He also mentioned the GOP are assholes and full of ****.

To be perfectly honest, I expect most Americans don't care if the NSA has a record of their phone calls. The NSA is not interested in Mr. Smith's extramarital affair with Miss Jones or whether Dweeble wants to buy an ounce of pot this weekend. Since 9-11, there have been quite a few terrorist attacks foiled, and the perps arrested before they had a chance to put their plan into action. Most Americans would consider that to be a success, and if they have to give up the right to privacy on their telephones, then most would make that sacrifice if it means continued success and ultimately, safety.

The Court judge acknowledged as much by calling the NSA phone monitoring the "counter punch" to terrorism.

If this whole thing goes to the Supreme Court, I expect that court will notice both the successes had by the NSA in foiling terrorist attacks and the lack of public outcry over having their telephone conversations recorded.

Maybe with the help of the NSA the Feds can enforce the do not call list too.
Mark

On 12/27/2013 09:34 PM, wrote:
Maybe with the help of the NSA the Feds can enforce the do not call list too.
Mark



I am probably going to drop my land line next year...95% of the calls
are from telemarketers.

As to privacy, since the advent of Facebook, seemingly everyone is
making their deepest secrets public. Even criminals are posting their
own photos after stealing iPhones etc.

On Friday, December 27, 2013 7:49:50 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:
Daring Dufas: Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare;3173130 Wrote:

He also mentioned the GOP are assholes and full of ****.



To be perfectly honest, I expect most Americans don't care if the NSA

has a record of their phone calls. The NSA is not interested in Mr.

Smith's extramarital affair with Miss Jones or whether Dweeble wants to

buy an ounce of pot this weekend.


The counter argument to that is the recent experience with the IRS.
The IRS should have no interest in whether an organization is
conservative or liberal, yet they targeted the Tea Party, for apparently
political reasons. Also, if you recall back to the days of Nixon,
what Nixon thought was a legitimate natioal interest included IRS
audits of opponents, wire tapping, break-ins, etc. Also, we know
that Hoover had the FBI doing all kinds of illegal acts, like wire
tapping Martin Luther King. If either of those or someone similar
had controlof that number database, they certainly could and would
have used it to delve into the subjects on your list, if it suited
their purposes.

I'm torn on this issue myself. I see both sides of the argument.
Part of the problem is we don't know and for security reasons can't
know how much benefit this logging of all calls has been. If it's
been of marginal benefit, then it would seem it's not worth the
intrusion. If it's been a major benefit, which govt official claim,
then it's probably worth it, but some special rules need to be in
place. Access to the data should be carefully controlled and it
should require a court order with a specific justifiable reason
to access it each time data is needed. Of course the access
control the NSA is capable of has been demonstrated by Snowden.
All it took was a 20 something network tech to get into a huge
amount of their most secret info.






Since 9-11, there have been quite a

few terrorist attacks foiled, and the perps arrested before they had a

chance to put their plan into action. Most Americans would consider

that to be a success, and if they have to give up the right to total

privacy on their telephones, then most would make that sacrifice if it

means continued success and ultimately, safety.



The Supreme Court acknowledged as much by calling the NSA phone

monitoring the "counter punch" to terrorism.









--

nestork

nestork wrote: "To be perfectly honest, I expect most Americans don't care if the NSA has a record of their phone calls. "


And THAT - RIGHT THERE - is the worst and saddest point of this issue!
Apathy is the most potent WMD out there.


As far as that court's ruling? I consider any court higher than the State Superior level to be no more than a corporate TOOL.

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:33:00 AM UTC-6, philo* wrote:
On 12/27/2013 09:34 PM, wrote:

Maybe with the help of the NSA the Feds can enforce the do not call list too.

I am probably going to drop my land line next year..



What the **** is that ? Is that the same device
that old white people refer as "AM talk radio" that conservatives
supposing rule ?

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:58:36 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2013 7:49:50 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:

The IRS should have no interest in whether an organization is

conservative or liberal, yet they targeted the Tea Party, for apparently

political reasons.



No one @IRS targeted the TeaBaggers. IRS is responsible for tax fraud and when thousands of new fake organizations start laundrying money as 501c it is their job to review it.

Millions who donated money to fake web sites who turned around and used the proceeds as a private bank ... That is called fraud.

Daring Dufas: Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare wrote:
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:58:36 AM UTC-6,
wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2013 7:49:50 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:

The IRS should have no interest in whether an organization is

conservative or liberal, yet they targeted the Tea Party, for
apparently

political reasons.



No one @IRS targeted the TeaBaggers. IRS is responsible for tax fraud
and when thousands of new fake organizations start laundrying money
as 501c it is their job to review it.

Millions who donated money to fake web sites who turned around and
used the proceeds as a private bank ... That is called fraud.

The fact is, IRS is responsible to collect taxes, and political organizations
are not allowed by law to claim tax exempt status. For the right wingers out
there, please name several of the tea-party organizations that lost their tax
exempt status. If you can't, you have no case.

wrote:
nestork wrote: "To be perfectly honest, I expect most Americans don't
care if the NSA has a record of their phone calls. "


And THAT - RIGHT THERE - is the worst and saddest point of this issue!
Apathy is the most potent WMD out there.


As far as that court's ruling? I consider any court higher than the
State Superior level to be no more than a corporate TOOL.

The people collecting the data had the ability to listen to ANYONEs calls
according to Snowden. That kind of infrastructure is the perfect temptation for
anyone in or controlling that system.

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 01:49:50 +0100, nestork
wrote:


Daring Dufas: Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare;3173130 Wrote:
He also mentioned the GOP are assholes and full of ****.

To be perfectly honest, I expect most Americans don't care if the NSA
has a record of their phone calls. The NSA is not interested in Mr.
Smith's extramarital affair with Miss Jones or whether Dweeble wants to
buy an ounce of pot this weekend. Since 9-11, there have been quite a
few terrorist attacks foiled, and the perps arrested before they had a
chance to put their plan into action. Most Americans would consider
that to be a success, and if they have to give up the right to total
privacy on their telephones, then most would make that sacrifice if it
means continued success and ultimately, safety.

The Supreme Court acknowledged as much by calling the NSA phone
monitoring the "counter punch" to terrorism.

By their own admission, NSA has not prevented ANYTHING thru the use of
the phone metadata database. All the alleged foiled plots were foiled
thru other means. Virtually all of them amount to the FBI finding
feeble minded idiots and convincing them to carry out terror attacks
with the FBI providing EVERYIHNG every step of the way till the arrest
them at the end for "plotting" and "attempting". It's ALL bullcrap.
There is no counterpunch, just the massive waste of billions and the
trashing of our civil rights.

We know that contrary to claims that the info is not used or shared,
the "spook" side has fed info it found out illegally to DEA who then
fed it to local authorities who used it to get drug violators without
ever revealing that the only reason they found out about them was thru
the "secret, we won't abuse it, database".

wrote:

nestork wrote: "To be perfectly honest, I expect most Americans don't care if the NSA has a record of their phone calls. "


And THAT - RIGHT THERE - is the worst and saddest point of this issue!
Apathy is the most potent WMD out there.

Yup. And that attitude will bring us down more than a few terrorists
ever could. See my sig.


--

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 08:33:00 -0600, philo* wrote:

On 12/27/2013 09:34 PM, wrote:
Maybe with the help of the NSA the Feds can enforce the do not call list too.
Mark



I am probably going to drop my land line next year...95% of the calls
are from telemarketers.

As to privacy, since the advent of Facebook, seemingly everyone is
making their deepest secrets public. Even criminals are posting their
own photos after stealing iPhones etc.

That's what I hear.

Not me.

Because I couldn't get Search to work right, I thought I had to join,
so I did, but not under my own name. My profile is empty.

I used use my Facebook profile to log into webpages, until I got one
friend, my niece (I asked her if she would let me join under another
name.) now I don't log in with it because I think it means she will
get spam, not just me.

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 07:00:58 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

nestork wrote: "To be perfectly honest, I expect most Americans don't care if the NSA has a record of their phone calls. "


And THAT - RIGHT THERE - is the worst and saddest point of this issue!

I woudn't say that. It's hard to relate to what might possibly happen
20 years from now. Or even two years, when you're sure it's not going
to relate directly to you. I'm not worth spying on and 90+% of
people aren't.

Amd I'm not worred about the NSA now, because I get no foreign calls,
except once a year from an allied country, not one where terrorists
hang out, and no one else who calls me or I call is worth watching.

And most people get no foreign calls and place none.

Same thing about Target. I havent' been to Target since well before
Thansgiving, when their problem started, so it doesn't affect me.

Apathy is the most potent WMD out there.


As far as that court's ruling? I consider any court higher than the State Superior level to be no more than a corporate TOOL.

LOL

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 09:37:54 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:

wrote:
nestork wrote: "To be perfectly honest, I expect most Americans don't
care if the NSA has a record of their phone calls. "


And THAT - RIGHT THERE - is the worst and saddest point of this issue!
Apathy is the most potent WMD out there.


As far as that court's ruling? I consider any court higher than the
State Superior level to be no more than a corporate TOOL.

The people collecting the data had the ability to listen to ANYONEs calls

I don't think so. As part of the program being discussed, they didn't
listen to any calls. They only got copies of lists of who called
whom, who was called by whom, how long the connection was active.

according to Snowden.

I woudn't trust Snowden as far as I could throw him. If he saw
things he didn't like there were Americans he could have told. He's
either stupid or sell-centered or childish or a traitor, or some
combinations.

That kind of infrastructure is the perfect temptation for
anyone in or controlling that system.

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:08:16 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

wrote:

nestork wrote: "To be perfectly honest, I expect most Americans don't care if the NSA has a record of their phone calls. "


And THAT - RIGHT THERE - is the worst and saddest point of this issue!
Apathy is the most potent WMD out there.

Yup. And that attitude will bring us down more than a few terrorists
ever could. See my sig.


--

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

As I said before, the sig is foolish, even if Franklin said it.

Those who can give up liberty, essential or not, to obtain safety,
temporary or not, deserve both liberty and safety. We all do.
Except for criminals.

micky wrote:

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:08:16 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

wrote:

nestork wrote: "To be perfectly honest, I expect most Americans don't care if the NSA has a record of their phone calls. "


And THAT - RIGHT THERE - is the worst and saddest point of this issue!
Apathy is the most potent WMD out there.

Yup. And that attitude will bring us down more than a few terrorists
ever could. See my sig.


--

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

As I said before, the sig is foolish, even if Franklin said it.

Those who can give up liberty, essential or not, to obtain safety,
temporary or not, deserve both liberty and safety. We all do.
Except for criminals.

Well, our discussion in the other group didn't work out to well for you -
did it? Not one person agreed with you.


--

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:37:48 AM UTC-7, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 01:49:50 +0100, nestork

wrote:





Daring Dufas: Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare;3173130 Wrote:

He also mentioned the GOP are assholes and full of ****.



To be perfectly honest, I expect most Americans don't care if the NSA

has a record of their phone calls. The NSA is not interested in Mr.

Smith's extramarital affair with Miss Jones or whether Dweeble wants to

buy an ounce of pot this weekend.

Your Supreme Court is TOTALLY CORRUPTED and is filled with EVIL people.

===

micky wrote:

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 07:00:58 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

nestork wrote: "To be perfectly honest, I expect most Americans don't care if the NSA has a record of their phone calls. "


And THAT - RIGHT THERE - is the worst and saddest point of this issue!

I woudn't say that. It's hard to relate to what might possibly happen
20 years from now. Or even two years, when you're sure it's not going
to relate directly to you. I'm not worth spying on and 90+% of
people aren't.

Amd I'm not worred about the NSA now, because I get no foreign calls,
except once a year from an allied country, not one where terrorists
hang out, and no one else who calls me or I call is worth watching.

And most people get no foreign calls and place none.

Same thing about Target. I havent' been to Target since well before
Thansgiving, when their problem started, so it doesn't affect me.


And THAT - RIGHT THERE - is the worst and saddest point of this issue!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
---- People like you, micky ----

You must be an old guy that still trusts the government to do what's best
for you, and not even tell you what it is.






--

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

On 12/28/13 4:56 PM, micky wrote:

Those who can give up liberty, essential or not, to obtain safety,
temporary or not, deserve both liberty and safety. We all do.
Except for criminals.


I don't follow your reasoning. How can one be safe if he isn't
free and willing to defend himself? Human nature hasn't changed since
Adam and Eve.
There will always be thieves, murderers, would be dictators etc.

micky wrote:


snip rant

And no, despite what your imagination tells you about me, I don't
trust the government, but I trust the Moslem terrorists less. And I
wouldn't trust your judgment with a dime.

Nice word wall.

I guess I'm done with you. We apparently are not communicating on the
same frequency. Your comments are all over the map and I'm not going to
address any of them anymore.

about:
As to another ng, if you're talking about English usage, that's just a
place for fun. You don't think those discussions are important, do
you?

I was talking about the Agent support group, and generally it's not for
fun. It's a valuable technical resource, always short and smart answers
to technical problems with the newsreader. Someone started an [OT]
thread and instead of you addressing the OP you jumped all over my sig.
saying it is stupid. I don't think it's stupid at all. You have not
provided a cogent theory as to why it's "stupid".

I will say that Have a nice day.

--

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 20:14:58 -0600, Dean Hoffman
" wrote:

On 12/28/13 4:56 PM, micky wrote:

Those who can give up liberty, essential or not, to obtain safety,
temporary or not, deserve both liberty and safety. We all do.
Except for criminals.


I don't follow your reasoning. How can one be safe if he isn't
free and willing to defend himself?

And I don't follow your objections.

Where did I say people shouldn't defend themselves? Or that the US
shouldn't defend itself?

Where did I say anything about what people *should or shouldn't* do?.
Ben Franklin talked about certain people not deserving either liberty
or safety and I said they did deserve them. They deserved both of
them, and so do we all, except those who have committed crimes for
which the proper punishment is imprisonment or anything else that
limits liberty.

Being willing to trade liberty for safety might well be a bad deal and
not worth it for some people, maybe most people, but it's not a sin
for which people should be punished. And it's probably not something
that one person can judge another for at all, unless he's walked in
the other's shoes, and maybe not even then.

Someone who has spent years living in fear or terror may find it well
worth it to give up some more** liberty not to have to do that
anymore. And otoh, someone who has spent many years living without
freedom might be willing to risk or give his life for freedom, might
want freedom more than safety.

**After all, none of us are 100% free. There is everywhere a long
list of laws we have to obey.

Human nature hasn't changed since
Adam and Eve.
There will always be thieves, murderers, would be dictators etc.

I agree.

****. I hit "send" before I was done. Read this one instead.

micky wrote:


snip rant

And no, despite what your imagination tells you about me, I don't
trust the government, but I trust the Moslem terrorists less. And I
wouldn't trust your judgment with a dime.

Nice word wall.

I guess I'm done with you. We apparently are not communicating on the
same frequency. Your comments are all over the map and I'm not going to
address any of them anymore.

about:
As to another ng, if you're talking about English usage, that's just a
place for fun. You don't think those discussions are important, do
you?

I was talking about the Agent support group, and generally it's not for
fun. It's a valuable technical resource, always short and smart answers
to technical problems with the newsreader. Someone started an [OT]
thread and instead of you addressing the OP you jumped all over my sig.
saying it is stupid. I don't think it's stupid at all. You have not
provided a cogent theory as to why it's "stupid".

Do I think discussions are important about the Constitution being torn
apart bit by bit? Damn right I do. You are one of those that just
accepts government over-reaching, and just continue with the boob-tube
watching "reality shows" probably. I am one that signed up for
www.stopwatching.us and signed numerous petitions concerning this scary
pivot point in US history. I call and email my elected officials and let
them know my stance on the 4th being violated with impunity for the
perpetrators.

What actions have you taken? None. You are just cozy with the NSA
tracking your location every day with that little spy device that makes
phone calls. You're just fine with the metadata that can be complied to
find who your friends/work associates/gun ranges/mental health
facilities/pharmacies/ etc...

They can build a very accurate profile about you with that data. That is
*spying* on you and me and it's warrantless! It's illegal according to
the ultimate law of the land, our Constitution.

If you want to have an intelligent debate, you'll need something better
than "your sig is stupid" for me to engage you further.

Have a nice day.
Just for you I'll give you a gift and change my sig. That way the NSA
can join in too!








--


The List - of Carnivore and Eschelon keywords Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charges, ambush, sniping, motorcade, IRS, BATF, jtf-6, mjtf, hrt, srt, hostages, munitions, weapons, TNT, rdx, amfo, hmtd, picric acid, silver nitrite, mercury fulminate,
presidential motorcade, salt peter, charcoal, sulfur, c4, composition b, amatol, petn, lead azide, lead styphante, ddnp, tetryl, nitrocellulose, nitrostarch, mines, grenades, rockets, fuses, delay mechanism, mortars, rpg7, propellants, incendiaries, incendiary device, thermite, security forces, intelligence, agencies, hrt, resistance, psyops, infiltration, assault team, defensive elements, evasion, detection, mission, communications, the football, platter charge, shaped charges, m118, claymore, body armor, charges, shrapnel, timers, timing devices, boobytraps, detcord, pmk 40, silencers, Uzi, HK-MP5, AK-47, FAL, Jatti, Skorpion MP, teflon bullets, cordite, napalm, law, Stingers, RPK, SOCIMI 821 SMG, STEN, BAR, MP40, HK-G3,FN-MAG, RPD,PzB39, Air Force One, M60, RPK74, SG530, SG540, Galil arm,
Walther WA2000, HK33KE, Parker-Hale MOD. 82, AKR, Ingram MAC10, M3, L34A1, Walther MPL, AKS-74, HK-GR6, subsonic rounds, ballistic media, special forces, JFKSWC, SFOD-D, SRT, Rewson, SAFE, Waihopai, INFOSEC, ASPIC, Information Security, SAI, Information Warfare, IW, IS, Privacy, Information Terrorism, Kenya, Terrorism Defensive Information, Defense Information Warfare, Offensive Information, Offensive Information Warfare, NAIA, SAPM, ASU, ECHELON
ASTS, National Information Infrastructure, InfoSec, SAO, Reno, Compsec, JICS, Computer Terrorism, Firewalls, Secure Internet Connections, RSP, ISS, JDF, Passwords, NAAP, DefCon V, RSO, Hackers, Encryption, ASWS, Espionage, USDOJ, NSA, CIA, S/Key, SSL, FBI, Secret Service, USSS, Defcon, Military, White House, Undercover, NCCS, Mayfly, PGP, SALDV, PEM, resta, RSA, Perl-RSA, MSNBC, bet, AOL, AOL TOS, CIS, CBOT, AIMSX, STARLAN, 3B2, BITNET, Tanzania, SAMU, COSMOS, DATTA, E911, FCIC, HTCIA, IACIS, UT/RUS, JANET, ram, JICC, ReMOB, LEETAC, UTU, VNET, BRLO, SADCC, NSLEP, SACLANTCEN, FALN, 877, NAVELEXSYSSECENGCEN, BZ, CANSLO, CBNRC, CIDA, JAVA, rsta, Awarehouse, Active X, Compsec 97, RENS, LLC, DERA, JIC, rip, rb, Wu, RDI, Mavricks, BIOL, Meta-hackers, ^?, SADT, Steve Case, Tools, RECCEX, Telex, OTAN, monarchist, NMIC, NIOG, IDB, MID/KL, NADIS, NMI, SEIDM, BNC, CNCIS, STEEPLEBUSH, RG, BSS, DDIS, mixmaster, BCCI, BRGE, SARL, Military Intelligence, JICA, Scully, recondo, Flame, Infowar, Bubba,
Freeh, Donaldson, Archives, ISADC, CISSP, Sundevil, jack, Investigation, JOTS, ISACA, NCSA, ASVC, spook words, RRF, 1071, Bugs Bunny, Verisign, Secure, ASIO, Lebed, ICE, NRO, Lexis-Nexis, NSCT, SCIF, FLiR, JIC, bce, Lacrosse, Bunker, Flashbangs, HRT, IRA, EODG, DIA, USCOI, CID, BOP, FINCEN, FLETC, NIJ, ACC, AFSPC, BMDO, site, SASSTIXS, NAVWAN, NRL, RL, NAVWCWPNS, NSWC, USAFA, AHPCRC, ARPA, SARD, LABLINK, USACIL, SAPT, USCG, NRC, ~, O, NSA/CSS, CDC, DOE,
SAAM, FMS, HPCC, NTIS, SEL, USCODE, CISE, SIRC, CIM, ISN, DJC, bemd, SGC, UNCPCJ, CFC, SABENA, DREO, CDA, SADRS, DRA, SHAPE, bird dog, SACLANT, BECCA, DCJFTF, HALO, SC, TA SAS, Lander, GSM, T Branch, AST, SAMCOMM, HAHO, FKS, 868, GCHQ, DITSA, SORT, AMEMB, NSG, HIC, EDI, benelux, SAS, SBS, SAW, UDT, EODC, GOE, DOE, SAMF, GEO, JRB, 3P-HV, Masuda, Forte, AT, GIGN, Exon Shell, radint, MB, CQB, CONUS, CTU, RCMP, GRU, SASR, GSG-9, 22nd
SAS, GEOS, EADA, SART, BBE, STEP, Echelon, Dictionary, MD2, MD4, MDA, diwn, 747, ASIC, 777, RDI, 767, MI5, 737, MI6, 757, Kh-11, EODN, SHS, ^X, Shayet-13, SADMS, Spetznaz, Recce, 707, CIO, NOCS, Halcon, NSS, Duress, RAID, Uziel, wojo, Psyops, SASCOM, grom, NSIRL, D-11, SERT, VIP, ARC, S.E.T. Team, NSWG, MP5k, SATKA, DREC, DEVGRP, DF, DSD, FDM, GRU, LRTS, SIGDEV, NACSI, MEU/SOC,PSAC, PTT, RFI, ZL31, SIGDASYS, TDM, SUKLO, SUSLO, TELINT, fake, TEXTA, ELF, LF, MF, SIGS, VHF, Recon, peapod, PA598D28, Spall, dort, 50MZ, 11Emc

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:02:58 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

micky wrote:

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:08:16 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

wrote:

nestork wrote: "To be perfectly honest, I expect most Americans don't care if the NSA has a record of their phone calls. "


And THAT - RIGHT THERE - is the worst and saddest point of this issue!
Apathy is the most potent WMD out there.

Yup. And that attitude will bring us down more than a few terrorists
ever could. See my sig.


--

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

As I said before, the sig is foolish, even if Franklin said it.

Those who can give up liberty, essential or not, to obtain safety,
temporary or not, deserve both liberty and safety. We all do.
Except for criminals.

Well, our discussion in the other group didn't work out to well for you -
did it? Not one person agreed with you.

No one had replied when I last read the ng. I just looked and there
is only one direct reply, but I'm amazed to see there are 39 posts if
one counts replies to replies to replies...... going as much as 21
levels deep.

I'll read them and see how many disagree with me, and maybe I'll post
there in more detail.

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 21:22:23 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

micky wrote:


snip rant

And no, despite what your imagination tells you about me, I don't
trust the government, but I trust the Moslem terrorists less. And I
wouldn't trust your judgment with a dime.

Nice word wall.

I guess I'm done with you. We apparently are not communicating on the
same frequency. Your comments are all over the map and I'm not going to
address any of them anymore.

about:
As to another ng, if you're talking about English usage, that's just a
place for fun. You don't think those discussions are important, do
you?

I was talking about the Agent support group, and generally it's not for
fun.

I didn't say the Agent ng was for fun. I was clearly talking about
the English usage ng.

It's a valuable technical resource, always short and smart answers
to technical problems with the newsreader. Someone started an [OT]
thread and instead of you addressing the OP you jumped all over my sig.

Okay, I checked and I found it. It doesn't matter if the thread was
OT or not. Your sig was also off topic, both wrt the NG and wrt the
thread. But I don't have any problem with OT. I didn't object to the
OT post (I even tried to answer it) and I certainly don't object to
sigs being OT.

But you posted your sig and you put it out there, and afaic, it's as
subject to rebuttal as anything in the rest of the post.

saying it is stupid.

I said it was silly. Not stupid. And in this ng I said it was
foolish.

Lots of people quote that saying of Franlkin, especially, it seems,
lately. If someone else had quoted it instead of you, I would have
posted the same reply. It's basically an unsound statement and the
more it's quoted the more important it is that someone should point
that out.

I don't think it's stupid at all. You have not
provided a cogent theory as to why it's "stupid".

I answered in greater detail to Dean.

And I'll add one more line.

Anyone who would deny someone the freedom to choose safety over
freedom doesn't really believe in freedom for others.

I will say that Have a nice day.

You have a nice day too.

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 21:41:49 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

Part answed previously snipped.

I was talking about the Agent support group, and generally it's not for
fun. It's a valuable technical resource, always short and smart answers
to technical problems with the newsreader. Someone started an [OT]
thread and instead of you addressing the OP you jumped all over my sig.
saying it is stupid. I don't think it's stupid at all. You have not
provided a cogent theory as to why it's "stupid".

Do I think discussions are important about the Constitution being torn
apart bit by bit? Damn right I do. You are one of those that just
accepts government over-reaching, and just continue with the boob-tube
watching "reality shows" probably.

I never watch so-called reality shows. I used to watch COPS, which is
a real reality show, and I watch the People's Court, which might not
be exactly like a court of law, but it's close where it matters, and
it is a binding arbitration between real litigants so it's a real
reality show.

I am one that signed up for
www.stopwatching.us and signed numerous petitions concerning this scary
pivot point in US history. I call and email my elected officials and let
them know my stance on the 4th being violated with impunity for the
perpetrators.

What actions have you taken? None. You are just cozy with the NSA
tracking your location every day with that little spy device that makes
phone calls.

I already said, there is nothing I say (and I'll add now, do) that
makes me worth watching. If I have somehow misled them and they are
watching me, I feel bad that they are wasting their time, and I hope
they will stop and watch someone else.

You're just fine with the metadata that can be complied to
find who your friends/work associates/gun ranges/mental health
facilities/pharmacies/ etc...

I'm fine with it.

They can build a very accurate profile about you with that data. That is

I'm proud of my profile.

*spying* on you and me and it's warrantless! It's illegal according to
the ultimate law of the land, our Constitution.

The way it works is that the court decides what is Constitutional. If
I wouldn't trust you with a dime, I'm not going to trust you to decide
what is or isn't Constitutional. . Two federal district courts have
decided, in opposite directions. We'll see what happens next.

If you want to have an intelligent debate, you'll need something better
than "your sig is stupid" for me to engage you further.

Again I tell you. I never said your sig was stupid. I said the
quote was silly, that your sig** was foolish, and tonight, that
Franklin's statement was unsound.

**The sig was made up of the quote and Franklin's name. I said the
..sig was foolish. but really it was only the quote, for which Franklin
is mostly responsible. Sorry.

Have a nice day.
Just for you I'll give you a gift and change my sig. That way the NSA
can join in too!

Okay then!

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 23:01:55 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:02:58 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

micky wrote:

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:08:16 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

wrote:

nestork wrote: "To be perfectly honest, I expect most Americans don't care if the NSA has a record of their phone calls. "


And THAT - RIGHT THERE - is the worst and saddest point of this issue!
Apathy is the most potent WMD out there.

Yup. And that attitude will bring us down more than a few terrorists
ever could. See my sig.


--

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

As I said before, the sig is foolish, even if Franklin said it.

Those who can give up liberty, essential or not, to obtain safety,
temporary or not, deserve both liberty and safety. We all do.
Except for criminals.

Well, our discussion in the other group didn't work out to well for you -
did it? Not one person agreed with you.

Wrong. The last one suggested Franklin would have phrased it more
clearly. His full post was 'What he perhaps should have said is:
"...will *have* neither liberty nor safety."'

I think he's agreeing with me.

No one had replied when I last read the ng. I just looked and there
is only one direct reply, but I'm amazed to see there are 39 posts if
one counts replies to replies to replies...... going as much as 21
levels deep.

I'll read them and see how many disagree with me, and maybe I'll post
there in more detail.

There are 39 posts, but only about 12 deal with my post. Many are
about Athenian democracy.

There are only 8 unique posters in the part of the thread in reply to
my post, and as I said above, one agreed with me; and four commented
not at all about my post or the issue(s?) in it.

One just said about one of the others "Sounds like there is a racist
about."

Another said only ""You know how dumb the average person is? Well,
half of them are dumber than that." - J R "Bob" Dobbs."

Buddha posted twice but didn't agree or disagree with me either time.
He was commenting on other posts on topics I didn't touch.

John B. is in the same situation, except he posted 4 times.


So there were 3 people who disagreed with me, including you, and one
who agreed.

The other two who disagreed are so into this, they are not likely to
be swayed by arguments, not matter how good, but I'll probably give it
a try.

Gene Morgan, Dean Hoffman, et al:

Please! Just let Fox News report and let Micky decide.

He's not worth our time debating. lmao...

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 08:33:00 -0600, philo* wrote:

On 12/27/2013 09:34 PM, wrote:
Maybe with the help of the NSA the Feds can enforce the do not call list too.
Mark



I am probably going to drop my land line next year...95% of the calls
are from telemarketers.

We dropped ours in '00. We briefly had one in '08 because they didn't
offer "naked DSL" for a while. That line never had a phone attached
to it, though. ;-)

As to privacy, since the advent of Facebook, seemingly everyone is
making their deepest secrets public. Even criminals are posting their
own photos after stealing iPhones etc.

Criminals are also looking for people posting their vacation pics and
tweets. Good time to clean 'em out. Dumb, all.

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
Daring Dufas: Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:58:36 AM UTC-6,

wrote:

On Friday, December 27, 2013 7:49:50 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:



The IRS should have no interest in whether an organization is



conservative or liberal, yet they targeted the Tea Party, for

apparently



political reasons.







No one @IRS targeted the TeaBaggers. IRS is responsible for tax fraud

and when thousands of new fake organizations start laundrying money

as 501c it is their job to review it.



Millions who donated money to fake web sites who turned around and

used the proceeds as a private bank ... That is called fraud.



The fact is, IRS is responsible to collect taxes, and political organizations

are not allowed by law to claim tax exempt status. For the right wingers out

there, please name several of the tea-party organizations that lost their tax

exempt status. If you can't, you have no case.

You obviously didn't follow the facts of what went on. The IRS typically
didn't pull any conservative groups tax exempt status. What they did was
put them in the endless mill of years without *approving* their applications,
while asking for endless amounts of information, like who they had talked
to, lists of their members, who their members spouses were, lists of their
donors, etc. And even when the IRS was given that info, they stil didn't approve or reject the application.

If nothing criminal was done and it was all innocent, why did IRS
official Louis Lerner plead the fifth ammendment before Congress and
refuse to testify?

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 09:33:57 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:

Daring Dufas: Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare wrote:
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:58:36 AM UTC-6,
wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2013 7:49:50 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:

The IRS should have no interest in whether an organization is

conservative or liberal, yet they targeted the Tea Party, for
apparently

political reasons.



No one @IRS targeted the TeaBaggers. IRS is responsible for tax fraud
and when thousands of new fake organizations start laundrying money
as 501c it is their job to review it.

Millions who donated money to fake web sites who turned around and
used the proceeds as a private bank ... That is called fraud.

The fact is, IRS is responsible to collect taxes, and political organizations
are not allowed by law to claim tax exempt status. For the right wingers out
there, please name several of the tea-party organizations that lost their tax
exempt status. If you can't, you have no case.

You two prove my "Malformed Hypothesis". You lefties simply cannot
tell the truth. You are compelled by your DNA to lie.

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:39:53 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
Daring Dufas: Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:58:36 AM UTC-6,

wrote:

On Friday, December 27, 2013 7:49:50 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:



The IRS should have no interest in whether an organization is



conservative or liberal, yet they targeted the Tea Party, for

apparently



political reasons.







No one @IRS targeted the TeaBaggers. IRS is responsible for tax fraud

and when thousands of new fake organizations start laundrying money

as 501c it is their job to review it.



Millions who donated money to fake web sites who turned around and

used the proceeds as a private bank ... That is called fraud.



The fact is, IRS is responsible to collect taxes, and political organizations

are not allowed by law to claim tax exempt status. For the right wingers out

there, please name several of the tea-party organizations that lost their tax

exempt status. If you can't, you have no case.

You obviously didn't follow the facts of what went on. The IRS typically
didn't pull any conservative groups tax exempt status. What they did was
put them in the endless mill of years without *approving* their applications,
while asking for endless amounts of information, like who they had talked
to, lists of their members, who their members spouses were, lists of their
donors, etc. And even when the IRS was given that info, they stil didn't approve or reject the application.

....not to mention that they asked questions like "who are your
friends?" and "What do you pray about?". These things are of utmost
national security, you know.

Of course he followed what went on. He's just lying about what went
on because it supports his bias. If it had been a Republican Pres
doing half that to a lefty group, he'd be screaming so loudly, he
wouldn't need the Usenet for you to hear him.

Lefties *need* to lie. Lying is as necessary for the left as air is
for you.

If nothing criminal was done and it was all innocent, why did IRS
official Louis Lerner plead the fifth ammendment before Congress and
refuse to testify?

She was criminal in pleading the fifth, even.

micky wrote:

Anyone who would deny someone the freedom to choose safety over
freedom doesn't really believe in freedom for others.


Circular sentence, how am I supposed to reply to that mangled English?

--

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

micky wrote:


No one had replied when I last read the ng. I just looked and there
is only one direct reply, but I'm amazed to see there are 39 posts if
one counts replies to replies to replies...... going as much as 21
levels deep.

I'll read them and see how many disagree with me, and maybe I'll post
there in more detail.


I'll do you one better....

I'll put up a poll on one of my websites and they can vote on it. The
thread is about democracy now, a vote seems appropriate.


What should the question read?

How about:

"Do you think G. Morgan's signature line is silly?"

Fair enough?

Now we have more groups involved, they can vote too.


--

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

wrote:

Gene Morgan, Dean Hoffman, et al:

lol.. where did you get "Gene"? It's Graham. Nice to meet you.

Please! Just let Fox News report and let Micky decide.

I'm sure he's one of those glued to faux news, during commercials he
flips to that no-name channel that picked up Glen Beck!

He's not worth our time debating. lmao...

I was going to post a vote real quick to settle this, I better get busy.

--

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 11:11:26 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

micky wrote:

Anyone who would deny someone the freedom to choose safety over
freedom doesn't really believe in freedom for others.


Circular sentence, how am I supposed to reply to that mangled English?


Sometimes it helps to read something a few more times until you
understand it.

It's not circular, but maybe it looks that way to you because it
involves someone who claims to believe in freedom, but would, if he
could, deny freedom to someone else who doesn't agree with him. His
claim to believe in freedom for all** completes the seeming
circularity but if he is sincere, his claim is based on his deluding
himsef.

People like that may be sincere, but they're befuddled. They should
realize and admit to themselves that each of them is in favor of
freedom for himself and those who agree with him, but not for those
who disagree.

In this example, someone who would choose freedom over safety wants to
deny the very freedom he claims is so importan,.... he wants to deny
it to another person who wants to choose safety over freedom. That
was the subject of my sentence that you quoted, "Anywhoe who would
deny someone the freedom to choose safety over freedom". Such a
person believes in freedom for himself, to choose freedom, but not the
freedom to choose safety


**Well, he doesn't actually say he believes in freedom for all.
That's just been assumed or maybe borrowed from things he said on
other days. Conceivably Franklin wasn't claiming to believe in
freedom or Liberty for all. Maybe he was saying he wanted it for
himself and he thought anyone else who didn't want what he wanted
didn't deserve either freedom or safety. I don't think this is
the case. In fact, I don't think Franklin would have defended what he
said. I think he was turning a phrase to help people think about the
issue like he did. He was able to include "essential" with "liberty"
and "termporary" with "safety". Those were his two main arguments,
that liberty was essential, and that the safety would be termporary.
For some people this would have been true and for some it would not
have been, if you look at each individual and don't just take the
majority or the average.

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 11:18:52 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

micky wrote:


No one had replied when I last read the ng. I just looked and there
is only one direct reply, but I'm amazed to see there are 39 posts if
one counts replies to replies to replies...... going as much as 21
levels deep.

I'll read them and see how many disagree with me, and maybe I'll post
there in more detail.


I'll do you one better....

I'll put up a poll on one of my websites and they can vote on it. The
thread is about democracy now, a vote seems appropriate.


What should the question read?

How about:

"Do you think G. Morgan's signature line is silly?"

Fair enough?

No, of course not. Such a question is like having an election without
a campaign, It woudl be like a popularity contest where the likeable
boy in highschool who everyone knows gets elected prom king, or
student body president. People have had a lifetime of being told
Franklin was a wise person (and I'm sure he was most of the time) and
that his sayings were wise. They've never thought in detail about
this quote from him. They probably heard it in junior high and were
told it was good by their history teacher, and they've never thought
much more about it. Without any discussion, they'll vote for him,
like you've been doing.

There should be arguments from both sides, one explaining why it's
silly and the other why it's not.

Now we have more groups involved, they can vote too.

micky wrote in
news
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 11:18:52 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

micky wrote:


No one had replied when I last read the ng. I just looked and there
is only one direct reply, but I'm amazed to see there are 39 posts if
one counts replies to replies to replies...... going as much as 21
levels deep.

I'll read them and see how many disagree with me, and maybe I'll post
there in more detail.


I'll do you one better....

I'll put up a poll on one of my websites and they can vote on it. The
thread is about democracy now, a vote seems appropriate.


What should the question read?

How about:

"Do you think G. Morgan's signature line is silly?"

Fair enough?

No, of course not. Such a question is like having an election without
a campaign, It woudl be like a popularity contest where the likeable
boy in highschool who everyone knows gets elected prom king, or
student body president. People have had a lifetime of being told
Franklin was a wise person (and I'm sure he was most of the time) and
that his sayings were wise. They've never thought in detail about
this quote from him. They probably heard it in junior high and were
told it was good by their history teacher, and they've never thought
much more about it. Without any discussion, they'll vote for him,
like you've been doing.

There should be arguments from both sides, one explaining why it's
silly and the other why it's not.

Now we have more groups involved, they can vote too.

Micky why don't you just cool it? Graham has a lot of friends in Scorched
Earth (including one who was and may still be a member of an Irish
terrorist organization). I'm sure you don't want trouble.

Graham's sig is fine. Just saying!

--
Jax

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 20:37:57 GMT, Jax
wrote:

micky wrote in
news
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 11:18:52 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

micky wrote:


No one had replied when I last read the ng. I just looked and there
is only one direct reply, but I'm amazed to see there are 39 posts if
one counts replies to replies to replies...... going as much as 21
levels deep.

I'll read them and see how many disagree with me, and maybe I'll post
there in more detail.


I'll do you one better....

I'll put up a poll on one of my websites and they can vote on it. The
thread is about democracy now, a vote seems appropriate.


What should the question read?

How about:

"Do you think G. Morgan's signature line is silly?"

Fair enough?

No, of course not. Such a question is like having an election without
a campaign, It woudl be like a popularity contest where the likeable
boy in highschool who everyone knows gets elected prom king, or
student body president. People have had a lifetime of being told
Franklin was a wise person (and I'm sure he was most of the time) and
that his sayings were wise. They've never thought in detail about
this quote from him. They probably heard it in junior high and were
told it was good by their history teacher, and they've never thought
much more about it. Without any discussion, they'll vote for him,
like you've been doing.

There should be arguments from both sides, one explaining why it's
silly and the other why it's not.

Now we have more groups involved, they can vote too.

Micky why don't you just cool it? Graham has a lot of friends in Scorched
Earth

Those are the ones he was going to get to vote for his position, I
guess. So when he offered a vote, he had a plan to win by going
outside home repair and Agent newsgroups? Is that what you're saying?

(including one who was and may still be a member of an Irish
terrorist organization). I'm sure you don't want trouble.

What kind of trouble are you talking about? Are you threatening me?

You don't think I should have the liberty to post what I want and to
reply to other posts? Aren't you a great example of a supporter of
liberty!

Graham hasn't threatened me or even told me to stop posting. I think
he's a much stronger believer in liberty than you are.


Graham's sig is fine. Just saying!

I think you didn't understand my posts. If you even read them.

micky wrote in
:

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 20:37:57 GMT, Jax
wrote:

micky wrote in
news
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 11:18:52 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

micky wrote:


No one had replied when I last read the ng. I just looked and there
is only one direct reply, but I'm amazed to see there are 39 posts if
one counts replies to replies to replies...... going as much as 21
levels deep.

I'll read them and see how many disagree with me, and maybe I'll post
there in more detail.


I'll do you one better....

I'll put up a poll on one of my websites and they can vote on it. The
thread is about democracy now, a vote seems appropriate.


What should the question read?

How about:

"Do you think G. Morgan's signature line is silly?"

Fair enough?

No, of course not. Such a question is like having an election without
a campaign, It woudl be like a popularity contest where the likeable
boy in highschool who everyone knows gets elected prom king, or
student body president. People have had a lifetime of being told
Franklin was a wise person (and I'm sure he was most of the time) and
that his sayings were wise. They've never thought in detail about
this quote from him. They probably heard it in junior high and were
told it was good by their history teacher, and they've never thought
much more about it. Without any discussion, they'll vote for him,
like you've been doing.

There should be arguments from both sides, one explaining why it's
silly and the other why it's not.

Now we have more groups involved, they can vote too.

Micky why don't you just cool it? Graham has a lot of friends in
Scorched Earth

Those are the ones he was going to get to vote for his position, I
guess. So when he offered a vote, he had a plan to win by going outside
home repair and Agent newsgroups? Is that what you're saying?

(including one who was and may still be a member of an Irish terrorist
organization). I'm sure you don't want trouble.

What kind of trouble are you talking about? Are you threatening me?

Trouble is trouble. Think about it Micky.

You don't think I should have the liberty to post what I want and to
reply to other posts? Aren't you a great example of a supporter of
liberty!

So now, all of a sudden, you like Graham's sig! How do you spell
hypocrisy?.... Just wondering.

Graham hasn't threatened me or even told me to stop posting. I think
he's a much stronger believer in liberty than you are.


Graham's sig is fine. Just saying!

I think you didn't understand my posts. If you even read them.

I'm not going to read your whole oeuvre.

--
Jax!