Oh those wacky DEA Agents

[AFK]

So, what we have is a situation in which the enforcement agency can do whatever the hell it likes with respect to this issue...And all we need to do is make sure that people act in a pure fashion.

Smells like Captain Utopia.

No.  Try reading my posts again. 

[Doktor Howl]

So, what we have is a situation in which the enforcement agency can do whatever the hell it likes with respect to this issue...And all we need to do is make sure that people act in a pure fashion.

Smells like Captain Utopia.

No.  Try reading my posts again.

I have been.  First, you implied that someone had to be "forcing" an already out of control police agency to listen in on people, which is fucking hilarious.

Then you said that the "necessary option" of proper enforcement was an "option" because people are going to abuse it, because it is a large organization, and therefore will have some bad apples.

So where am I losing the plot, here?

[AFK]

And you know, he probably is an upstanding, law abiding citizen. But, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Sure it does, it means we are out there doing what we do to help our communities and keep them safe.  Not going out of our way to make innocent people miserable.  The program outlined in the OP, if accurate, is definitely troubling and not something I support.  It would also be a mistake to think the same for everyone employed by DEA.  It's a big agency with a lot of staff.

Reread the sentence. Being an upstanding, law abiding citizen (not necessarily talking about you, or anyone in the DEA) doesn't mean that you're a good person who's actually helping people. Being upstanding and law abiding just means you're fitting a role. As far as we know, Mitt Romney is an upstanding and law abiding citizen. We also know he's a complete asshole with self-serving interests.

Your baseless assumptions don't mean that I'm not a good person helping people.

[Doktor Howl]

And you know, he probably is an upstanding, law abiding citizen. But, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Sure it does, it means we are out there doing what we do to help our communities and keep them safe.  Not going out of our way to make innocent people miserable.  The program outlined in the OP, if accurate, is definitely troubling and not something I support.  It would also be a mistake to think the same for everyone employed by DEA.  It's a big agency with a lot of staff.

Reread the sentence. Being an upstanding, law abiding citizen (not necessarily talking about you, or anyone in the DEA) doesn't mean that you're a good person who's actually helping people. Being upstanding and law abiding just means you're fitting a role. As far as we know, Mitt Romney is an upstanding and law abiding citizen. We also know he's a complete asshole with self-serving interests.

Your baseless assumptions don't mean that I'm not a good person helping people.

No, your statist view on everything means you're not a good person helping people.

[AFK]

So, what we have is a situation in which the enforcement agency can do whatever the hell it likes with respect to this issue...And all we need to do is make sure that people act in a pure fashion.

Smells like Captain Utopia.

No.  Try reading my posts again.

I have been.  First, you implied that someone had to be "forcing" an already out of control police agency to listen in on people, which is fucking hilarious.

Then you said that the "necessary option" of proper enforcement was an "option" because people are going to abuse it, because it is a large organization, and therefore will have some bad apples.

So where am I losing the plot, here?

I also said people breaking the law should be held accountable and that the DEA should be doing what it does within the law, drug policy should be enforced and enacted equitably.  And by and large I believe it is.  But there are places where it clearly needs to be fixed or enforced better.

[AFK]

And you know, he probably is an upstanding, law abiding citizen. But, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Sure it does, it means we are out there doing what we do to help our communities and keep them safe.  Not going out of our way to make innocent people miserable.  The program outlined in the OP, if accurate, is definitely troubling and not something I support.  It would also be a mistake to think the same for everyone employed by DEA.  It's a big agency with a lot of staff.

Reread the sentence. Being an upstanding, law abiding citizen (not necessarily talking about you, or anyone in the DEA) doesn't mean that you're a good person who's actually helping people. Being upstanding and law abiding just means you're fitting a role. As far as we know, Mitt Romney is an upstanding and law abiding citizen. We also know he's a complete asshole with self-serving interests.

Your baseless assumptions don't mean that I'm not a good person helping people.

No, your statist view on everything means you're not a good person helping people.

I wasn't speaking to you. 

[Doktor Howl]

So, what we have is a situation in which the enforcement agency can do whatever the hell it likes with respect to this issue...And all we need to do is make sure that people act in a pure fashion.

Smells like Captain Utopia.

No.  Try reading my posts again.

I have been.  First, you implied that someone had to be "forcing" an already out of control police agency to listen in on people, which is fucking hilarious.

Then you said that the "necessary option" of proper enforcement was an "option" because people are going to abuse it, because it is a large organization, and therefore will have some bad apples.

So where am I losing the plot, here?

I also said people breaking the law should be held accountable and that the DEA should be doing what it does within the law, drug policy should be enforced and enacted equitably.  And by and large I believe it is.  But there are places where it clearly needs to be fixed or enforced better.

1.  They're violating the 4th amendment as a matter of policy.  According to article VI, that is the law of the land.  Ergo, the entire organization is in violation.

2.  I know you support it.  I know you believe in it.  Because you don't think other humans can be trusted to operate without oversight in their daily lives.

3.  Great.  So what's your plan to fix violating the 4th amendment? 

[Doktor Howl]

And you know, he probably is an upstanding, law abiding citizen. But, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Sure it does, it means we are out there doing what we do to help our communities and keep them safe.  Not going out of our way to make innocent people miserable.  The program outlined in the OP, if accurate, is definitely troubling and not something I support.  It would also be a mistake to think the same for everyone employed by DEA.  It's a big agency with a lot of staff.

Reread the sentence. Being an upstanding, law abiding citizen (not necessarily talking about you, or anyone in the DEA) doesn't mean that you're a good person who's actually helping people. Being upstanding and law abiding just means you're fitting a role. As far as we know, Mitt Romney is an upstanding and law abiding citizen. We also know he's a complete asshole with self-serving interests.

Your baseless assumptions don't mean that I'm not a good person helping people.

No, your statist view on everything means you're not a good person helping people.

I wasn't speaking to you.

Imagine how horny that makes me.

[AFK]

So, what we have is a situation in which the enforcement agency can do whatever the hell it likes with respect to this issue...And all we need to do is make sure that people act in a pure fashion.

Smells like Captain Utopia.

No.  Try reading my posts again.

I have been.  First, you implied that someone had to be "forcing" an already out of control police agency to listen in on people, which is fucking hilarious.

Then you said that the "necessary option" of proper enforcement was an "option" because people are going to abuse it, because it is a large organization, and therefore will have some bad apples.

So where am I losing the plot, here?

I also said people breaking the law should be held accountable and that the DEA should be doing what it does within the law, drug policy should be enforced and enacted equitably.  And by and large I believe it is.  But there are places where it clearly needs to be fixed or enforced better.

1.  They're violating the 4th amendment as a matter of policy.  According to article VI, that is the law of the land.  Ergo, the entire organization is in violation.

2.  I know you support it.  I know you believe in it.  Because you don't think other humans can be trusted to operate without oversight in their daily lives.

3.  Great.  So what's your plan to fix violating the 4th amendment?

I don't share your opinion that they are violating the 4th.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

And you know, he probably is an upstanding, law abiding citizen. But, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Sure it does, it means we are out there doing what we do to help our communities and keep them safe.  Not going out of our way to make innocent people miserable.  The program outlined in the OP, if accurate, is definitely troubling and not something I support.  It would also be a mistake to think the same for everyone employed by DEA.  It's a big agency with a lot of staff.

Reread the sentence. Being an upstanding, law abiding citizen (not necessarily talking about you, or anyone in the DEA) doesn't mean that you're a good person who's actually helping people. Being upstanding and law abiding just means you're fitting a role. As far as we know, Mitt Romney is an upstanding and law abiding citizen. We also know he's a complete asshole with self-serving interests.

Your baseless assumptions don't mean that I'm not a good person helping people.

What baseless assumption am I making?

[AFK]

Assumptions on who I am as a person.  You don't know shit about me.  Just as I don't know shit about any of you.  The internet is a horrible way to get to know someone on any meaningful level.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Assumptions on who I am as a person.  You don't know shit about me.  Just as I don't know shit about any of you.  The internet is a horrible way to get to know someone on any meaningful level.

Yes, yes, you keep saying that last part. Where in that sentence am I making any assumptions about you as a person?

The only thing I said was that I am sure that you are indeed a fine citizen, and that has no actual reflection on who you are as a person.

You then make a baseless assumption that I'm making baseless assumptions about you.

I am making the assumption that you have poor reading comprehension skills, though, that's not baseless so much as evident.

[Doktor Howl]

So, what we have is a situation in which the enforcement agency can do whatever the hell it likes with respect to this issue...And all we need to do is make sure that people act in a pure fashion.

Smells like Captain Utopia.

No.  Try reading my posts again.

I have been.  First, you implied that someone had to be "forcing" an already out of control police agency to listen in on people, which is fucking hilarious.

Then you said that the "necessary option" of proper enforcement was an "option" because people are going to abuse it, because it is a large organization, and therefore will have some bad apples.

So where am I losing the plot, here?

I also said people breaking the law should be held accountable and that the DEA should be doing what it does within the law, drug policy should be enforced and enacted equitably.  And by and large I believe it is.  But there are places where it clearly needs to be fixed or enforced better.

1.  They're violating the 4th amendment as a matter of policy.  According to article VI, that is the law of the land.  Ergo, the entire organization is in violation.

2.  I know you support it.  I know you believe in it.  Because you don't think other humans can be trusted to operate without oversight in their daily lives.

3.  Great.  So what's your plan to fix violating the 4th amendment?

I don't share your opinion that they are violating the 4th.

I know you don't.

[Doktor Howl]

Assumptions on who I am as a person.  You don't know shit about me.  Just as I don't know shit about any of you.  The internet is a horrible way to get to know someone on any meaningful level.

We can only operate on what we see.  You may be a good person deep down inside.  We haven't been exposed to that, so you have been treated, by damn near everyone, as the shitneck you appear to be based on the information available.

It is not our responsibility to somehow divine who you really are.

[AFK]

Assumptions on who I am as a person.  You don't know shit about me.  Just as I don't know shit about any of you.  The internet is a horrible way to get to know someone on any meaningful level.

We can only operate on what we see.  You may be a good person deep down inside.  We haven't been exposed to that, so you have been treated, by damn near everyone, as the shitneck you appear to be based on the information available.

It is not our responsibility to somehow divine who you really are.

I've been here for 8 years, of course you have.  You are just exercising butthurt selective memory.