25 Rules of Disinformation -- "5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."
You refuse to deal with what I've said -- #5 is what you do -- I keep it bookmarked for posts like yours.
The NY Times' references to what Poindexter said are poor. You don't even argue that. So we are left with the DARPA TIA slide, any dangerous specifics of which the NYTimes or you have not articulated.
From my FR homepage -- "What bothers me most, is the lack of critical thought I see throughout the country and sometimes even here at FreeRepublic."
If you don't like that I question your presentation of what you posted, then go some place else where people can read your posts and kiss your feet.
The governments imposition on our privacy is an important issue -- in fact pretty damn important. I don't completely trust our standing administration and I don't trust the enemies of the current standing administration even more.
Your presentation as stated does not lead me to conclude that the current administration is plotting to F* with our privacy.
Well actually FreeReign, you had first used #5 against the NYTimes. I didn't call you any names. I simply questioned your argument, and when I saw the bookmark, it was just one of those things that make you go "hmmmmm"...
The NY Times' references to what Poindexter said are poor. You don't even argue that.
You didn't say that you were raising that issue, so why WOULD I argue it? In what way are these references poor?
So we are left with the DARPA TIA slide, any dangerous specifics of which the NYTimes or you have not articulated.
And what is it about the slide that doesn't back up what the NYTimes states? You did notice the types of information that would be accessed from the left side of the image haven't you?
From my FR homepage -- "What bothers me most, is the lack of critical thought I see throughout the country and sometimes even here at FreeRepublic."
Well I'd have to agree with that statement.
If you don't like that I question your presentation of what you posted, then go some place else where people can read your posts and kiss your feet.
You need not kiss my feet FreeReign. In fact, I'd rather you didn't...
The governments imposition on our privacy is an important issue -- in fact pretty damn important. I don't completely trust our standing administration and I don't trust the enemies of the current standing administration even more.
I agree with the first part of that paragraph. But just who exactly are these "enemies of the current administration"? If you're referring to OUR enemies such as Al'Queda, then I'd say you might have a point. If you're talking about Americans that question the MOTIVES behind this administration's policies, I'd say that your fear is misplaced.
Your presentation as stated does not lead me to conclude that the current administration is plotting to F* with our privacy.
You come to a different conclusion than I. And even if THIS administration doesn't intend on misusing the system, there's NO GUARANTEE that a future administration wouldn't. Once in place, it is there FOREVER...
Will you agree that *if* the information in the article is accurate, then this massive surveillance system should be opposed?