Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 24, 2011 16:02:48 GMT -5
I dont want my phone tapped because you and I talked on the phone. So no I dont think its a good thing. Selling cigarettes knowingly kills thousands of people each year when is that going to be a crime. Selling alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person is a crime yet the conviction of that offense isnt as prevalent as the guy selling weed. Yet not one single death has ever been recorded from weed. Nope go get a warrent and do your job prove me guilty dont make me prove myself guilty buy recording me and my buddies talking about selling to each other when one of us is out because strangers will get you busted.
I did you get busted selling a couple of grams due to whom you sold it to. They tell the authoritys and they have the right to tap your phone without a warrent. Now every one you talk on the phone to is also able to be tapped because you are a threat to national security. Look it up unfortunatly they got away with it.
A couple of slices? More likely people that bought from you flippedon you then the phone company tapping it.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 24, 2011 16:09:19 GMT -5
No I've never been busted. After the homeland security act I don't deal with strangers. A stranger is somebody I haven't known for more than ten years unless its on the farm because the cops aren't allowed to be there.
No I've never been busted. After the homeland security act I don't deal with strangers. A stranger is somebody I haven't known for more than ten years unless its on the farm because the cops aren't allowed to be there.
Yet you'll talk about dealing on a public message board where your IP address and identity can easily be discovered. You're silly.
Last Edit: Mar 24, 2011 16:16:51 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
I dont want my phone tapped because you and I talked on the phone. So no I dont think its a good thing. Selling cigarettes knowingly kills thousands of people each year when is that going to be a crime. Selling alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person is a crime yet the conviction of that offense isnt as prevalent as the guy selling weed. Yet not one single death has ever been recorded from weed. Nope go get a warrent and do your job prove me guilty dont make me prove myself guilty buy recording me and my buddies talking about selling to each other when one of us is out because strangers will get you busted.
You're being a little ridiculous. If you think that the ability to tap phones was done so that the government could find you and your friends who enjoy some cannabis then you're a little crazy sounding.
You keep going back to personal use of illegal substances and how you don't want the government to know about that. You keep leaving out the real target of these methods which are terrorists.
Stop making this about you. The government doesn't REALLY care if you puff on a bowl. I feel pretty confident that when the leaders of this nation were coming up with the Patriot and Homeland acts they weren't thinking "Awesome! Now we can catch that dime-bag dealer in the middle of nowhere and listen to all their phone conversations and arrest their friends".
I think the bigger threats were in mind. Not you and your friend. Until these hypothetical situations happen to you then why are you so upset? You're worried about what could maybe, possibly happen and that just seems a little silly
No I've never been busted. After the homeland security act I don't deal with strangers. A stranger is somebody I haven't known for more than ten years unless its on the farm because the cops aren't allowed to be there.
Yet you'll talk about it on a public message board where your IP address and identity can easily be found out. You're silly.
No I've never been busted. After the homeland security act I don't deal with strangers. A stranger is somebody I haven't known for more than ten years unless its on the farm because the cops aren't allowed to be there.
When you say "On the farm" do you mean Bonnaroo? Because cops are allowed to be there.
You must be talking about some farm that you work on or something right?
seriously? that was like a DARE slogan. It is on the same leve of seriousness as crack is wack. He only said that to add narco-terrorists to the list like the Taliban who financed themselves through the heroin trade.
ITM is right they are not going after recreational smokers and their friends. They are going after the druglords working on the Mexican Border or organized crime. If they were as stringent as you say they are on cannabis, it wouldn't be decriminalized in several states.
Last Edit: Mar 24, 2011 16:31:47 GMT -5 by Jury - Back to Top
I did you get busted selling a couple of grams due to whom you sold it to. They tell the authoritys and they have the right to tap your phone without a warrent. Now every one you talk on the phone to is also able to be tapped because you are a threat to national security. Look it up unfortunatly they got away with it.
You didn't answer my question.
Do you think that absolutely no good can come from the ability to tap a perceived threat's phone when needed immediately?
I'll answer. There is definitely some good can come from monitoring perceived threats in violation of the Constitution. There is also good that could come from monitoring everyone at all times. And also good that could come from abolishing ALL rights to privacy.
If we'd have policemen stationed in each and every household we could likely reduce spousal and child abuse dramatically, not to mention drug abuse and abusing sick days by calling in when you just want a day off.
Dictatorships are very efficient and have none of the slow and messy political dealing we have with democracy. And in a completely controlled society with absolute electronic tracking and surveillance we can easily make everyone safe from everyone else, if not from the government.
Hell, if we'd just allow constant and continuous monitoring of all our actions we could almost eliminate crime and be completely "safe." Except from those you would inevitably abuse the system.
The real question is not can "any" good come from something as the answer is inevitably YES. We could just as easily ask can any harm come from something and use that to justify complete inaction. The real question is what liberties are we willing to give up for what we perceive to be safety. Every dictator begins with the promise of safety. That's why a diligent citizen remains skeptical and realizes that being a bit unsafe is the true price of freedom.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 24, 2011 16:36:28 GMT -5
I see on the news every nite in the paper at least twice a week so no I dont nor will I ever nor have I ever dealt any ileagle items. I was speaking in hypothetical situations.
Joe bieden said he was going to bring impeachment charges against w for not going and getting congressional approval for going into iraq the first time. Lookit up.
Getting us involved in 6 year debacle for questionable reasons is not the same providing short term humanitarian aid to people rising up against a tyrant.
I hope you're right but I'll be shocked if we're out of Libya anytime soon. Plenty of our military are already being deployed over there on the ground... which Obama said wouldn't happen. More lies to justify more wars we don't need... the one constant throughout all presidencies.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Mar 24, 2011 18:28:24 GMT -5
Really? The latest I saw was that neo-cons like Bill Kristol and Max Boot were calling for ground troops but that none had been sent. As of today, Obama was still saying no U.S. ground troops would be deployed in Libya. Where did you see that we have already done this?
I hope you're right but I'll be shocked if we're out of Libya anytime soon. Plenty of our military are already being deployed over there on the ground... which Obama said wouldn't happen. More lies to justify more wars we don't need... the one constant throughout all presidencies.
Where's your evidence to support this claim? The latest news is that NATO is taking over the no fly zone and there still have been no US ground forces deployed. You may oppose US involvement in the no fly zone, but don't come up with lies like that
Do you think that absolutely no good can come from the ability to tap a perceived threat's phone when needed immediately?
I'll answer. There is definitely some good can come from monitoring perceived threats in violation of the Constitution. There is also good that could come from monitoring everyone at all times. And also good that could come from abolishing ALL rights to privacy.
If we'd have policemen stationed in each and every household we could likely reduce spousal and child abuse dramatically, not to mention NO NO WORD!!! abuse and abusing sick days by calling in when you just want a day off.
Dictatorships are very efficient and have none of the slow and messy political dealing we have with democracy. And in a completely controlled society with absolute electronic tracking and surveillance we can easily make everyone safe from everyone else, if not from the government.
Hell, if we'd just allow constant and continuous monitoring of all our actions we could almost eliminate crime and be completely "safe." Except from those you would inevitably abuse the system.
The real question is not can "any" good come from something as the answer is inevitably YES. We could just as easily ask can any harm come from something and use that to justify complete inaction. The real question is what liberties are we willing to give up for what we perceive to be safety. Every dictator begins with the promise of safety. That's why a diligent citizen remains skeptical and realizes that being a bit unsafe is the true price of freedom.
Thanks Troo, but I was really just asking it to see how arlene would respond and I got my answer. I don't openly support giving up personal privacy......but I just felt that she was being a little ridiculous and making it seem like only bad can come from the tapping of phones of potential threats and that the government was listening to all our conversations so they can arrest you and your friends for enjoying recreational amounts of stuff.
She clearly was trying to make it seem like it's all bad and no good. I wanted to see if she'd see the other side of the argument but sadly she just seems stuck in her ways.
I agree with everything you said......I just wanted to see if she would respond with the sane answer (like you did) of "Yes, there can be some good". I was hoping for her to say something along the lines of "Yes there can be good but I feel it's not worth it to give up personal privacies". Sadly she just tried to convince me that since a commercial said something then that's the government's final decision and anyone who takes a hit of corn is going to get their phone tapped and friends investigated.
Joe bieden said he was going to bring impeachment charges against w for not going and getting congressional approval for going into iraq the first time. Lookit up.
Getting us involved in 6 year debacle for questionable reasons is not the same providing short term humanitarian aid to people rising up against a tyrant.
Since when do Tomahawk cruise missiles qualify as humanitarian aid?
Getting us involved in 6 year debacle for questionable reasons is not the same providing short term humanitarian aid to people rising up against a tyrant.
Since when do Tomahawk cruise missiles qualify as humanitarian aid?
Since Qaddafi been using his soviet era planes and gunships to take out and bomb rebels. So far enforcing the no fly zone is the as far as our involvement goes. We haven't started a ground war or tried to remove qaddafi yet.
Getting us involved in 6 year debacle for questionable reasons is not the same providing short term humanitarian aid to people rising up against a tyrant.
Since when do Tomahawk cruise missiles qualify as humanitarian aid?
Using Tomahawks to remotely destroy airbases that are being used for strikes on unarmed civilians is certainly humanitarian.
rooter Where did you see we have troops on the ground? LAst I heard we were turning this mess over to NATO as of tomorrow.
Post by TalonissinolaT on Mar 25, 2011 18:56:31 GMT -5
holy Leno...this thread (at least what i have wasted my time reading) is hilarious, pathetic, and extremely sad all at once...but, it is a PERFECT analogy for political discourse in our country as a whole:
democrat: "i'm right, you're wrong, and everything is your fault" republican: "no, i'm right, you're way wronger, and it's all your fault" democrat: "nuh uh" republican: "yeah huh"
all the while, the average democrat and republican have much more in common with each other than they do with the cockholsters who "represent" them. if you look, it's easy to see what we really have for a "political system." it's not a group of people elected to serve us in our best interests. it's a state that has been captured by the super rich, multi-national corporations, and their group of paid for "politicians" doing as they see fit - dictating policy that hurts the general public and helps their bottomlines. all the while, bashing the other side and employing hyperbole to make sure that we keep fighting amongst ourselves enough that we don't see through their bullshit, come together, and demand change...[/diatribe]
disclaimer: this was not directed to any one person...just an observation
We'll see how long this drags out, hopefully not long because those convoys have been severely weakened and their airfields are bombed out.
US publicly stating it's turning it over to NATO forces, keeps me in better spirits. Let France and England take care of that oil, considering they are being bent over the barrel by Russia right now.
Obama has been real defensive about any engagement of war with Libya because I think he knows we can't afford another conflict due to our economy and Afghanistan.
Last Edit: Mar 26, 2011 2:21:58 GMT -5 by Jury - Back to Top
holy Leno...this thread (at least what i have wasted my time reading) is hilarious, pathetic, and extremely sad all at once...but, it is a PERFECT analogy for political discourse in our country as a whole:
democrat: "i'm right, you're wrong, and everything is your fault" republican: "no, i'm right, you're way wronger, and it's all your fault" democrat: "nuh uh" republican: "yeah huh"
all the while, the average democrat and republican have much more in common with each other than they do with the cockholsters who "represent" them. if you look, it's easy to see what we really have for a "political system." it's not a group of people elected to serve us in our best interests. it's a state that has been captured by the super rich, multi-national corporations, and their group of paid for "politicians" doing as they see fit - dictating policy that hurts the general public and helps their bottomlines. all the while, bashing the other side and employing hyperbole to make sure that we keep fighting amongst ourselves enough that we don't see through their bullshit, come together, and demand change...[/diatribe]
disclaimer: this was not directed to any one person...just an observation
I never blamed W singularly for gas prices though his wars did produce uncertainty which was used to inflate prices. Outrageous gas prices are the result of oil company collusion (promoted by non-enforcement of anti-trust laws which started under Reagan and continued under both Reps and Dems) and policies to weaken the power of The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission regarding limits on commodity speculation. (part of the overall push to ease regulations also started by Reagan and continued under both Reps and Dems.) Both these are universally supported by today's Republicans and also by most Democrats.
These weak rules allow any excuse to be used to instantly inflated prices and reap huge profits for oil companies and commodity speculators.
It basically comes down to our system being controlled by monied interests. The rules therefore favor the wealthy. The Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited and secret money into US election will only make things worse and abuses like this more universal.
Just think of the day when prices of food, medicine and perhaps even household electricty are allowed to fluctuate like this. Aaaaah, the joys of deregulation never cease.
THIS is the Leno that scares me. Troo, you are totally right.
Deregulation has overturned many of the New Deal policies FDR put in place and has weakend the power of consumers and put it towards the titans of industry. Hell the Consumer protection act was a pain to get through and that was so credit card companies can't put unwritten interest or fees on your credit cards, seems pretty simple case of protection of the people. Don't blame the president for oil prices because oil companies and their lobbysists have found ways to give themselves tax breaks, loosen labor laws, and relax anti-trust acts. And when these big companies do lose money, they find a way for us to fund the bill. Like Gordon Gecko said, "privatize the gain, socialize the losses". It pisses me off the Geckos of this world believe they are above the Constitution that protects the rights of the people. Soon, we need a president that will reform big business like Teddy Roosevelt did against Carnegies, the Rockefellers, and the J.P Morgans of his day. Because deregulation has led to the widest gap between the rich and the poor and has led to two financial crises.(Black Monday in '87 and now our current recession) It doesn't work.
Why be divisive when this is happening? Governors in Indiana and Ohio are starting to follow Scott Walker's lead in weakening or eliminating collective bargaining rights for unions now. www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/23/unions.future/index.html Remember your voting rights, it's one of the few powers we have that keeps us equal.
Last Edit: Mar 26, 2011 2:42:31 GMT -5 by Jury - Back to Top
The only things our two major parties agree upon: 1. Demonizing one another 2. Upper class tax cuts 3. War with oil nations 4. Their own pay raises
File Libya under #3.
Anyone who's questioning me on whether - not when - this situation leads to American boots on the ground needs to ask themselves... when was the last time this country got this close to a war and subsequently was not a participant?
Hate to break it to you, you idealistic hippies... but this is America's third war regardless of what they're calling it now.
I'm sure enough of it that I'd bet one of y'all a Bonnaroo beer over American boots on the ground, if only my conscience would let me.
I made a post about Libya a couple days ago, but I dont see it now..
My main point was:
If the rebels in Libya cannot have a successful revolution on their own, how will they ever stand on their own? If we help them reestablish a fair government in their country, when will we be able to stop helping them? Once we back out of the middle east, they will not stand for long, they will be seen as a weak target (which they will be with out us) and they will get invaded, or the powers that once were will find their way back into power.
From a humanitarian standpoint, I think we are doing a great thing. But in politics, there are always motives in play other than humanitarian aid.
Unless there is a Declaration of War, we should not use military force against entity, nor should we occupy countries.