SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If you thought government surveillance was bad already, it just got worse. A lot worse.
[T]he Obama administration on Thursday announced new rules that will let the NSA share vast amounts of private data gathered without warrant, court orders or congressional authorization with 16 other agencies, including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security.
The new rules allow employees doing intelligence work for those agencies to sift through raw data collected under a broad, Reagan-era executive order that gives the NSA virtually unlimited authority to intercept communications abroad. Previously, NSA analysts would filter out information they deemed irrelevant and mask the names of innocent Americans before passing it along.
[...] Executive Order 12333, often referred to as "twelve triple-three," has attracted less debate than congressional wiretapping laws, but serves as authorization for the NSA's most massive surveillance programs — far more than the NSA's other programs combined. Under 12333, the NSA taps phone and internet backbones throughout the world, records the phone calls of entire countries, vacuums up traffic from Google and Yahoo's data centers overseas, and more.
In 2014, The Intercept revealed that the NSA uses 12333 as a legal basis for an internal NSA search engine that spans more than 850 billion phone and internet records and contains the unfiltered private information of millions of Americans.
[...] But this massive database inevitably includes vast amount of American's communications — swept up when they speak to people abroad, when they go abroad themselves, or even if their domestic communications are simply routed abroad. That's why access was previously limited to data that had already been screened to remove unrelated information and information identifying U.S. persons. The new rules still ostensibly limit access to authorized foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes — not ordinary law enforcement purposes — and require screening before they are more widely shared. But privacy activists are skeptical.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 16 2017, @01:37PM
Yeah, because the neocon candidates wouldn't have done anything like that, right? Get a life, alright?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @01:49PM
Obama IS a neo-con, idiot.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 16 2017, @01:54PM
Exactly. Now, until Sanders and Trump, which recent candidate was NOT a neocon? McCain, Clinton, and the magic underwear guy were all neocons. So, we had to choose the lesser evil among neocons for the last few years.
While every one is beating down Trump, I'll remind them that Trump isn't a neocon. He at least has some potential. He has already demonstrated that he is not a lapdog to the intelligence services.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 16 2017, @02:05PM
I sure didn't expect Brennan to get slapped with a figurative glob of shit on his way out.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @02:07PM
Oh, how very true. Instead, he's going for far more hardcore extremists along the neocon spectrum to be in his cabinet. Because he hasn't got clue fucking one about who to appoint other than in the style of, "Pikachu, I choose you!" Get ready for a full-conservative enema, America!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Monday January 16 2017, @02:18PM
Ultimately he seems like the kind of guy that will appoint someone he disagrees with but respects, but still expect that guy to defer to him the ultimate decisions and back them the same.
Some of the people he's appointing seem very unlikely to behave that way, but we still don't know if they will bend to his will, bend him to theirs, or simply wind up resigning when the incompatibilities come to the fore.
At this point, only time will tell.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @02:55PM
As you say, "time will tell", so I haven't been following his appointments much yet but I know of one possible counterpoint so far: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Trump wants Kennedy to "lead a new government commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity". Kennedy has no educational background in immunology, microbiology, biology, medicine, or science (BA in American History and Literature and a JD). Kennedy believes that vaccines cause autism and that there is a government conspiracy to cover it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Views_on_autism_and_vaccines [wikipedia.org]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/anti-vaccine-activist-trump-immunizations.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday January 16 2017, @03:14PM
Well, *if* there are any issues of safety or scientific integrity, such a person might be just what you need to uncover it.
Of course, they're also just the sort of person you'd want to launch a witch hunt that will end with the restoration of such poor endangered species as whooping cough and cholera.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @03:48PM
Well, *if* there are any issues of safety or scientific integrity, such a person might be just what you need to uncover it.
I would actually argue it to be the other way around - if you were trying to cover-up a conspiracy of tax fraud, then someone with no training in any mathematical field would be less likely to find discrepancies. Should Kennedy perform a code-audit looking for foreign-spy-agency backdoors in government used software (maybe Trump should appoint Clinton for this)?
Lacking any understanding of science or medicine, does not automatically qualify someone as an objective observer. Choosing someone who has no qualifications and has publicly declared their biased view does not encourage the idea of an objective observer.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Monday January 16 2017, @11:28PM
Ummm... you just made a non-point:
Lacking any understanding of science or medicine, does not automatically qualify someone as an objective observer.
True, so is the flip side, i.e. having the understanding does automatically qualify someone to be an objective observer either. Having the means doesn't dismiss a person's prejudices nor their incompetence.
Choosing someone who has no qualifications and has publicly declared their biased view does not encourage the idea of an objective observer.
Only the second part is true. Again whether someone has qualifications or not has no bearing on their objectivity. Their biases on the other hand do.
However I believe the parent's point was, if a person is biased but not a blind zealot, it may actually be a good thing. They'll start from the position of looking for dirt based on their biases, but if they eventually find nothing and is man enough to say "Well shits and sizzles, I've been barking up the wrong tree", then it is actually a productive thing. I suppose, the question is whether Trump is a good judge of character.
We know for sure he isn't an idiot. No idiot can get this far on pure luck...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @01:43AM
you just made a non-point
I was arguing against the point that Kennedy is "just what you need" to uncover safety issues with vaccines. I mentioned that he is not knowledgeable in relevant fields and that he is already biased in favor of a particular conclusion. I further mentioned that his lack of qualifications is not some sort of advantage (being an outsider is sometimes equated with being objective).
qualifications or not has no bearing on their objectivity
Correct, but knowledge does have bearing on their ability to observe. It also has bearing on their ability to judge the quality of arguments and data. This has clearly left Kennedy susceptible to believing a conspiracy theory started by a man who was paid to find a conclusion, failed to disclose conflicts of interest, and fabricated data to further his own self interests.
looking for dirt based on their biases
This can lead to finding things that aren't really there and ignoring things that don't fit their bias (e.g. other non-autism related issues).
the question is whether Trump is a good judge of character [...] isn't an idiot
No, it isn't.
Just as you rightly argued (not that I intended to claim) that knowledge doesn't necessarily imply competence or objectivity, being smart or a good judge of character does not imply that someone is immune to bias, will have a perfect record in judgement, or will even intend to choose the best person.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 16 2017, @02:18PM
Sometimes, I really wonder who has a grip on the term "neocon" and who doesn't. A person can be very far right, and not be a neocon. I wish that I had saved the front page from 'The New American Century' when I found it all those years ago. The front page, and all the rest of the site. Trump doesn't qualify as a neocon, and his picks are pretty random, in that respect. Some of them are neocon, others are not. If you judge their neocon status based on how far right they are, you're doing it all wrong. Two basic tenets of the New American Century must be present, before you can even consider them as neocons. 1 - the oil must flow and 2 - we will go to war if anyone threatens the flow of oil. Moving beyond that, is an adherence to the idea that every man, woman, and child on the planet must serve Wall Street, in some capacity. If Wall Street cannot exploit your ass, then you have no right to live.
Now, go back and take a look at Trump's picks. They are not all neocons.
Remember that I have characterized Trump as the court fool. I'm not certain that Trump even recognizes a neocon when he sees one. It's not part of his world. Trump isn't a politician, after all.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 16 2017, @05:16PM
1 - the oil must flow and 2 - we will go to war if anyone threatens the flow of oil.
Moving beyond that, is an adherence to the idea that every man, woman, and child on the planet must serve Wall Street, in some capacity.
1: Trump picks ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to be secretary of state [washingtonpost.com]
2: Trump announces 5th high-profile hire from Goldman Sachs [msnbc.com]
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday January 16 2017, @06:52PM
The Trump voters all get fooled big time and cant come to grips with getting fucked up the ass so hard. At this point they're plugging their ears shouting "I cant hear you LA LA LA LA..." They cant admit failure or accept humility.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday January 16 2017, @06:51PM
The report I think you're looking for: Project for a New American Century: Rebuilding America's Defenses [informationclearinghouse.info]
Among other things, that paper demonstrates conclusively that the Bush administration's decision to attack Iraq occurred long before Sept 11, 2001, and had absolutely nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 16 2017, @07:40PM
That document was partly incorporated into the website. I found the site in the months before 9/11/01, and I visited it often in the months after 9/11/01. I watched the site "evolve" over that time. It never occurred to me to archive it - I really wish I had. I have found a link to an archive of the site, dated in 2013, but it doesn't want to load for me . . .
https://web.archive.org/web/20130609154959/http://www.newamericancentury.org/ [archive.org]
There we go, it loaded in Firefox, but the scripts won't run in Chromium.
What I meant to make clear in my previous post, is that the site was changed drastically over the years. What you see if you click on that 2013 version is quite tame, in comparison to 2001 through 2006 or so. It's been "sanitized", so to speak. Sanitized, until the site was finally abandoned, and taken down.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Monday January 16 2017, @10:08PM
Don't forget about The Plan [youtube.com]. Developed during the Bush administration, and picked up by the Obama administration and Clinton's State Department. Will Trump abandon the plan? One can only hope...
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 16 2017, @05:17PM
This is the opposite of an enema. We're going to be stuffed to the gills with shit.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday January 16 2017, @06:48PM
No, Obama is a neo-lib, not a neo-con. There's a difference:
* A neo-conservative wants to openly oppress racial and religious minorities, women, and LGBT people while selling off the country's other policies to the highest bidder and rampaging throughout the Middle East slaughtering people for no good reason.
* A new-liberal wants to pretend to protect the rights of racial and religious minorities, women, and LGBT people while selling off the country's other policies to the highest bidder and rampaging throughout the Middle East slaughtering people for no good reason.
Now, these positions are obviously easy to mistake for one another, and they happen to agree on many key points, but they are just distinct enough that they can keep an illusion of real choice in front of the voters for them to rage at each other about while the real business of government (the stuff neo-cons and neo-libs agree on) gets done.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Monday January 16 2017, @11:56PM
You've hit the nail on the head with that characterization of neo-lib/con.
it sometimes makes me wonder how the actual strings are pulled.
I think Obama may have had some good intentions but found himself quickly co-opted/shitscared by the establishment military complex.
Trump is a different beast. Even though he's made noise about reforming military spending and Intelligence oversight; I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a fuck beyond the ratings. He and his cronies will make hay while America descends further into a debt ridden quagmire where the only thing funded is fear and Lockeed.
Perhaps that's just what's needed, however.
Before change comes absurdity.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday January 17 2017, @12:51AM
A new-liberal wants to pretend to protect the rights of racial and religious minorities, women, and LGBT people [...]
I don't think you meant to coin the term "new-liberal"; I assume that is a typo. The phrase I've quoted describes liberalism. It does not describe neoliberalism, which is purely concerned with economics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism [wikipedia.org]
The only minority that neoliberals want to protect, in my opinion, is the wealthy.
[...] selling off the country's other policies to the highest bidder [...]
Had you written "selling off the country's industries and other economic assets" (privatisation) that would definitely describe neoliberalism. As for what you did write, that may be true too.
[...] and rampaging throughout the Middle East slaughtering people for no good reason.
If it were perceived to be good for business, a neoliberal might consider such adventurism.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 17 2017, @03:01AM
Yes, that was a simple typo.
Hence my statement that they pretend to protect the rights of racial and religious minorities, women, and LGBT people.
And it most definitely is. The wars in the Middle East have always been about securing access by US and European corporations to the oil and natural gas resources there at a cost they'd like to pay. For example, the reason we started bombing Libya was that Qaddafi started talking about demanding that more of the oil revenue go to Libya rather than multinationals. Afghanistan was a war for Unocal, which is why the US installed Unocal executive Hamid Karzai as president. Iraq was about the substantial oil reserves. ISIS as well. The US goal in Syria has always been to establish pipelines from Iraq and Saudi Arabia through Syria and Turkey to Europe (directly competing with Russian gas lines into Europe, I might add).
And of course, that's not limited to the Middle East: The coup attempt in Venezuela back in 2002, the ouster of Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, and lots of other political unrest in Latin America is about political leaders refusing to do the bidding of US corporations. Which is nothing new, as General Smedley Butler explained a century ago.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Tuesday January 17 2017, @03:22AM
Somehow I had failed to read the words "wants to pretend." Sorry for wasting your time.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 16 2017, @02:27PM
neocon candidates
Funny thing is, politicians lie in all directions, the neocons have actually been less hard on personal liberties than liberals lately.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 16 2017, @03:34PM
Indeed. No need to even look to the legislators to see that. You only have to look at the voters themselves. There is literally not one spec of liberalism [dictionary.com] in modern Liberals.
Proof? Let's break it down then.
Hahahahaha! Not even close. If you're not one of their protected groups, they want you legally bound to pay and kowtow to their protected groups.
No again. "Trump is not my President!" aside, Liberals are all about governmental pressure, up to and including force of arms or imprisonment, for failing to act according to, or acting against, their tenets.
No yet again. How many of them would even call the deadly post-election riots "riots", much less called for an end to them?
What a joke! Two letters: 2A. Or how about forcing bakers to sell wedding cakes to people they don't wish to serve at gunpoint? Or how about all the no-platforming of any speaker who's even remotely conservative on college campuses? Title IX forcing college campuses to act as if a sexual assault accusation is a conviction? Liberals today want the government to force others to act, speak, and think as they are told by the government, as it is told by the Liberals.
No, Liberals today are not liberals. They are in fact the political faction farthest from liberalism that we currently have.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @04:54PM
Or how about forcing bakers to sell wedding cakes to people they don't wish to serve at gunpoint?
Damn, you guys take your confections seriously. Remind me never to buy cake in the USA if bakers like pointing guns at their customers.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 16 2017, @07:20PM
That's diplomacy, that is. Cake in one hand and a pistol in the other and asking which they'd prefer.
Yes, I could have gone with the Eddy Izzard joke [youtube.com] but I prefer the Jim Butcher joke by a slight margin.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 17 2017, @05:26AM
And here I always thought diplomacy was telling the other guy to go to hell in such a way that he looked forward to the trip. Your definition sounds more like swaggering, masturbatory bullying with a hint of bluff thrown in.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:16AM
You are a very angry woman to not be able to spot a joke. You should try fishing. It's very calming.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:30PM
Tone policing is, as I've said, the last refuge of the scoundrel :) Repeat after me: angry != wrong.
As to fishing, well, with two jobs I haven't got the time. It is nice, though, so long as I can eat what I haul up.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:14PM
See? I try to be helpful and this is the thanks that I get. Definitely Angry with a capital A.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:39PM
Thanks for proving my point :) Angry != wrong. Do you need a safe space? Have I triggered your delicate, special snowflake fee-fees, cupcake?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:17PM
Poor you. So unhappy you can't even tell when someone's trying to help you. I'm telling you, try fishing. It's highly relaxing and can even almost pay for itself in reduced food bills.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:22AM
Aaaaaand the point goes sailing leisurely over your pointed little head at around Mach 3.4 as usual. Let's try this another way: reality has no obligation to make you happy. That a delusion makes you happier than reality is no more to the point than that a drunkard may be happier than a sober man (or woman).
Besides, if this is getting tiresome, maaaaaaybe you can stop hanging all over my every post like a lost puppy with attachment issues...?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:45AM
Nah, darlin, happiness is a choice. You can choose to wallow in every little trouble in the world or you can choose to enjoy the good things in life. I really wish you'd do the latter too. Lesbians are like 65% more likely to physically abuse their partner than any other group. Yes, you're statistically more likely to become violent to your lady friend than a drunken redneck is. While I wouldn't mind you going to Canada, it wouldn't make me happy at all for you to go to prison. Please look into finding some joy in your life.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:28AM
You're trying too hard, Uzzard. I think you're really upset about me ragging on you for drinking and shooting...boy, did you ever throw a Trumpian tantrum over that one :)
Also consider: lesbians may be more likely to *report* DV than straight women..or men of ANY sexual orientation. There's a shocking amount of woman-on-man violence out there you know. Remember, you may not have all the data here. I *have* had an abusive girlfriend, but she's bisexual, not gay...and last I heard was with an abusive man herself, so what goes around comes around.
As to the good things, well, they're few and far between, and considering I work with people who have been abused and thrown away *on my own time,* in addition to two jobs, there's not too much time to enjoy them. That said...cooking, walking in the rain, hot showers, tea, emulators...they're real.
Thanks for the (fake) concern; you need to step up your troll game to get through to me though. Doubly so now that I got some magnesium pills; those things could probably replace a lot of peoples' benzo and SSRI prescriptions!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:57AM
Might also consider that there's only so much of each of us to go around. Spread yourself too thin and you're at best half-assing everything and just piling up the stress. You may or may not be a big bible fan. I'm not especially but it does have some specific bits that're really damned good advice. The bit about taking a day off a week is particularly sage. Lets you spend some you time and top up your give-a-shit tanks. Makes everything you do through the rest of the week more productive/effective and keeps you from going postal on folks what aren't deserving of it.
And I'm not concern trolling you. I'm genuinely being nice cause I know you'll have no idea how to handle it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:29AM
Ah, you think I've never known good people or good things? That, Uzzard, is WHY I fight so hard. I have far more stamina than you think, mostly because I don't abuse my body with cheap beer and even cheaper cigarettes. My life is not my own; it should have ended years ago. So I use it to help others. Now THERE is something one of us can't comprehend, and it's not me.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:34AM
Right, now I am insulted. Cheap cigarettes sure. I buy untreated with nasty chemicals loose tobacco and roll my own. Cheap beer though? Never!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:15PM
You could really use a session with a good domme. You keep following me around like you want something degrading and painful from me. Sorry but as a strict vagitarian, no can do.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:42PM
Nah. Wouldn't work. I have yet to meet a woman under 70 who is even my equal and they're right out on account of wrinkly, knee-slapping knockers. I mean, you like chicks... would you dig on someone's grandma at your age? Then ponder if you will, getting all submissive to someone who started every sentence with "Duh..." and you'll see where I'm coming from.
Actually, I take that back. My shrink is wicked sharp and my age give or take five years. Really lucked into her. She's the only shrink I ever met who I didn't have to quit seeing after a session or two as they were too far below me to envision what things might be like for me. Damn shame she's my shrink. And married.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:29AM
...you know, you don't seem to understand how bad the things you say make you look. That one made me do the Anchorman pose ("Well...THAT escalated quickly!"). You also have much too high an opinion of yourself.
Aaaaaaand you keep taking the bait. At this point I mostly keep replying to you just to see what kind of crazy you're gonna spew next, and by Dagon you do not disappoint. Well, okay, in many ways you *do* disappoint, but when it comes to output of sheer off-the wall masturbatory freak-show batshit, you're on the money.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 19 2017, @11:44AM
I really find it interesting the tactics you take. I mean you know that I don't care when you spout nonsense like that so you're obviously playing to the crowd. For someone who disliked Trump so much you certainly do use a lot of his tactics. You must have an exceptionally low opinion of the intelligence of our community here to think silliness like that is going to work out in your favor. Me, I have faith in their ability to see through highschool level debate strategies.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 19 2017, @09:02PM
If you don't care, *why do you keep responding to me?* I'm not even really trying to troll you; I'm just amused and mildly interested (and sometimes slightly horrified...) by the responses I do get.
By now I've got an excellent map of who and what you are...and who and what you are is, in two words, "small time." People like you are a dime a dozen. You're a competent coder and sysadmin but you have nothing else going for you, which is just sad. As bad as my life is, at least it's not so empty and self-centered as yours.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 20 2017, @12:41AM
Really? How, precisely, do you know anything about my life except that I like to fish? I have a large family and plenty of friends and unlike you I don't let outside obligations cut into the time I spend enjoying their company. You? How do you even maintain a relationship with your girlfriend, working two jobs and giving the rest of your time to causes? How long would it even take you to notice your SO had left you for neglect? Three days? A whole week? You might want to start checking every morning because it's most assuredly going to happen if you keep on like you are. I guarantee it. I have never met a woman who would stand for not coming first in her partner's life and she obviously does not in yours.
I know it kills you that I have an entire life outside the comments here that I'm quite happy in and you can't even begin to intrude on. You're just going to have to learn to live with it though. Even if you showed up in person you wouldn't rate as important enough to make me annoyed for so much as a morning. Really, the best you could hope for is the ten minutes or so while the coffee is brewing. I'd offer to pencil you in for that time but I've already got important nicotine obligations that I'm busy with during that time slot.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 20 2017, @02:52AM
And little by little, the flimsy, cheap mask of cocky arrogance is cracking...now you're mad, really mad. And you're gonna show that no-good fucking dyke just what a failure she is and how useless all her virtue-signalling overextension will be, riiiiiight? :D
You seem to think I somehow don't make time for Elizabeth. That's...naive. You have even less insight into my life than I do yours, but here's a clue: the anti-trafficking thing? BOTH of us are on that. We have both had multiple brushes with death and have thought long and hard about it, and come to the conclusion that our lives should be animated by higher causes than, as in your case, where the next cigarette is coming from or how to kill time getting tipsy and shooting in random directions.
And you're trying so, so, so hard to hurt me. It's not working. Your attacks are so sophomoric, so predictable, and so utterly lowball I'm actually insulted by *that* part of them, not their content. Not to mention, you seem to be speaking from bitter experience with "have never met a woman who would stand for not coming first in her partner's life and she obviously does not in yours."
You are mistaken, my beer-swilling friend. She is the first thing in my life. I saved her from suicide all those years ago, but she is what keeps me going, gives me reason to continue fighting these awful odds, in the face of every single jaw-droppingly unlucky "fuck you" that's come my way. We grow one another in ways neither of could alone. The sum of the parts is most definitely greater than the whole, emergentism in action.
You will never, ever understand this. Your second paragraph, which I'm sure you intended to be a devastating coup-de-grace, is so much empty noise. Attacks like that can't even scratch me, and you won't ever understand why THAT is, either. Just know that in the end, I don't hate you; I *pity* you. If and when you ever come to see why, you'll know why you can't touch me with those.
...but feel free to keep trying :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 20 2017, @03:11AM
Mad? I checked the forecast earlier and tomorrow is supposed to be excellent fishing with enough time for me to be leisurely about my coffee drinking in the morning. You couldn't get me mad this evening without poking holes in my boat. Looks from the length of that post that I didn't read past the first sentence or two of that I hit a nerve though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 20 2017, @03:54AM
*siiiigh* You're not fooling anyone, Uzzard. People are reading these things. They're seeing your disguise slipping, they're seeing you stoop lower and lower and lower, and watching me go higher and higher and higher. The very things you're calling weaknesses about me are strengths, and you've become so degraded that you can't see that. Every time you reply, your mask cracks a little more and it becomes a little more obvious to everyone watching what you are. And you don't even realize it...or, perhaps, won't even realize it. I'm beginning to feel guilty.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 20 2017, @12:02PM
It's going to be 60F by 10am and the solunar conditions + barometric pressure all tell the fish to start biting around the same time and keep doing so until about 4pm today. My trolling motor battery is fully charged and the boat is cleaned and ready to go. My fishing license is still good for another 11 days. Ditto my lake permit. I still have easily a dozen minnows left over from the Wednesday trip in my bubbly bubbly minnow bucket. The only prep work I need to do is put gas in the car and the local Wal-Mart has it for just under $2/gal right now.
tl;dr: "You can't touch this." -- MC Hammer
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 20 2017, @06:56PM
I didn't even read that post. What makes you think I care about your selfish, useless life? You're going to have to give account of your (lack of) actions someday you know.
Sorry, but everyone saw you get mad and break cover. It's too late. I'm replying to you to keep you flapping your gums, because I know you're that stupid and that upset, no matter how (badly) you try and hide it. You don't seem to understand how this works, which is all the better for me :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 20 2017, @10:24PM
Darlin, yer funny.
You Fishes
True today. True tomorrow. True every day from now until the end of time.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 20 2017, @10:25PM
You'd think I'd know to hit preview by now. Oh well. Should have been: You < Fishes
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 20 2017, @10:36PM
You can't even insult someone properly, Uzzard. I'd say you've hit rock bottom, except with you there doesn't seem to BE a bottom. That was just sad.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 21 2017, @02:24AM
That wasn't an insult, just where you stand. If you need some clarification, here are a list of things that annoy me far more than you ever could:
Doing the dishes.
Hanging up/folding laundry.
Hard drives that last less than five years.
MySQL updates.
martyb breaking my perfectly good code.
Cold coffee.
Nose hairs.
Having to make tea if I want to have tea to drink.
Sorry, you're just not important enough. You couldn't make the list if I knew you in person even. I'm quite adept at not giving a shit about people. I just like playing with you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 21 2017, @06:00AM
And why is this? Because you're small-time. Fish fish fish, LOL. Beer, fish, shooting, what a waste of oxygen you are. And you can't get enough of me. Always gotta get the last word in, always gotta prove to SN you didn't just get outclassed by a foul-mouthed dyke from the Northeast you hate so much. This is comedy gold. Keep it up, Uzzard!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 21 2017, @11:26AM
Of course, I'm having fun. That one wasn't really worth a good reply though. Try again.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 16 2017, @05:27PM
I'd prefer a 535 party system at the level of the federal legislature - every representative and senator representing their constituents, instead of building alliances based on commercial branding. Unfortunately, that's far too complicated to sell to the public on entry to a ballot box. The trinary choice: US, THEM, and fringe freaks, seems to be all we have.
I will say, a) I don't listen to the candidates much, but b) the Bernie sound bites that reach me do seem to be more of a rational thinking liberal agenda - I'm sure you can cherry pick some "protection of special groups" quotes from his past, but for the most part his schtick seems to be more about helping the most people possible, regardless of race, creed, or present financial standing.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 16 2017, @07:10PM
You got him pegged more or less correctly except the "or present financial standing". He was very much against anyone who had the gall to make median income or above. He didn't outright say that but he said the word "socialist" and every free-this or free-that policy he talked about would have had to have been paid for and the poor have nothing for the government to steal.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday January 16 2017, @07:02PM
Because that's discrimination. I'm sorry you can grasp that simple concept.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 16 2017, @07:44PM
You are aware that discrimination is allowed citizens, yes? It's what's supposed to keep us from selling arms to ISIS. You and your PC ilk are not who gets to decide what behavior is above discrimination.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday January 16 2017, @08:21PM
You are a complete idiot. How in gods name are you confusing selling weapons to terrorists to refusing to sell cakes to gay people?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 16 2017, @08:27PM
No confusion. They're exactly the same thing. They're discrimination based solely on the actions of the customer.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 17 2017, @05:27AM
This post, more than any other of its length, perfectly exemplifies exactly what is wrong with you. It should be bronzed and hung on your tombstone.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:14AM
I know, right? I'm utterly unable to twist things into what they aren't so that they fit the progressive narrative. It's a huge failing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:20PM
I laughed so hard I almost threw up. "Logically" connecting the selling of weapons to terrorists, and the selling of cakes to gays is beyond failing.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:31PM
Yeah he's a piece of work isn't he? A microcosm of everything wrong with the "conservative" wing of the population. I've never understood how this kind of solipsism wasn't instantly and messily fatal.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday January 17 2017, @07:38PM
It's disturbing because he doesn't even have a basic understanding of the word discriminate.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:18PM
reductio ad absurdum
If it's in Latin, it's been around for a bit. You probably should have heard of it by now. Oh well, always glad to help educate.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:40PM
Petitio principii. That one's been around a while too, snowflake :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:15PM
Inapplicable. Both examples I gave were clearly and indisputably examples of making a judgment to sell or not to sell based on the actions of the buyer. The only difference was scope and that was intentionally different to illustrate the point.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:06AM
Bzzzzt. Gay isn't an action. Try again.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:19AM
Getting gay married, however, is. You should have read further.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:21PM
The fact that the wedding is same-sex isn't actually an action. You don't go get "gay married", you go get married. It's the same ceremony, the same actions.
If you don't want to bake wedding cakes, don't bake wedding cakes. But if you advertise that you sell wedding cakes, you can't refuse a customer just because you don't like their skin color or sexual orientation. Because that isn't their choice. And yes, getting married is their choice, but if you're discriminating based on the fact that they CHOSE to get married, then you have to discriminate equally against EVERYONE who chose to get married -- which is perfectly fine. I don't sell wedding cakes, and there is nobody putting a gun to my head trying to force me to.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:21PM
How many knots did you have to twist your brain into to decide that taking an action is not taking an action? Marrying someone of the same sex is an action, there can be no debate on this.
Sexual orientation is not an inborn trait. Oh, I'm sure it is for some but the last time I heard an SJW mouth off about gay people being born that way, my friend allowed "Bullshit. I wasn't born gay. I just got tired of putting up with women's shit." The look on her little SJW face still makes me laugh every time I think back on that moment.
Did you conveniently forget that business owners may refuse service to anyone for any reason unless that specific reason is explicitly protected by law? Your state may have a law saying that gay people are a protected class but it is far from universally agreed upon, so don't act like it is.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:29PM
I never said getting married isn't an action. What I said was that "getting married" is the action; "same-sex" is not. It's not a DIFFERENT action when it's done by a same-sex couple vs when it's done by a heterosexual couple. Both couples got married. Both couples took the same action. So if you are discriminating based only on the action taken then you have to discriminate against anyone who got married, not just homosexuals who got married. Otherwise you aren't discriminating based on action, you're discriminating based on identity.
As for the legality...if you're basing your concept of right and wrong on what is legal, you are already hopelessly lost.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:32PM
Yes, yes it is. The participants in an action matter. Much like the difference between two teenagers knocking boots versus a teacher knocking boots with a student.
Because we're discussing legality. I don't personally give a rat's ass if gay folks want to get married. It doesn't hurt anyone, so go for it. I also don't give a rat's ass if a baker doesn't want to sell them a cake. It doesn't hurt anyone, so go for it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday January 17 2017, @05:53PM
*facepalm*
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ilsa on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:51PM
No confusion. They're exactly the same thing. They're discrimination based solely on the actions of the customer.
While I am in awe of the intense 3-way you and the others have managed to get into, I'll try to point out why I disagree with you in hopefully sensible terms. At a fundamental level, yes, you are correct. Both are acts of discrimination based on the acts of the customer. The problem is that those behaviours are overwhelmingly different. In the case of selling guns to terrorists, terrorists are actively trying to kill anyone who disagrees with them. The terrorists are the aggressors and oppressors. They would take those guns and kill and mame.
WRT the gay cake thing... Gays (et al) are the ones who are being oppressed. Anyone who honestly thinks that it's the gays who are being aggressive, has absolutely no idea about the wider scope involved. LGBT people are raped, beaten and murdered on a *daily basis*, for no other reason than who they are. That cake thing was nothing more than a focal point for years of abuse. Things have definitely improved in the past couple decades, but they haven't improved even remotely enough to come anywhere close to equality. That is the whole reason why there are protected demographics in the first place, because if there wasn't, people would fuck them right over for no other reason than cause they could. It's no different than refusing to bake a cake for someone who was black, or in a wheelchair. If they were to deny someone in a wheelchair a wedding cake, I can't think of a single person who wouldn't flip their shit, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. Yet for some reason it's acceptable to deny them if they're gay? Is it also acceptable to deny them food from a grocery store? Why not just kill them outright like they do in the Middle East? I mean, that's what happened to Matthew Shepard, isn't it? Where do you draw the line (and WHY would you draw one, for that matter...) against someone who wants nothing more than to live their life in peace?
So for that reason, I consider your comparison invalid. It's one thing to discriminate to save lives. It's another thing to discriminate because you want to take someone else's, which is the exact and only consequence when discrimination goes unhindered.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:03AM
See, I dig well thought out comments like this. Kudos.
The scope difference was intentional as the scope was irrelevant because we're talking about judging someone by their actions rather than nit-picking specific actions and carving out holes for them. Things you cannot help like skin color or gender have no moral or ethical component, so should not be open for discrimination. Actions a person takes though can and should always be subject to discrimination and marriage is not only an action but a premeditated one if you're having the forethought to order a cake.
Personally, I'd sell them a cake with a two foot, vibrating, rainbow buttplug if that's what they wanted. I do, however, respect the rights of others not to deal with people they find distasteful. Tolerance does not mean approval or the desire to associate with, it simply means tolerating someone's existence.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by ilsa on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:05AM
I admit that I am heavily biased in this, for the simple reason that I have seen the lives of friends destroyed by repugnant people (including a presiding pastor of a church) who don't think said friend should be allowed to live their life. I know of several who have committed suicide. Trans people in general, for example, are murdered on an almost literally (literally literally, not figuratively literally) daily basis.
So when I see things like the cake debacle, I just can't bring myself to feel any sort of sympathy to the baker's stance, simply because I consider their stance to be on a slippery slope with a VERY steep decline. Two guys getting married hurts absolutely no one, and by allowing the bakers to openly discriminate against gays, that sends a message that discrimination of gays is ok, and opens the door for even worse actions. To flog a dead (possibly undead, the way things are going) horse, look at Nazi germany. Jews were the biggest demographic to be butchered, but they had to work up to it. First they started with Trans people. Then they moved on to gays. Slowly working their way up the "undesirables" tree until they were gassing Jews by the millions. They couldn't have gotten away with that without the support of the average citizen.
Anyway, I could go on about history repeating itself, rampant anti-intellectualism worsening the cycle, etc etc, but I just don't have the energy to go into all that.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:11PM
That is an opinion not shared by all. A majority but not all.
Put simply, it is. Gayness is not just thinking that guy over there is attractive. It's also acting upon that thought. Thoughts and actions are both fully open for discrimination unless they're part of an ADA protected mental illness. This in no way opens up the door for violence perpetrated upon them because perpetrating violence upon people is already separately illegal.
As for the slippery slope, there isn't one. This nation is extremely tolerant of homosexuality and I expect shall remain so at least for the foreseeable future. You can tell this by how that couple had to go through nearly every bakery in the city before they found one that wouldn't sell them a cake so they could sue (that's a fact, feel free to verify it). Even then the bakers weren't even rude about it, they simply did not wish to make said cake.
Let me ask you, would you demand of a gay baker that he supply a catholic church ran anti-gay camp? It's precisely the same thing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by ilsa on Thursday January 19 2017, @04:22PM
Do you happen to have any links regarding them hunting for a baker to sue? This is the first time I've ever heard this and my google fu is failing me. I already know that there was a lot more to the situation than just 'baker sued for not making a gay cake', but this is news to me.
But I have to disagree on a couple of your other points.
Firstly, so what if they act on it? It's not like they're having surprise buttsecks at a bus stop in front of a school. They're not forcing other people to have gay sex. If two guys hold hands in the street, any discomfort a person might feel is exclusively their own problem, as a result of their own upbringing, attitudes, etc. And if discrimination doesn't open the door to violence, then please explain to me how LGBT people are being murdered on a daily basis? Or the fact that people have successfully used the 'gay panic' defense when in court for murder?
Regarding tolerance... It's certainly more tolerant now than it was two decades ago, but to say that it is extremely tolerant is a major stretch. I mean, yeah, people arn't being dragged into the streets and beaten and lynched anymore, so that's definitely an improvement. But that's still a far cry from saying the US is 'extremely tolerant'. There's a critical difference between "live and let live" and "I'm tolerant as long as those faggots don't come near me." Again, trans people alone are being murdered on an almost daily basis. Let me say that again. Trans people are being murdered on an almost daily basis . I'm not sure what the stats for gays are, but I'm assuming less. I won't even get into levels of unemployment and wealth disparity, despite existing legislation that bans this kind of thing.
I mean, hell. Racial prejudice was supposed to have been outlawed half a century ago, and you're *still* dealing with rampant racism. You have an entire governing party that made it their mandate to deliberately block your president, to the exclusion of everything else, just because he was black. What chance does LGBT people against a backdrop like that?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:50PM
Not offhand and mine is failing me as well. There've been a pretty astounding amount of gay wedding cake stories and cases and I can't figure out the proper terms to pull the one I read a year or two ago.
Okay, here's our derailment then. As Americans we are supposed to tolerate people being different than us. You apparently think tolerate means something it does not. Tolerate does not mean "approve of" or "cheerlead for". It only means tolerate. "I'm fine as long as those faggots don't come near me" is absolutely tolerance. What you're demanding is not tolerance but approval and you have no right to demand that.
You really should choose your news sources better. That is so far from true that not even our newscasters that were cheerleading the Obama presidency (all of them not on FNC) would say it.
I highly doubt this. The mainstream media would love to get its teeth into a story like this and it hasn't showed up at all to date. Citation needed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by ilsa on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:37PM
Ugh... I'm so low energy right now I may not make sense, but I didn't want to leave you hanging.
Okay, I had to re-research this cause it had been a while. The stats I found were actually world-wide, not just in the US. In the US it's "only" like, once a month. How that compares to the general populace, I don't know.
Re republicans. Some quick searching found this:
http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/ [time.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/biden-mcconnell-decided-to-withhold-all-cooperation-even-before-we-took-office/2012/08/10/64e9a138-e302-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_blog.html?utm_term=.c5f31491c470 [washingtonpost.com]
There are a metric crapton of stories from a wide variety of sources so I won't bother to list them all. But there are countless stories on this from a variety of angles, including interviews with the republican leadership. Unless you can find something concrete to refute this, I'm gonna have to stand by this one. Not that it matters anymore, anyway.
And you're right re: tolerance. The textbook definition is exactly as you describe. My only point is that that isn't good enough. It'd go into more detail but I feel like my brain is shutting down as I type. But the end result is that the situation is basically hopeless. You can legislate rules of behaviour but you can't legislate acceptance. Only education and empathy can do that, but there's a gross lack of both and it's getting worse by the day. So.... *shrug*
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday January 18 2017, @09:36AM
> How many [liberals] would even call the deadly post-election riots "riots", much less called for an end to them?
The Washington Post used that terminology:
Hundreds of people protesting the election of Donald Trump took to the streets in cities across the country for a third straight night on Friday, as police bolstered their forces in the wake of rioting in Portland, Ore., and Los Angeles.
--
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/11/violence-erupts-in-portland-riot-as-anti-trump-protests-continue-in-cities-across-the-nation/ [washingtonpost.com]
So did Fox News:
[...] a demonstration last Thursday in Portland escalated into a destructive riot.
-- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/17/obama-to-anti-trump-protesters-march-on.html [foxnews.com]