Political (Or Non-Political) Chat In The Hockey Forum

[digitalmonkey 929]

Did you know hackers can kill you? Apparently they can hack into pacemakers, insulin pumps, heart monitors, etc. There's absolutely no evidence this has ever happened, but...

 

Did you know a private company can buy a congressman, draft their own protection act, bury it in a bill and have it signed into law by the president of the US? Monsanto knows.

 

 

Guess which one of these two things was deemed worthy of airtime by CNN?

[ajs510 122]

Ok, you're officially trying to attract Balloon Guy.

[Whiskers 680]

I can let him know where you guys are hiding if you want.

[Zach6668 513]

ya they killed the guy from law and order criminal intent with pacemaker hacking on homeland, i'm not naive

[digitalmonkey 929]

This is crazy talk...

 

http://endthelie.com/2012/02/10/the-american-police-state-takes-a-major-step-forward-with-passage-of-bill-accelerating-integration-of-drones-into-american-airspace/

 

s/w

[digitalmonkey 929]

 

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/secret-prism-success-even-bigger-data-seizure

[digitalmonkey 929]

"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."

[digitalmonkey 929]

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/06/12/Rampant-Injustice-The-IRS-And-DOJ-Raid-Small-Businesses-With-Paramilitary-Gestapo-Style-Tactics

 

Gestapo USA

[mrdannyg 274]

It's almost funny - I read biased articles like that and think "there is clear bias in the wrigin, they must be exaggerating". Then I remember an article I read 15 minutes earlier:

 

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/ryan-brauns-situation-offers-conundrum-for-milwaukee-fans-b9951349z1-214861761.html/url] and more importantly, linked by Buster Olney - a main national baseball writer with almost a million followers. The entire article boils down to "how can we possibly believe he was innocent? MLB continues to target him! His failed test was overturned on a technicality! He "lawyered" up!" Seriously. The article makes the point very explicitly that the only reason to take the 5th and/or defend your rights is if you are guilty. It's like the Constitution and basic human rights are completely ignored. Guilty until proven innocent, because the high power accuses you of something.

 

I realize the US government is not equal to the MLB, but if even national "journalists" are encouraging the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality, it is a sign that feeling is pervasive in society. I saw a few Americans take the same stance with the NSA stuff - the "I have nothing to hide, why do I care if they spy?" is just so far off-base.

[iBeaver 409]

Most who say what you posted there at the end of your post because some Americans are fine if it means added security. You can lump me onto that I guess. I'm willing to lose some rights or whatever you want to call them if it means we can stop another 9/11. I actually have nothing to hide and will continue to have nothing to hide so feel free to follow me on satellite. My day doesn't change but if it means less unnecessary tragedies its worth it to me.

 

Sorry, but this sparked my rage because at the zoo yesterday I heard a douche talking about how we are all caged animals in the US and our rights and freedoms are being taken away. Yeah ok. I've never been a big believer in the idea that we are 100% free and have all the rights in the world. There are rights that I don't have.

 

For example we have a big annual city fair. It used to be fun until now 200+ guys use it as their soapbox to carry around rifles and pistols because its their right. Where us my right to go to a public fair with my child and feel safe? They receive a right and freedom, I lose my right and freedom. They aren't there to buy elephant ears and ride the scrambler. They are there to flaunt their right in a public place that is essentially all children. So I lost my right to feel safe at a public venue. But Agee years ago thegun nuts didn't have the right to walk armed through a crowd of children.

 

Anyway, done pooping. Off on a family trip. Enjoy.

[digitalmonkey 929]

What right(s) you lose today might mean diddly squat, but it puts you one step closer to losing something you don't want to lose.

 

 

[mrdannyg 274]

What right(s) you lose today might mean diddly squat, but it puts you one step closer to losing something you don't want to lose.

 

Like the ability to walk around a children's festival with questionably-certified people carrying concealed and non-concealed guns in an unofficial capacity?

 

I think Steve makes an effective point that so much of what he'd consider to be his rights have been eliminated in favour of the rights of others that his only concern now is safety. We might disagree as to what constitutes safety, or how it is best garnered, but I can't dispute him logically.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Why do you call them questionably-certified?

 

How were Steve's rights infringed upon by the presence of those people. He didn't feel safe?

[mrdannyg 274]

Why do you call them questionably-certified?

 

How were Steve's rights infringed upon by the presence of those people. He didn't feel safe?

 

First part - "Questionably-certified" was certainly editorializing, but there are approximately 300 million guns in the United States (including law enforcement but not military) and 1/4 adults own one. Or 1/4 people, the link wasn't clear. I do not consider 1/4 people to have the necessary mental stability to own a gun.

 

Second part - yes.

[Dubey 1,035]

I wouldn't feel safe bringing a kid to a fair that had 200 people walking around with guns.

 

 

As for the surveillance debate. I understand both sides of the argument. I understand that it potentially enables the government to do dangerous things in the future. However, not taking into account any far reaching implications of that surveillance, I personally don't give a shit if every phone call I make is monitored in some way. Like Steve, I have nothing to hide, and if it helps catch some terrorists then go nuts.

[digitalmonkey 929]

 

 

First part - "Questionably-certified" was certainly editorializing, but there are approximately 300 million guns in the United States (including law enforcement but not military) and 1/4 adults own one. Or 1/4 people, the link wasn't clear. I do not consider 1/4 people to have the necessary mental stability to own a gun.

 

Second part - yes.

 

Ah, I see... You don't believe everyone that legally carries a gun is mentally stable enough to safely do so so you lump them altogether. Got it.

 

Those guys carrying the guns are fighting for their rights. Maybe Steve (and others like him) would be better off fighting for theirs. Those guys carrying the guns didn't take away anyones rights.

 

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

~ paraphrased from some guy named Ben

 

[Dubey 1,035]

Dale, would you bring your kids to that fair?

[Cha! Cha! 628]

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

 

I'm not really sure where I fall on this discussion. I don't like guns at all and wish we could do away with them. But I'm not sure the right to feel safe at a fair is a thing. There are plenty of places where I wouldn't feel safe bringing kids, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the activity shouldn't be allowed.

[mrdannyg 274]

I wouldn't feel safe bringing a kid to a fair that had 200 people walking around with guns.

 

 

As for the surveillance debate. I understand both sides of the argument. I understand that it potentially enables the government to do dangerous things in the future. However, not taking into account any far reaching implications of that surveillance, I personally don't give a shit if every phone call I make is monitored in some way. Like Steve, I have nothing to hide, and if it helps catch some terrorists then go nuts.

Ah, I see... You don't believe everyone that legally carries a gun is mentally stable enough to safely do so so you lump them altogether. Got it.

 

Those guys carrying the guns are fighting for their rights. Maybe Steve (and others like him) would be better off fighting for theirs. Those guys carrying the guns didn't take away anyones rights.

 

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

~ paraphrased from some guy named Ben

 

Yes, I lump them together as people who should be restricted more. I don't think that all of them should not have guns.

 

You're right about the second sentence (the quote is, of course, an appeal to authority and contributes nothing). The right, guaranteed by the Constitution, that they should be allowed guns. Well, I'm not an originalist - the Constitution is like the Bible and should only be read for it's generalized messages, with the consideration that much of what is said is not relevant to modern society. Those people have the right to have guns. That is a stupid right to allow people. More damage has been done by legal firearms (or firearms that are not owned legally, but would arguably be unavailable if legal firearms weren't widespread) than terroristic acts in the United States in the past 20 years.

 

If we take a step back and think about what "should" be guaranteed, I think we'd all agree that personal security is a more important basic right than owning guns. So how do we achieve that? A few hundred years ago, some smart people thought allowing widespread gun ownership was a great way to do that. They were right. In modern society, with the other rules enacted by the United States government, I'd argue that it is no longer having the desired net effect.

[digitalmonkey 929]

I wouldn't feel safe bringing a kid to a fair that had 200 people walking around with guns.

 

 

As for the surveillance debate. I understand both sides of the argument. I understand that it potentially enables the government to do dangerous things in the future. However, not taking into account any far reaching implications of that surveillance, I personally don't give a shit if every phone call I make is monitored in some way. Like Steve, I have nothing to hide, and if it helps catch some terrorists then go nuts.

 

Yes because terrorists use Verizon, Facebook and gmail to concoct terrorist attacks.

 

You should click on the link in my signature.

 

And this is not only about people recording phone calls and your Internet footprint. It's about control.

 

Look up what the IRS has done and is doing.

 

Keep in mind that everything is being stored. What you do now, while legal, might be a concern or even illegal in the future.

 

The FBI can legally detain someone for an indefinite period for suspected terrorist activity.

 

The FBI considers paying for something with cash a terrorist activity.

 

This is not fiction.

 

 

[digitalmonkey 929]

Dale, would you bring your kids to that fair?

 

Currently, I would not bring my children to that country.

[Cha! Cha! 628]

Does the fair have the right to not allow guns?

 

If families stopped going because they felt unsafe and the fair wanted to bring those families back, couldn't they just say that guns aren't allowed?

[Dubey 1,035]

You are going to hate my viewpoint on this Dale.

 

 

You may be right, but I can't bring myself to give a shit about it. For better or worse, I will likely be fully apathetic until the day it negatively affects me personally or somebody close to me. I do not believe that there is a serious chance of that happening, and therefore, I choose not to care. There's a lot of F***ed up things in this world that I could lose sleep over. The government reading my e-mails and listening to my phone calls is really really far down the list.

[Dubey 1,035]

Does the fair have the right to not allow guns?

 

If families stopped going because they felt unsafe and the fair wanted to bring those families back, couldn't they just say that guns aren't allowed?

 

 

Probably. But then they'd have 500 people picketing outside the fairgrounds demanding their second ammendment rights.

[mrdannyg 274]

You are going to hate my viewpoint on this Dale.

 

 

You may be right, but I can't bring myself to give a shit about it. For better or worse, I will likely be fully apathetic until the day it negatively affects me personally or somebody close to me. I do not believe that there is a serious chance of that happening, and therefore, I choose not to care. There's a lot of F***ed up things in this world that I could lose sleep over. The government reading my e-mails and listening to my phone calls is really really far down the list.

 

I don't know about Dale, but I'm totally ok with this viewpoint. It sucks, of course, but all of us (even Dale) are like that to varying degrees. I know Adam cares about personal rights and freedoms as strongly as anyone I know (and, unlike me, you and Dale, actually lives in the US lol), and you're basically echoing what he says in your post.

 

I guess, as a Jewish person, I have a slight problem with what you're saying, but at the same time, I'd have no problem if you instead said "any contribution I could make would be almost or completely pointless, and I've chosen to prioritize just about everything else higher in my life. I am aware that every thing I do could be monitored and live accordingly, like it or not" than I'd have no problem with that. And frankly, what you said and what I have in my quotation marks are so close to the same thing that it's not worth discussing.