Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 172 of 2984 FirstFirst ... 167168169170171172173174175176177 ... LastLast
Results 1,711 to 1,720 of 29840

Thread: POFO Anything Goes Thread. ((Warning do not enter if you can't handle fire))

  1. -1711
    Spesh's Avatar
    #freespesh
    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    11,756
    vCash:
    15240
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Not that I’m aware of. I’m not sure what’s up with your dilemma though. I’d toss that question in the questions & suggestions forum (with a little bit more flattering language), & see if one of the more tech-savvy admins can help you out.
    Appreciate it, was very random seeing the posts in this part of the forum. Will do when not as intoxicated.

    ......but no promises on the language.


    http://www.thedrawplay.com/comic/cam-newton-no-respect/

    Terrorist attack count against the Anything Goes Thread: 5
    Quote Quote  

  2. -1712
    Spesh's Avatar
    #freespesh
    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    11,756
    vCash:
    15240
    Just two days after being re-elected as Vice President of the United States, Biden will make a guest appearance on NBC's Parks and Recreation. The cameo -- which was filmed this summer when the cast shot scenes in Washington -- will involve an opening segment in which Biden meeting with Amy Poehler's hyperactive, civic-obsessed city councilwoman Leslie Knope.

    It will be a big moment for Knope; though Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are her political role models, Biden -- and Biden alone -- comprises her celebrity sex list.
    "Vice-President Biden is both Leslie's political hero and her number-one celebrity crush, so meeting him is obviously a huge moment for her," Mike Schur, the show's EP, said in a statement. "We looked at a number of actors to OK the role of 'Vice-President Joe Biden,' and ultimately, Joe Biden himself gave the best audition."
    http://tv.yahoo.com/news/joe-biden-p...Gxlcnk-;_ylv=3

    I didnt think i could love Joe Biden more....and then this happened. Dear god that man is ****ing awesome.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -1713
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    16,180
    vCash:
    53792
    Loc:
    Room 101
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    You’re right in that both of the major recent candidates don’t offer that distinction, & therein lies the problem. Apparently most people are ignorant of, or don’t care enough that they’re being spied upon to pick a candidate who doesn’t want to spy on them.
    I don't think I made my point very clearly. The major candidates might not offer a huge distinction on civil liberties, but that doesn't mean they don't offer any distinction on civil liberties. If your interest is in the result and you're going to be a single issue voter on civil liberties, why not vote for the guy who's better?

    Gary Johnson only got 1% of the vote. That's hardly "sending a message" and as a practical matter means you left the election to be decided by others, where there was a real possibility that a guy worse on civil liberties than the president could have won.

    I’ve read about it; not in great detail but enough to know what happened. Shouldn’t civil liberties be everyone’s primary concern though? What could possibly take precedence over your freedoms? I still wouldn’t agree that because we’re at war with countries on the eastern hemisphere that we need to spy on our own citizens, or that the practice should be accepted or tolerated.
    I think you're betraying your age here. The vast majority of people are not ideological, they're practical. And the #1 practical concern is and always has been money/the economy. Nothing takes precedence over being able to feed your kids, put a little away for their college education and your retirement, and do it on a budget. As for civil liberties, most people consider themselves law abiding and with nothing to hide. They don't like it when it intrudes on them but it's not a top concern. Any exit poll will tell you that.

    Wasn’t even aware it was his site, it came up in the search; along with the ‘wired’ article, whom I think is a reputable website.
    Wired is reputable, but the article you linked to is irrelevant. The criteria the military uses to observe/spy on it's own has nothing to do with the NDAA or the Patriot Act.

    As for the Rand Paul thing, the profiling of criminal behavior is a long established aspect of law enforcement. Sure, there's nothing inherently sinister about missing fingers. But bomb makers often have missing fingers, which means that if you put it together with other behaviors can be an indication of criminal behavior.

    The question is when these behaviors become sufficient for probable cause. That specific line -- whether it's changed and how -- is information I don't have and haven't seen.

    As I said earlier, the most important question is whether US soil is considered -- or is going to be considered -- a battlefield. That doesn't seem to be something that's been settled legally, though it appears the attempt is being made to classify it that way, which would allow well established precedent over the essentially unchecked power of the president and military on the battlefield to take hold.

    We'll see, I guess. It seems unlikely to me that it would hold, especially considering how close the Padilla ruling was. If strict scrutiny attached, that would make it harder for it to be upheld (a good thing), but the problem with that is that since the "right to privacy" isn't in the Constitution in the explicit way the right to liberty and free speech is (especially relative to electronic communication), the chance that a "rational basis" test (which is easier to pass) would be used is higher.
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 11-10-2012 at 09:52 PM.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -1714
    Dogbone34's Avatar
    cowboy surfer
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    2,866
    vCash:
    3898
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    is the fiscal cliff anywhere near mount rushmore ?
    Quote Quote  

  5. -1715
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    8,611
    vCash:
    37845
    Loc:
    Georgia
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWarlrus
    I don't think I made my point very clearly. The major candidates might not offer a huge distinction on civil liberties, but that doesn't mean they don't offer any distinction on civil liberties. If your interest is in the result and you're going to be a single issue voter on civil liberties, why not vote for the guy who's better?

    Gary Johnson only got 1% of the vote. That's hardly "sending a message" and as a practical matter means you left the election to be decided by others, where there was a real possibility that a guy worse on civil liberties than the president could have won.
    I’m not questioning your decision of Obama over Romney. I understand from a pragmatic stand-point you felt forced to vote for one of the two major candidates (probably like most other people). However, that doesn’t change what I said in that most people are either ignorant of, or don’t care enough about being spied upon to not vote for certain candidates. I'm sure a lot of people don't necessarily like it, but not enough so to vote for another party, or nominate a candidate in their own party who doesn't hold those aspirations.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    I think you're betraying your age here. The vast majority of people are not ideological, they're practical. And the #1 practical concern is and always has been money/the economy. Nothing takes precedence over being able to feed your kids, put a little away for their college education and your retirement, and do it on a budget. As for civil liberties, most people consider themselves law abiding and with nothing to hide. They don't like it when it intrudes on them but it's not a top concern. Any exit poll will tell you that.
    So dissapointing. We might be a couple years away from changing the star-spangled banner to “O'er the land of the free-ish and the home of the tame.”



    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    As for the Rand Paul thing, the profiling of criminal behavior is a long established aspect of law enforcement. Sure, there's nothing inherently sinister about missing fingers. But bomb makers often have missing fingers, which means that if you put it together with other behaviors can be an indication of criminal behavior.
    The question is when these behaviors become sufficient for probable cause. That specific line -- whether it's changed and how -- is information I don't have and haven't seen.
    You left out things like having 7 days of food, or owning several fire-arms, or owning weather proof amunition for hunting. I’m sure a staggering number of people fall into that category. I have more than 7 days of food in my house as we speak; what’s to say they’re not justified in suspecting you or I of terrorism if that’s one of the criteria? Rand Paul wouldn’t lie, or get away with lying about such criteria on the senate floor.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    As I said earlier, the most important question is whether US soil is considered -- or is going to be considered -- a battlefield. That doesn't seem to be something that's been settled legally, though it appears the attempt is being made to classify it that way, which would allow well established precedent over the essentially unchecked power of the president and military on the battlefield to take hold.

    We'll see, I guess. It seems unlikely to me that it would hold, especially considering how close the Padilla ruling was. If strict scrutiny attached, that would make it harder for it to be upheld (a good thing), but the problem with that is that since the "right to privacy" isn't in the Constitution in the explicit way the right to liberty and free speech is (especially relative to electronic communication), the chance that a "rational basis" test (which is easier to pass) would be used is higher.
    It is currently deemed a battle-field. Despite James’ contention, U.S citizens on U.S soil can still be detained indefinitely. You also have far more faith than I that this decision won’t stand.

    --

    Am I making too much of having our every digital move be tracked & recorded? I don't really think I am. I'm sure most people think of themselves as such a non-factor in the eyes of the government that they aren't overly concerned about such monitoring, but shouldn't this be a matter of principle?

    Quote Quote  

  6. -1716
    tylerdolphin's Avatar
    More Smug than Birthday Dog
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2005
    Posts:
    13,609
    vCash:
    22498
    Cam Wake 91
    The Walrus...I must ask. Do you also post under The Walrus on TMB?




    Quote Quote  

  7. -1717
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    16,180
    vCash:
    53792
    Loc:
    Room 101
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    So dissapointing. We might be a couple years away from changing the star-spangled banner to “O'er the land of the free-ish and the home of the tame.”

    The tangible reality of being able to afford braces is always going to take precedent over an abstract concept like civil liberties, which is an issue that's really only important to young people, especially college students, and libertarian/survivalist types from the Midwest and West.

    You left out things like having 7 days of food, or owning several fire-arms, or owning weather proof amunition for hunting. I’m sure a staggering number of people fall into that category. I have more than 7 days of food in my house as we speak; what’s to say they’re not justified in suspecting you or I of terrorism if that’s one of the criteria? Rand Paul wouldn’t lie, or get away with lying about such criteria on the senate floor.
    I'm going to assume this is a joke.

    Secondly, as I said, the profiling of criminal behavior is a long established practice. I don't think you're objecting to that, more that the result of profiling in lieu of hard evidence can be used to justify indefinite detention where before it might have only lead to questioning, surveillance or a search warrant.

    It is currently deemed a battle-field. Despite James’ contention, U.S citizens on U.S soil can still be detained indefinitely. You also have far more faith than I that this decision won’t stand.
    I wouldn't call it faith. It just my read on the law. I'm far from an expert but I do a bit of reading on the subject. I don't think it will stand.

    Am I making too much of having our every digital move be tracked & recorded? I don't really think I am. I'm sure most people think of themselves as such a non-factor in the eyes of the government that they aren't overly concerned about such monitoring, but shouldn't this be a matter of principle?
    Well, allow me to play devil's advocate. Why do you have an expectation of privacy about information you put out on the internet? Forget how silly it is to expect message board posts or facebook to be private, but why do you think the "privacy agreement" you clicked "yes" on with your email provider is legally binding? They're hosting your emails on their servers, after all. And everyone knows that. And they're not lawyers or doctors or psychiatrists. You have no explicit, legally protected relationship with them, anymore than you do with a friend you swear to secrecy about something.

    You're not required to have a digital presence. No one makes you use a cell phone or write emails or use Google specifically or the internet generally. If you're going to venture out into a largely unregulated area, which the internet is, and put information out there of your own free will, why assume the government won't be listening when no law exists to stop them and the fourth amendment only covers your person, house, papers and effects?
    Quote Quote  

  8. -1718
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    16,180
    vCash:
    53792
    Loc:
    Room 101
    @Cedar. Great pics. Looks sort of like the beach from the end of Planet of the Apes.

    @tyler. Nope. Sorry. This is the only board I post at with this name. I'm sort of scared to ask what the other Walrus is like.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -1719
    tylerdolphin's Avatar
    More Smug than Birthday Dog
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2005
    Posts:
    13,609
    vCash:
    22498
    Cam Wake 91
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    @tyler. Nope. Sorry. This is the only board I post at with this name. I'm sort of scared to ask what the other Walrus is like.
    Well...hes a poster on the-mainboard. It takes a person with a "special" kind of sense of humor to read and post there. I have laughed at some absolutely unforgivable **** there. I tend to doubt theres a hell to go to, and Im probably fortunate for that after spending a significant amount of time there .

    And we also talk bout sports.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -1720
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    8,611
    vCash:
    37845
    Loc:
    Georgia
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    The tangible reality of being able to afford braces is always going to take precedent over an abstract concept like civil liberties, which is an issue that's really only important to college students and libertarian/survivalist types from the Midwest and West.
    News to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Secondly, as I said, the profiling of criminal behavior is a long established practice. I don't think you're objecting to that, more that the result of profiling in lieu of hard evidence can be used to justify indefinite detention where before it might have only lead to questioning, surveillance or a search warrant.
    Yes, absolutely. I also do have a problem with some of the criteria itself; seven day’s food? Several guns? C’mon feds.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    I wouldn't call it faith. It just my read on the law. I'm far from an expert but I do a bit of reading on the subject.
    I’m far from an expert on Football but I still take it on faith that Texans are going to beat the Jaguars next week. Nevermind that though, it’s semantics anyway. Fienstein proposed 2 amendments to the bill that would expressly prohibit such behavior, both were easily voted down. I see no reason why such measures would happen in the future. We'll have to see.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Well, allow me to play devil's advocate. Why do you have an expectation of privacy about information you put out on the internet? Forget how silly it is to expect message board posts or facebook to be private, but why do you think the "privacy agreement" you clicked "yes" on with your email provider is legally binding? They're hosting your emails ontheir servers, after all. And everyone knows that. And they're not lawyers or doctors or psychiatrists. You have no explicit, legally protected relationship with them, anymore than you do with a friend you swear to secrecy about something.

    You're not required to have a digital presence. No one makes you use a cell phone or write emails or use Google specifically or the internet generally. If you're going to venture out into a largely unregulated area, which the internet is, and put information out there of your own free will, why assume the government won't be listening when no law exists to stop them and the fourth amendment only covers your person, house, papers and effects?
    There’s a reason why the NSA is claiming their not monitoring the information they’re obtaining.

    --

    Cedar you Californians are slacking on those legalization amendments. & Great pics as well, is that a Sonoma beach?
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6718
    Last Post: 08-08-2013, 03:17 PM
  2. Replies: 1725
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 09:16 AM
  3. can we keep this thread alive in the PoFo?
    By Maynard the Hammer in forum Questions and Suggestions Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2006, 11:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •