Concerning recent discoveries about the US government

[Rachellove9]

The problem is they have a method for keeping scores on the American people.
If your score is high maybe because you visited a place that tells you how to prepare for a nature disaster, how to make homemade medicine or some other thing they deem dangerous.  It puts you at higher risk to be discriminated against.  Look at the recent IRS scandals that are going on now in usa.  The government should not be discriminating on its own citizens. 

[This Babylon]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"

this is the problem.

[Owen]

the point is, is basically what Rachel said, its almost like they are more concerned with the average citizen than a extremest muslim. They seem to want to take away the ability for the average man to defend himself in our nation currently, which is not the point. The point of our second amendment is so that we can defend ourselves against any foreign nation/ group bent on doing ill will to them, and that's exactly what is happening right now. I guarantee that incident with the machete would not happen in America, its like the Admiral Yamamoto once said when asked why he did not invade during pearl harbor, considering he was so close to doing so already "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Generally speaking, most people are not concerned with global affairs, so they look through a small lens. They only see gangbangers and colombine, ignoring the principles that our nation was founded on, and the reasoning behind giving citizens the right to own a firearm. The fact remains that they gave the right to the people so they could be wolves, not sheep. Disarming us takes that away.

also, about the drug dealer thing, that is great that they are making progress, but they really should focus manpower in stopping the druglords, and destroying the infrastructure used to transport drugs into the country.

Sure is peaceful over here:

World map of the Global Peace Index 2011. Countries appearing more green are ranked as more peaceful, countries appearing more red are ranked as less peaceful.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_index

[This Babylon]

the point is, is basically what Rachel said, its almost like they are more concerned with the average citizen than a extremest muslim. They seem to want to take away the ability for the average man to defend himself in our nation currently, which is not the point. The point of our second amendment is so that we can defend ourselves against any foreign nation/ group bent on doing ill will to them, and that's exactly what is happening right now. I guarantee that incident with the machete would not happen in America, its like the Admiral Yamamoto once said when asked why he did not invade during pearl harbor, considering he was so close to doing so already "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Generally speaking, most people are not concerned with global affairs, so they look through a small lens. They only see gangbangers and colombine, ignoring the principles that our nation was founded on, and the reasoning behind giving citizens the right to own a firearm. The fact remains that they gave the right to the people so they could be wolves, not sheep. Disarming us takes that away.

also, about the drug dealer thing, that is great that they are making progress, but they really should focus manpower in stopping the druglords, and destroying the infrastructure used to transport drugs into the country.

Sure is peaceful over here:

World map of the Global Peace Index 2011. Countries appearing more green are ranked as more peaceful, countries appearing more red are ranked as less peaceful.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_index

showing two year old studies doesn't change the validity of the arguement.

[Owen]

The problem is they have a method for keeping scores on the American people.
If your score is high maybe because you visited a place that tells you how to prepare for a nature disaster, how to make homemade medicine or some other thing they deem dangerous.  It puts you at higher risk to be discriminated against.

[citation needed]

The government should not be discriminating on its own citizens.

Nah, they should be out discriminating against those muslims in afghanistan and iran, right?

[Owen]

the point is, is basically what Rachel said, its almost like they are more concerned with the average citizen than a extremest muslim. They seem to want to take away the ability for the average man to defend himself in our nation currently, which is not the point. The point of our second amendment is so that we can defend ourselves against any foreign nation/ group bent on doing ill will to them, and that's exactly what is happening right now. I guarantee that incident with the machete would not happen in America, its like the Admiral Yamamoto once said when asked why he did not invade during pearl harbor, considering he was so close to doing so already "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Generally speaking, most people are not concerned with global affairs, so they look through a small lens. They only see gangbangers and colombine, ignoring the principles that our nation was founded on, and the reasoning behind giving citizens the right to own a firearm. The fact remains that they gave the right to the people so they could be wolves, not sheep. Disarming us takes that away.

also, about the drug dealer thing, that is great that they are making progress, but they really should focus manpower in stopping the druglords, and destroying the infrastructure used to transport drugs into the country.

Sure is peaceful over here:

World map of the Global Peace Index 2011. Countries appearing more green are ranked as more peaceful, countries appearing more red are ranked as less peaceful.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_index

showing two year old studies doesn't change the validity of the arguement.

Scroll down the wiki page where it has the 2012 scores, the 2013 one obviously hasn't been release yet.

UK ranked 29th.  USA ranked 88th.

[Rachellove9]

Remember Owen that although the USA is one country, we have 50 states.
Most of them are larger than UK.
If they had put the map to states and not countries, you would see we have a lot of states that are very peace loving.

[This Babylon]

the point is, is basically what Rachel said, its almost like they are more concerned with the average citizen than a extremest muslim. They seem to want to take away the ability for the average man to defend himself in our nation currently, which is not the point. The point of our second amendment is so that we can defend ourselves against any foreign nation/ group bent on doing ill will to them, and that's exactly what is happening right now. I guarantee that incident with the machete would not happen in America, its like the Admiral Yamamoto once said when asked why he did not invade during pearl harbor, considering he was so close to doing so already "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Generally speaking, most people are not concerned with global affairs, so they look through a small lens. They only see gangbangers and colombine, ignoring the principles that our nation was founded on, and the reasoning behind giving citizens the right to own a firearm. The fact remains that they gave the right to the people so they could be wolves, not sheep. Disarming us takes that away.

also, about the drug dealer thing, that is great that they are making progress, but they really should focus manpower in stopping the druglords, and destroying the infrastructure used to transport drugs into the country.

Sure is peaceful over here:

World map of the Global Peace Index 2011. Countries appearing more green are ranked as more peaceful, countries appearing more red are ranked as less peaceful.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_index

showing two year old studies doesn't change the validity of the arguement.

Scroll down the wiki page where it has the 2012 scores, the 2013 one obviously hasn't been release yet.

UK ranked 29th.  USA ranked 88th.

exactly the problem.

Does it not concern you that a muslim extremist hacked a man to death on your countries soil? What if that would have been a relative, or a friend.

Anyways, we are off topic. Back to the recent discoveries about the us gov.

[Owen]

the point is, is basically what Rachel said, its almost like they are more concerned with the average citizen than a extremest muslim. They seem to want to take away the ability for the average man to defend himself in our nation currently, which is not the point. The point of our second amendment is so that we can defend ourselves against any foreign nation/ group bent on doing ill will to them, and that's exactly what is happening right now. I guarantee that incident with the machete would not happen in America, its like the Admiral Yamamoto once said when asked why he did not invade during pearl harbor, considering he was so close to doing so already "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Generally speaking, most people are not concerned with global affairs, so they look through a small lens. They only see gangbangers and colombine, ignoring the principles that our nation was founded on, and the reasoning behind giving citizens the right to own a firearm. The fact remains that they gave the right to the people so they could be wolves, not sheep. Disarming us takes that away.

also, about the drug dealer thing, that is great that they are making progress, but they really should focus manpower in stopping the druglords, and destroying the infrastructure used to transport drugs into the country.

Sure is peaceful over here:

World map of the Global Peace Index 2011. Countries appearing more green are ranked as more peaceful, countries appearing more red are ranked as less peaceful.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_index

showing two year old studies doesn't change the validity of the arguement.

Scroll down the wiki page where it has the 2012 scores, the 2013 one obviously hasn't been release yet.

UK ranked 29th.  USA ranked 88th.

exactly the problem.

Does it not concern you that a muslim extremist hacked a man to death on your countries soil? What if that would have been a relative, or a friend.

Anyways, we are off topic. Back to the recent discoveries about the us gov.

Of course it concerns me, but saying that you wouldn't have crimes like that in the USA is downright ignorance.

[Owen]

Remember Owen that although the USA is one country, we have 50 states.
Most of them are larger than UK.
If they had put the map to states and not countries, you would see we have a lot of states that are very peace loving.

Look at Europe as a whole, check out all that green.

[Al]

@Rachel The government has a "greater agenda"? Who'd you hear that from? Based on what evidence? Sounds more like paranoia.

@Babylon Of course he would say that. Look at Japan's size, then look at the US's size. Common sense? I agree with what you said that the average American doesn't understand why we have arms though.

Remember Owen that although the USA is one country, we have 50 states.
Most of them are larger than UK.
If they had put the map to states and not countries, you would see we have a lot of states that are very peace loving.

States are very peace loving based on what evidence, what data? Where? Who?

[Mojo]

tl;dr

Let them spy I don't give a shit

[This Babylon]

The government should not be discriminating on its own citizens.

Nah, they should be out discriminating against those muslims in afghanistan and iran, right?

Owen, we are at war against muslim extremists, i think you need to be reminded that. Im not saying that its right, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few remember :)

[MoBBy]

[Dieyou2000]

I'll post a TL;DR version of my opinion on all of this.

I don't really care what they look through in terms of my or anyone elses information.  Conspiracy theories are generally stupid as fuck with little to no logic.

I do care about things like holding people without cause or people that have already been cleared (Guantanamo) and killing US citizens on foreign soil.

Most of the scandals occurring right now have nothing to do with the President.  The only one that's really troubling is the prosecution of journalists as whistleblowers.

Now excuse me while I find Alex Jones and beat him to death with a crowbar.

[Al]

"Here's The $2 Billion Facility Where The NSA Will Store And Analyze Your Communications"

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-of-the-nsas-utah-data-center-2013-6#ixzz2Vt5GbZ16

[This Babylon]

"Here's The $2 Billion Facility Where The NSA Will Store And Analyze Your Communications"

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-of-the-nsas-utah-data-center-2013-6#ixzz2Vt5GbZ16

inb4 anons hack it and delete everything

[Josheh]

I love some of the ignorance in this thread, both american and non-american. So eager to give up your privacy and fight the muslims!

[Pacman Syu]

ITT: People who need to read 1984

Lol, i dont think weve had privacy since the early 2000s, to be honest. I know a lot of people that are aware of shit like that... But people dont really take action out here they just kind of watch it.... I mean come on, this guy gets a ridiculous amount of signatures to nullify the first ammendment , even though hes just trolling them


Americans sign petition to repeal the First Amendment

Were pretty much boned. Google Obama's FEMA camps.

That was the most cringe-worthy thing I've watched in a long time. I couldn't watch past a minute and a half. Even that video Lordy posted was more tolerable than that.

What I'm about to write below concerns mostly my fellow Americans, so just a heads up if you're not from the US or anything you might not be interested. If not, you can scroll to the last few paragraphs, past the "~" ;).

Honestly anyone that trusts the government should look into the free housing offered by FEMA.

What does trusting our government have anything with FEMA?

@Babylon That was a rhetorical question. The president, police, military, your fireman, mailman are also citizens of the US like we are, as you know. I was responding to your pic and quotes. Now...not a rhetorical question - if the military have firearms, that means the citizens do too? As in...you, as a member of our military, would you suppress the people in the event of a Nazi Germany (hypothetically)?

Comparing our president to Hitler, posting quotes from other political leaders in history...it's apples and oranges. Hitler wasn't even black.

The quotes. It's talking history...and I'm sorry to say but saying our president is a Hitler is a pretty uneducated remark. And I don't mean to say YOU'RE uneducated, I mean that if you said that keeping in mind of how our government works, something like a Nazi Germany would be virtually impossible to take off. Our govt. is structured in a way that nobody in the govt. branches are ever all-too-powerful (checks and balances, from the constitution). The legislators, senators, and president are joes like us, make a salary just like us, put on underwear in the morning just like us.

While we poke fun at our political leaders and Congress (10% approval rating of it as in fact I just found out), we're (WE the people) are responsible for it. That's OUR Congress not the "government's". My point is don't treat the government like they're a separate entity, that's the beauty of our government...whether you hate their decisions or not, we're the ones who make up the members of the houses that pass the bills and the decisions, WE have responsibility for choosing a president. So when shit happens like FEMA or whatever, a bad bill passes, that reflects back at us too.

~

Also...because people probably missed my first reply above, to reiterate, if we want to go anywhere with this instead of making it seem like our government is the enemy, do you think we're evolving as far as ethics in this "information age"? What information do not want to people to see, and what information do you think should be available to people? Literally - list some things out.

Think about the information you make available to the public and/or government (because if your government can see "bad" information, then it probably wasn't that hard to obtain in the first place). For example, bonehead friends that post pics of them smoking weed online. What information do you not want to share with the government? And if you aren't fine with sharing it...why? Are you doing something illegal?

In the governments point of view: Why are you concerned? Got something to hide? ...So you do? Well wow we're only more interested. :>

You're right on about everything you're saying, but there are some points I'd like to highlight. Soldiers/police are US citizens, so they are indeed us. However, as we've seen countless times in the past, in other countries and even our own (not countless), people do have the capacity to kill their own kind if given a motive that pleases them.

On another note, let me highlight a point that I failed to note earlier: I do believe that the NSA had appropriate and ethical motive, but approached it in an inappropriate, unlawful and unethical manner.

I do not have anything to hide, only to protect, and that is the core fundamentals that our country is based on. People have fought 200 years to protect the freedoms that are protected in the Constitution, and we're letting these freedoms (in this case, from unreasonable search and seizure) be slipped right out of underneath us. The Constitution has been protected for all of this time on the streets, in the courthouse, and in battle, but never digitally. Our society has grown vastly complacent and has yet to adapt to technology as fast as the lawyers and politicians...and they'll take advantage of that if they can.

The problem is they have a method for keeping scores on the American people.
If your score is high maybe because you visited a place that tells you how to prepare for a nature disaster, how to make homemade medicine or some other thing they deem dangerous.  It puts you at higher risk to be discriminated against.  Look at the recent IRS scandals that are going on now in usa.  The government should not be discriminating on its own citizens. 

I want to see a source before I believe about the score keeping. I'm pretty certain if that was true (and validated) the press would be all over that.

As for all of this arguing over the Peace Index, you're assuming that firearms are the only factor that plays into violence.

[Al]

On the if given the motive thing...of course I know 1984, etc., but this is America...in the 21st century. Of all countries, our country would be the one of the least likely of all places to be oppressed by our own government. Everything against what we were founded on. I think most Americans have the same interest of national security...this is what they say it's for.

4th Amendment...I don't think this case. And I might be right...according to this:

"Does the State have the power to intercept telephone conversations and use information gathered that way, or are such actions a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the plaintiffs and in favor of the government, holding that wire-tapping was not an unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and was not compulsory self-incrimination within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment."

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_OlmsteadUS.htm

(Why it's under atheism...IDFK.)

So as far as ethics, I think that's up to the Supreme Court judges...and I think this might go to Supreme: http://news.yahoo.com/judge-orders-google-turn-over-data-fbi-000951138.html

From what I've studied from my law classes, cases follow precedent (cases), and a case like Google might allow/disallow the govt. from "snooping" in our information, though based on that case maybe it'll affirm or disaffirm, judges have changed. It was from 1928, though I'm sure you can find more recent, similar cases.

Two more things. 1. What's the point of switching over to different social networks, emails, phone services if the government's allowed to search any company? To keep evading them? But why? Seems like it would be a never-ending chase, and who's got the faster car? 2. When I first read the topic I honestly have always thought our government's ALWAYS been watching us. When I was maybe in the 2nd grade someone close told me that the government has secret places and computers that can spy on you anytime, anywhere, for anything. I believed it, remembering this Eyewitness book from my school library on spying tools...the government would be the first to get hands on them. Then when I was in high school ~4 years back I saw that Simpsons movie, where they show a scene of rows of government workers on computers watching us.

I'm still concerned of course, raises an eyebrow, but if it's for national security, I can understand. There's 300 million+ Americans and people are getting more and more into tech, like Owen said I don't think they'll be paying to snoop on my grandma watching her Asian dramas.

edit: I missed the part on where you said our society is evolving into technology and the law hasn't fully adapted to it...yes if I didn't mention it in my reply before I wanted to, I'll put this on my mind until then.

[safe eat]

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is a private corporation. WAL-MART and SEARS are public corporations. Do we have a say in SEARS company policy? NO. That's why you have no say in USG policies.

[Asaad]

I care because I'm a prime suspect in the u.s.


Being an Arab American Muslim and all..

[Pacman Syu]

On the if given the motive thing...of course I know 1984, etc., but this is America...in the 21st century. Of all countries, our country would be the one of the least likely of all places to be oppressed by our own government. Everything against what we were founded on. I think most Americans have the same interest of national security...this is what they say it's for.

4th Amendment...I don't think this case. And I might be right...according to this:

"Does the State have the power to intercept telephone conversations and use information gathered that way, or are such actions a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the plaintiffs and in favor of the government, holding that wire-tapping was not an unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and was not compulsory self-incrimination within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment."

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_OlmsteadUS.htm

(Why it's under atheism...IDFK.)

So as far as ethics, I think that's up to the Supreme Court judges...and I think this might go to Supreme: http://news.yahoo.com/judge-orders-google-turn-over-data-fbi-000951138.html

From what I've studied from my law classes, cases follow precedent (cases), and a case like Google might allow/disallow the govt. from "snooping" in our information, though based on that case maybe it'll affirm or disaffirm, judges have changed. It was from 1928, though I'm sure you can find more recent, similar cases.

Two more things. 1. What's the point of switching over to different social networks, emails, phone services if the government's allowed to search any company? To keep evading them? But why? Seems like it would be a never-ending chase, and who's got the faster car? 2. When I first read the topic I honestly have always thought our government's ALWAYS been watching us. When I was maybe in the 2nd grade someone close told me that the government has secret places and computers that can spy on you anytime, anywhere, for anything. I believed it, remembering this Eyewitness book from my school library on spying tools...the government would be the first to get hands on them. Then when I was in high school ~4 years back I saw that Simpsons movie, where they show a scene of rows of government workers on computers watching us.

I'm still concerned of course, raises an eyebrow, but if it's for national security, I can understand. There's 300 million+ Americans and people are getting more and more into tech, like Owen said I don't think they'll be paying to snoop on my grandma watching her Asian dramas.

edit: I missed the part on where you said our society is evolving into technology and the law hasn't fully adapted to it...yes if I didn't mention it in my reply before I wanted to, I'll put this on my mind until then.

You are right with the wire-tapping, although I'm not sure if that goes with or without a search warrant. It's also worth noting that in the deal with Verizon, all sorts of identification data for both the caller and the receiver (now don't quote me on this, but I believe this also applies if the receiver didn't pick up) were picked up. Such data wasn't part of the equation in 1928.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is a private corporation. WAL-MART and SEARS are public corporations. Do we have a say in SEARS company policy? NO. That's why you have no say in USG policies.

I don't meant to be sassy, but... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

I care because I'm a prime suspect in the u.s.


Being an Arab American Muslim and all..

I'm so terribly sorry :( //hugs

[Al]

@Asaad Like I said before, it's 2013 America. I mean that in a good way. The government should know better not to vilify a race, like the Japanese in US during WW2.

edit: I'd have to do more research and think it through like writing a research essay to make a final opinion on this...
But just through gut feeling and the small stuff I've read here and there, I'm okay with them using this much power, searching into our shit...
Nowadays, like they've always said, everything posted on the internet stays somewhere. Nothing is truly private...so one way of looking at it is if it's a more efficient way of combing through suspicious profiles or records, that's fine.

At least they're public about this, not some "big brother" thing that we don't know about. They're telling us, "We're going to (or at least will try to), look at your stuff, so you should watch it."

BTW I just watched Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine in my Film 1A class, and it said a lot about how America's really been scared and paranoid of everything (scared of the English so they moved to the new world, scared of themselves so they went to civil war, scared of the Native Americans so they killed them all, scared of working so they stole Africans, etc. and the story's stayed the same). We've taken the biggest measures of all (like I said, the Executive Order on Japs), and this is just another one of them.

[Rachellove9]

The problem is that the government uses every opportunity to take away rights we have.
They can do it because they say it is for our safety.

This is just a reference about state crimes.  Some of it is pretty out of date but the idea is there.
Not all states are equal when it comes to crimes committed. 









If you consider that most of our gun crimes are done by repeat offenders these number could be lower if we made it harder to get out of jails.  Problem is that more of our jails are filled with drug users or fraud.  We probably put more people in jail for things other countries would fine them for or is legal.