The Notorious Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 So it's okay to spy on Americans because we might catch the Chinese spying on Americans? It's ok for the nsa to conduct surveillance as part of its job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Still doesn't show what you claim. Look at the month-to-month change and it's quite stable with only some major sharp shifts around the financial collapse. The rate of increase could be stable, but that just means our dollars (and savings in dollars) are losing value at a stable rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Lev sees the 4th amendment as more of a suggestion than a right. :P Never understood that. Seems many are very willing to sacrifice their 4th amendment rights to 'feel' more secure, since I don't think anything we've done since 9/11 actually makes us more secure. In fact, I think what we've done makes us less secure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1918me Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 If the situation requires it ..... For example, right after the boston marathon bombing and the hunt for the terrorists started. So what you're saying is, you'd be willing to give up your right to refuse the unwarranted entry of armed forces into your home because it would help catch terrorists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 It's ok for the nsa to conduct surveillance as part of its job. What the NSA has done to American citizens is not surveillance. It will never be surveillance. It's spying. It's paranoid, fear-driven spying and will never be worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 If the situation requires it ..... For example, right after the boston marathon bombing and the hunt for the terrorists started. A clear violation of the constitution, akin to rounding up all the guns in the country. I still get fired up about it and can't believe there are people out there like you that actually support this kind of stuff. Might as well start rounding up anyone we 'think' might be a criminal and just shoot them out back. Fuck the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Lev sees the 4th amendment as more of a suggestion than a right.:PScot, i have came to the realization that unfortunately, or fortunately, the laws are susceptible to interpretations and the will and funding to challenge them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 So what you're saying is, you'd be willing to give up your right to refuse the unwarranted entry of armed forces into your home because it would help catch terrorists? Well not just me but a shitload of people welcome that given that law enforcement did precisely that to capture the boston marathon terrorists .... And the people cheered but there were certainly whinings from a few idealrogues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 What the NSA has done to American citizens is not surveillance. It will never be surveillance. It's spying. It's paranoid, fear-driven spying and will never be worth it. We just have to disagree on the semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 akin to rounding up all the guns in the country.That is a good thing. But i wont likely see it in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Do you have a minute to talk about your savior, Bitcoin? It's controlled and regulated by math. Apparently it can be controlled by any group that controls 51% of the processing power involved. Or by the developers who can change the rules if need be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Sologdin,Fair enough. I don't want creditors to rip people off. Neither do I want debtors to get away with ripping off the creditors who loaned them money in good faith. There needs to be a balance. Tip the scales too far in either direction and things get problematic. 1) Inflation is not ripping anyone off. They loaned them money and they are getting that money back. That money is just worth less but that's a risk inherent in any loan. If you want an inflation adjusted loan, draw one up. 2) Why does there need to be this "balance"? What is this balance supposed to even mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Wow... the House of Representatives actually... got... something... done Now the question remains: how will the senate screw this up? And how big of a middle finger will the NSA give this as they just keep on doing what they do? Will they even need to give anyone the finger? Does this bill actually prohibit them from most of their activity? Only the first part about querying using a US person would even be an issue and it doesn't seem enforceable if it's even something they can't easily get around with other means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Do you have a minute to talk about your savior, Bitcoin? It's controlled and regulated by math. No, it's rules are set by the people designing the system and it's behaviour is dependant on the users. Like, for instance:Apparently it can be controlled by any group that controls 51% of the processing power involved. Or by the developers who can change the rules if need be. The problem Commodore is that you seem to not realise that Bitcoin is not a system regulated by math, it's a distributed system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 The rate of increase could be stable, but that just means our dollars (and savings in dollars) are losing value at a stable rate. Yes, and? Like, I know you don't understand anything about the positions you are advocating, but I just hope you understand that you are literally not using the correct definition of inflation and also ignoring over 100 years worth of economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Sologdin,Fair enough. I don't want creditors to rip people off. Neither do I want debtors to get away with ripping off the creditors who loaned them money in good faith. There needs to be a balance. Tip the scales too far in either direction and things get problematic.What do you have in mind scot? Debtor jail, indentured servitude, or making it harder for poor people to borrow? Be honest with us. :-p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 That is a good thing. But i wont likely see it in my lifetime. It may be a good thing, but it's not constitutional. Do you even acknowledge the constitution as the framework for our laws? Because it's kind of hard to have a discussion w/ someone who isn't talking about anything in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Yes, and? Like, I know you don't understand anything about the positions you are advocating, but I just hope you understand that you are literally not using the correct definition of inflation and also ignoring over 100 years worth of economics. I claimed prices of goods are rising and the dollar is being devalued. The chart confirms that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I claimed prices of goods are rising and the dollar is being devalued. The chart confirms that. The chart confirms that, yes, inflation exists. That's it. Every other claim and statement you made is false, as if your attempts here and previous to imply that the existence of inflation is a terrible thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 It may be a good thing, but it's not constitutional. Do you even acknowledge the constitution as the framework for our laws? Because it's kind of hard to have a discussion w/ someone who isn't talking about anything in reality.You have too rigid a view on the constitution. If can be amended, and has been amended ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.