Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Bush Checking With Our ISP

Author
Message
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 31st May 2005 13:18 Edited at: 31st May 2005 13:20
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67674,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_7



Quote: "as part of its fight against terrorism."


It just never stops...

p.s.



Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 31st May 2005 13:31
hes an IDIOT!!! when he finally gets booted out next time, I hope we get a compitent president.

Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 31st May 2005 14:31
Quote: "I hope we get a compitent president."


I doubt it. Maybe someone better than Bush, but as for compitent...


Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 31st May 2005 15:21 Edited at: 31st May 2005 15:22
The Internet was invented in the U.S. -- if you don't like how Uncle Sam is 'invading your privacy', invent your own Internet.



I mean, your government is already recording all of your emails and phone conversations.


--[R.O.B.O.I. and FireTris Coming Soon]--
Eric T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2003
Location: My location is where I am at this time.
Posted: 31st May 2005 15:46
Yeah, we're residents. They own us. They control our thoughts and our actions. End of story.

If you don't like it, get the f` out.

http://blog.myspace.com/erict
An Alternative to Mouse's blog. Now with more lowbrow opinions.
Neofish
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2004
Location: A swimming pool of coke
Posted: 31st May 2005 20:37
Quote: "invent your own Internet."

Do I have to lay my own communication lines or just make the new protocols?

Pi = 8
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 31st May 2005 20:53
The darkbasic protocals...

Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 31st May 2005 21:12
The internet wasn't invented in the US, it was invented in the CERN research lab in EUROPE.

~It's a common mistake to make, the rules of the English langauge do not apply to insanity~
Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 00:20
THATS WHAT I KEPT TELLING EVERYONE!!! IT WAS CERN DAMIT! >.<

anyway, how can tracking info from an isp solve anything? surely anyone making an anti us website would do it with a middle eastern server... and have the brains to use false identity (which the servers would probably allow, being anti US themselves)

I fell sorry for the next president who\'s gonna have to clean up this jerks wnkstains on politics.
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 01:05 Edited at: 1st Jun 2005 01:07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

Quote: "if you don't like how Uncle Sam is 'invading your privacy', invent your own Internet."

I might just do that. I call it, the interben!


"Lets migrate like bricks" - Me
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 01:30
No ONE person / country / company created the internet.
Quite frankly the hint of this is in the name...

INTERnational NETwork

Another point is what do you consider the Internet is?
TCP is a network interface that allows computers with slow connections to pass data without needing to be syncronised to each other.

HTML is just an ascii-based data structure, that is interpreted by a 'Browser', allowing the sharing of data across different platforms while remaining the same. To be honest this isn't even what the Internet was originally based on. BBS was, which was a Bulletin Board System; where you would phone up a given server with your modem, download and upload raw ASCII messages. (the basis for most late-80s MUDs)

MODulator and DEModulator interface, is just a way for computers to communicate via a non-digital line. Allowing computers to network over existing long range communication lines (telephone).

BBS however didn't use TCP technology, it was raw data.. but WAS the first 'Internet' of sorts available to the public.

I think it's silly to think anyone 1 nation or person invented the internet.

Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 01:40
Quote: "I might just do that. I call it, the interben"


I'll sign up for that

Quote: "The Internet was invented in the U.S. -- if you don't like how Uncle Sam is 'invading your privacy', invent your own Internet."


Well not exactly sure how Canada is set up BUT US is setup on the basis of freedom's. If people are threatened by being thrown in jail or interigated for saying the wrong thing...then it's not exactly freedom. If people will be arrested for making or frequently visiting an "IM GOING TO BOMB AMERICA" site then that is not freedom. If anyone has ACTUALLY read the US Constitution(which I doubt), you would see that the stupid US government does not exactly follow it(on many issues). The US Constitution was also setup to be the highest ruling power, but that has also been forgotten. Maybe im the only one that is able to see this, but Americans are losing more and more freedom's every day. At this rate, the US will be changing governments in no time. Whatever happened to good 'ole Republic Democracy, I shall never know.


Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit
Peter H
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Feb 2004
Location: Witness Protection Program
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 01:55 Edited at: 1st Jun 2005 01:57
Quote: "If people are threatened by being thrown in jail or interigated for saying the wrong thing...then it's not exactly freedom."

...um...have you ever heard of that happening? Just because the goverment has the right to throw somebody in jail doesn't mean they are going to go around throwing random people in jail...they aren't that stupid...they know that not only would that be counter-productive but it would get a lot of people mad at them...

Quote: "If anyone has ACTUALLY read the US Constitution(which I doubt), you would see that the stupid US government does not exactly follow it(on many issues)."

indeed...i agree with this...but i don't think it's all bush's fault

seriously guys, the president can't do much without lots of other people agreeing .... i get sick of people blaming everything on bush...honestly i don't really know enough about what happens in the goverment to say who's messing up or what should be done...i'm not stuck up enough to think that i know more about current situations just because i've heard from some news story, friend, website, or some other (most likely biased) source, then the hundreds of people dealing with these situations every day.

"We make the worst games in the universe."

Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:00
Quote: "...um...have you ever heard of that happening?"

In fact, I have personally known someone it has happened too. A teacher I knew had an islamic friend he always talked too. Turns out that his friend was in a major terrorist group, and my teacher was in jail for a year because he was simple considered a "suspect" which turns out he had nothing to do with them at all.

Quote: "..but i don't think it's all bush's fault"


I never said that particular thing is all bush's fault. This has been happening for quite a long time, even before him. However, he sure isn't helping to fix that


Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:00
Quote: "If anyone has ACTUALLY read the US Constitution(which I doubt), you would see that the stupid US government does not exactly follow it(on many issues)."


Yet one of the Constitutional rights is that the Congress may vote to make alterations as it sees fit.

Sorry, but the American Govenrment Amends the Constitution whenever it needs to do something that is unconstitutional. The Contitution means nothing, it never has.. but it makes the people feel the have inalienable rights. Perhaps one of these days the people might actually wake up, but when that happens you'll have another Civil War.

Eric T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2003
Location: My location is where I am at this time.
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:02
Funny thing about the constitution... Its a guideline, not the Iron law.

I can't wait for this age of "Green Day Politics" (thats the name i've given it, the days when people think they know everything about the government institutions and laws just because they've listened to "american idiot" 2032 times).

Face it - We don't have freedom, we were never really meant to have freedom, and the only true freedom you are looking for is more refered to as "anarchy" and its been proven that it won't work.

http://blog.myspace.com/erict
An Alternative to Mouse's blog. Now with more lowbrow opinions.
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:07
Quote: "TCP is a network interface that allows computers with slow connections to pass data without needing to be syncronised to each other."

Actually, TCP is a protocol for reliable data streams, with mechanisms to order packets and prevent packet duplication. And network interface isn't the correct term


"Lets migrate like bricks" - Me
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:14
Quote: " we were never really meant to have freedom"

please AT LEAST read up in your history books before saying a thing like that.

Quote: "Face it - We don't have freedom"

That's close to the truth.

Quote: "Yet one of the Constitutional rights is that the Congress may vote to make alterations as it sees fit."

Believe it or not, they do not always ammend it when doing something "unconstitutional". Many things are done against the constitution, simply because it can be done.

Quote: "The Contitution means nothing"

Must be, I take it that "Supreme Law Of The Land" business is just bull?

Quote: "Perhaps one of these days the people might actually wake up, but when that happens you'll have another Civil War.
"

I'll have to agree with that one. Eventually there WILL be a limit that people will endure. I believe that one day(even if its a long time from now), the government will make a mistake a bit too obvious and people will start to wake up and realize what is going on. Then we just wait and see what happens...


Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit
Eric T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2003
Location: My location is where I am at this time.
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:24 Edited at: 1st Jun 2005 02:25
Tax sir, Tax. If we really had or ever had) any bit of freedom, we would be aloud to say "I don't wanna pay taxes, so F` you uncle sam". Ever tried doing it, dosen't work, does it?

Another funny thing about the "freedom" this country was built around. The original Settlers, the puritans, what did they do to any non puritan settlers? Real free when you had to be "puritan or out".

If we ever had freedom or the attempt towards freedom, slaves would still be legal. Now that may be harsh, but if there was or ever was freedom, then it would be my free choice to purchase a slave.

I'm not sure if people will be able to see what I am going at with this.

Quote: "Must be, I take it that "Supreme Law Of The Land" business is just bull?"


Pretty much. Its an outdated document that needs serious revisal.

http://blog.myspace.com/erict
An Alternative to Mouse's blog. Now with more lowbrow opinions.
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:33
Quote: "
If we ever had freedom or the attempt towards freedom, slaves would still be legal. Now that may be harsh, but if there was or ever was freedom, then it would be my free choice to purchase a slave."


Actually, We are supposed to have freedom to the point that it does not infringe on other people's freedom.


Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:36 Edited at: 1st Jun 2005 02:37
Government Simply has too much power. That is all there is too it.

Here is a fine example if you care to read:
Quote: "The assault on an apocalyptic religious sect calling themselves the Branch Davidians, in the tumbleweed flatlands of Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993, followed in the grand tradition of American law enforcement mayhem.

This proud heritage includes such landmarks as the incineration of the Symbionese Liberation Army house in Los Angeles; the aerial firebombing of the black-separatist MOVE organization's communal apartment complex in Philadelphia - still the only American city ever to have been bombed from the air; and the Chicago police's 4 a.m. assault on Fred Hampton, riddling the Black Panther boss with bullets while he was sleeping in his own bed.

The Waco massacre that claimed the lives of eighty-six sect members (and a handful of federal agents) at the Branch Davidians' compound was more than a tad paramilitary. But the incident may have had much in common with the slaughter at Jonestown, Guyana, fifteen years earlier. Either it was a mass suicide - or mass murder by the government, which then tried to blame the victims for their own deaths.

In the six-week staredown before the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) and the FBI went gonzo on the "cultist," the media flooded the nation with imprecations, encouraged by the authorities, that the Branch Davidians - led by the "Wacko from Waco" David Koresh (AKA Vernon Howell) - were likely to commit mass suicide at any time, just like those Jonestown nuts. Of course, given the feds' aural assault on the Davidians, the Kool-Aid solution may not have appeared an unwelcome option. Replicating a technique used four years earlier to flush Manuel Noriega from his sanctuary, the feds blared an earsplitting mishmash of noise that included the sound of rabbits being slaughtered, chanting Tibetan monks, roaring jet engines, and the Nancy Sinatra hit, "These Boots Were Made For Walking."

As if that wasn't torture enough, floodlights blazed all night long into the two-story ranch house where Koresh's followers struggled to catch a little shut-eye while the fed/press mob swelled and swarmed outside. But worst of all, the agents cut off all utilities and food supplies to the commune, an embargo enforced even when Koresh pleaded for replenishment of the group's baby milk supply almost six weeks into the stand-off.

The siege began February 28 when the ATF embarked on a "surprise" attack against the Mount Carmel commune. The operation was so surprising that three local TV crews were on hand to capture it on videotape and two reporters stationed themselves in a nearby tree to get a fifty-yard-line view of the excitement. The attack produced a stalemate, with the ATF force incurring a 20 percent casualty rate (four dead, sixteen wounded).

At least some, if not all of the fallen feds were victims of the ATF commandos' own gunfire. According to communications specialist Ken Fawcett, who authored an affidavit based on his analysis of unedited video of the initial raid, the first shot was accidental. An agent's assault rifle somehow discharged and killed another ATF agent, Stephen Willis.

The full-scale battle began when an agent accidentally shot himself in the leg. Thinking they were under attack, the rest of the ATF platoon unleashed a fusillade of machine-gun shells.

In a network TV interview, ATF director Stephen Higgins tried to pin the lost "element of surprise" on leaks by a person or persons unknown. When several ATF agents later sued a Waco newspaper, the public learned that the ATF itself leaded the raid. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Higgins was prudent enough not to repeat his lie. But even if no one had been tipped, an ATF chopper buzzed the compound before the commandos attacked. Being that they were not complete idiots, the sect members probably surmised that something was up.

On April 19, the feds - with the FBI now leading the charge ahead of a chastened ATF - attacked in earnest, replete with armored vehicle assaults and an eight-hours barrage of CS, an especially noxious and flammable tear gas, usually fortified with kerosene. The compound burst into flames, the conflagration helped along by shock waves from m-60 tanks bashing the house. The surviving Davidians claimed, not implausibly, that the tanks actually started the fire by knocking over kerosene lamps that the electricity-denied sect was using to light the place. The tanks punched holes in the compound walls. The ventilation may have contributed in accelerating the blaze.

Koresh perished along with most of his followers, including many children.

The FBI immediately announced that two survivors of the cremated cult had confessed to sparking the fires. The bureau later pulled back a bit, noting that the cult members had not actually confessed - but they might as well have, because the FBI sharpshooters personally witnessed them "cupping their hands."

An "independent" investigation later incriminated the Davidians, apparently confirming the <I>Jonestownesque</I> mass-suicide tale. But the truth about the Waco fire remains murky. It is worth noting that the fire investigator was a former ATF agent. The fellow's wife still worked in the ATF's Houston office, which was directed by senior agent Phil Chojnacki. It was Chojnacki who reportedly hovered over the compound in a helicopter before the ATF's "surprise" February raid.

Another lingering mystery is why the feds carried out their dime-store Green Beret operation at all. Conspiracy theories abound. One lawyer who claimed to represent some Branch Davidian members and their families, warned that over the weeks of the stand-off there were troop movements across the nation and trainloads of U.N. tanks sighted in Portland, Oregon. As Peter Jennings said on a special report in the aftermath of the Branch Davidian's destruction, "this is a warning of things to come."

A writer for the magazine <I>Soldier of Fortune</I> suggested that the ATF was motivated by nothing more than petty vindictiveness. On February 21 Koresh was interviewed by an ATF agent and, in an apparent fir of hubris, screened a pro-gun group's anti-ATF video for his interrogator's benefit. On February 25 the ATF applied for the search warrant that resulted in the crisis.


Speculation aside, the only on-the-record purpose for the initial attack was to serve that search warrant. There is no evidence that the ATF informed the Branch Davidians of their intent to serve the warrant (though an ATF agent is said to have shouted something about it as the assault got underway), or that the Davidians refused them entry. Under the law, both must take place before law enforcement may use force to serve a warrant. The ATF could have asked for a special "no knock" warrant, but did not.

In a taped phone call after the initial raid, a puzzled Koresh told an ATF negotiator, "It would've been better if you just called me up or talked to me. Then you all could have come in and done your work."

There are even doubts over whether the Branch Davidians were engaged in anything illegal at all. It is true that they were well stocked with arms and explosives - but popular assumptions to the contrary, there is nothing against the law about either, as long as all the paperwork is in order. At least some of the explosives had been purchased to excavate a ditch for a swimming pool. The pool was still under construction when the commune found itself at war.

Midway through the stalemate, the ATF suddenly announced that the Branch Davidians were manufacturing methamphetamines in a secret commune laboratory. No one bothered to ask, first of all, where this information came from, and second, what it had to do with anything. The ATF has no jurisdiction to enforce laws against drugs. Nor does the ATF have any authority to nab child molesters, another charge that helped demonize Koresh in the national media.

It is likely the drug-lab story was concocted to explain the Bit Brotherish black National Guard helicopters circling over the site in violation of a Texas law that forbids use of state helicopters by federal authorities except in drug cases.

The methamphetamine allegation, significantly, never appeared in any legal document. As on skeptical reporter noted, it's not a crime to lie to the press, but fudging before a judge carries a few consequences.

On the other had, the ATF affidavit filed in applying for the February 28 search warrant was not a model of accuracy. In it, ATF agent Davy Aguilera claims - in what later served as evidence of Koresh's fanaticism - that on April 6, 1992, Koresh warned a Texas Human Services official that he was a "messenger from God" and that when he revealed his true nature, "the riots in Los Angeles would pale in comparison to what was going to happen in Waco, Texas."

Scary stuff, except that when Koresh issued this alleged threat the L.A. riots were still three weeks away.

The ATF also claimed that they had to bust up the Davidians because Koresh, Hitler-style, had been bunkered up in there for weeks. In fact, he ventured into town at least once a week. He had sauntered out to a Waco night spot just two nights before the February attack.

The ATF never officially charged Koresh et al. with anything worse than illegal weapons possession. Five years before, Koresh and six associates were arrested by local police on attempted murder charges. Yet they cooperated fully (and were later acquitted). And how did the Waco sheriffs manage to avert the bloodletting that the federal authorities found ineluctable?

"We treated them like human beings," said Waco D.A. Vic Feazell, "rather than storm-trooping the place.""



Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit
Neofish
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2004
Location: A swimming pool of coke
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:37
Freedom doesn't work Up dictatorship!

Pi = 8
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:41
Quote: " Up dictatorship!"


Well I wouldn't quite go in that direction(or at least no by choice)

I say another try at freedom is the way to go. The constitution should just be followed. After all, the ones who wrote it believed in it so strongly that that were willing to die for it(and many did). So they must've been fighting for SOMETHING...maybe we should just give it a try?


Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:49 Edited at: 1st Jun 2005 02:52
Quote: "In fact, I have personally known someone it has happened too. A teacher I knew had an islamic friend he always talked too. Turns out that his friend was in a major terrorist group, and my teacher was in jail for a year because he was simple considered a "suspect" which turns out he had nothing to do with them at all."


What's so wrong about that? He was fraternizing with the enemy, therefore, he becomes a threat. That's how it has always worked.

Anyway, I doubt he was in jail for a year. 'Course I also doubt there is any truth to your story at all.

Bush rules and while I have nothing to hide from him, I'll support him. If they really want to wade through my browsing history, which consists, mostly, of looking up words like 'fraternizing', then kudos to them. People need to stop being so possessive with such pointless things as 'internet privacy.' Who needs it?? Not me.

I don't believe we are losing freedoms, we still have more than most countries. The people that are losing freedoms are criminals and shady characters, don't deny it, if you have a problem with this, then you have a problem.

Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:51
Quote: "People need to stop being so possessive with such pointless things as 'internet privacy.'"


Actually I was referring to privacy in general, and internet privacy just happens to be part of that.


Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:55
I'll tackle Eric and Leys' posts in a second, but first I'll just say that while the Internet was certainly not completely invented in the US, its first several prototypes were, the concept was first tested here, and the first working 'inter' net was set up here. It's at least 90% a USA idea

Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:55 Edited at: 1st Jun 2005 02:56
If you are not involved in illegal activities, then your privacy is left intact. Sure, they might investigate and read your boring IM conversation with your aunt, but you'll never know they did and nobody else will either. You'll get passed up and nobody's the wiser. Chances are that'll never happen unless you're doing something suspicious.

David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 02:59
Quote: "first several prototypes were, the concept was first tested here, and the first working 'inter' net was set up here. It's at least 90% a USA idea"


The idea of multiple PC's communicating with each other was primarily concieved by Charles Babbage (the 'father' of the computer, although all he made was a hyped-up calculator; and he is BRITISH!).

He said that one day he would create a means of by which machines could swap 'knowledge'. He said that 2 months before he died sadly.

[url=www.lightningstudios.co.uk][/url]
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:03
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:03
Bigass Monster Post Warning

Quote: "Yet one of the Constitutional rights is that the Congress may vote to make alterations as it sees fit."


Not easily. The constitution has never been altered easily and never should be.

Quote: "Sorry, but the American Govenrment Amends the Constitution whenever it needs to do something that is unconstitutional."


Hardly-- more often it simply ignores it. There are dozens of state and federal laws that completely ignore the Constitution. They don't need to change it.

Quote: "The Contitution means nothing, it never has..."


That quote looks particularly idiotic when contrasted with state laws being, on ocassion, dissolved because they are unconstitutional and someone took a stand in court.

Quote: "but it makes the people feel the have inalienable rights"


The Bill of Rights does that you douche.

Quote: "Tax sir, Tax. If we really had or ever had) any bit of freedom, we would be aloud to say "I don't wanna pay taxes, so F` you uncle sam". Ever tried doing it, dosen't work, does it?"


A government needs funds to run. As a citizen of a government, you owe it those funds in return for its protection of your civil liberties. You know there are two big problems with the people of this country today: One is certainly that they don't care about their rights, but the second is that they don't care about their responsibilities.

(Not that anyone is likely to care when they're overtaxed about 5000%, heheh)

Quote: "Another funny thing about the "freedom" this country was built around. The original Settlers, the puritans, what did they do to any non puritan settlers? Real free when you had to be "puritan or out"."


No, not really. Benjamin Franklin would have been viewed as an agnostic by today's definitions, and George Washinton was hardly a puritan; he believed strongly in seperation of church and state, and was a Freemason.

Quote: "If we ever had freedom or the attempt towards freedom, slaves would still be legal. Now that may be harsh, but if there was or ever was freedom, then it would be my free choice to purchase a slave."


No, that does not follow. The concept of freedom is that you can do whatever you want as long as it does not harm someone else's rights.

Quote: "Pretty much. Its an outdated document that needs serious revisal."


The core concepts of the Constitution will never be outdated, and there's a reason they've created one of the most successful countries in history.

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:04
Quote: " The internet wasn't invented in the US, it was invented in the CERN research lab in EUROPE."


Taken from Wikipedia:
Quote: "The cores forming the Internet started out in 1969 as the ARPANET, created by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)."


ARPA is in the U.S., is it not? (rhetorical question)

Quote: "In fact, I have personally known someone it has happened too. A teacher I knew had an islamic friend he always talked too. Turns out that his friend was in a major terrorist group, and my teacher was in jail for a year because he was simple considered a "suspect" which turns out he had nothing to do with them at all."


And you have a problem with this!? Funny how after 9/11 the Americans were slamming Canada for housing people with "suspected" ties to terrorist organizations, and now we have them freaking out when their friends are arrested for being a "suspect" terrorist. It can't work both ways... choose one or the other please

Quote: "Well not exactly sure how Canada is set up BUT US is setup on the basis of freedom's."


It's pretty much the same dealio here, except the US has more so-called freedom. But if you think you're free, then my hat goes off to you. I prefer to have my feet on the ground, not in the clouds, and I am very aware and alert about how "free" I am.


--[R.O.B.O.I. and FireTris Coming Soon]--
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:04 Edited at: 1st Jun 2005 03:08
Quote: " If you are not involved in illegal activities, then your privacy is left intact. Sure, they might investigate and read your boring IM conversation with your aunt, but you'll never know they did and nobody else will either. You'll get passed up and nobody's the wiser. Chances are that'll never happen unless you're doing something suspicious."


First off, my conversations with my aunt are NOT boring

Secondly, people's definition of "suspicious" can differ quite a bit.

Thirdly, its just the fact that people should be allowed privacy, even if you don't know its being violated, it doesn't make it right. I mean, im sure i don't know about murders that happen across the country, does this mean i should agree with it? No.

Quote: "Americans were slamming Canada for housing people with "suspected" ties to terrorist organizations"


So that automatically means I agree with it?

Quote: " But if you think you're free, then my hat goes off to you"

Well that is just the problem, I think freedom's are being taken away.


Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:07
Quote: "The cores forming the Internet started out in 1969 as the ARPANET, created by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)"


Ever heard of being biase?

a) Wikipedia articles can be submitted by anyone - you could of wrote it yourself!! (j/king)

b) Wikipedia is maintained by a U.S user base.

c) French encyclopedias note that British forces never landed on d-day. How do we know that Wikipedia is correct?

[url=www.lightningstudios.co.uk][/url]
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:09
Quote: "Secondly, people's definition of "suspicious" can differ quite a bit."


And your point is? So people should stop being suspicious altogether?

Quote: "Thirdly, its just the fact that people should be allowed privacy, even if you don't know its being violated, it doesn't make it right. I mean, im sure i don't know about murders that happen across the country, does this mean i should agree with it? No.
"


So you don't want yourself or your government to know if your next door neighbour is building a bomb to detonate?


--[R.O.B.O.I. and FireTris Coming Soon]--
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:10 Edited at: 1st Jun 2005 03:12
Quote: "Ever heard of being biase?"


The only wat to be unbiased is to grab articles from both sides of the issue and make your own educated opinion based on the facts. Hence why the "news" in almost any country tends to be a load of crap.

Quote: "So you don't want yourself or your government to know if your next door neighbour is building a bomb to detonate?"


I'd rather have my privacy. Sure if I personally found out about it, I think he should be reported, but the government shouldn't go around invading privacy to find out. Maybe if enough people report him, then they should check him out(but not by spying)...but thats about it.


Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:10
Quote: "Wikipedia articles can be submitted by anyone - you could of wrote it yourself!!"


Really... the idea that you're even on the Internet and you don't know that the core net technology was made at ARPA, then really perhaps you should get out more The source of the facts does not make a difference when the fact is just that... a fact!


--[R.O.B.O.I. and FireTris Coming Soon]--
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:11 Edited at: 1st Jun 2005 03:14
Quote: "I mean, im sure i don't know about murders that happen across the country, does this mean i should agree with it? No.
"


But do you agree with the investigation of those murders, or should the murderer's privacy be kept?

Agh, you guys are posting like rabbit offspring.

Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:14
Quote: " But do you agree with the investigation of those murders, or should the murderer's privacy be kept?"


That's AFTER something has happened. If a murder takes place, hell yea it should be investigated. If a terroist bombing takes place, hell yea it should be investigated. But until something like that ACTUALLY takes place, we should be able to have some privacy.


Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:18
Quote: "I'd rather have my privacy. Sure if I personally found out about it, I think he should be reported, but the government shouldn't go around invading privacy to find out."


I'd wager you don't even know what the crap you're arguing about anymore.

The goverment isn't going around 'invading' everybody's privacy. Believe it or not, they have more important things to do than watch every move of 200 million people. They want easier access and more efficient access to incriminating information about suspected terrorists, which just brings me back to my point, that if you have something to hide then you deserve to have your privacy violated.

Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:21
Quote: "That's AFTER something has happened. If a murder takes place, hell yea it should be investigated. If a terroist bombing takes place, hell yea it should be investigated. But until something like that ACTUALLY takes place, we should be able to have some privacy."


So, you're for terrorist bombings and against invasion of privacy. One kills, the other saves lives. You think the government should have done LESS before 9/11. Interesting take. *applauds*

Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:21
Hey now, don't slag Bush off, hes a genious. Hes better at brainwashing people than Hitler was.

Hehe..


"Lets migrate like bricks" - Me
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:22
We're killing more jews, too.

Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:24
Hey come to think of it, Hitler would be a good president in this day in age..


"Lets migrate like bricks" - Me
Neofish
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2004
Location: A swimming pool of coke
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:25 Edited at: 1st Jun 2005 03:26
Nah Hitler was a good leader...rascist bastard but a good leader... presidents cant be

Pi = 8
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:28
Quote: "So, you're for terrorist bombings"

That has nothing to do with what I said. So no, im not.

Quote: "and against invasion of privacy."

Now you got it.

Quote: "One kills, the other saves lives."

Pure genious...would've never thought that.


Quote: "You think the government should have done LESS before 9/11."

I think the government should've used ALL the information they already had to prevent it. Even then, not all tragedy's can be prevented. Believe it or not, there are some people out there who just want to hurt others and are good at it. Just because something bad happens, shouldn't give the right to question every muslim in the area(which happened by several accounts).

Quote: "he goverment isn't going around 'invading' everybody's privacy."

Ever talk to a military recruiter and see the information they have on you? It's amazing, they have information on you that is never even documented. Personal account: for about two weeks of my life I was living with a friend, and my address was still elsewhere. I had not incoming or outgoing mail during the time, and it is not listed on any documents that I have. Yet, it was in their system, that I lived their during those two weeks.


Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:28 Edited at: 1st Jun 2005 03:29
Quote: " Nah Hitler was a good leader...rascist bastard but a good leader... presidents cant be"
I think we can change things a bit.


"Lets migrate like bricks" - Me
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:31
Quote: "But until something like that ACTUALLY takes place, we should be able to have some privacy."


Riiiight--- so wait until the bomb explodes and kills 50 people. *Then* invade said bomber's privacy. Ahhh ok, not *before* the bomb goes off.

Quote: "I think the government should've used ALL the information they already had to prevent 9/11. "


You *do* know that most of the information they already had was due to invasion of privacy, right? You should really read what you're saying as you're going in circles :-P


--[R.O.B.O.I. and FireTris Coming Soon]--
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:36
Quote: "Riiiight--- so wait until the bomb explodes and kills 50 people. *Then* invade said bomber's privacy. Ahhh ok, not *before* the bomb goes off."

If that's how you want to look at it, then yes.

Quote: "You *do* know that most of the information they already had was due to invasion of privacy, right? You should really read what you're saying as you're going in circles :-P"

They also had plenty of other information at their disposal from sources directly related to the incident. Im not saying that all invasion of privacy is bad, im just saying that they shouldn't without extreme cause. But that's just it, they will take all information from anyone they feel like.
Ever hear of the "HollyWood Blacklist"? 'tis a fine example of what should not be done.


Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:39
Quote: "every muslim in the area(which happened by several accounts). "

So if your country (as if you owned it) had just been attacked my loads of evil sadistic muslim ********, would you juet 'let it go' and ignore muslim people? I belive you would be a bit anxious of muslim people after something like that - like the world is now.

[url=www.lightningstudios.co.uk][/url]
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 1st Jun 2005 03:40
Quote: "So if your country (as if you owned it) had just been attacked my loads of evil sadistic muslim ********, would you juet 'let it go' and ignore muslim people? I"


No, I wouldn't let it go. I think anyone that has evidence directly leading to them, should be investigated. But they shouldn't investigate every muslim just for the fact that they are muslim.


Im only "Apolloed" In Spirit

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-15 09:28:07
Your offset time is: 2024-11-15 09:28:07