Going too far? - Page 2

[joshSCH]

You only say that because that's how you have been conditioned to think. I agree it is much more easier for authorities agencies to restrict you to the point of making you a baggage.
Also, I would conceit that security is used as a pretext to control. But not, I do not agree that security and freedom are antithesis of each other.

I do not think that they are always antithesis of each other.. Sometimes, due mostly to technology, we can ensure our safety at the same time as respecting our freedoms. However, this is not always the case. And yes, the concerns of attack and helplessness are often used by tyrannic governments to seize our freedoms..

This willing forfeit that you speak of was not my choice. Whether I wanted it or not, nobody asked me.

Well, we are not a republic.. However, you did make a decision indirectly. Your congress representatives voted on the patriot act for you. They voted to restrict your freedoms and you voted for them.. Thus, you did indirectly vote to forfeit your freedoms.

[sk8ndestroy14]

Very very indirectly, I voted for nobody yet, as I just turned voting age, I would not have voted for some people that made it to office, and the ones I would have voted for did not have enough congressional support to trump their opponents. I was only able to vote for a very very small fraction of these people. Many American elections require clothespin votes in which we have no other choice. And the United States is most certainly a republic. If you don't think so, pick up a copy of the constitution.

[Aia]

Well, we are not a republic..

I must be not understanding what you are saying. As far as I know we are a federal constitutional republic.

However, you did make a decision indirectly. Your congress representatives voted on the patriot act for you. They voted to restrict your freedoms and you voted for them.. Thus, you did indirectly vote to forfeit your freedoms.

Very typical of the common "leading" folklore: once you elect a representative you are bound to accept every decision coming from him/her as the word of the Supreme.
Unfortunately, many justify their laziness to vigilance in that way.

[joshSCH]

And the United States is most certainly a republic. If you don't think so, pick up a copy of the constitution.

Naw, we are slowly becoming more and more liberalized.. The Socialist States of America aint too far off. Due to this protection v. freedoms loophole, our politicians are slowly taking our rights from us. What with hidden street cameras, the government spying on our conversations, confiscating our laptops, spying on us through social networks such as facebook and myspace, etc..

The liberals are beginning their global takeover by spreading their propaganda about inequality, global warming, health concerns, etc.

[joshSCH]

Very typical of the common "leading" folklore: once you elect a representative you are bound to accept every decision coming from him/her as the word of the Supreme.
Unfortunately, many justify their laziness to vigilance in that way.

I didn't say that you were bound to accept their decisions. Just that your vote went towards forfeiting freedoms. If you have a problem with this, then you should join some special interest group or contact your rep.

[Aia]

I didn't say that you were bound to accept their decisions.

Yes, you didn't.

Just that your vote went towards forfeiting freedoms.

Sad, that in the beginning the voting process was to elect a representative that would ensure the protection of that freedom established.

[sk8ndestroy14]

Naw, we are slowly becoming more and more liberalized.. The Socialist States of America aint too far off. Due to this protection v. freedoms loophole, our politicians are slowly taking our rights from us. What with hidden street cameras, the government spying on our conversations, confiscating our laptops, spying on us through social networks such as facebook and myspace, etc..

The liberals are beginning their global takeover by spreading their propaganda about inequality, global warming, health concerns, etc.

Those are the types of things liberals are against. It's the patriot act that allows much of this anway. And considering our last eight years of presidency, supreme court, cia, etc. we are EXTREMELY far from socialism and much closer to a neo-fascist type state.

[joshSCH]

Yes, you didn't.

You mean "Yes, you did" :P

.. However, you did make a decision indirectly. Your congress representatives voted on the patriot act for you. They voted to restrict your freedoms and you voted for them.. Thus, you did indirectly vote to forfeit your freedoms.

My point was simply that you DID vote, indirectly of course. Your representative voted your 'shares' to limit freedoms.. whether you agreed or not.

Sad, that in the beginning the voting process was to elect a representative that would ensure the protection of that freedom established.

It is indeed.

[joshSCH]

Those are the types of things liberals are against. It's the patriot act that allows much of this anway. And considering our last eight years of presidency, supreme court, cia, etc. we are EXTREMELY far from socialism and much closer to a neo-fascist type state.

What? Liberals are for a stronger federal government, and want more control over its people. Liberals want more control over businesses and government regulations of private corporations..

[sk8ndestroy14]

No, liberals are against hidden street cameras, spying on our conversations, confiscating our laptops, and spying on us through social networks.

[sk8ndestroy14]

What? Liberals are for a stronger federal government, and want more control over its people. Liberals want more control over businesses and government regulations of private corporations..

I would say liberals are against more control over its people by giving them more social freedoms, unlike conservatives (ie. gay rights, abortions choices, and other social issues)

[jwenting]

No, liberals are against hidden street cameras, spying on our conversations, confiscating our laptops, and spying on us through social networks.

Only if they themselves aren't doing it...
In the UK for example, where they're all powerful, they're doing all of that in abundance (and more) and are still not content with the amount of control they have over peoples' lifes.

[jwenting]

I would say liberals are against more control over its people by giving them more social freedoms, unlike conservatives (ie. gay rights, abortions choices, and other social issues)

You're quite mistaken. To see what "liberals" want, look no further than China under Mao, the USSR under Stalin, or Cambodia under Pol Pot.
That's the TRUE face of the "liberal", which they are quite good at hiding around election time.

[EnderX]

Then why don't they search white people more because they are more likely to commit hate crimes?

I'm sorry, but that looks like semi-tautological reasoning to me. From what I've seen, with the possible exception of 'hate' crimes dealing with sexual orientation, 'Hate Crimes' are those crimes committed by whites against non-whites. And exactly what defines a 'hate' crime anyway? You ever seen or heard of someone killed because the killer liked them too well?

No, liberals are against hidden street cameras, spying on our conversations, confiscating our laptops, and spying on us through social networks.

And yet, these are the people who you're willing to allow to read our thoughts for us...[see above; I have yet to see the slightest hint of 'hate crime' legislation in any form that didn't originate with a liberal somewhere]

Trust me, Orwell's warnings were against the kind of stuff liberals would like to be able to do. And now, since we've got liberals teaching the classes most places, they recast Orwell as presaging conservative actions instead.

[briansmall]

Trust me, Orwell's warnings were against the kind of stuff liberals would like to be able to do. And now, since we've got liberals teaching the classes most places, they recast Orwell as presaging conservative actions instead.

Trust you? Liberals want ... what? My God, Enderx, where have you been, what have you been watching for the last several years? Surely not the goings on in the good-ol' USofA .. The conservatives have taken away more rights in the last few years than we lost collectively in the previous 50.

Don't forget that the whole notion that what business wants to do is all fair game in the name of a buck. Google could only be more Orwellian if they had our DNA mapped out and on file. And please, don't talk about their "intent" and what nice guys they are, they simply have no business whatsoever in keeping our private words and transactions forever after we've gone through the motion of deleting them. There can be no moral or ethical reason to do so.

And they, while perhaps the biggest perpetrators, are by no means alone. In fact, they are simply the very visible tip of the iceberg.

This is all being done in the name of (conservative) business "ethics". We cannot conduct business, that is, earn a living and retain rights to privacy. The conservatives are not fighting for our rights. they simply slipped away unnoticed.

Rights? (What rights?) We have none. This is a free country only by a great stretch of the imagination.Our President simply signs law into affect that we have no say over. Even when we get upset, we are easily manipulated.

Because "liberals" wanted to take my firearms, yet I believed in giving first consideration to ecology while otherwise keeping the governments hand out of my business and not supporting lazy bums with my hard earned dollars, I considered myself a "liberal conservative" ... until recently.

Then, (duh,) I came to realize that they all are self-serving bastards; Liberal and Conservative alike. There's no longer any meaningful distinction between the two parties in that neither of them gives a damn about personal rights or freedoms.

Mind you I'm not talking about individuals, just principles.

We are in a much more Orwellian state today than we were 10 years ago, and ... for the record, I had no love for Clinton.

[EnderX]

I can't say for certain in the here and now. However, I would submit that, in all likelihood, the politics of a party in the 'now' are defined as a progression of their politics in the 'then'. And while Orwell's writings were, as I recall, mostly aimed at British liberalism/socialism, and Stalinist socialism thereby, I submit that there is no longer any great difference between the British version then and the current American version. You are, of course, quite free to claim I am wrong; and if you believe I am wrong then I find it unlikely you would choose to say otherwise. I still stand by what I have observed. Perhaps I am not the most observant of men; still, I cannot claim I have seen anything other than what my own eyes have viewed, nor to have heard anything other than what my own ears have caught.

[briansmall]

I can't say for certain in the here and now. However, I would submit that, in all likelihood, the politics of a party in the 'now' are defined as a progression of their politics in the 'then'. And while Orwell's writings were, as I recall, mostly aimed at British liberalism/socialism, and Stalinist socialism thereby, I submit that there is no longer any great difference between the British version then and the current American version. You are, of course, quite free to claim I am wrong; and if you believe I am wrong then I find it unlikely you would choose to say otherwise. I still stand by what I have observed. Perhaps I am not the most observant of men; still, I cannot claim I have seen anything other than what my own eyes have viewed, nor to have heard anything other than what my own ears have caught.

I am here now. Not then. I know things were different then, which is sort of, or at least, part of my point.

So let me be clear on this, since perhaps I am not.

Do you, in the now, maintain that "Liberals" are leading us toward an Orwellian state, whilst "Conservatives" are not?

Are you in, or referring to the US or elsewhere?

I am interested in what you have observed, whether I now agree with it or not. I come to any discussion to learn, not to simply fight for my current beliefs. My beliefs are the tools of my learning. There might be better tools, but they are what I know to use.

[jwenting]

Orwell also predicted that people would be so indoctrinated by IngSoc and its propaganda and changes in the language that they'd no longer understand the difference between truth and lies, and would believe anything IngSoc told them.

Brian's insistence that socialism is right and conservatism is wrong in all things is proof positive of the fact that that state has now been reached...
Because while not yet in total control of the US government, far left ideologues are fully in control of the US educational system and press, leaving them free to install their ideas in the minds of people.

The idea that only white people (and specifically white men) can be guilty of hate crimes (in fact the very fact that they're white men means they're guilty) is another indication of this.
Of course the very definition of "hate crime" is frighteningly close to Orwell's description of thought crime, where the fact that you have ideas that IngSoc doesn't agree with means you're a criminal.

[jbennet]

i love that book

[jwenting]

As a work of fiction, yes.
As a living reality (which ever more people are experiencing, in Europe now but coming to the US as well), no.

In the UK there is now 1 surveillance camera for every 4 people, every person is videotaped on average 20 times a day or more (so roughly once an hour throughout the day on average).
And the latest cameras are fitted with speakers so the operator can give someone he sees doind something he doesn't like a stern talking to or order people to wait for police to arrive and take them into custody.

[briansmall]

Brian's insistence that socialism is right and conservatism is wrong in all things is proof positive of the fact that that state has now been reached...

YOU HAVE GONE OFF THE DEEP END. YOU HAVE LIED ABOUT MY POSITION. THIS IS SLANDER.

I would ask you to provide proof that I have at any point stated, or even implied that
" socialism is right and conservatism is wrong in all things " or clearly retract your accusation.

I'm not generally one to complain to others about the behavior of my peers, but you have severely insulted my sensibilities. Without a direct retraction from you, here in this thread, I will attempt to get Daniweb involved in a resolution of this slander.

If you make it a practice to go around slandering or making broad accusations and lying about what people have said in order to make your point, I pity the hell out of you.

[jwenting]

your attempts to muzzle all opposition to your ideas is all the proof that's required.

It shows your true nature, that of someone who can't stand the truth about himself from being exposed because that truth would hurt his chances of getting his propaganda and other lies accepted as truth by the unwitting.

[briansmall]

your attempts to muzzle all opposition to your ideas is all the proof that's required.

It shows your true nature, that of someone who can't stand the truth about himself from being exposed because that truth would hurt his chances of getting his propaganda and other lies accepted as truth by the unwitting.

This is sick. I've asked you to support your accusations and you just heap more on.

[zandiago]

I'd reccomend getting back to the topic at hand...

[briansmall]

I'd reccomend getting back to the topic at hand...

jwenting is committing slander, he has lied about who I am and what I am putting forth.

This is a community, he is welcome to his opinion, but I've asked for a retraction or evidence that I've posted that would lead him to making his statements, and he's just heaping more on. I don't care to have myself painted as a particular type of person when I am not that.

I don't mind flames, they are part of the game. But I am deeply offended by slander for the sake of making a point, when it's insult and run.

If he could make the effort to back up his claims about me I would be happy to address them.

He has gone off the deep end, and frankly I consider his behavior to be sick.

[EnderX]

Assuming the accusation to be true (you're accusing him of committing defamation, not his accusation of you being socialist), wouldn't it qualify as libel instead?

[Lardmeister]

It is that kind of mentality what makes us "sheep" ready for the butchery.

I do have things to hide. That's why I wear clothing.
What if I want to hide pictures of my family? Bank statements? An important project that I want to patent? My score of minesweeper?.
Yeah, yeah, do not take anything of these in a laptop through the airport. But do we need to be
so controlled and inconvenienced just so security authorities can show us the great job they're doing catching all those laptops full with pictures with porn, if any.
Since when porn if vital for the security of the border. You don't think you'll find a plot to blow a nuclear plant in one of those machine, don't you?
What would be next, confiscate all the "thumb drives"? Cdrom? Portable MP3 players? Books? Writing material? napkins?

They can and will strip and cavity search at the border.

Let's not be so naive, stegnography is well suited to hide information in image files.
http://www.computerforensics1.com/stegnography.html

Cumputer Forensics is an interesting area to get into!

Criminals use "high tech" why shouldn't law enforcement do the same?

Terrorists will hide information where few people will expect it.

[briansmall]

Assuming the accusation to be true (you're accusing him of committing defamation, not his accusation of you being socialist), wouldn't it qualify as libel instead?

There's no assumptions that need be made. One can back up a page, follow the thread, and see what he's said about me, how I responded asking him to support his statement or retract it, and how he simply responded with more insult.

I don't expect anyone to jump on this subject, but please if you are going to make comments, read the exchange.

As for libel or slander, I haven't checked. I used the term I though correct.

[Narue]

>wouldn't it qualify as libel instead?
Libel is written, slander is spoken. But I'm more inclined to treat a forum discussion as a spoken exchange, thus slander is the correct term in my opinion.

[gaylemichel]

Every heard of the ACLU? Of course I'm against it!