they happen than after they happen. I fully realize that you can't always do that ... and even at that probably can't do it at any kind of high rate.
But at the same time, take what happened in San Bernadino. There were plenty of warning signs available to see that something wasn't right. If that event can be prevented, then I'm all for it. You can't place a value on lives. -
When the FBI says they have to literally fuck you in the ass to fight terrorism, I hope @Tequilla is ok with it. I mean if it's for our security and all, how could you resist?
-
You fucktards clearly missed the part where I said that it could and should be run better.doogsinparadise said:When the FBI says they have to literally fuck you in the ass to fight terrorism, I hope @Tequilla is ok with it. I mean if it's for our security and all, how could you resist?
You have your heads in the sand if you don't think that the plotting, etc. for activity isn't happening on phones and the internet.
As for Dallas and Ebola, you're damn right that I'm going to pay attention to what is going on around me, or where I'm going, and make appropriate decisions. When I made the comment that I made, it was at the onset of the outbreak. As I educated myself on the subject and talked with those that had greater knowledge of the subject than me, it was easier to understand the associated dangers and plan accordingly. -
How do you run an agency that is violating our constitutionally protected privacy "better"???Tequilla said:
You fucktards clearly missed the part where I said that it could and should be run better.doogsinparadise said:When the FBI says they have to literally fuck you in the ass to fight terrorism, I hope @Tequilla is ok with it. I mean if it's for our security and all, how could you resist?
You have your heads in the sand if you don't think that the plotting, etc. for activity isn't happening on phones and the internet.
As for Dallas and Ebola, you're damn right that I'm going to pay attention to what is going on around me, or where I'm going, and make appropriate decisions. When I made the comment that I made, it was at the onset of the outbreak. As I educated myself on the subject and talked with those that had greater knowledge of the subject than me, it was easier to understand the associated dangers and plan accordingly.
And no shit they are plotting on phones and the internet.
Doesn't mean I'm willing to or should sacrifice my privacy so idiots like you feel a false sense of security.
-
The fact that you are okay with NSA (despite saying it could be "improved") and were afraid of Ebola points to you being easily manipulated.Tequilla said:
You fucktards clearly missed the part where I said that it could and should be run better.doogsinparadise said:When the FBI says they have to literally fuck you in the ass to fight terrorism, I hope @Tequilla is ok with it. I mean if it's for our security and all, how could you resist?
You have your heads in the sand if you don't think that the plotting, etc. for activity isn't happening on phones and the internet.
As for Dallas and Ebola, you're damn right that I'm going to pay attention to what is going on around me, or where I'm going, and make appropriate decisions. When I made the comment that I made, it was at the onset of the outbreak. As I educated myself on the subject and talked with those that had greater knowledge of the subject than me, it was easier to understand the associated dangers and plan accordingly.
