We lose more privacy when we down-load Angry Birds
|
We lose more privacy when we down-load Angry Birds
Hello again, tom:
Spoken like a fellow who SUPPORTS the government invasion of our privacy.Quote:
we lose more privacy when we down-load Angry Birds
Some of us love the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. Others, pick.
Excon
If you saw what Angry Birds data mines you would reconsider .
Hello again, tom:
I don't know who angry birds are, and I don't care. In any case, it's up to ME to guard my privacy against anybody BUT the government... Supposedly we have a CONSTITUTION for that.
But, you AGAIN, seem to be perfectly COMFORTABLE with THAT violation of your rights.. I mean, if angry birds can do it, why shouldn't the NSA?
Your logic escapes me... Ok, NO it doesn't... I know who you are. ANY violation of our rights that the COP side of government does, is just hunky dory. But violate a right you LIKE, and Obama is trying to be king.
excon
Or Reagan did in Lebanon.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I think you are spot on Ex I think paleface talk out of the left side of his mouthQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Just so we understand... the eavesdropping happens to jihadists inside the country ;and yes I support it . I would also support the concept that jihadists in the country should not have second amendment rights either .
Hello again, tom:
So, you TRUST the government. That's not very right wing of you... Oh, yeah.. This is the COP side of government.. These government workers ARE to be trusted, as opposed to ANY other government worker.Quote:
just so we understand... the eavesdropping happens to jihadists inside the country ;and yes I support it .
Bwa, ha ha ha ha... He he he he... Ha ha ha.
Excon
Jihadists "in the country" where do you find these people? Tom, I know in mosques. So now you are saying you can have those who are protected by the constitution and those who are not. There seems to be a strange resemblance in your policies of late to those of the third reich.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, just so we are on the same page here. I don't believe any convicted criminal should have the right to possess weapons but when you come to profiling you are moving a long way to the right
I don't profile .There were strict guidelines for the application .
For the record... the exact wording in the 4th Amendment related to this is as follows :
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
I say eaves dropping on jihadists qualifies as a reasonable thing to do.
Yes Tom but you are speaking of listening in on people who have not yet committed a crime, to identify these people you have to profile them, they might pop up and say I'm a jihadist, but if not.. . These people might consider what you are doing a violation of their rights. Courts might consider this a violalion of their rights and you will have achieved nothing.This is the problem with rights, they either exist or they don't. You need due process and that means evidence gathered by legal means..
I say listening in on right wing extremists is a reasonable thing to do, how do I find them, I could start with owners of certain weapons
Hello again, clete:
I'd say the guy who screams and yells about tyranny has NO clue that the power to SEARCH is the most tyrannical power there is..
I AGAIN suggest that the government is NOT to be trusted... That TOM does, is amazing.
excon
Yes it seems he blows in the wind on a number of issues
If they have a warrant then they have a right to it. Anything gathered before a warrant or acted upon is inappropriate. There are more intrusions and ways for abuse coming as technology marches on.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Atlanta police get new mobile fingerprint scanners
The thing that seems to be forgotten here is that those who have committed no crime, who don't intend to commit a crime have nothing to fear
Hello again,
At least you're consistent. To right wingers, the COP side of government can do no wrong. Personally, I don't like ANY side of government.. But, that's just me.Quote:
If they have a warrant then they have a right to it.
Look. If you want to EXCUSE what they do because you're afraid of Al Quaida, then SAY so... But, to IGNORE that they BASTARDIZED the 4th Amendment, and TOOK YOUR RIGHTS AWAY in order to do it, is unconscionable.
In this great land of ours, it USED to take a warrant BEFORE they search... Now, they scan our email and listen to our phone calls, WITHOUT probable cause, which is (or USED to be) the basis for a warrant...
Why you EXCUSE the government for this is BEYOND me... Didn't one of our founders say something like, those, who are willing to give up their rights in exchange for security, deserve NEITHER?? Do you not understand that YOU are the people who he directed that comment at?
Excon
And yet you fight for more government power over our lives...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:
I get lost as to what argument is where too, so I don't know where it was that we were talking about the filibuster... In any case, you got a VICTORY yesterday. The filibuster REMAINS. You guys can CONTINUE to block, and block, and then block some more. In fact, you'll be so good at blocking, you should try out for the NFL.
excon
Another victory today... the Circuit Court in DC said Obama violated the constitution by making recess appointments while the Senate was in session.
Yes sir, and it was unanimous. One shameless power grab rebuked.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
He wouldn't have to resort to such things if the senate would either vote up, or down in the first place.
That would be the Democrat-controlled Senate, the same one that hasn't passed a budget in going on 4 years. Regardless, the imperial presidency of Obama may finally be on its way out.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Republican filibusters are what keep his nominees from taking the positions he wants.
No, Dems that control the Senate had no say. Ba ha ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
As usual he took it extra-constitutional .The fact is that the founders gave advise and CONSENT powers to the Senate . The recess provision is probably something that should be amended out .But for now it is still in the Constitution.
I agree that the recess provision has been abused .
BUT ;never before has a President taken it upon himself to declare the Senate out of session. NEVER in our history.
If he gets away with it then he will be able to declare the Senate out of session any time he wants to make an appointment without Senate approval .
I for one am tired of him saying that 'if Congress doesn't act ;he'll do something on his own. He does not have such power.
Now the NLRB says they are going to defy the court and continue making rulings . I say Speaker Bonehead should immediately move to defund NLRB .
That's exactly what banks and business wants, no NLRB, or CFPB. That's why they keep blocking any appointments to both.
When either side blocks an appointment it means they have concerns with the people being considered. But yes. CFPB is a colossal waste of taxpayer money and an unnecessary bureaucracy . CFPB is making credit harder to come by, and making it harder for businesses to expand, grow, hire .
Also ,by design ,the CFPB is not accountable to Congress ,and I oppose any agency designed outside of the checks and balances of the Constitution. The Director has way too much unchecked power .We don't need politburos in the US . This is not the Soviet Union .
You have said this before, but you were wrong then, as you are now.
Dodd
The Soviet Union never had a consumer watchdog, probably never will, but I can see where free market capitalists would get there panties in a bunch when they can no longer run roughshod over the consumers with fine print, tricks, and traps.Quote:
Under certain circumstances, the Council may provide for more stringent regulation of a financial activity by issuing recommendations to the primary financial regulatory agency, which the primary financial agency is obliged to implement – the Council reports to Congress on the implementation or failure to implement such recommendations.[52]
Nice rhetoric though.
Not rhetoric ;fact.. the Dems cleverly put the bureau in the Fed so their budget isn't open to review. But ,even the Fed will not have supervisory power over the agency as it will run independent of oversight by almost anyone in the elected branches. Not only that ;but there is not even a defined mandate ,leaving the Director to make it up as they do along. It is given the power to regulate “unfair, deceptive and abusive” business practices without having a clear definition of what that means. What is unfair and deceptive is in the eye of the Director.
That is too much power in our system .
http://consumerfed.org/pdfs/CFPB-Acc...sheet-6-11.pdf
It clearly states the council is subject to review and oversight by the executive, congressional and judicial branches of government.
But of course anything that helps consumers is too powerful for a capitalists who want there own policies that allow them to extract the loot from the rest of us. Republicans like yourself think its okay for rich guys to make money by hook, crook, and deception. Despite the consequences that recent history has presented us with.
Hello again, tom:
I'm not real smart when it comes politics, and stuff... But, I KNOW about living. Sometimes, along with my monthly statement, the bank sends me some RULE changes... The piece of paper they're printed on is about 2 inches wide and maybe a foot long. The font is teeny, tiny, and as an old fart, I absolutely CAN'T read it.. Even if I could, I wouldn't have any idea what it said. It's LONG and cumbersome and FULL of legalese.
Now, I don't know, but I think, by WRITING it this way, their INTENTION is that it NOT be read. I don't think the size and shape of the paper, the size of the font, and the language used, IS accidental.. I believe it's a CONCERTED effort by the bank to KEEP its customers BLIND as to what it is REALLY doing. I don't know about you, but I want to know what they DON'T want me to know.
Now, you right wingers can say, NOOOO, of COURSE the bank is open and honest about what it's doing... It's all in that little piece of paper.. All you need to do is READ it.
Now, whether the bank is ripping me off or not, wouldn't it be BETTER if they communicated with me in a manner that I actually UNDERSTOOD?? I do.. But, they're NOT going to do that on their own..
The Consumer Protection Bureau will make them, and that's a GOOD thing.
Look. You're a consumer... You get those little tiny pieces of paper from your bank... Wouldn't YOU like to know what it says??
excon
Maybe they will be written in crayon.
How many have you read?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You think you need a whole new Federal Bureaucracy to change that ? You want to know why they are written that way ? Because they are using the legalese language of the law or regulation they are complying with. If Congress wants disclosure language simplified they should lead by example.
Hello again, tom:
Nahhhh... That stuff is just the TIP of the iceberg... The banks have f***ed us so much, that they'll be busy for the next DECADE.Quote:
you think you need a whole new Federal Bureaucracy to change that ?
If a straw man is imposing an argument on your opponent that he didn't make, and then defeating it, I think crayon qualifies... But, now I know what a straw man is.
Look.. If YOU don't want to have an understanding with your bank, that's fine.. You don't ever have to read those things. But, WHY would require your fellow citizens to be in the dark with you? Some of them DO care. That's not very neighborly.
Excon
I don't know of any theoretical change in the language of the disclosures that banks are required to send consumers. But I do know of one change to my financing starting today that is a direct result of the CFPB .
Today I paid a 4% surcharge on my credit card purchase in New Jersey . That was part of a settlement between the major credit cards and the new regulatory agency.
Business on NBCNews.comQuote:
The settlement agreement also would give merchants new rights to impose a surcharge on credit transactions, subject to a cap and other limitations. The rules governing such surcharges likely would be implemented in early 2013.
Today they went into effect.
Not very consumer friendly if you ask me.
Here's the best part .It's unlikely that big box stores like Walmart will start charging this fee right away because they label themselves as a discount store. But the smaller mom and pop local stores trying to compete with the big box stores will have no choice but to pass the fees onto their customers. Good job!
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma and Texas have outlawed these surcharges .
Call Christie, and tell him get on it. But passing cost to consumers is the accepted business model. This had nothing to do with the federal council but a result of a court case between merchants and the card issuers.
Two businesses suing each other and consumers caught in the middle with the short stick.
What isthis Tom objecting to capitalists exercising their rights? Have you seen the light at last?
I have no problem with it .I just exercise my consumer right and will shop someplace else. My only complaint is with what will become just another bloated government agency that won't come close to achieving it's stated goal. The 4% fee is nothing compared to the money the government confiscates.
4% is a bit steep for merchant charges, even here so far from the centre they only charge us 2-2.5% and it is not mandatory so really only the small retailers would think of making a charge, what a contrast in thinking, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 AM. |