Vikrant is certainly a bigger reason for them to complain than Izumo. Soon the United States will be getting an even bigger toy than that - the USS Gerald Ford!

pwhodges wrote:[url]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/dont-worry-nsa-sayswe-only-touch-1-6-of-daily-global-internet-traffic/[/url]
I don't find that reassuring, myself...

So, NSA is the new KGB? Not surprised. To me, complaints about the agency were around for years.

The difference is -- the watched staring down at the barrel of a gun.

soul.assassin wrote:So, NSA is the new KGB? Not surprised. To me, complaints about the agency were around for years.

The difference is -- the watched staring down at the barrel of a gun.

I thought MKULTRA was CIA, not NSA.

soul.assassin wrote:The difference is -- the watched staring down at the barrel of a gun.

I own a 12 gauge. I can't see most of the armchair activists here in the US actually taking to armed protests. Most will turn tail and run.

Catamari wrote:I own a 12 gauge.

Somewhere atop his skull throne, Evil Emperor Obummer is quaking in his black-leather boots, his foul spawn the Military-Industrial Complex quivering in terror of your mighty penis-surrogate, clinging to the leg of its ungodly father, as if Grendel fleeing armless to his Dam (played, naturally, by a CG Angelina Jolie). No more shall these monsters pillage and rape ARE FREEDUMS. No more...for somewhere on the internet, a man has claimed to own a 12-gauge.

Azathoth wrote:Somewhere atop his skull throne, Evil Emperor Obummer is quaking in his black-leather boots, his foul spawn the Military-Industrial Complex quivering in terror of your mighty penis-surrogate, clinging to the leg of its ungodly father, as if Grendel fleeing armless to his Dam (played, naturally, by a CG Angelina Jolie). No more shall these monsters pillage and rape ARE FREEDUMS. No more...for somewhere on the internet, a man has claimed to own a 12-gauge.

That was brilliant.

Also, it's not a penis-surrogate - it is an assault-tactical-camo-penis-manacer-surrogate. Get it right, libtard.

Azathoth wrote:I have an instinctive need to belittle and denigrate anyone who dares engage in a practice that I disagree with as a hollow cover for my own insecurities and as a narcissistic attempt to bolster my own ego.

Fixed that for you.

But seriously, I am getting really tired of this shit. People can't be bothered to come up with a logical, sensible argument, so they fall back to appealing to emotion and/or shaming those they don't agree with. It's the lowest form of commentary there is. It takes zero thought or creativity to make comments like this and it is, at its core, ideological bullying.

Catamari wrote:That was brilliant.

Also, it's not a penis-surrogate - it is an assault-tactical-camo-penis-manacer-surrogate. Get it right, libtard.

Sounds tacticool, bronservative.

Tribblepoo wrote:Fixed that for you.

Speaking of insecurities, that sure was a pointlessly rude and defensive response to someone making a joke about the propensity of gun owners to act like they really could take on the NSA/CIA/whatever if the American ultra-right's paranoid delusions came true.

Azathoth wrote:Speaking of insecurities, that sure was a pointlessly rude and defensive response to someone making a joke about the propensity of gun owners to act like they really could take on the NSA/CIA/whatever if the American ultra-right's paranoid delusions came true.

Rude? Yeah, it was meant to be in response to your ridiculous shit. Defensive? Yeah, I guess you can call it anything you want so long as any sort of blame or responsibility gets shifted away from you, right?

Point is, your flat-out insulting response to Catamari was completely unnecessary and you deserved to be called out on the manner in which you chose to comment. Even if you thought that Catamari's mentioning of firearms was unnecessary, your response could have been one hell of a LOT more civil than the liberal fucktard knee-jerk talking points you immediately resorted to.

Man, it sure does suck how when people can't be bothered to come up with a logical, sensible argument, they fall back to appealing to emotion and/or shaming those they don't agree with.

Oh, come on, Tribble, it's clearly a joke. Nobody talks like that. I realized that the moment I read "Obummer".

Catamari wrote:Oh, come on, Tribble, it's clearly a joke. Nobody talks like that. I realized that the moment I read "Obummer".

I figured "CG Angelina Jolie" was the biggest tell, myself.

vvv Good thing this isn't "practical, reasonable discourse", but a website devoted to arguing about cartoons.

Catamari wrote:Oh, come on, Tribble, it's clearly a joke. Nobody talks like that. I realized that the moment I read "Obummer".

If it was a joke, it was unnecessary. In jest or not, there is way too much of that shit going around. The intelligent discourse surrounding the subject of guns has basically evaporated since last year.

If I seem thin skinned, that's exactly why. The verbal attacks on people for any ideological difference have gotten progressively thicker in the last eight years and it's getting old.

"If you don't support the War on Terror, you're unpatriotic."
"If you're not with us, you're against us."
"Don't support Obama? Racist."
"What's wrong, don't you want equal health care for everyone you Nazi?"
"We need to bans guns. Think of the children!"

It's beyond irritating by now. It's well into "intellectually disgusting" territory.

Anyway, if I did overreact, I'm sorry. I just think the whole line of thought that it's okay to belittle and make fun of anyone who doesn't agree with you offensive. There should never be a reason in practical, reasonable discourse to resort to such tactics.

People are dumb, panicky, and dangerous animals.

Truth be told, I think the gun debate largely derailed with the whole Trayvon Martin incident. Actually, a lot of previously 'intelligent' debates derailed with that. Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced this country can intelligently debate gun laws, gender issues, race relations, healthcare, or immigration with a any shred of intellect. There are too many irrational, backwater, uneducated liberal/conservative ideologues that mindlessly parrot the will of their talking-head masters.

Some proper debate, as well as a proper venue therefor would be fantastic, and I would be one of the first to sign up, but unless we vet the people allowed in, we'll just get the mindless ideologues spewing "THINK OF THE CHERDRINS" or "GOD SAYS SO".

Catamari wrote:People are dumb, panicky, and dangerous animals...

I don't think it's so much that people are incapable of intelligent debate on these issues due to some innate flaw. In all of the issues you mentioned, I heard intelligent arguments from both sides of the debate. However, I think all of this is effectively drowned out by ideologues and zealots.

There's a reason for the [NO POLITICS] tag, and it's being illustrated by the follow-up posts on this page.

pwhodges wrote:[url]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/dont-worry-nsa-sayswe-only-touch-1-6-of-daily-global-internet-traffic/[/url]
I don't find that reassuring, myself...

Agreed. And I notice this is all about internet traffic, no mention of the sweeping collection of domestic phone records which presumably might also include all sorts of internet activity in this modern age of smart phones.

Nuclear Lunchbox wrote:Religious people get slammed with bullshit science.

What makes the science bullshit? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

NemZ wrote:Agreed. And I notice this is all about internet traffic, no mention of the sweeping collection of domestic phone records which presumably might also include all sorts of internet activity in this modern age of smart phones.

It might, but remember that you're only getting part of the story. You have no idea how the internal controls work. I work for the government; trust me when I say they're pretty freakin' serious about preventing abuse of their systems. Notice how all the talk about Snowden's leaks is about, well, Snowden? We're talking about the potential for abuse, a potential based on an incomplete understanding of the system at that, and not actual cases of abuse. That's worth consideration, as is the NSA's track record of preventing attacks.

What makes the science bullshit? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

While I'm inclined to agree with the results they do strike me as overly broad and the sort of thing that needs further investigation. I know plenty of physicists who are strongly religious, and they're hardly idiots. I also know plenty of atheists who are bone stupid, or who are so impressed with themselves that they wouldn't know objectivity if it walked up and bit them. Generalizations like the ones in that article are bad form.