Vista - Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

11-22-2007

Quote:

> The Government claim such things as being to "Protect" you (or somebody)
> from some hypothetical enemy. You "Know" that you are not a criminal /
> thief / bad guy and you believe that the Government will only go after the
> bad guys, so it is easier just to do nothing about it. Fact is though that
> although "You" know you are not the bad guy, nobody else knows that, so
> you are just as much a suspect as anybody else. Thus to believe such
> legislation only affects bad guys (Pirates / terrorists / criminals etc)
> is a complete fallacy.

where does common sense enter into the equation?
want another common fallacy?
Privacy is about protection of my privacy

Privacy are mostly about blindfolding the 'cops'

here is another nugget to THINK on

follow the liberal line of reasoning, NOBODY DO ANYTHING and wait for your
stuff to all go wrong while ..
at the same time yammer why all the other guys stuff is going wrong and then
make sure you are the first on your feet to demand an answer to "WHY DID'NT
SOMEONE DO SOMETHING?"

Quote:

> Most of the proponents of the Iraq war (Which is supposedly to protect us
> from terrorists) are "Armchair Generals" who were never in any danger from
> terrorists anyway (Especially terrorists from Iraq) but it was much
> "Easier" to go along with it than to think about it

Speaking of armchair generals
how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its immoral .. heh
how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its illegal .. heh
How about the Democrat 'leadership' in congress .. the ultimate definition
of "ARMCHAIR"

Quote:

> In reality the Government can't protect you from anything, but it makes
> their job of pretending to do so easier if the public simply complies...

oh, reality based are we? Of course a government can protect you .. that's
why there is a military ...
centers for disease control .. air traffic control regs .. et al.
What in your estimation would have been the outcome of WWII had there been
no government?

Sorry Charlie,
looks as if the more you THINK about it, the sillier you become
might want to stop pretending and start .... what? real THINKING

You seem to have grazed in the pasture of liberal zymology for quite awhile.
You might reTHINK that and THINK about why liberalism only constructs
SYMBOLS?
When the latest and greatest goes haywire? You're out only an ethereal
SYMBOL.
No biggie, just begin constructing the latest and greatest SYMBOL. No sweat
there.

Rich,

11-22-2007

Rich wrote:

Quote:

>

Quote:

>> The Government claim such things as being to "Protect" you (or somebody)
>> from some hypothetical enemy. You "Know" that you are not a criminal /
>> thief / bad guy and you believe that the Government will only go after
>> the bad guys, so it is easier just to do nothing about it. Fact is
>> though that although "You" know you are not the bad guy, nobody else
>> knows that, so you are just as much a suspect as anybody else. Thus to
>> believe such legislation only affects bad guys (Pirates / terrorists /
>> criminals etc) is a complete fallacy.

>
> where does common sense enter into the equation?
> want another common fallacy?
> Privacy is about protection of my privacy

> Privacy are mostly about blindfolding the 'cops'
>
> here is another nugget to THINK on
>
> follow the liberal line of reasoning, NOBODY DO ANYTHING and wait for
> your stuff to all go wrong while ..
> at the same time yammer why all the other guys stuff is going wrong and
> then make sure you are the first on your feet to demand an answer to
> "WHY DID'NT SOMEONE DO SOMETHING?"
>
>

Quote:

>> Most of the proponents of the Iraq war (Which is supposedly to protect
>> us from terrorists) are "Armchair Generals" who were never in any
>> danger from terrorists anyway (Especially terrorists from Iraq) but it
>> was much "Easier" to go along with it than to think about it

>
> Speaking of armchair generals
> how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its immoral .. heh
> how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its illegal .. heh
> How about the Democrat 'leadership' in congress .. the ultimate
> definition of "ARMCHAIR"
>

Quote:

>> In reality the Government can't protect you from anything, but it
>> makes their job of pretending to do so easier if the public simply
>> complies...

>
> oh, reality based are we? Of course a government can protect you ..
> that's why there is a military ...
> centers for disease control .. air traffic control regs .. et al.
> What in your estimation would have been the outcome of WWII had there
> been no government?
>
> Sorry Charlie,
> looks as if the more you THINK about it, the sillier you become
> might want to stop pretending and start .... what? real THINKING
>
>
> You seem to have grazed in the pasture of liberal zymology for quite
> awhile.
> You might reTHINK that and THINK about why liberalism only constructs
> SYMBOLS?
> When the latest and greatest goes haywire? You're out only an ethereal
> SYMBOL.
> No biggie, just begin constructing the latest and greatest SYMBOL. No
> sweat there.
>
> Rich,
>
>

You have no concept of the word reality at all, you only think / pretend
you do. You probably need a break from Limbaugh, because you constantly
confuse the words "Liberal" and "Logical".

So tell me, how is your fuhrer Bush going to protect the nation from
earthquakes, or how about hurricanes, you still living in a trailer and
loving it obviously - or maybe the folks in New Orleans were a bit too
"Liberal" and deserved what they got eh?

The reality is that no Government or anybody else can guarantee your
safety, but they can pretty much guarantee your vote by fooling you into
thinking they can, and it obviously works on a great many people of
which you are an almost perfect example.

Typically you equate privacy with criminal activity, you stated so
clearly enough, you are typical of the idiots who believe they have
nothing to be concerned about when Governments become more and more
intrusive.

http://www.telisphere.com/~cearley/s...mps/first.html

11-22-2007

Quote:

> You have no concept of the word reality at all, you only think / pretend
> you do. You probably need a break from Limbaugh, because you constantly
> confuse the words "Liberal" and "Logical".

Well ... If you say so ...Sounds like you have a frim grasp on reality there

Quote:

> So tell me, how is your fuhrer Bush going to protect the nation from
> earthquakes, or how about hurricanes, you still living in a trailer and
> loving it obviously - or maybe the folks in New Orleans were a bit too
> "Liberal" and deserved what they got eh?

you've got a cornacopia overflowing with sterotypes there .. such bounty

New Orleans got what the democrat state of Louisana gave them ...
The city of New Orleans got what the democrat city government prepared them
for ...
blaming the weather on your political foes is reaching for straws .. isn't
it?

Quote:

> The reality is that no Government or anybody else can guarantee your
> safety, but they can pretty much guarantee your vote by fooling you into
> thinking they can, and it obviously works on a great many people of which
> you are an almost perfect example.

here comes reality again .. now why is it liberals try to remove any and
all vestiages of risk from 'society'?
with every more intrusive laws .. what are they trying to guarantee? .. then
why gun control?

and .. who? fooled you into thinking the way you do?

You sure seem to know a lot about me how did you come by this ? .. heh

Quote:

> Typically you equate privacy with criminal activity, you stated so clearly
> enough, you are typical of the idiots who believe they have nothing to be
> concerned about when Governments become more and more intrusive.

heh .. if you say so .. oh brother ...
liberals intrude into our lives ... no smoking .. no guns .. more taxes ..
more government ... and to do what with?
make laws that do what?

you have a wonderful way of arguing in a circle and sneaking up on your self
and becoming your own worst enemy

kinda neat, hard keepting track of all your fibs .. isn't it?

Rich

11-22-2007	#1 (permalink)
Rich n/a posts	Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy Quote: > The Government claim such things as being to "Protect" you (or somebody) > from some hypothetical enemy. You "Know" that you are not a criminal / > thief / bad guy and you believe that the Government will only go after the > bad guys, so it is easier just to do nothing about it. Fact is though that > although "You" know you are not the bad guy, nobody else knows that, so > you are just as much a suspect as anybody else. Thus to believe such > legislation only affects bad guys (Pirates / terrorists / criminals etc) > is a complete fallacy. where does common sense enter into the equation? want another common fallacy? Privacy is about protection of my privacy Privacy are mostly about blindfolding the 'cops' here is another nugget to THINK on follow the liberal line of reasoning, NOBODY DO ANYTHING and wait for your stuff to all go wrong while .. at the same time yammer why all the other guys stuff is going wrong and then make sure you are the first on your feet to demand an answer to "WHY DID'NT SOMEONE DO SOMETHING?" Quote: > Most of the proponents of the Iraq war (Which is supposedly to protect us > from terrorists) are "Armchair Generals" who were never in any danger from > terrorists anyway (Especially terrorists from Iraq) but it was much > "Easier" to go along with it than to think about it Speaking of armchair generals how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its immoral .. heh how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its illegal .. heh How about the Democrat 'leadership' in congress .. the ultimate definition of "ARMCHAIR" Quote: > In reality the Government can't protect you from anything, but it makes > their job of pretending to do so easier if the public simply complies... oh, reality based are we? Of course a government can protect you .. that's why there is a military ... centers for disease control .. air traffic control regs .. et al. What in your estimation would have been the outcome of WWII had there been no government? Sorry Charlie, looks as if the more you THINK about it, the sillier you become might want to stop pretending and start .... what? real THINKING You seem to have grazed in the pasture of liberal zymology for quite awhile. You might reTHINK that and THINK about why liberalism only constructs SYMBOLS? When the latest and greatest goes haywire? You're out only an ethereal SYMBOL. No biggie, just begin constructing the latest and greatest SYMBOL. No sweat there. Rich,
My System Specs

11-22-2007	#2 (permalink)
Charlie Tame n/a posts	Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy Rich wrote: Quote: > Quote: >> The Government claim such things as being to "Protect" you (or somebody) >> from some hypothetical enemy. You "Know" that you are not a criminal / >> thief / bad guy and you believe that the Government will only go after >> the bad guys, so it is easier just to do nothing about it. Fact is >> though that although "You" know you are not the bad guy, nobody else >> knows that, so you are just as much a suspect as anybody else. Thus to >> believe such legislation only affects bad guys (Pirates / terrorists / >> criminals etc) is a complete fallacy. > > where does common sense enter into the equation? > want another common fallacy? > Privacy is about protection of my privacy > Privacy are mostly about blindfolding the 'cops' > > here is another nugget to THINK on > > follow the liberal line of reasoning, NOBODY DO ANYTHING and wait for > your stuff to all go wrong while .. > at the same time yammer why all the other guys stuff is going wrong and > then make sure you are the first on your feet to demand an answer to > "WHY DID'NT SOMEONE DO SOMETHING?" > > Quote: >> Most of the proponents of the Iraq war (Which is supposedly to protect >> us from terrorists) are "Armchair Generals" who were never in any >> danger from terrorists anyway (Especially terrorists from Iraq) but it >> was much "Easier" to go along with it than to think about it > > Speaking of armchair generals > how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its immoral .. heh > how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its illegal .. heh > How about the Democrat 'leadership' in congress .. the ultimate > definition of "ARMCHAIR" > Quote: >> In reality the Government can't protect you from anything, but it >> makes their job of pretending to do so easier if the public simply >> complies... > > oh, reality based are we? Of course a government can protect you .. > that's why there is a military ... > centers for disease control .. air traffic control regs .. et al. > What in your estimation would have been the outcome of WWII had there > been no government? > > Sorry Charlie, > looks as if the more you THINK about it, the sillier you become > might want to stop pretending and start .... what? real THINKING > > > You seem to have grazed in the pasture of liberal zymology for quite > awhile. > You might reTHINK that and THINK about why liberalism only constructs > SYMBOLS? > When the latest and greatest goes haywire? You're out only an ethereal > SYMBOL. > No biggie, just begin constructing the latest and greatest SYMBOL. No > sweat there. > > Rich, > > You have no concept of the word reality at all, you only think / pretend you do. You probably need a break from Limbaugh, because you constantly confuse the words "Liberal" and "Logical". So tell me, how is your fuhrer Bush going to protect the nation from earthquakes, or how about hurricanes, you still living in a trailer and loving it obviously - or maybe the folks in New Orleans were a bit too "Liberal" and deserved what they got eh? The reality is that no Government or anybody else can guarantee your safety, but they can pretty much guarantee your vote by fooling you into thinking they can, and it obviously works on a great many people of which you are an almost perfect example. Typically you equate privacy with criminal activity, you stated so clearly enough, you are typical of the idiots who believe they have nothing to be concerned about when Governments become more and more intrusive. http://www.telisphere.com/~cearley/s...mps/first.html
My System Specs

11-22-2007	#3 (permalink)
Rich n/a posts	Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy Quote: > You have no concept of the word reality at all, you only think / pretend > you do. You probably need a break from Limbaugh, because you constantly > confuse the words "Liberal" and "Logical". Well ... If you say so ...Sounds like you have a frim grasp on reality there Quote: > So tell me, how is your fuhrer Bush going to protect the nation from > earthquakes, or how about hurricanes, you still living in a trailer and > loving it obviously - or maybe the folks in New Orleans were a bit too > "Liberal" and deserved what they got eh? you've got a cornacopia overflowing with sterotypes there .. such bounty New Orleans got what the democrat state of Louisana gave them ... The city of New Orleans got what the democrat city government prepared them for ... blaming the weather on your political foes is reaching for straws .. isn't it? Quote: > The reality is that no Government or anybody else can guarantee your > safety, but they can pretty much guarantee your vote by fooling you into > thinking they can, and it obviously works on a great many people of which > you are an almost perfect example. here comes reality again .. now why is it liberals try to remove any and all vestiages of risk from 'society'? with every more intrusive laws .. what are they trying to guarantee? .. then why gun control? and .. who? fooled you into thinking the way you do? You sure seem to know a lot about me how did you come by this ? .. heh Quote: > Typically you equate privacy with criminal activity, you stated so clearly > enough, you are typical of the idiots who believe they have nothing to be > concerned about when Governments become more and more intrusive. heh .. if you say so .. oh brother ... liberals intrude into our lives ... no smoking .. no guns .. more taxes .. more government ... and to do what with? make laws that do what? you have a wonderful way of arguing in a circle and sneaking up on your self and becoming your own worst enemy kinda neat, hard keepting track of all your fibs .. isn't it? Rich
My System Specs

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum
Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy	Vista General
Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy	Vista mail
Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy	Vista security
RC1 by mail - when can one expect it?	Vista General