You want me to get banned again ?Maybe don't sugar coat it next time.
You want me to get banned again ?Maybe don't sugar coat it next time.
I have no expectations otherwise. I only said it was wrong, not illegal. I simply applied my own definition and what i thought of it. My mistake was in doing it as a reply to you, which invited your exaggerated, assumptive response. Seems I struck a nerve...actually I think this whole thread did.
I can also see how most boot-lickers would agree that the way the .gov spends the money it takes from the people is irrelevant.
Surveillance in public is still Surveillance.It's not surveillance if you post it on a public platform.
Except, as taxpayers, they work for us.That's all fine and good, but at the end of the day they're going to keep doing it because things put in public places aren't private and as such it's legal for them to do these things. Your agreement with them doing it (or not) is irrelevant.
That's the fastest way on those lists.for what ?? .. Telling the Truth ..
Imagine being so cucked that you think it's OK for government to do something the majority of the public finds distasteful.Imagine being so entitled that you feel the government shouldn't look at things posted in public places, and that it's wrong for them to do so.
Jokes on them, using steganographic techniques, those mayonnaise slapping noises contain hundreds of great blueprints and recipes...
Never said I agree with it, though I also don't find people looking at things you post out in public spaces that alarming. Presumably if you didn't intend for anyone that wants to read it to be able to do so then you wouldn't have posted it there in the first place. If I post something in a public space online I assume the whole world can read it - individual people, companies, governments, etc. - anyone and everyone.Imagine being so cucked that you think it's OK for government to do something the majority of the public finds distasteful.
I agree with all of the above.Surveillance in public is still Surveillance.
It's just not illegal Surveillance.
Unless it crosses the line into "having a chilling effect on free speech", in that case SCOTUS has ruled it is a violation of your rights, and that *would* make it a crime.
Just like when a private company censors you on their platform, it is still censorship, even if it isn't illegal or a 1st ammendment violation.
Political reasons? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAExactly. For political reasons.
They sure as hell don't do it to stop nutcases groomed by former agents from shooting up Tops grocery stores.
Typical lib playbook, trot out the outlier example to justify mass infringement.
Back on ignore...please do likewise.
If they monitor social media, only one of two things will happen. Only the lazy will get caught or stupid people.