Letters to the Editor
-
That's right tiberius
you've got us all pegged.
Actually, I'm not in favor of the gun register either, but I AM in favor of having everyone get a tattoo of Bush's intitials on the back of our neck. It's not like it's 666, so I don't see anyone else having a problem with it, either.
-
Bush's initials
"Better G.W.B. on your neck than another 9/11"
-
Tiberius:
I bet...
you all wouldn't have a problem with a national database that tracked everyone who bought a gun.
Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. But that is what tends to happen to people who run around spewing assertions without having the slightest basis for them.
-
Boots On The Ground Progress Report On Gubmint Data Usage
I have sent critical (but not raving) e-mails to the White House. I have opposed W.'s Washington Creeps on Salon.
I inquired recently via the www about visiting Cuba. (I did not go there. I went to Belize instead.)
My wife and my friends tell me that "They" will put me on the No Fly List. They warn that hard-eyed little guys will knock on my door, and take me to Cuba by force.
But it has not happened. I breeze through Customs & Immigration. So far, so good. Maybe the Washington Creeps want us to believe that they have all-seeing, all-nasty eyes. And maybe it is a bluff, like Saddam hoping Iran would believe he had an A-bomb.
So far, so good.
But if timbuktom quits posting on Salon.com for several weeks, please check with Gitmo.com, just in case.
-
How much wronger can wrong be?
Actually, you[tiberius] couldn't be more wrong. But that is what tends to happen to people who run around spewing assertions without having the slightest basis for them.
--GlennGreenwald
You mean, like anyone who advocates a unilateral war against Iraq, Iran, or Syria? That sort of wrong?
-
Glenn...
Touchy today are we? Glad to hear it. Based on your other hysterical rants about the boogey man government I wasn't sure how far your fear would take you.
Your problem is that you have little if any faith in our system. You think that if someone votes one way they can't have a divergent opinion on specific issues. You shake a cry because someone might hear a conservative viewpoint, maybe even a radical one, and they will abandon their core beliefs.
Your fears are poisonous.
-
Project much?
Your fears are poisonous.
-- tiberius
Your mental illness is palpable.
-
Fears
Tiberius,
Whatever Glenn's (theoretical) fears (may) be, far more poisonous are the fears that drive those who want to watch everyone, everywhere, just in case....especially since no one will be allowed to watch the watchmen. I would not trust anyone with that power, and that is not paranoia, but professional opinion.
-
Government in your private medical affairs
This is one of the main reasons the right objects to all national health care models proposed.
One down.
-
Watertight logic
"Your problem is that you have little if any faith in our system.
Must've been why Glenn became a constitutional law and civil rights lawyer.
So little faith in the system. Right, emperor tiberius?
No kings,
Robert
-
James Tiberius Jerk
You think that if someone votes one way they can't have a divergent opinion on specific issues.
This from the guy who accused us all of clamoring for federal gun registration upthread.
You shake a cry because someone might hear a conservative viewpoint, maybe even a radical one, and they will abandon their core beliefs.
What the hell are you referring to? Are you sure you're posting to the right site?
Glenn is, right now, in this post and thread, articulating THE conservative viewpoint.
What "conservative" viewpoint do you think he is avoiding here?
-
Tiberius?
I would have thought Nero, or Caligula.
-
AnonE.Mouse (or one of the anonnies) beat me too it.
About the health care argument.
Hi, Introvertgirl. ;-)
I think you are referring to Sybil Edmonds, FBI.
-
Report is likely unreliable
I concur with all of this, except to interject a note of skepticism about the accuracy of the original report. Before concluding that government agents have violated this 2005 Prescription Drug reporting act, the reporter for ABC should be queried about the source of this information, and that source, if possible, should be specifically asked about what databases are being referred to and what steps were taken to ensure that all queries were within the law. If not, Congress should investigate.
-
Faith-based systems
tiberius: Your problem is that you have little if any faith in our system.
I for one have a great deal of faith in our system. This is our system:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What I don't have faith in is people who want to change that system for their own benefit so that the right of the people can be violated at will but the rights of the violators to be secure from scrutiny becomes inviolate.
-
Prunes:
Glenn is, right now, in this post and thread, articulating THE conservative viewpoint.
What "conservative" viewpoint do you think he is avoiding here?
So funny, isn't it. Here I am, arguing: (a) for restraints on federal power, (b) against data compiling on American citizens by the Government, (c) against a National ID card, and (d) against encroachments by the federal government into areas tradionally (and constitutionally) preserved for the states.
And yet he comes and says I'm petrified of "conservative" views and I want to conceal them.
As I've said many times before - and that comment illustrates it perfectly - they don't even know what the word "conservative" means anymore . . . other than "supporting anything and everything the Leader wants." Literally - that's what it means to them.
-
Faith-based systems 2
Here's where I lack faith: I don't have any faith whatsoever in any of these profiling databases. I know enough statistics, have enough serious programming experience, and read enough of current security research to know that anyone who puts their faith in a system that passively and indifferently gathers data and expects magic 'data mining' algorithms to suddenly pop up potential shooters is crazy.
Look up ANY report on the effectiveness of the TSA program which has eaten up so much money and time to see how completely ineffective such a scheme is. Life just doesn't work that way. Your expectation of producing actionable data from a needle in a haystack is zero. I could go into detail here about Bayes' theorem and the proper application of probability theory, but let's not go too far astray.
Such security schemes are universally ineffective and spectacularly vulnerable to abuse. If your objective is to earn fractions of pennies per 1000s of data points from data-mining, that actually works, because your goal is cumulative.
But if your goal is to find the one bit of information that could prevent VA Tech, no data-mining is going to outperform proper school policies and effective law enforcement.