lostfan

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 04:36 PM) Or they could be doing research. I'd like to know more about the exact wording and span of these provisions, but in general, I tend to dislike a lot of the Patriot Act. I really, really didn't like that Obama flip-flopped and supported retro immunity to the telecoms, which I think set an awful precedent. Since I'm sure everyone knows what I do for a living I also have done college classes on it and I'm always doing searches for things like that, for Salafist Islam, for identities of terrorists, historic assassinations, potential terrorist targets and how to attack it, etc. Searching for those things in and of itself does not raise a red flag, in fact that would be a complete waste of the government's time. Something like this would only be "used against you" if there were other factors in play (people you know, places you've been, things you've said, and so on). The assumption from this is backwards. You'd have those kinds of records pulled if you were already under investigation, and the FBI agents or whoever was looking to see if there was a pattern, to see if the person actually had intent to do something.

Ok so my problem with people criticizing the Patriot Act is that most people who complain about it don't even know what's in it. In fact I'd say the number of people that say "Patriot Act" pejoratively without having a clue what they're saying is roughly equal to the ratio of people that do the same thing with "socialism." It's a target of uninformed populist outrage. There are parts of the original Patriot Act that are bulls***, but there are also parts of it, specifically relating to electronic surveillance etc. that are important updates to laws that were made in the 1970s when some of the technology didn't exist. Since I haven't given this lecture in a couple of years I can't recall the point-by-point explanation I used to give but let's say pre-Patriot Act there was a guy with prepaid cellphones who the government had authority to monitor. But he changes his number. Whoops, sorry. Got to start over. The Patriot Act closes one of those loopholes, you have the authority to conduct surveillance on the PERSON, not on their phone number(s); obviously there was no such thing as cellphones when the laws were made. In other words it doesn't add NEW authority to allow law enforcement to be invasive and oppressive, the laws already existed and were updated.

Does Hank Wilson only kiss one of my ass cheeks?

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 02:45 PM) Have we thought about how much it will suck when health care reform herds us into internment camps and gases us all to death? That might have been unexplored. Hey if you want to have kids make sure you do it in Brazil or before the laws take effect because I heard Obama wants mandatory castration of all white people.

It's because we are. There's nothing else to say. I haven't said anything substantive in a while because it's already been said at least twice.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 10:07 AM) Havent had any problems so far, and it loads faster than XP did. Before I had a fresh install, when I had a lot of programs installed, it used to take forever to boot up and shut down. Granted XP did too, it always does when you're loaded with programs, but Vista was ridiculous. I really don't get the anti-Vista bandwagon either though. Then again I have a quad-core CPU and 8 GB of RAM so Vista has no problems with it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 08:58 AM) Then again if we fought wars to win, instead of for the press, like we should, there would be no need for groups to operate outside of the functions of the US government. We do fight wars to win. The press (global press) gets in the way. Which is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing. It enforces positive behavior when war criminals and such are exposed, but the hyperbole and untruths mean the military has to play to the public and at times be risk-averse.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 12:48 PM) You guys are hilarious, with the lobbing of hyperbole and absolutes from either side of the aisle. Its like being in Congress without the suits and parliamentary procedures. lol. My eyes are starting to glaze over.

Guys did you SEE Brady stand in the pocket and make that flawless 3-yard dumpoff to the runningback? It was PERFECT!

President Obama calls Kanye West a jackass. lol at the comments from Fox viewers too, along the lines of "finally we agree on something" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/15...e-west-jackass/

chunk I'd like to shake your hand, this is about the most reasonable and engaging I've seen kap argue in a while. lol. all of us know each other in here so we just push each others buttons.

I didn't really like American Gangster that much. I mean it was good, I bumped it. But I wasn't like OMG JAY'S ALBUM IS SO HOT like everyone else did. I really haven't been that into Jay since the Black Album.

I'll vouch for Kap and say he definitely does know what socialism is but his interpretation of it is more liberal (lol I like the almost-play on words)

NYT is a horrible example, I mean look at their market. But EVERYONE in this country was guilty of beating the war drums hard back then. It was pretty embarrassing. Where I was we had CNN World and BBC World, and they dared to doubt the wisdom of the invasion and everyone was all pissy because they were so "anti-American." They were just saying true stuff we weren't ready to hear at the time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 11:00 PM) Check the Broncos/Bengals while you're at it. It probably looks roughly the same.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 11:08 PM) I wouldn't say buchanan is representatiive of mainstream conservatism or neo-conservatism. He's representative of racist bigots. Yeah pretty much.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 11:00 PM) I would say none of these people are "conservative". Especially Buchanan. He's just a mouth piece on MSLSD to say that they have a "right winger" point of view, and he's a nutball jackass who lost his irrelevancy in about 1975. So basically you're saying Pat Buchanan matters edit: I don't throw the race card often, but don't forget racist. Buchanan is a blatant, screaming racist wrapped up into some kinda "aw shucks" friendly wingnut image.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 10:57 PM) Would you say a channel with Joe Scarborough, a former GOP congressman, and Pat Buchanan as a nightly contributor are liberal? What about a channel with a primetime host who encourages the Birther movement? (Lou Dobbs) Also, I would say being pro-single payer, anti-militarization, and pro-gay rights are not fringe elements of the liberals. They are central planks of it. As Stephen Colbert would say, reality has a liberal bias. You're talking about a global scale, but an American conservative, definitely not. Plus he had a GOP Congress so he governed more conservative than he actually is.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 10:37 PM) The Bills had a 2% chance of losing and the Bengals had a 3% chance of losing it. Well, that settles it for me, I'm 100% convinced. The graph made me lol.

QUOTE (Brian @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 10:04 PM) Bigger choke? Cincy or Buffalo? I got Bills. Cincy lost on fluke play. http://wp.advancednflstats.com/index.php?g...eid2=selectgame

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 09:45 PM) Wait a second, there's no way the Bills actually win this game is there? Buffalo Bills: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory since before you can remember.

And single-payer is "off the table" because it was effectively torpedoed by conservatives in media long before the debate even started.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 09:39 PM) I love how MSNBC runs what, 4 hours of Joe Scarborough in the morning and is therefore the left wing equivalent of Fox News. And they're strong Democrats...compared to where you're looking at things from. MSNBC's prime time lineup is definitely the equivalent of Fox. That was a conscious decision on the part of MSNBC execs.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 09:37 PM) FOX news is definitely mainstream media now. My point here is that there is an entire "mainstream" conservative media presence. Unless one is to believe that hundreds of thousands of people appear in DC because of genuine grassroots populist outrage.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 09:34 PM) But of course Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh aren't mainstream, they're right wing kooks. Get with it, you're not following your marching orders! kap - if he is echoing anything it's my thoughts, and they are entirely my own. I didn't bite this opinion off anyone.