GG Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Story blown out of proportion so says the National Review. http://www.nationalr...drew-c-mccarthy Was this their position 8 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 What else would you expect the NR to say? Not too familiar with the publication are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 6, 2013 Author Share Posted June 6, 2013 Not too familiar with the publication are you? Generally I am. I know it as a conservative/right wing publication. I would not expect them to take a libertarian POV. Feel free to tell me differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Not too familiar with the publication are you? See, I tried to tell CornerBlitz, that this is how we roll here, and he thought I was kidding. If he keeps this up, he is headed straight for ...lybob status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Was this their position 8 years ago? I doubt they would have had a position on something that had yet to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 6, 2013 Author Share Posted June 6, 2013 See, I tried to tell CornerBlitz, that this is how we roll here, and he thought I was kidding. If he keeps this up, he is headed straight for ...lybob status. Trust me, this is mild compared to other forums I've been on and discussions I've been involved in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Trust me, this is mild compared to other forums I've been on and discussions I've been involved in. Oh yeah...this is nothing really, we are just a little rough here, nothing you can't handle, I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 6, 2013 Author Share Posted June 6, 2013 Oh yeah...this is nothing really, we are just a little rough here, nothing you can't handle, I'm sure. When it comes to politics, religion, and race discussions....goes with the territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Generally I am. I know it as a conservative/right wing publication. I would not expect them to take a libertarian POV. Feel free to tell me differently. So you would expect a conservative publication to essentially defend the Obama administration as having done little worth mentioning even when the rest of the main stream media is up in arms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 6, 2013 Author Share Posted June 6, 2013 So you would expect a conservative publication to essentially defend the Obama administration as having done little worth mentioning even when the rest of the main stream media is up in arms? I'd expect them to defend this particular policy regardless of the Administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 I'd expect them to defend this particular policy regardless of the Administration. Was defending the Patriot Act the point of that article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 To those who are just coming to the realization that they live in a surveillance state that would have turned the old KGB green with envy, I say welcome to the party. The NSA Utah data center will start off with 5 zettabytes of memory expanding to yottabytes in the near future, 5 zettabytes is about 700 gigabytes of information for every human being in the world. also there are no free markets we have a two tier legal system our representative government just represents their big donners protest will be allowed, effective protest will not Donner party--table for 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 6, 2013 Author Share Posted June 6, 2013 Was defending the Patriot Act the point of that article? No their point was that the current administration is not fit to implement the policy. Like I said before, they like the Patriot Act and other tools for information gathering, but not the current people in charge of administering this policy and others like it. That's what I would expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 What else would you expect the NR to say? No their point was that the current administration is not fit to implement the policy. Like I said before, they like the Patriot Act and other tools for information gathering, but not the current people in charge of administering this policy and others like it. That's what I would expect. So you can imagine my confusion when you responded "What else would you expect the NR to say?" meaning you expect the NR to support the Patriot Act, even though that isn't what the article is about. Be honest, did you read it before you replied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 No their point was that the current administration is not fit to implement the policy. Like I said before, they like the Patriot Act and other tools for information gathering, but not the current people in charge of administering this policy and others like it. That's what I would expect. Yes, yes, yawn. But are they justified in that position? Or what about this administration, pre scandal or post, indicates that they are capable of administering it? Especially when they have Big Gay Hollywood, Big Union, and Big College, their constituents, constantly trying to prevent them? (As if any of those constituencies have the first f'ing clue about foreign policy.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 I doubt they would have had a position on something that had yet to happen. Except that it did happen, 8 years ago, with the same telecom companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Except that it did happen, 8 years ago, with the same telecom companies. Except that you should read the f@#$ing article and then respond to a point made in the god damned article. But for the record, the author of the article was just as supportive of the legislative power that allowed for such an act back then as he is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 this may or may not matter, but information that is instantly available (and always being transmitted whenever a telephone call is placed) is what is referred to as ANI/ALI (automatic name identification and automatic location identification), the data that tells 911 operators who's calling and where they're calling from. every time a call is placed....at least all calls from land lines....this information is transmitted, and it's completely separate from caller ID data used in standard identification. like I said, this may not matter much with regard to this particular topic, but I thought I'd toss it out there for those that are unaware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Except that you should read the f@#$ing article and then respond to a point made in the god damned article. But for the record, the author of the article was just as supportive of the legislative power that allowed for such an act back then as he is now. My question did not relate to his current point. I wanted to know what his position was in 2005, and that's why I asked that SPECIFIC question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Mine was the number for a build a bear. I can't find yours Bahhh... I typed it wrong, it was supposed to be..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts