You were saying?
You were saying?
So now something based upon a crazy supposition is just decidedly "not good" for all American people. Okay.Objectively, that isn't good for the American people.
Okay, random partisan talking points.Specifically on the left, you have lawmakers that don't particularly care about Benghazi or the I.R.S. targeting
And more, to cover all bases. Beautiful.and on the right, you have lawmakers trying repeatedly to abolish the ACA, don't care about disadvantaged Americans and hold the livelihood of this country at hostage in the attempt to score some political points/maneuvering.
No something that has nothing to do with anything, cool.Collectively, they've tied us through legislation to Israel for an attack on Iran
And there it goes, it's all wrapped up in a neat little package.and condone the wholesale bulk collection of American information via the phone or the Internet.
Before you went on your certifiably insane rant, I was asking why you assumed anyone that disagreed with you must be totally wrong. I was asking why you were convinced that you and only you had a legitimate viewpoint. Why you were unable to even fathom the idea that someone could think differently from you without being totally wrong.You were saying?
You answered the question, don't worry.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
Jude Kenan Mohammad "had no known ties to terrorists."
Samir Khan "began to help violent jihadist groups online, using his skills on the Web. He seemed to be operating on his own and didn't appear to be tied to any terrorist group.
In 2009, Khan left home for Yemen and became a part of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. It was here, again using his computer and literary skills, that Khan started "Inspire," the influential online jihadist magazine."
Without more details it is impossible to determine whether he was actually aiding terrorists as claimed or just engaging in first amendment protected expression.
Thats fine, you have the option to use or not use that technology.I willingly trade off convenience and entertainment for some privacy, but I have limits on the amount and type of information I am willing to provide.
Again, this technology does not work in a vacuum. If in fact these things do start occurring they will quickly be exposed due to the very technology that allowed his information to be compromised. There are already laws against stealing personal information.Anyone with a bit of money and/or power is of potential interest to others. People may want to influence you, destroy you, use your credit card, blackmail you and empty your bank account. I am not saying the government wants to do that, but some individuals do, and a few could get jobs with access to this data.
And now it will only take minutes.....It usually takes years of hard work to expose governmental abuses such as COINTELPRO. The new technology makes it far easier for elements in the government to misuse its information resources and easier to hide it.
How many regular joe blow US citizens have been walking down the street and randomly been blown up by a drone? Are we not streatching things a bit here in order to create an environment of fear. Camon.. Lets use some logic here instead of fearmongering. Many of your fellow cohorts state that the US uses fearmongering in order to build a case for its geopolitical interests, but yet they use fearmongering themselves in order to push their political interests as well.Using this technology to locate and execute U.S.A. citizens without a bothering with a trial and conviction is a pretty big abuse in my opinion.
Sure, and I am sure it will happen. But as I have mentioned, if the technology exists to commit this crime, then the technology exists to catch these criminals. Instead of religating this technology to those who will secretly use it because it is condemned and can only be used unknowingly, we should do the opposite and embrace it so that it at least is out in the open and we can create laws to punish those who use it irresponsibly.There is a lot temptation for the people who can access this information technology to use it for financial or political gain, career advantages or revenge.
They are going to do that either way. No amount of protesting it will keep it from being developed or used.Perhaps, but those who own or control this technology can always take it away or change it when they need to.
- There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
- Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
- Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.
Another one arguably didn't either, since he was NOT active as a terrorist, he was a propagandist. (Samir Kahn)
The other two were not on a battlefied, were not in a country we declared war on, and were not engaged in battle when assassinated by remote control.