TexasCHLforum.com

...like Anne Murray said "Sure could use a little good news today"...but there isn't just a whole lot out there...

VMI77 wrote:Yeah, I read it the way TAM did too, as dismissive, and the attitude expressed above reinforces my interpretation. If you really believe you have "nothing to hide" I suggest what you really have is very little understanding of how what you believe is innocent and innocuous information will be used against you (here I suggest again that you watch the German film, "The Lives of Others" --it does a pretty good job of showing how such information is really used)....I don't know how old you are, but the country we're living in now is not the country I grew up in...not even close. Your belief that the motive of the government we now have is to keep you safe, and that the point of surveilling you has anything to do with "terrorism" or crime, simply defies logic. The government has a limited amount of resources, so if they're surveilling YOU, then they're not looking for terrorists, and their motive is not what you seem to believe it is.

Dismissive! How so? An 'attitude'? It was an opinion - I can still voice that. As far as what I know about the workings of society/culture and/or the mechanisms of the Federal Government/military - you don't have a clue what I know - so don't get all sanctimonious as to tell me that you are the only person that knows what is really happening. The post was in humour - nothing else. I had no idea it would bring out the paranoia fringe.

BTW - I am 63 - been around the block a few times and really ain't no need in talking about the nasty bits that need to be left in the dustbin of history.

chasfm11 wrote:I would submit at just about ALL that the Federal government is doing is for the personal and professional gain of the Elites who are driving it - from both political parties. You may wish to look the other way on the rampant corruption - I do not. DHS is security theater at its finest. While I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, I believe that most of the policies of TSA and others are engineered to further subjugate the public, not protect it. And it is not sceptisim on my part - it is downright fear.

I personally see no humor in any of this. I spent enough time in airplanes to have earned myself Platinium status on American and while I was flying just about every other airline that crosses the Atlantic. I will not get on another airplane because I will not submit to the degradation that is taking place. Having adult diapers removed from crippled octogenarians and patting down children under 6 in the name of security is heinous.

Unless and until the balance of power is restored to our Federal government as described in the Constitution, anyone who doesn't fear what is going on is deluding themselves.

And I disagree - if this had been a serious conversation - I have been where I worked to assist average folks trying to recover from some disaster - worked 15-20 days for 30 day stretches and I never saw the Fed nor any of the 'elites' of which you speak covering themselves with golden mantles. As far as not 'seeing' any humour in my OP and poll - you are one serious feller - maybe nothing can change that. As far as getting on a plane - if a little inconvenience keeps me from being a target - fine. Personally, I think the El Al folks have the right approach. Constitutional doctrine is way to hard to make a one sentence summation - some other time maybe?!

couzin wrote: And I disagree - if this had been a serious conversation - I have been where I worked to assist average folks trying to recover from some disaster - worked 15-20 days for 30 day stretches and I never saw the Fed nor any of the 'elites' of which you speak covering themselves with golden mantles. As far as not 'seeing' any humour in my OP and poll - you are one serious feller - maybe nothing can change that. As far as getting on a plane - if a little inconvenience keeps me from being a target - fine. Personally, I think the El Al folks have the right approach. Constitutional doctrine is way to hard to make a one sentence summation - some other time maybe?!

Those Elites who are responsible for the results that I mentioned would never soil their hands by helping with a disaster. My comments were in no way targeted at those whose jobs it is to serve under such conditions. I was keying off the ideas of using drones and satellites against the American public and simply extrapolating those concepts based on the current TSA implementation for security. I'll spell it out. Those in charge of TSA have taken it from a very small organization to a massive bureaucracy that has totally lost touch with why it was put into place. Pick up the paper on any given day and even the "friendly" media has stories about the excesses as well as the breakdowns where TSA has failed to find "contraband" items. The number of corrupt staff within the TSA appears to grow by the day. The huge data mining effort that is taking place in NSA is another massive intrusion again Americans. Why would anyone think that the use of drones would end up any different that these two situations?

I'm really a pretty jovial guy. I've attended several gatherings of members on this board and I'll let any of them who feel that I'm too serious confirm your expectation about that. I just don't take infringements of my rights lightly. I FEAR drones, not because I'm some kook in a tin foil hat or a whifto with a shaving basin on his head, tilting at windmills but because those in charge of the Federal government have given me every reason to believe they will take drone use to an unimaginable extreme. I attended a town hall meeting for my Congressional representative last night. Guess what? Based on the questions asked and the audience reaction to them, I'm far from alone in all that I've posted above.

couzin wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Yeah, I read it the way TAM did too, as dismissive, and the attitude expressed above reinforces my interpretation. If you really believe you have "nothing to hide" I suggest what you really have is very little understanding of how what you believe is innocent and innocuous information will be used against you (here I suggest again that you watch the German film, "The Lives of Others" --it does a pretty good job of showing how such information is really used)....I don't know how old you are, but the country we're living in now is not the country I grew up in...not even close. Your belief that the motive of the government we now have is to keep you safe, and that the point of surveilling you has anything to do with "terrorism" or crime, simply defies logic. The government has a limited amount of resources, so if they're surveilling YOU, then they're not looking for terrorists, and their motive is not what you seem to believe it is.

Dismissive! How so? An 'attitude'? It was an opinion - I can still voice that. As far as what I know about the workings of society/culture and/or the mechanisms of the Federal Government/military - you don't have a clue what I know - so don't get all sanctimonious as to tell me that you are the only person that knows what is really happening. The post was in humour - nothing else. I had no idea it would bring out the paranoia fringe.

BTW - I am 63 - been around the block a few times and really ain't no need in talking about the nasty bits that need to be left in the dustbin of history.

chasfm11 wrote:I would submit at just about ALL that the Federal government is doing is for the personal and professional gain of the Elites who are driving it - from both political parties. You may wish to look the other way on the rampant corruption - I do not. DHS is security theater at its finest. While I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, I believe that most of the policies of TSA and others are engineered to further subjugate the public, not protect it. And it is not sceptisim on my part - it is downright fear.

I personally see no humor in any of this. I spent enough time in airplanes to have earned myself Platinium status on American and while I was flying just about every other airline that crosses the Atlantic. I will not get on another airplane because I will not submit to the degradation that is taking place. Having adult diapers removed from crippled octogenarians and patting down children under 6 in the name of security is heinous.

Unless and until the balance of power is restored to our Federal government as described in the Constitution, anyone who doesn't fear what is going on is deluding themselves.

And I disagree - if this had been a serious conversation - I have been where I worked to assist average folks trying to recover from some disaster - worked 15-20 days for 30 day stretches and I never saw the Fed nor any of the 'elites' of which you speak covering themselves with golden mantles. As far as not 'seeing' any humour in my OP and poll - you are one serious feller - maybe nothing can change that. As far as getting on a plane - if a little inconvenience keeps me from being a target - fine. Personally, I think the El Al folks have the right approach. Constitutional doctrine is way to hard to make a one sentence summation - some other time maybe?!

I'm sorry, you're absolutely right, you've not given any "clues" about what you know; all the clues you've given are about what you don't know.

It's amusing to me how guys like you throw out the ad hominem remarks and misrepresent what other people say while acting like such behavior offends you. No where did I "tell you that [I'm] the only person who knows what's happening." It's also amusing to see your feigned umbrage when you whine that you can still voice your "opinion," as if expressing a contrary opinion is somehow an attempt to deny you a "voice." And, wow, I'm "sanctimonious" but those who disagree with you aren't merely wrong they're part of the "paranoid fringe." Ah well, it frees me to retort that those who spout silly phrases like "I've nothing to hide so I've nothing to fear" and "if it keeps me safe it's OK," are useful fools who deserve the future they are facilitating.

In closing, take a course in logic. Ad hominem attacks and argument from authority (sorry, not impressed with your self-proclaimed knowledge and experience), aren't logical arguments, they're logical fallacies.

couzin wrote:The post was in humour - nothing else. I had no idea it would bring out the paranoia fringe.

Constitutional doctrine is way to hard to make a one sentence summation - some other time maybe?!

What in the wide, wide world of sports is a-goin' on here? Why would someone post a facetious poll (that is supposed to be amusing) in the Political Issues forum area? Even if someone...anyone, would find it to be a real knee-slapper, how is it a gun-related political discussion?

Also, why do you keep spelling humor as humour??? If you were maybe 263 years old, I would understand spelling it that way (and might also want to hear your Constitutional doctrine summation). Just kiddin' - see, we too can have a bit of humor. But seriously, I second what VMI77 and Chasfm11 wrote...why attack others when it seems you need to keep explaining.

Slowplay wrote:...Why would someone post a facetious poll (that is supposed to be amusing) in the Political Issues forum area?...

But seriously, I second what VMI77 and Chasfm11 wrote...why attack others when it seems you need to keep explaining.

Then I apologize - I did not know the political section was reserved for serious 'stuff'. I'll quit now.

I did not start the rebuttal - I was simply pointing out (my now lame) attempt at humour (and I have always spelled it that way). I am sorry for starting the whole mess. However, both of the posters are actually taking my comments quite out of context. Such as VMI quoting me as saying "I've nothing to hide so I've nothing to fear", and then called me a "useful fool". I actually said "I've nothing to hide" (again, in context). I have not called anyone a fool - although I do regret making the paranoid fringe remark. Maybe the forum should have a radicalized section and a non-radicalized section.

VMI77 wrote:It's amusing to me how guys like you throw out the ad hominem remarks and misrepresent what other people say while acting like such behavior offends you. No where did I "tell you that [I'm] the only person who knows what's happening." It's also amusing to see your feigned umbrage when you whine that you can still voice your "opinion," as if expressing a contrary opinion is somehow an attempt to deny you a "voice." And, wow, I'm "sanctimonious" but those who disagree with you aren't merely wrong they're part of the "paranoid fringe." Ah well, it frees me to retort that those who spout silly phrases like "I've nothing to hide so I've nothing to fear" and "if it keeps me safe it's OK," are useful fools who deserve the future they are facilitating.

In closing, take a course in logic. Ad hominem attacks and argument from authority (sorry, not impressed with your self-proclaimed knowledge and experience), aren't logical arguments, they're logical fallacies.

Guys like me huh!? I assume by that - you tend to get into debates with others that disagree with you? I did not cast any negativity on your arguments in any attempt to belittle your argument. I wasn't arguing from authority and I don't whine about anything. You've misquoted me out of context and I most certainly could be a fool if such a future as you envision befalls me - however, I still believe I am correct in my assumptions (again - with healthy scepticism). At some point in the distant past - there were courses in logic and other philosophies. All good here.

Dave2 wrote:I doubt anything earth-bound has a super amazing camera (too easy for it to fall into the wrong hands), but I'm fairly certain that spy satellites live up to the hype.

Mind you, this was 30+ years ago. I was privvy to some intel photos taken via U-2. The detail was pretty amazing. You couldn't "read a news paper" but you could make out the banner ala "New york Times" (lettering an inch or two tall could be read). Of course clouds and what not can screw up an otherwise good shot. The ATARS system used nowadays has synthetic imaging technology that will overcome a lot of those issues.

couzin wrote:

VMI77 wrote:It's amusing to me how guys like you throw out the ad hominem remarks and misrepresent what other people say while acting like such behavior offends you. No where did I "tell you that [I'm] the only person who knows what's happening." It's also amusing to see your feigned umbrage when you whine that you can still voice your "opinion," as if expressing a contrary opinion is somehow an attempt to deny you a "voice." And, wow, I'm "sanctimonious" but those who disagree with you aren't merely wrong they're part of the "paranoid fringe." Ah well, it frees me to retort that those who spout silly phrases like "I've nothing to hide so I've nothing to fear" and "if it keeps me safe it's OK," are useful fools who deserve the future they are facilitating.

In closing, take a course in logic. Ad hominem attacks and argument from authority (sorry, not impressed with your self-proclaimed knowledge and experience), aren't logical arguments, they're logical fallacies.

Guys like me huh!? I assume by that - you tend to get into debates with others that disagree with you? I did not cast any negativity on your arguments in any attempt to belittle your argument. I wasn't arguing from authority and I don't whine about anything. You've misquoted me out of context and I most certainly could be a fool if such a future as you envision befalls me - however, I still believe I am correct in my assumptions (again - with healthy scepticism). At some point in the distant past - there were courses in logic and other philosophies. All good here.

What you wrote is posted for everyone to see, but I'll spell it out for you anyway.....yeah, you're a little tricky, you didn't call me out individually, but you labeled those of us who didn't interpret your posting as you say you intended, the "paranoid fringe." That doesn't require much interpretive skill to understand; it is in fact, a rather common tactic to disparage those you don't agree with as crazy --not a lot of sane, logical, rational people among the "paranoid fringe." And sorry, the essence of your counter-argument was to suggest, obliquely, that you had a wide range of relevant knowledge and experience with the "Federal government/military;" then you told us how you worked long stretches helping '"average" folks (I guess those above and below average went without your assistance) --which in combination with your previous remark adds up to: I've got lots of knowledge and experience and I'm a good guy, so I know what I'm talking about --and that is an argument from authority.

Yep, in my younger days I spent about a year or so debating on the internet, but I eventually realized it was a waste of time, and stopped. But it was long enough to observe types and styles. Now I confine any "debating" primarily to this forum, which has many like-minded individuals, and many not like-minded individuals who are open to friendly discussion. I tend be verbally aggressive and blunt but I try to restrain myself. Many here are more polite than I am. When labeled as something like part of the "paranoid fringe" my reaction is to respond in kind.

And you know, I actually hope you are right because I don't welcome the alternative; but history suggests that Lord Acton's maxim is correct: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The current power of the Federal government is already enough to be corrupting and there is no sign the government will stop accreting power, or give any of it up, so to me, the outcome seems inevitable.....it's only the timing that remains in question.

It's not often that I agree with Rep Schumer (may be the first time).

Google ogles: Sen. Schumer fears highly detailed spy-plane maps

Concerns that these maps might see too much were first raised by Nick Pickles, director of U.K. privacy group Big Brother Watch.

"The images are expected to be so detailed that they will be able to reveal objects four inches across," he wrote after Google's announcement.

Now Sen. Schumer is seeking answers.

“After reports that Apple & Google [are] using spy planes to create new online maps, [I’m] calling 4 protections so private images aren't made public,” the senator wrote on Twitter late Sunday night.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/06/ ... lane-maps/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe they will see Rosie O'Donnell sunbathing nude in her back yard. That ought to be good for several lifetimes of therapy for whoever is watching the satellite feed.

EconDoc wrote:Maybe they will see Rosie O'Donnell sunbathing nude in her back yard. That ought to be good for several lifetimes of therapy for whoever is watching the satellite feed.

Bite your tongue! I would rather be waterboarded

WildBill wrote:

EconDoc wrote:Maybe they will see Rosie O'Donnell sunbathing nude in her back yard. That ought to be good for several lifetimes of therapy for whoever is watching the satellite feed.

Bite your tongue! I would rather be waterboarded

Years ago, I saw "Exit to Eden" It featured Rosie in a boustier. That is more than enough. I agree that I would rather be waterboarded that to risk seeing more. At least with waterboarding, you only THINK that you are going to die.

Wildbill, you and I won't have to worry because we are not the types who would be peeking over the neighbor's fences. Those kinds of actions are reserved for those who just cannot keep themselves from trying to control other people's lives.

P.S. Exit to Eden had some redeeming qualities - Dana Delaney