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...
Nowhere on this thread did I claim the specifics of what a person said without using a FULL QUOTED CONTEXT. Thus the question you bring up about my honesty is simply a personal attack for no GOOD reason. That's what you did and it says more about you and your judgement then it does anything about me -- "actually".
The New York Times on the other hand in this article references many things that Poindexter supposedly says without using the direct FULL QUOTED CONTEXT and in some cases, without using PARTIAL QUOTES or even NO QUOTES. There are also many unnamed sourced statements in this Times article. Thus, the NY Times makes their own honesty an issue. THEY ask us believe the specific things that they claim people say without using proper quotes and sources. Thus it is reasonable to critically question their accuracy in the defense of freedom over the history of their published work.
See the logical difference.
So given that we are ASKED to believe what the Times says without proper quotes and sources, do you have any questions about the track record that the NYTimes has given us about it's accuracy in the defense of freedom?
You didn't say that you were raising that issue, so why WOULD I argue it? In what way are these references poor?
I raised that issue to you on the other thread yesterday.
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?
What data sources on that slide does the Military currently not use to fight terrorism and what data sources on that side does the FBI currently not use to fight crime?
As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant.
The above is an example of The NY Times asking us to trust them about the specifics of what Poindexter says. Where are the quotes from the Poinsy speeches... hmmmm? No quotes? Then trust becomes a reasonable issue to the critical thinker on FR.