[ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump

Thu May 19 21:40:45 UTC 2016

Dr. Rafal, more to the point is this: if the tone of your posts do change,
how do we know it is still you back there writing them?  Is there any known
law against the powers intercepting your messages, modifying the content,
perhaps selecting the ones to forward, and selecting the ones you receive?
spike

Spike, if you would read Dark Territory, as I mentioned earlier, you could
put your mind to rest a bit about security of emails, phone calls, etc.
That is, unless you are so convinced of hidden plots that you cannot
believe anything about what the gov does.  As I understood it, only
metadata is stored - not content.  And there is a self-imposed limit on how
it can be used:  they can retrieve who you have called and who called you,
but not who your callers called, and then only if a court passes on it.

Changing the content of emails has been done, but to terrorist groups and
war enemies, such as Iraq.  We are far too small to mess with, and are US
citizens to boot.

bill w

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:43 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Rafal Smigrodzki
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:29 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> >>… we still do not know for sure the biological species of either of them.
>
>
>
> ### …For engaging in such musings, am I going to go to be "disappeared"
> once this organism is elected to office?
>
>
>
> Ja.  Where does it say in the constitution that a political leader may not
> vilify you into virtual non-existence for posting things that upset the…
> uh…  where can we go with this… Christian world!  Sure, that works,
> inflaming the Christian world.  We already have an example where a sitting
> Secretary of State called attention to an internet posting for inflaming
> delicate religious sensibilities, and perhaps just slightly arranged for
> the local friendly probation ossifer to pay the originator a little visit,
> after which he went to prison.
>
>
>
> Does the constitution say the IRS may not make your life a living hell for
> being registered for the wrong party?  Is that what the former IRS director
> meant when she said she did nothing wrong?
>
>
>
> Amendment 16:  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
> incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the
> several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
>
>
>
> Is there anything in that complete text which says the provision may not
> be used as a political weapon, a means of keeping the proletariat quietly
> subdued and in an orderly line?  I am having as much trouble finding any
> indication of that as W had in finding nukes in Iraq.  WOW!  Unspent money
> is merely wastefully idle capital, but un-abused power is squandered.
>
>
>
>
>
> >…If the tone of my posts changes after the Inauguration, shiver, because
> you might be next on the menu…Rafał
>
>
>
> Dr. Rafal, more to the point is this: if the tone of your posts do change,
> how do we know it is still you back there writing them?  Is there any known
> law against the powers intercepting your messages, modifying the content,
> perhaps selecting the ones to forward, and selecting the ones you receive?
>
>
>
> And since we are on the topic, consider the recent FakeBook controversy,
> where a wing of the political spectrum says it is being suppressed.  I ask:
> is there anything illegal about that?  And if FakeBook demonstrates it can
> be done, what stops political interests from doing likewise?  And if so,
> cannot we see that the first amendment freedom of speech only guarantees
> that we cannot be prosecuted for what we say.  Another means must be found
> to prosecute us for what we say, such as… the IRS saying there is something
> wrong with our tax returns.  Or… perhaps something illegal being found on
> our home computers for instance.  Or… some kind of suspicious activity in
> the search engines.
>
>
>
> OK then.  Because of what I have already posted, it looks to me like I
> lose either way.  I have criticized both major candidates, approximately
> evenly.  I have identified both as potential power abusers.  Both have
> apparently studied Saul Alinsky.  Both are sure acting as if they have.
> Both are demonstrating an attitude that tells me they go along with the
> Alinsky concept that winning the election is itself the accomplishment.
>
>
>
> Some of us have perhaps struggled under the illusion that winning an
> election is being granted the opportunity to accomplish something.  The
> Alinsky view is that winning the election in itself is the accomplishment.
> What happens afterwards isn’t in view.  Winning the election.  After that,
> Alinsky doesn’t really say much.
>
>
>
> I do thank Saul Alinsky however, for arranging to be interred close to my
> home.  His consideration in this matter means I need not drive very far in
> order to piss on his goddam grave.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/a70c68c0/attachment.html>