This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mad Max
Pages: 1 ... 161718 1920 ... 251
511
« on: October 13, 2015, 03:42:32 PM »
Are we going to ignore biological imperatives and the inability of men to serve cohesively with women on the battlefield?
Military service =/= combat positions. Women should still enter the draft for emergency infrastructure labor and other logistical needs.
I wasn't sure if anyone was arguing for them to be in combat roles or not that's why I thew that out there. I don't have a problem with non combat roles being filled by women.
..but you do have a problem with them being in combat roles?
512
« on: October 13, 2015, 03:41:20 PM »
HOPING FOR THAT SANDERS SMACKDOWN™
no but seriously hillary makes me nervous so unless she makes some good demonstrations tonight i really hope sanders can dramatically outperform her
Sanders trumps [lol] every other candidate when it comes to consistency.
Which'll mean jack shit as President, since he'll be able to do nothing on his agenda.
Hillary can't exactly lean back and let her record speak for itself. While she was supporting traditional marriage 5-10 years ago, Bernie was fighting for legalizing back in the 70's.
As a gay man, I really could care less.
His "socialism" is going to be his uphill battle.
The argument I offer about his consistency is to illustrate that his positions are genuine, not what is politically popular. This applies to most of his platform.
Again, great.
Ludicrous, genuine plans are still ludicrous.
His plans are ludicrous in the sense that he'll be hard-pressed to get them through Congress, but not ludicrous in the sense that they're absurd plans.
513
« on: October 13, 2015, 03:32:40 PM »
I'm genuinely surprised at the people in this thread--who oppose the draft--effectively celebrating a doubling said draft on the basis that it's "gender equality" and the "next best option".
What the fuck kind of logic is that? Progressivism has become a parody of itself.
You're not doubling the number of needed draftees, you are dividing the burden of the needed amount across the populace in a way that doesn't discriminate based on genitalia.
morgan_freeman_pointing.png
514
« on: October 13, 2015, 03:31:38 PM »
*raises hand*
515
« on: October 13, 2015, 02:59:03 PM »
The decline in quality is real, too. I have a hard time justifying $15-20 on a movie ticket when it's a gamble on quality.
516
« on: October 13, 2015, 02:58:06 PM »
Mainstream movies have been such a letdown lately. For every Martian or Interstellar you have 4 crap comedies, 6 comic movies and 10 unnecessary remakes.
You mean Spiderman Reboot #17 won't rocket to #1?? le gasp!
517
« on: October 13, 2015, 02:57:19 PM »
Just bring up transgender issues and watch everyone lose their shit. It's fun.
518
« on: October 13, 2015, 02:54:26 PM »
I'm generally unenthused with regards to movies these days. Combined with the fact I don't have TV so I don't see commercials, plus adblock so I don't see them on the internet, I pretty much don't hear about upcoming movies.
Occasionally watch something on Netflix, but that's about it.
519
« on: October 13, 2015, 02:49:12 PM »
Think of it this way - you always have a DD
520
« on: October 13, 2015, 02:37:19 PM »
HOPING FOR THAT SANDERS SMACKDOWN™
no but seriously hillary makes me nervous so unless she makes some good demonstrations tonight i really hope sanders can dramatically outperform her
Sanders trumps [lol] every other candidate when it comes to consistency.
Which'll mean jack shit as President, since he'll be able to do nothing on his agenda.
Hillary can't exactly lean back and let her record speak for itself. While she was supporting traditional marriage 5-10 years ago, Bernie was fighting for legalizing back in the 70's.
As a gay man, I really could care less.
His "socialism" is going to be his uphill battle.
The argument I offer about his consistency is to illustrate that his positions are genuine, not what is politically popular. This applies to most of his platform.
521
« on: October 13, 2015, 02:23:43 PM »
The fuck are you supposed to do for fun with a person like this?
Literally nothing.
522
« on: October 13, 2015, 02:22:02 PM »
HOPING FOR THAT SANDERS SMACKDOWN™
no but seriously hillary makes me nervous so unless she makes some good demonstrations tonight i really hope sanders can dramatically outperform her
Sanders trumps [lol] every other candidate when it comes to consistency. Hillary can't exactly lean back and let her record speak for itself. While she was supporting traditional marriage 5-10 years ago, Bernie was fighting for legalizing back in the 70's. Everyone else can talk as much shit as they want, but they don't have the record he has. His "socialism" is going to be his uphill battle.
523
« on: October 13, 2015, 01:58:55 PM »
You think if Clinton flops Biden might finally enter the race? Even though he isn't running, he's still garnering 16 percent in the polls.
Biden needs to shit or get off the pot. Either enter, or don't, and it's getting pretty late in the game to decide. At the same time, polling groups need to stop including people who haven't declared their intent to run for President. Democrats are fucked on the debate schedule, no thanks to the DNC. Missing one debate could likely fuck over any potential candidate.
524
« on: October 13, 2015, 01:55:52 PM »
so I'm the only one that actually wants to see a civil debate instead of a pseudo WWE Sunday night smackdown?
I think we [just a generalized statement of the American people] have been conditioned by the media that they are one in the same - a shit-flinging, name calling, sensationalized argument against your opponent IS a debate.
525
« on: October 13, 2015, 01:51:26 PM »
>debate
>no Trump
I'll pass
...seeing as how he isn't running as a democrat, I'm not sure why he would be on stage...
526
« on: October 13, 2015, 01:49:22 PM »
This thread is hilarious.
You would find it hilarious, wouldn't you...
527
« on: October 13, 2015, 01:31:35 PM »
I expect a rebound for Clinton if she can manage herself well - she's a well trained debater.
Yes, you could say that she's a master of her trade.
Quite.
528
« on: October 13, 2015, 12:51:49 PM »
I mean, I guess that's good? I'd prefer if we just ditched that registration entirely, but this is the second best option.
529
« on: October 13, 2015, 12:50:07 PM »
I'm heading over to somebody's to watch this shit.
I can't pass up a good night of comedy.
Regardless of your political affiliation, the democratic debate won't be nearly as entertaining and shit-flinging as the GOP debate. Hillary isn't in much of a position to talk shit, and then you have Bernie who is an avowed non-shit-flinger, and then you have the other little guys who don't have the numbers to talk shit to anyone, so...prepared to be disappointed if that's what you're tuning in for.
530
« on: October 13, 2015, 12:28:05 PM »
I haven't written anything of substance in...5 years? I miss it, but I just don't have the time to dedicate to it anymore.
531
« on: October 13, 2015, 12:20:34 PM »
Is there an online stream I can watch? I don't have TV (and even if I did I don't think I'd get CNN.)
CNN is streaming it for free on their website, just like they did for the GOP debates. No login required.
Awesome, I'll check it out. Thanks.
Yeah, I don't have TV either. The CNN stream of the GOP debate was good quality, too. Zero issues when I watched it.
532
« on: October 13, 2015, 12:19:27 PM »
I think it's shitty that the first dem debate wasn't scheduled until some states already passed their registration deadline to vote in the primary.
533
« on: October 13, 2015, 12:18:35 PM »
Is there an online stream I can watch? I don't have TV (and even if I did I don't think I'd get CNN.)
CNN is streaming it for free on their website, just like they did for the GOP debates. No login required.
534
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:42:08 AM »
Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.
...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?
Information being what exactly?
I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.
Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.
Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.
I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.
But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.
It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.
It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.
How are data transcripts not my personal data?
Because metadata is simply data that describes the data. They aren't allowed to open up your emails or trawl through your bank account history contrary to what everyone believes.
But that metadata is describing my personal data. I don't understand how you can separate the two. Regardless of what they can actually "see", the fact that any data is being collected by default is the issue. Data should only be collected once a warrant is obtained.
All that would do is render counter terrorism and domestic threats so astronomically difficult to tackle and you'd still have just as much privacy as you did before.
...so because my right to privacy makes it difficult for the government to spy on me, I should feel bad?
Except the NSA isn't spying on you. You are conflating the examination of metadata which is completely anonymous and discreet with the actual invasion of someone's data. I'm not sure what else to say. Metadata is not your data, nor is it anyway linked to your privacy.
I'm not sure what you call collecting data [metadata or otherwise] on your citizens if not spying.
535
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:37:35 AM »
Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.
...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?
Information being what exactly?
I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.
Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.
Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.
I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.
But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.
It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.
It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.
How are data transcripts not my personal data?
Because metadata is simply data that describes the data. They aren't allowed to open up your emails or trawl through your bank account history contrary to what everyone believes.
But that metadata is describing my personal data. I don't understand how you can separate the two. Regardless of what they can actually "see", the fact that any data is being collected by default is the issue. Data should only be collected once a warrant is obtained.
All that would do is render counter terrorism and domestic threats so astronomically difficult to tackle and you'd still have just as much privacy as you did before.
...so because my right to privacy makes it difficult for the government to spy on me, I should feel bad?
536
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:32:34 AM »
Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.
...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?
Information being what exactly?
I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.
Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.
Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.
I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.
But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.
It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.
It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.
How are data transcripts not my personal data?
Because metadata is simply data that describes the data. They aren't allowed to open up your emails or trawl through your bank account history contrary to what everyone believes.
But that metadata is describing my personal data. I don't understand how you can separate the two. Regardless of what they can actually "see", the fact that any data is being collected by default is the issue. Data should only be collected once a warrant is obtained.
537
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:28:30 AM »
Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.
...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?
Information being what exactly?
I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.
Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.
Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.
I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.
But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.
It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.
It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.
How are data transcripts not my personal data?
538
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:18:12 AM »
>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.
Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.
I really don't care about his personal safety. He clearly had no concern for the personal safety of the undercover military personnel he revealed to innumerable terrorist groups.
I'm just thinking you need to stop implying he handed information to Russia because he wants Russia to have the upperhand. He was essentially forced to because he is only protectend there as long as he cooperayes with them.
I don't think he really cares who has the upper hand. He saw an opportunity to sell data to the highest bidder and took it at the expense of the safety of others.
Thinking this is solely about money is equally retarded, no one would take that risk just for wealth. It'd be more likely to land you a censor label in a document than where he is now. Just because what he did was irresponsible and unjust does not mean he had nefarious intentions.
So care to explain why the vast majority of files that Snowden leaked had nothing to do with government oversight of domestic activities? 90% of the extracted documents were related to military capabilities.
Because what liberties the military has is most certainly relevant information to his type of view? He's an ideological defector, stop characterizing him otherwise.
You would think for an ideologue, he would have focused on domestic spying, not military operations and procedures that endangered people's lives.
But whatever. Keep eulogizing this prick who did more damage to our counter terrorism capabilites than he did to the government's capacity to spy on its citizens.
What measurable effect did he have? How are you measuring this damage?
539
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:00:21 AM »
Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.
...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?
Information being what exactly?
I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.
Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.
Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.
I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default. But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.
540
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:56:32 AM »
>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.
Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.
I really don't care about his personal safety. He clearly had no concern for the personal safety of the undercover military personnel he revealed to innumerable terrorist groups.
I'm just thinking you need to stop implying he handed information to Russia because he wants Russia to have the upperhand. He was essentially forced to because he is only protectend there as long as he cooperayes with them.
I don't think he really cares who has the upper hand. He saw an opportunity to sell data to the highest bidder and took it at the expense of the safety of others.
Thinking this is solely about money is equally retarded, no one would take that risk just for wealth. It'd be more likely to land you a censor label in a document than where he is now. Just because what he did was irresponsible and unjust does not mean he had nefarious intentions.
I'm curious if his actions would still be unjust if he had exposed details on a company's actions instead of the government's. Or even if he had exposed details on a non-ally country's actions.
Pages: 1 ... 161718 1920 ... 251
|
Show Posts