Gyp Rosetti
Banned
It's a shame you can't use your intellect for something worthwhile other than blabbering conspiracy idiocy.
Utah Spy Center........
- Thread starter Duck Rodgers
- Start date
*could not care less, teach.
Call me simple but I don't believe government should build cases against us citizens in advance. I also believe most of us are good people who don't require a government replacing mommy the day we turn 18.
I think a reasonable right to privacy is an inherent right and doing things that weaken that puts us on a slippery slope. I'm not radically supportive of this to the point of attacking random subway searches or airplane checks. I look at freedom as a risk to reward ratio. If you have the ability to severely injure a lot of people then society should protect itself against you. Boarding an airplane with whatever you want is too risky to allow. Using radio waves, internet, or a local library is not. Good old fashioned warrants and probable cause are enough for me there.
What good do you expect to come out of this to justify outweighing the negatives?
A little more on the risk:reward. Environmentally speaking, we calculate threshold values in relation to potential deaths. 3 or 4 per 1,000,000 is generally considered low enough risk to allow a certain activity. Terrorism has about the same death threshold and is way overblown as far as individual risk is concerned. Now, I don't want to sound like I'm downplaying the victims and surviving parties. It's terrible these things happen. However, terrorism is way less common and dangerous than many self controllable activities that we participate in daily.
A risk way lower than driving is one reason I don't find this kind of intrusiveness necessary. Why would I worry about crazy Saudi's hijacking airplanes when I'm many times more likely to die from an auto incident, water related activities, alcohol, or living a full city away from the closest industrial park? Aside from national security and pride, irrational fear and emotion are the reason we give so much attention to these nanny initiatives.
A risk way lower than driving is one reason I don't find this kind of intrusiveness necessary. Why would I worry about crazy Saudi's hijacking airplanes when I'm many times more likely to die from an auto incident, water related activities, alcohol, or living a full city away from the closest industrial park? Aside from national security and pride, irrational fear and emotion are the reason we give so much attention to these nanny initiatives.
It's a shame you can't coin an actually relevant phrase that would apply to the case.
You have actually no defense for your position except that you just don't care, and you won't even respect the people who do care. I'm sure you are not just stupid, and you just won't tell why you actually want this project going forward$$$$$$$$$$$$$
There will always be a certain number of people who won't care, and a certain number who will find employment in the ranks as implementers of plans, and there will always be well-positioned people who will use government to their purposes. It's always been that way, and for all rational expectations always will be.
And sometimes there will arise a few people who will see what's happening, and call it wrong or stupid somehow, or maybe actually recognize there are folks who are pushing the plan.
But you just look like another George Bush sort of idiot when you roll out the hate for "conspiracy idiocy". Communists and progressives have pretty well ruined that tactic for meaningful communication forever. A "conspiracy" exists, nevertheless, whenever any two people have any plan to achieve anything that folks would reject or stop if they realized what was going on.
However, if you will realize how stupid you look to characterize my point with those terms, maybe you'll want to make up an actually relevant response to what I said. Here's a clue. I was saying the HSA data center is "monstous stupidity", error-prone, and a massive obliteration of actual human freedom, putting power beyond citizen reach for discussion, protest, petition for redress of grievances, and even chilling public discussion about whether it's needful or not. It is associated with power now claimed by our government to arrest/detain and even kill American citizens deemed==== beyond any discussion or appeal=====to be an undefined threat for any reason. No more freedom of speech, belief, association, or due process, even if for just a few who for any reason come under suspicion enough to trip the decision wire and have this mine blow their lives to smithereens. It was my point that this government agency has more terror in its principles than the muslim brotherhood in practical terms for American citizens.
But I get it. You don't care, and your attitude is totally repugnant to the very roots of human freedom.
But for any "conservatives" there might be still caring, notice my point. It doesn't take a conspiracy to do this to your freedom, or idiots in government. All it takes is people who don't care. And who won't stand up and shout it down.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Great analogies except as you yourself mention, we're all willing participants in the "activities" you mention. No one's desiring to be on the other end of another terrorist plot.
"Despite the high cost of living, it's still quite popular"
Participating in "activities" is as generic as choosing to work/live in a more dangerous target vs. rural New Mexico. You are doing a disservice to the victims of 9-11 by applying your logic which blames them for working in a high risk location. That's not fair to the victims or their families.
More personally, I don't chose who drinks and drives, what diabetic doesn't regulate their sugar levels before driving, or which socialite texts and drives anymore than I chose who decides to fly an airplane into a skyscraper. The difference is intent, which is something I already gave ground to. Why does your position imply wonton or willful negligence is more damaging than intentional? Obviously as a society we've decided the latter is, and offer Christ-like redemption to the wilfully oblivious who kill without meaning to. Redemption doesn't change the loss of a life, however, regardless of whether you decide it best to retaliate by invading Iraq or sentencing the reckless 16 year old driver to 6-months probation. Both killed your child and nothing will reverse that. It's the following actions you take that bring meaning to those who have been lost.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
In the course of a single thread I can read one of the dumbest posts by babe yet, and then read one of his best. In the same thread I think to myself, "I can't tell if franklin is being serious or not -- Dick Ranger is right." but then find myself agreeing with him a few posts later -- even though I don't really agree with what he's saying.
I hate this thread.
I hate this thread.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
I'm done for the night as this has taken up my last hour and I have **** to do. I'll respond tomorrow. If I'm being frank, though I've seemed supportive and I guess am, I'm not crazy about the idea of this and have my concerns. I also see what you're saying about risk:reward. I just see there being more good considering this crazy ****ing world and what's going on in the Mideast, North Korea, China, etc., etc., etc. Hell, maybe it'll be a great guide to catch a bunch of pederasts. Or finding the right combo of meds for Dragon.
Your post was good, but I want to touch on this part. It seems you and The Thriller share this same belief, and I can't fathom why. Do you think that the future President of the United States just wakes up one day in his 50's and thinks, "You know, I think I'll be the President now.". No, that's not how it works. I'd bet everything I will ever own that our future President, say 20 years from now, is sitting on a city council somewhere in Podunk, Smallville right now. He is on the city council because he's pissed about what is going on in his city and decided that his voice matters. After a term or two there, he'll run for mayor. After that, he may run for a seat in the House, or Governor. Then the senate. Then... See where it's going? You DO have a voice, and it DOES matter. What you choose to do with your voice, however, is where the real difference lies.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Are you saying I should run for President?
<You can be VP and we'll get mad hos in the WH>
So you're saying "Troutbum for President, 2036" isn't going to happen now that you lost your city council election?