Bill Maher decides to permanently entrench himself on the wrong side of history

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:44 PM, disparaissant said:

i literally am agog that someone like you is just fine and dandy with greenwald being bankrolled by a guy who has directly stated that whistleblowers should be jailed, that leaks shouldn't be released to the public, and who has cut off funding to numerous whistleblowers and their various means of donation. paypal cut off wikileaks and cut off chelsea manning's defense fund. it seems to me that you are so blinded by your (unwarranted, imo) adulation of glenn greenwald that you're willing to completely turn a blind eye to how utterly and perversely shady this is.

 

I don't know the details about what you are saying, but it sounds pretty shady you are right. The thing is that I've been employed by plenty of people I don't like, and most likely share very different views from my own.The thing that keeps our business relationship going is that we are of mutual benefit to each other. Just a bit of food for thought. Just because someone is financially associated with someone else does not mean that they are making significant compromises in the name of monetary gain.

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:50 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:45 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Collecting the data to begin with is an abuse.

says who ?

 

 

I don't know...The constitution? Any rational human being?

i don't know about constitution but do you feel abused that watmm.com collects your data for example ? or gmail ?

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:55 PM, eugene said:

i don't know about constitution but do you feel abused that watmm.com collects your data for example ? or gmail ?

 

We need to differentiate between "data" and "private data."

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:50 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:45 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

It's kind of funny that people can think that a government abusing its power to collect all the data from every citizen isn't in fact abusing the data they have collected. Collecting the data to begin with is an abuse. As citizens of the United States we are continually abused by our government on a daily basis. We have no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they wanted trust and faith they should have not broken and damaged it. Let's not apologize or support their efforts.

 

Regardless of how corrupt the us govt is, they still need to keep secrets. Governments need double agents and clandestine operations and all that shit.

 

So it's not a matter of apologizing for or supporting their efforts, it's just a matter of what should be secret and what shouldn't be.

 

 

Keeping secrets is different from abusing power and infringing on citizens rights. To be honest though, I feel there is a very small amount of legitimate information that should not be freely available in the scope of government operations.

 

And no it isn't. They are collecting everyone's data. That has nothing to do with secrecy.

 

You want to keep secrets about important things like military operations, software, infrastructure, etc. That's cool. You don't need all my information to do that. You don't need everyone internet search history, or logs of all the phone calls going overseas to do that.

 

And if you wanted to do that. You should have successfully stopped 9/11 and continually proven your ability to use those resources for OUR safety.

 

But they didn't They failed, and who knows what other fucked up shit they have done with that abuse.

@Adieu - i would imagine the difference here is that you are presumably not a high-profile journalist sitting on a treasure trove of information that could very well conflict with the interests of the person who is paying you.

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:57 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:50 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:45 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

It's kind of funny that people can think that a government abusing its power to collect all the data from every citizen isn't in fact abusing the data they have collected. Collecting the data to begin with is an abuse. As citizens of the United States we are continually abused by our government on a daily basis. We have no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they wanted trust and faith they should have not broken and damaged it. Let's not apologize or support their efforts.

 

Regardless of how corrupt the us govt is, they still need to keep secrets. Governments need double agents and clandestine operations and all that shit.

 

So it's not a matter of apologizing for or supporting their efforts, it's just a matter of what should be secret and what shouldn't be.

 

 

Keeping secrets is different from abusing power and infringing on citizens rights. To be honest though, I feel there is a very small amount of legitimate information that should not be freely available in the scope of government operations.

 

And no it isn't. They are collecting everyone's data. That has nothing to do with secrecy.

 

You want to keep secrets about important things like military operations, software, infrastructure, etc. That's cool. You don't need all my information to do that. You don't need everyone internet search history, or logs of all the phone calls going overseas to do that.

 

And if you wanted to do that. You should have successfully stopped 9/11 and continually proven your ability to use those resources for OUR safety.

 

But they didn't They failed, and who knows what other fucked up shit they have done with that abuse.

 

 

I agree! (mostly)

 

 

If I was certain that the NSA was only gonna use data-mining to, you know, find a crazy trying to secure a loose soviet nuke then I'd actually be fine with it.

Edited January 21, 2014 by LimpyLoo

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:57 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:50 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:45 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

It's kind of funny that people can think that a government abusing its power to collect all the data from every citizen isn't in fact abusing the data they have collected. Collecting the data to begin with is an abuse. As citizens of the United States we are continually abused by our government on a daily basis. We have no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they wanted trust and faith they should have not broken and damaged it. Let's not apologize or support their efforts.

 

Regardless of how corrupt the us govt is, they still need to keep secrets. Governments need double agents and clandestine operations and all that shit.

 

So it's not a matter of apologizing for or supporting their efforts, it's just a matter of what should be secret and what shouldn't be.

 

 

Keeping secrets is different from abusing power and infringing on citizens rights. To be honest though, I feel there is a very small amount of legitimate information that should not be freely available in the scope of government operations.

 

And no it isn't. They are collecting everyone's data. That has nothing to do with secrecy.

 

You want to keep secrets about important things like military operations, software, infrastructure, etc. That's cool. You don't need all my information to do that. You don't need everyone internet search history, or logs of all the phone calls going overseas to do that.

 

And if you wanted to do that. You should have successfully stopped 9/11 and continually proven your ability to use those resources for OUR safety.

 

But they didn't They failed, and who knows what other fucked up shit they have done with that abuse.

 

there's no proof regarding bolded parts whatsoever, regardless whether the act of collecting data is abuse.

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:56 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:55 PM, eugene said:

i don't know about constitution but do you feel abused that watmm.com collects your data for example ? or gmail ?

 

We need to differentiate between "data" and "private data."

 

lol yeah maybe if Joyrex has the power to imprison me, stop me from flying, audit me, etc I'd be a little worried about it, but luckily Gmail, facebook and watmm don't have that power (yet). The power rests solely with the US government, and no they don't deserve to have not only that power but the power to scrutinize every decision I've made in the past based on my electronic communication.

 

that argument is kind of invalid to be honest, we voluntarily give information to corporations we *dont have a choice* if the US government has it or not. make sense?

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:58 PM, disparaissant said:

@Adieu - i would imagine the difference here is that you are presumably not a high-profile journalist sitting on a treasure trove of information that could very well conflict with the interests of the person who is paying you.

you have continually raised the idea that there *could* be a potential conflict of interest in the future, but this is all you've done. At no point through out these leaks can you point to a single thing which shows that this is happening. I'm sorry but I don't think it's nearly as shady as you do, and Greenwald wrote about Chelsea manning probably more than any other prominent journalist in the united states or elsewhere. It just seems like you have a bone to pick with him, which is fine but no i don't see things the same way

 

sorry if im not responding to every point or post, the discussion has become too fast paced for me to keep up but I'm glad the debate seems to be in more rational less insult driven/character assassination direction now. but at the same time yeah i think Bill Maher is a fucking brown-shirt, i think he's a fascist. And yeah thats a pretty extreme thing to say but i believe it 100%. The most dangerous kind of fascist thought is the kind that masquerades as freedom loving or populist and falsely positions itself as being against government overreach while still mainly using a public platform to defend it.

Edited January 21, 2014 by John Ehrlichman

and it's cool you don't see things the same way! it doesn't warrant you calling my valid concerns "ad hominems" just because you have a crush on glenn greenwald. that's ludicrous.

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:55 PM, eugene said:

i don't know about constitution but do you feel abused that watmm.com collects your data for example ? or gmail ?

 

I often wonder if joyrex can see unposted posts as I frequently write long replies out and delete them. I also start threads without posting them as well.

 

My using this site is voluntary. I know the risks of my using this site, and I have a general idea who has access to my information. I purposefully limit information here so that I can remain comfortable.

 

You speak of it as if the government owns the internet in the same way that joyrex owns this site.

 

I don't think that any email provider should be able to save information. Once an email is deleted it should be gone forever. All the information moving through gmail should be encrypted so that only those that are intended to have access have it. The only time anyone should be able to access that data is if they are an authority who has been granted access due to reasonable probably cause to do so, and there should be no recorded logs. Only current data should be accessible.

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:05 PM, disparaissant said:

and it's cool you don't see things the same way! it doesn't warrant you calling my valid concerns "ad hominems" just because you have a crush on glenn greenwald. that's ludicrous.

dude read your original post in the thread, if you were reacting to my characterization of Maher as a piece of shit nazi then fine, but I promise ill be more level headed if you do in the rest of the discussions

Edited January 21, 2014 by John Ehrlichman

lol okay also just gonna throw out there that the word "fascist" means something beyond "someone who i disagree with on a fundamental level." bill maher is a liberal hack and a piss-poor imitation of a "progressive." he's pretty far from an actual fascist and using rhetorical language like "brownshirt" just ends up making you look like a loon. especially when the person you are describing is what passes for a liberal these days.

that's ok, im willing to accept that, i will stand by my characterization with full confidence

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:07 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

dude read your original post in the thread, if you were reacting to my characterization of Maher as a piece of shit nazi then fine, but I promise ill be more level headed if you do in the rest of the discussions

my original post in this thread was that greenwald and maher are both insufferable. i stand by that because they both are, to me.

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:08 PM, disparaissant said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:07 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

dude read your original post in the thread, if you were reacting to my characterization of Maher as a piece of shit nazi then fine, but I promise ill be more level headed if you do in the rest of the discussions

my original post in this thread was that greenwald and maher are both insufferable. i stand by that because they both are, to me.

 

good, as Goebbels er i mean Maher said, 'we agree to disagree'

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:01 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:56 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:55 PM, eugene said:

i don't know about constitution but do you feel abused that watmm.com collects your data for example ? or gmail ?

 

We need to differentiate between "data" and "private data."

 

lol yeah maybe if Joyrex has the power to imprison me, stop me from flying, audit me, etc I'd be a little worried about it, but luckily Gmail, facebook and watmm don't have that power (yet). The power rests solely with the US government, and no they don't deserve to have not only that power but the power to scrutinize every decision I've made in the past based on my electronic communication.

 

that argument is kind of invalid to be honest, we voluntarily give information to corporations we *dont have a choice* if the US government has it or not. make sense?

 

there are a lot of nasty things private individuals or corporations can do with such data, at least you have some sort of influence on government.

you don't actually voluntarily give any data to any corporations, you use their services because you trust they won't exploit it or abuse your privacy (and they show you ads and shit). so i don't understand why this thinking can't be applied to nsa usage of data.

it can be applied to a certain extent, but that same type of 'influence' you speak of can also be wielded at corporations, but in a very miniscule fashion like purchasing power, etc. This is the point we've reached with the NSA, we can maybe 'influence' public opinion but do you really think that we can somehow take a public vote against NSA policy at this point? I really don't believe we can, the government is not going to give up this extreme new power they have very easily.

to quote gandalf 'there is only one lord of the ring and he does not share power' :)

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:00 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:57 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:50 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:45 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

It's kind of funny that people can think that a government abusing its power to collect all the data from every citizen isn't in fact abusing the data they have collected. Collecting the data to begin with is an abuse. As citizens of the United States we are continually abused by our government on a daily basis. We have no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they wanted trust and faith they should have not broken and damaged it. Let's not apologize or support their efforts.

 

Regardless of how corrupt the us govt is, they still need to keep secrets. Governments need double agents and clandestine operations and all that shit.

 

So it's not a matter of apologizing for or supporting their efforts, it's just a matter of what should be secret and what shouldn't be.

 

 

Keeping secrets is different from abusing power and infringing on citizens rights. To be honest though, I feel there is a very small amount of legitimate information that should not be freely available in the scope of government operations.

 

And no it isn't. They are collecting everyone's data. That has nothing to do with secrecy.

 

You want to keep secrets about important things like military operations, software, infrastructure, etc. That's cool. You don't need all my information to do that. You don't need everyone internet search history, or logs of all the phone calls going overseas to do that.

 

And if you wanted to do that. You should have successfully stopped 9/11 and continually proven your ability to use those resources for OUR safety.

 

But they didn't They failed, and who knows what other fucked up shit they have done with that abuse.

 

there's no proof regarding bolded parts whatsoever, regardless whether the act of collecting data is abuse.

 

 

You're right. Supposedly, it hasn't been proven yet. But it has been stated by those with access that this is taking place. It will be proven soon I'm sure. I haven't followed this entire ordeal closely.

 

I do recall that the government has been harassing communications companies to turn over larger amounts of various data about people using their services while restricting those companies under the threat of legal punishment for even speaking about the fact that the government is requesting something. So, I'm going say that their is high likelihood of abuse of power going on.

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:58 PM, disparaissant said:

@Adieu - i would imagine the difference here is that you are presumably not a high-profile journalist sitting on a treasure trove of information that could very well conflict with the interests of the person who is paying you.

 

Nuance is important. I would regard your concerns as valid but currently unfounded. Like I said, I'm not educated about this employer you are currently discussing.

in case anyone missed this, Obama told a countless amount of lies in this press conference. And this wouldn't have occurred if it wasn't for Snowden and Greenwald's work. Pretty big feat to be able to put a sitting president of the united states in such an embarrassing and shameful position. He's looking more Nixon like as each day passes.

president Obama addresses almost every major revelation in the Guardian article series and tries to debunk each one with his charm and smirks, but presenting no valid counter argument to disprove the Snowden documents.

I'll put my more vicious stances in spoilers so they don't cause too many reactions

 

Edited January 21, 2014 by John Ehrlichman

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:16 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:00 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:57 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:50 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:45 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

It's kind of funny that people can think that a government abusing its power to collect all the data from every citizen isn't in fact abusing the data they have collected. Collecting the data to begin with is an abuse. As citizens of the United States we are continually abused by our government on a daily basis. We have no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they wanted trust and faith they should have not broken and damaged it. Let's not apologize or support their efforts.

 

Regardless of how corrupt the us govt is, they still need to keep secrets. Governments need double agents and clandestine operations and all that shit.

 

So it's not a matter of apologizing for or supporting their efforts, it's just a matter of what should be secret and what shouldn't be.

 

 

Keeping secrets is different from abusing power and infringing on citizens rights. To be honest though, I feel there is a very small amount of legitimate information that should not be freely available in the scope of government operations.

 

And no it isn't. They are collecting everyone's data. That has nothing to do with secrecy.

 

You want to keep secrets about important things like military operations, software, infrastructure, etc. That's cool. You don't need all my information to do that. You don't need everyone internet search history, or logs of all the phone calls going overseas to do that.

 

And if you wanted to do that. You should have successfully stopped 9/11 and continually proven your ability to use those resources for OUR safety.

 

But they didn't They failed, and who knows what other fucked up shit they have done with that abuse.

 

there's no proof regarding bolded parts whatsoever, regardless whether the act of collecting data is abuse.

 

 

You're right. Supposedly, it hasn't been proven yet. But it has been stated by those with access that this is taking place. It will be proven soon I'm sure. I haven't followed this entire ordeal closely.

 

I do recall that the government has been harassing communications companies to turn over larger amounts of various data about people using their services while restricting those companies under the threat of legal punishment for even speaking about the fact that the government is requesting something. So, I'm going say that their is high likelihood of abuse of power going on.

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:58 PM, disparaissant said:

@Adieu - i would imagine the difference here is that you are presumably not a high-profile journalist sitting on a treasure trove of information that could very well conflict with the interests of the person who is paying you.

 

Nuance is important. I would regard your concerns as valid but currently unfounded. Like I said, I'm not educated about this employer you are currently discussing.

 

thanks Adieu, you've just poked more holes than I bothered to do in the false argument that 'some things need to be kept secret', yes I will concede that point but one has nothing to do with the other, these are not legitimate national security secrets and they never were. Spying on the Brazilian president is not something the US government deserves to keep a secret, because the way i see it, it's a crime that should be exposed. This is just one small example of the ridiculous nature of this program

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:09 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:01 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:56 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:55 PM, eugene said:

i don't know about constitution but do you feel abused that watmm.com collects your data for example ? or gmail ?

 

We need to differentiate between "data" and "private data."

 

lol yeah maybe if Joyrex has the power to imprison me, stop me from flying, audit me, etc I'd be a little worried about it, but luckily Gmail, facebook and watmm don't have that power (yet). The power rests solely with the US government, and no they don't deserve to have not only that power but the power to scrutinize every decision I've made in the past based on my electronic communication.

 

that argument is kind of invalid to be honest, we voluntarily give information to corporations we *dont have a choice* if the US government has it or not. make sense?

 

there are a lot of nasty things private individuals or corporations can do with such data, at least you have some sort of influence on government.

you don't actually voluntarily give any data to any corporations, you use their services because you trust they won't exploit it or abuse your privacy (and they show you ads and shit). so i don't understand why this thinking can't be applied to nsa usage of data.

 

 

I personally feel I have more influence on businesses than corporations. If a corporation does something many don't agree with the consequences are generally drastic and happen quickly.

 

If the government does something unjust it takes years, decades, centuries to correct. If it ever is corrected at all. We are lucky enough to live in a country where changes can happen without people having to sacrifice their lives to do so. The thing is that many are afraid of this being an eventuality.

 

And choosing to use or not use something is the very definition of voluntary. I don't trust corporations not to abuse my data. I hope that they don't, and I limit it as much as possible.

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:11 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

it can be applied to a certain extent, but that same type of 'influence' you speak of can also be wielded at corporations, but in a very miniscule fashion like purchasing power, etc. This is the point we've reached with the NSA, we can maybe 'influence' public opinion but do you really think that we can somehow take a public vote against NSA policy at this point? I really don't believe we can, the government is not going to give up this extreme new power they have very easily.

 

to quote gandalf 'there is only one lord of the ring and he does not share power' :)

no you don't get to vote who will run google and what are its ethical standards will be so it's not similar at all.

of course you can vote against NSA's authority, did someone one prohibit you from voting for paultards for example ?

why won't the government give up particular abilities and authorities if it will become publicly unsanctioned ? there have been countless of reforms in every field imaginable. your ideas about government, its goals and people working in it are comical.

Meant to say more influence on businesses than government. Can't edit now though.

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:24 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:16 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:00 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:57 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:50 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:45 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

It's kind of funny that people can think that a government abusing its power to collect all the data from every citizen isn't in fact abusing the data they have collected. Collecting the data to begin with is an abuse. As citizens of the United States we are continually abused by our government on a daily basis. We have no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they wanted trust and faith they should have not broken and damaged it. Let's not apologize or support their efforts.

 

Regardless of how corrupt the us govt is, they still need to keep secrets. Governments need double agents and clandestine operations and all that shit.

 

So it's not a matter of apologizing for or supporting their efforts, it's just a matter of what should be secret and what shouldn't be.

 

 

Keeping secrets is different from abusing power and infringing on citizens rights. To be honest though, I feel there is a very small amount of legitimate information that should not be freely available in the scope of government operations.

 

And no it isn't. They are collecting everyone's data. That has nothing to do with secrecy.

 

You want to keep secrets about important things like military operations, software, infrastructure, etc. That's cool. You don't need all my information to do that. You don't need everyone internet search history, or logs of all the phone calls going overseas to do that.

 

And if you wanted to do that. You should have successfully stopped 9/11 and continually proven your ability to use those resources for OUR safety.

 

But they didn't They failed, and who knows what other fucked up shit they have done with that abuse.

 

there's no proof regarding bolded parts whatsoever, regardless whether the act of collecting data is abuse.

 

 

You're right. Supposedly, it hasn't been proven yet. But it has been stated by those with access that this is taking place. It will be proven soon I'm sure. I haven't followed this entire ordeal closely.

 

I do recall that the government has been harassing communications companies to turn over larger amounts of various data about people using their services while restricting those companies under the threat of legal punishment for even speaking about the fact that the government is requesting something. So, I'm going say that their is high likelihood of abuse of power going on.

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:58 PM, disparaissant said:

@Adieu - i would imagine the difference here is that you are presumably not a high-profile journalist sitting on a treasure trove of information that could very well conflict with the interests of the person who is paying you.

 

Nuance is important. I would regard your concerns as valid but currently unfounded. Like I said, I'm not educated about this employer you are currently discussing.

 

Spying on the Brazilian president is not something the US government deserves to keep a secret, because the way i see it, it's a crime that should be exposed.

do you at least entertain the possibility that this might be done for national security even if it doesn't adhere to some international standards ? and that you might just not have enough information and knowledge of this particular incident and the motives behind it before jumping into predictable "USA IS A CRIMINAL !!" ?

sorry for being lazy but where is a good spot to check out the leaked documents?