Thursday, February 18, 2010

Mark Potok Says FEMA Camps, Evils of Secret Societies, the Threat of Martial Law and the New World Order Aren’t Real


Potok concludes the O’ Reilly segment by saying Constitutionalists are dangerous

by Larry Simons
February 18, 2010

On Wednesdays O’ Reilly Factor, Billo had on Mark Potok from the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] to discuss his views on whether the Tea Party movement has been taken over by Patriot movement militia groups and white supremacists.

O’ Reilly did this segment in response to a N.Y. Times article that suggested the Tea Party movement is dangerous. Potok is a decent source to ask about this, since the SPLC tracks hate groups and has won court cases against white supremacists.

watch the clip


O’ Reilly tells Potok that the N.Y. Times article does not give an accurate description of the movement as a whole. One has to wonder if O’ Reilly is only defending the Tea Parties because he knows his fellow FOX News stooge [and fake libertarian] Glenn Beck is one of its major cheerleaders, and that recently GOP darling [and new FOX News employee] Sarah Palin has been giving keynote speeches at the Tea Parties.

Whatever O’ Reilly’s real motivation is for defending the Tea Party movement, I would have to agree with him at least in the sense that, across the board, the movement, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Does it attract the occasional nutball who might take their guns and go on a rampage? Maybe so, but that does not invalidate the movement, or the second amendment of the Constitution.

O’ Reilly asks Potok if Potok thinks he is wrong for thinking the Tea Party movement is unrepresentative of any far-right group. Potok says:

“Well, I think you’re at least somewhat wrong. The way I would describe it is this: I don’t think that it’s fair to say that the Tea Party movement is, uh, a right-wing extremist movement and that’s all there is to it. I think that’s clearly not the case, but, what I would say, is we’ve got a lot of evidence to suggest…I mean, the movement is pretty well shot through with some of the elements, uh, that you find in the patriot groups, the militia groups…the anti-immigration groups and so on. So, the kind of thing we’re seeing is increasingly in the tea party movement, while I think their predominant worries are the size of the government, spending, the bailouts, the idea that undeserving elites like bank executives…are getting rewards out of this, you know, this is driving a lot of anger….still, we are seeing ideas like, you know, FEMA is running a set of secret concentration camps out there, martial law’s around the corner, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations are sort of evil entities, involved in pushing us into, uh, a New World Order or some kind of global one-world government, and I think…some of the evidence is very well known”.

After O’ Reilly cuts in and says to Potok, “there is about 10%…of the tea party people who do fall under that paranoia blanket..” , Potok says this:

“(there’s) a lot of fear and frustration, and unfortunately, in a great many cases, these are things that are built around fears that aren’t real. We are spending a lot of money; there’s no question about it. But there are not secret concentration camps out there…”

Well, it was hard to look at Potok talking. Not only because he looks like the result of Seth Brundle throwing Jeff Lynne, William H. Macy, a Chia Pet and a hamster into his telepod and fusing them all together, but he was blatantly lying about the non-existence of detainment facilities and the threat of martial law.

Not only has there already been legislation introduced [H.R. 645] to “establish national emergency centers on military installations” but the Pentagon already has in place a Civilian Inmate Labor Program. The program is courtesy of Army Regulation 210-35, and it establishes labor programs and prison camps on Army installations.

If O’ Reilly really wanted to know something about detaining large numbers of American citizens, he could just walk over to fellow FOX News employee Oliver North’s office and simply ask him about it. North is the one who wrote Rex 84 [Readiness Exercise 84], which is a continuity of government plan that was designed for the detainment of American citizens incase of civil unrest or a national emergency [in other words: Martial Law]. North was both the NSC White House Aide and NSC liaison to FEMA.

Here’s Rex 84 being discussed during the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987. Congressman Jack Brooks brings up Rex 84 and North’s plan to suspend the Constitution in the event of a major disaster. He is stopped cold by the chairman who deems the questioning touches upon “a highly sensitive and classified area


North patterned the plan [of Rex 84] on a 1970 FEMA report written by [then] FEMA chief Louis Giuffrida which proposed the detention of up to 21 million American negroes in the event of a black militant uprising in the United States.

From 1967 to 1971, the FBI kept a list of over 100,000 people to be rounded up as subversive. This was known as the ‘ADEX’ list. The reason given for such installations usually ranges from “emergency centers” that are used for the “protection” of American citizens during a national emergency, to holding centers to detain illegal aliens.

The threat of martial law is most certainly real. As recent as two years ago, during the 2008 financial bailout, Congressman Mark Sherman told members of the House:

“...the only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. That atmosphere is not justified. Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday, that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day, another couple thousand the second day. And a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no. That's what I call fear fear-mongering, unjustified, proven wrong. We've got a week, we've got two weeks to write a good bill. The only way to write, to pass a bad bill: keep the panic pressure on”.

Here’s the clip


Wikipedia says that after conspiracy theorists picked up on this comment, Sherman’s office issued this clarification:

“I also want to stress that I have no reason to think that any of the leaders in Congress who were involved in negotiating with the Bush Administration regarding the bailout bill ever mentioned the possibility of martial law -- again, that was just an example of extreme and deliberately hyperbolic comments being passed around by members not directly involved in the negotiations.”

However, on the Alex Jones Show in October 2008, Sherman said although he didn’t take the threats seriously, he said he was convinced the people who said them were serious.

“I think these were people who really believed what they were saying. I don’t think these were people who, uh, were, you know, got called by Goldman Sachs and said ‘well, go say this or go say that’.



Executive Directive 51, signed by President Bush on May 4, 2007 essentially is a Martial Law continuance plan. How people like Potok can deny the possibility of Martial Law when legislation has already been passed and signed by Presidents is simply astonishing.

Here’s Alex Jones discussing FEMA camps, Martial Law, and false prophet/propagandist Glenn Beck in an extra of the film “Camp FEMA”.


How can the entire Tea Party movement consist of all of the same types of people with all of the same ideologies when many in the movement follow Glenn Beck, who denies there are FEMA camps and who attempts to discredit just about every “conspiracy theory” held by people in the Tea Party movement?

There are talks of one-world governments and a New World Order as well. Here are several clips proving that it is, at the very least, in the political vernacular.

Obama talking about “burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together


Scumbag Henry Kissinger calling for a New World Order


Gordon Brown says a New World Order is emerging


George Bush Sr. calling for a New World Order


Yet, according to Billo and Potok, we are “paranoid” by simply repeating what others say.

As far as the secret societies Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations are concerned, it’s simply a matter of reading what people like David Rockefeller [founder of the aforementioned entities] writes. Since no one but the elites are allowed in their secret meetings, that makes it a tad impossible to report what they discuss. One can only conclude that if something is done in secret, how good can it be? Could you imagine all of the NFL owners meeting secretly and not allowing sports reporters anywhere near the location of the meeting, and then not telling anyone anything that was dicussed? Western civilization as we know it would cease.

David Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 book titled “Memoirs”:

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Yeah, no evil or conspiracy there, Potok. The guy who founded the two institutions that Potok denied were secret or evil admits that they are secret and evil, but nahhhhhh, that’s not good enough. More evidence is required.

The segment concludes with O’ Reilly asking Potok if he can name one group out there right now who are dangerous, growing fast and that people should be aware of. I bet O’ Reilly was hoping and praying to God that Potok would say 9-11 truthers. Potok said that one group would be the Oath Keepers. Potok tells O’ Reilly that the Oath Keepers [who consist mainly of military and law enforcement personnel] wouldn’t blow up buildings, but their main interest is upholding the Constitution.

Potok commends obeying the Constitution, but then says that the dangerous thing about the group is their fear that Martial Law is coming and that Americans will be put in FEMA camps. Then Potok says:

“The Oath Keepers say specifically: We will not obey these orders. We refuse orders to put Americans in concentration camps. Now, is that dangerous? It seems to me the danger is, is that, these are men and women, in the case of police officers who are give a real power over the rest of us, sometimes the power of life and death, they make very important decisions. And if these men and women are animated by the idea that…foreign forces are about to come into this country and put us under Martial Law and throw us all into concentration camps, I think there is a certain danger associated with that. They operate on the basis of crazy theories, that may cause one of them to draw a gun one day.”

First of all, who ever said that it would be foreign forces that came in and instituted Martial Law? And even it IS foreign forces that came in and did those things, wouldn’t we have the right to defend ourselves according to the Constitution? Wouldn’t that be defense against tyranny?

According to Potok, obeying the Constitution and defending it is very dangerous. I have already posted the clips above that show the threat of Martial Law and FEMA camps are very real. That is the very reason why Oliver North panicked when Jack Brooks questioned him about his involvement in Rex 84 during the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, because they are very REAL. That is also why Jack Brooks was cut off and his question was never answered.

Naturally, to Potok [and others like him], it’s a “crazy theory” to simply point out what is recorded on videotape and to report on signed legislation.

Simply amazing.

35 comments:

the_last_name_left said...

Show us some american people in a concentration camp in America?

Do you think it is wise for American government (or any other) to make CONTINGENCY PLANS?

Do you think there are plans in case there's a nuclear accident, say? Does the existence of such plans belie an INTENT by the authorities to have a nuclear accident?

Are there contingency plans for.....say....a Russian nuclear first-strike? Does that belie an American INTENT for it to happen?

Silly man.

Larry said...

"Do you think it is wise for American government (or any other) to make CONTINGENCY PLANS?"

Sure, as long as they are transparent to the people and not secret. Members of Congress, such as Peter DeFazio were even denied access to Martial Law bills that Bush had signed---and of course, in the clip of Ollie North above, Jack Brooks was denied being told about Ollie’s involvement in Rex 84. That info shouldn’t be secret. Tell me something assmunch, where in our Constitution does it mention ANYTHING about secret installations built to house American CITIZENS?

Hmmmmm??

the_last_name_left said...

You think contingency plans should be made public?

ALL of them?

anyway, you haven't shown any Americans in concentration camps. So.....

Larry said...

Are you saying REX 84 isnt real? I want an answer: yes or no. If its NOT real, why didnt Ollie North answer Jack Brooks' question and just say "Its not real, it never happened"??? Look up ex 84 on wikipedia-----it says:

"Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, is a plan by the United States federal government to test their ability to detain large numbers of American citizens in case of civil unrest or national emergency."

Answer my question above--yes or no.

the_last_name_left said...

Do you have proof of American's being locked up in concentration camps?

Answer, yes or no.

Larry said...

God, you are such an idiot. Name ONE TIME---just ONE where anyone...me, Alex Jones, teabaggers, etc...anyone has EVER said Americans are being locked up in camps RIGHT NOW. Name one time. Your question is fraudulent. No one EVER said it is CURRENTLY being done---so to ask the question that way is to be dishonest---which you do ALL the time.

You didnt answer MY question. "Are you saying Rex 84 isnt real?" Why do you REFUSE to answer the question? Its not a fraudulent question because Rex 84 EXISTS. YOUR question was fraudulent because NO ONE EVER SAID Americans are being locked up NOW---we just say the camps are THERE. Ask a question based on what we have actually said and I will answer it. Answering your question, "yes" or "no" will validate your question and I refuse to do that since its based on a lie.

That's the equivolent of Al Gore, YOU or any other global warming nutball saying "the oceans will rise 20 feet and put our cities underwater" and me asking "What cities are currently underwater?" as an attempt to discredit you.

Naturally, you would say "No cities are currently underwater, that doesnt mean the earth isnt warming". But, it's perfectly OK for you to ask a fraudulent question while maintaining that your credibility would be intact, but if I asked the SAME type of question, I would be disingenuous??

You are a COMPLETE and utter SHAM.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry said:

No one EVER said it is CURRENTLY being done

That's good enough for me.

Thanks.

Larry said...

Whats good enough? That your point was not made? That the question you asked [based on a lie] did absolutely NOTHING to validate your point?

OK, I can play that game too. The oceans have not risen and cities arent underwater......that means theres NO global warming...good enough for me!!!

Youre completely BONKERS.

the_last_name_left said...

Global warming appears to be true - judging by the evidence.

Where is the evidence that you - or any other american - is about to be shipped off to concentration camp?

Larry said...

Hey, you...assfungus-----did you read ANY portion of this story at ALL????? Why do you ask questions in the comment threads that are answered IN THE STORY you post under????? Are you too lazy too read????

Rex 84 was built for the sole purpose of housing AMERICAN CITIZENS. I say that in THIS story. Can you read??? Rex 84, even on wikipedia says:

"Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, is a plan by the United States federal government to test their ability to detain large numbers of American citizens in case of civil unrest or national emergency."

See that? AMERICAN CITIZENS. If there is ZERO THREAT of us being shipped off to them---WHY ARE THEY THERE? Why is there legislation introduced to have this done?? Oliver North knows ALL ABOUT THEM---thats why he kept his big trap SHUT during the Iran-Contra hearings when he was asked about it.

Former FEMA chief Louis Giuffrida wrote a 1970 plan to DETAIN up to 21 MILLION AMERICAN NEGROES in the event of a black militant uprising in the US-------ALSO in my article that you IGNORE. Legislation has been passed for this and members of Congress who request to see to are even denied.

Wheres the evidence of global warming? Are any cities underwater? NO. Then there's no global warming!

the_last_name_left said...

If there is ZERO THREAT of us being shipped off to them---WHY ARE THEY THERE?

The same goes for ALL jails and penitentiaries, whatever.

Does the existence of regular jails mean that there is a conspiracy to put you in jail, Larry?

Larry said...

LOL, a "regular" jail? Oh, so THATS why Oliver North kept quiet and didnt respond to Jack Brooks' question during Iran-Contra, so he could be hush-hush about his "regular" jails????

You should be a comdeian!

"Regular" jails arent built by FEMA

MORON!

the_last_name_left said...

regular or not has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Does the existence of Disneyworld mean that you are definitely going there?

Does it mean someone is planning to force you to go to Disneyland?

And come on, Larry? There are regular jails - are you genuinely deeply frightened there is a real prospect you will be carted off into one for having done nothing?

What's the difference with your FEMA camps - if they exist at all in the way you imagine them?

It seems obvious that a modern state will seek to protect itself in the face of a massive civil breakdown.

It has a DUTY to do that......surely? That doesn't mean it is going to happen - just as the existence of regular jails doesn't mean you are definitely going to go to jail.

ANY state is going to try to ensure it isn't violently overthrown - especially a democratic one. That's the number one priority for any state - it's a DUTY - in America's case to protect democracy, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY - and ultimately to look after the constitution and everything else.

If you wish to overthrow any state - expect to go to "camp". But don't try to overthrow the state on the grounds that if you try to overthrow it you will go to camp. That's just stupid.

Larry said...

According to the Constitution, WE [the people] are the ones who are SUPPOSED to have the authority, not any "government" body. The Declaration of Independence says it is our DUTY to "throw off the old government" if it becomes corrupt. What do you think the Civil War was all about? Secession is a Constitutional RIGHT.

Larry said...

"Does the existence of Disneyworld mean that you are definitely going there?

Does it mean someone is planning to force you to go to Disneyland?"

Oh brotherrrrrrrrrrrr. By FAR, the most ridiculous and asinine analogy youve made to date. Disneyworld was not built for the sole purpose of DETAINING CITIZENS, was it??? I cant believe Im even entertaining your 1st grader analogy.

the_last_name_left said...

According to the Constitution, WE [the people] are the ones who are SUPPOSED to have the authority, not any "government" body. The Declaration of Independence says it is our DUTY to "throw off the old government" if it becomes corrupt. What do you think the Civil War was all about? Secession is a Constitutional RIGHT.

Yes, all well and good.

I ask you to consider this:

if people threaten to violently overthrow your constitution......what can you do about it?

Wouldn't you want to put people in jail for using violence to overthrow YOUR constitution?

and you need some jails to put people in, IF THEY ARE GOING TO DESTROY YOUR CONSTITUITION, right?

And there are people intent on that, doubtless?

It might surprise you, but I found the American declaration of independence an amazing moving and powerful document. I learnt the preamble off by heart - because it seemed so .....progressive and radical.....and fair....and reasonable. The pursuit of happiness? Fucking hell! wow. way to go!

But I think you're kidding yourself that you can protect your constitution without some jails and all that. Don't get me wrong - I abhor punishment - but.......what is one to do to defend liberty? It can take violence to defend society from violence. Kinda contradictory, but.........what else is there?

I'm sympathetic to your fears of all these camps for critics of the state......but you have to realise that if you oppose the state then you are engaged upon sedition to some degree, and that's exactly what all states must themselves oppose - and punish - to perpetuate themselves.

A really advanced and conscious state might not need punishment, and likely it wouldn't face much sedition.

Of much greater concern than your fears of being "rounded up" is the ACTUAL FACT of incarceration rates in USA - especially for blacks.

No conspiracy or crisis needed there - it's everyday - and it IS happening RIGHT NOW. You're silent on it. You only fear for your own self in some imagined future crisis where you want to overthrow the state.

Yet so many people are in jail today for petty crimes. Drugs. Whatever. Poor uneducated kids. Jailed. Every day. And you're silent on it.

You instead concentrate on some supposed threat to your own freedom. Fair enough - but you know? Come on? What about right now?


----------

I'd thought you'd dig the Disney analogy. ;)

Larry said...

"Yet so many people are in jail today for petty crimes. Drugs. Whatever. Poor uneducated kids. Jailed. Every day. And you're silent on it."

What are you talking about? I realize that petty crimes like drgs are overcrowding the prisons---especially when the CIA brings those drugs into the country.

"if people threaten to violently overthrow your constitution......what can you do about it?"

They dont have to, and thats exactly my point. Most people who are trying to do away with our Constitution are IN Washington...theyre politicians. And they dont have to use violence. They have the power of the pen. All they have to do is pass legislation OR simply IGNORE the constitution, which they do every single day---which is one of the reasons I have this site, to expose it. The Constitution says to defend it, against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC---and I FIRMLY believe the founders knew that the domestic enemies could be in Washington---and holy shit were they right!

the_last_name_left said...

Larry believes in American concentration camps but denies the holocaust/Shoah and the Nazi extermination camps.

One word from Oliver North and it suffices for Larry.

But Himmler speaking at Posen about the extermination of the jews doesn't. Nor does all the rest of the evidence.

Just ONE piece of evidence is all it takes to support Larry's view about the existence of American concentration camps. But Larry insists there's "no proof" for the Nazi Holocaust.

Larry said...

"But Larry insists there's "no proof" for the Nazi Holocaust."

Actually, theres quite a bit of evidence for it---just no proof of the number killed. It could have been 1 million, 4 million, 6 million, 8 million, 10 million--who knows? You have not provided ONE SHRED of evidence of the number. I said on another story "IM sticking with 6 million unless I hae evidece OTHERWISE", so youre simply lying.

But what IS ironic about your post is that you do not believe in false flag terror, but yet the Reichstag fire in 1933 that set Hitler's invasions in motion is now a proven FACT and has been ADMITTED that it was a false flag event [which YOU DENY that false flag terror attacks even happen]---and its BECAUSE of a false flag terror attack that all those Jews were murdered.

Quite amusing [your hypocrisy]

Larry said...

According to my sitemeter, you were on my site yesterday for a whopping 62 minutes, viewed 5 pages and didnt post ONE comment. That's quite a long time to be on a website of someone you deem a "nut" and "kook". Apparently, you weren't able to debunk anything [or even attempt it...which is nothing new] because you spent over an hour here and didnt post jack shit. Did ya get educated?

the_last_name_left said...

As i understand it, you are breaking the law by publishing such information Larry. It's called the Data Protection Act in UK, surely there's a US equivalent.

careful, moron.

-----------------------

YOu claim you "do not deny the holocaust".

But the point is - WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY "HOLOCAUST"/SHOAH?

If you mean the 6 million jews annihilated then "not denyingf the holocaust" means you accept the 6 million figure.

So, please explain what it is exactly you mean by "holocaust"? What is it that you "do not deny"?

Do you agree, or not, with David Dees' claims (via HAl Turner) that only 300,000 died?

You don't know what the figure is?

Then how can you say you don't deny the Holocaust of 6 million jews in the Shosh?

the_last_name_left said...

How this affects your web operations

If you collect IP addresses and analyse them collectively – e.g. identifying the number of visitors from Japan or the most popular ISP – you should disclose this in your privacy policy, e.g. "When you visit our site we may automatically log your IP address, a unique identifier for your computer or other access device." To reassure visitors, you could add: "We will not use your IP address to identify you in any way."

If you wish to use IP addresses to identify or build a profile on each of your visitors as an individual, even if they are never identified by name, you should assume that the Data Protection Act applies. Only a court can decide for certain whether or not this is a processing of personal data to which the Act applies and there have been no court rulings on this point to date. The safest course is to assume that the Act does apply in these circumstances. A court will be influenced by the Information Commissioner's guidance on this point. Therefore you should make visitors aware of your intentions to use IP addresses at the earliest opportunity.

See:

* EU Data Protection Working Party Guidance (99-page / 510KB PDF)
* EU Article 29 Working Party Opinion on the concept of personal data (26-page PDF)
* Information Commissioner's guidance - Collecting Personal Information using Websites

the_last_name_left said...

My - look at the libertarian Larry - how easily and nonchalantly he disregards privacy.....

And look how the little libertarian snoops?

Don't you think you should put up a prominent notice saying that ALL USERS SHOULD TAKE NOTICE THAT INFORMATION IS BEING COLLECTED ABOUT THEM....AND USED TO CONSTRUCT PERSONAL PROFILES WHICH WILL BE MADE PUBLIC IF THE OWNER WISHES?

God, you're a cretin.

Larry said...

Awwww, whats a matter---did I get you nervous or just pissed because I know exactly WHEN and how long you stay on my site?

For your info, Sitemeter does not give COMPLETE IP addresses. It gives PARTIAL IP addresses---no law broken there, pal. Sitemeter gives the state/province and country, it gives how long youve been on the site and what sites you came from and what sites you go to afterward. So, if you're on my site and then go to BigCocks.com after being on my site, I will know about it.

Sitemeter is NOT secret-----YOU can even click that small box at the right/top of my page [under my 'features' icons] and see who's been on my site. It does NOT give personal names or addresses or COMPLETE IP addresses.

The question still remains...what was you doing on my site for over an hour without posting anything? Getting educated?

I love how you COMPLETELY IGNORED my comment on false flag terror. You DENY false flag terror happens--but if not FOR false flag terror, Hitler wouldnt have risen to power. But, you IGNORE that.

Larry said...

"And look how the little libertarian snoops?

Don't you think you should put up a prominent notice saying that ALL USERS SHOULD TAKE NOTICE THAT INFORMATION IS BEING COLLECTED ABOUT THEM....AND USED TO CONSTRUCT PERSONAL PROFILES WHICH WILL BE MADE PUBLIC IF THE OWNER WISHES?"

Im "collecting" info on people who come here? I construct "personal profiles"? Oh really? And exactly what info would I post about them? Their city, state, length of time on my site and PARTIAL IP address? This PROVES you do NO investigation before opening your big trap.

Even if Sitemeter DID give me personal names, addresses and other private info of people coming here, why would that be a violation to THEM if they are coming to MY site?

I recall you saying on another thread on another story that blogs are PRIVATE PROPERTY of the blogger [which youre wrong about, but you said it]. So, even if you was RIGHT and this website was my PRIVATE PROPERTY, why would I not have the right to know who is coming onto my private property?

In fact, it was the 2009 Fraud of the Year thread, you said [about Ostroy]:

"You support his property rights, don't you? It's his website, after all.

That fits your worldview - support for private property rights.

Yet now you feel "silenced" by Ostroy, you're complaining that Ostroy's exercise of his property rights is functioning as "censorship".

Can I ask you to remember that idea, whenever you're next tempted to extoll the virtues of private property?"

So, let me get this straight:

You call websites "personal property" [of which youre wrong about---especially on blogger.com] but you're saying that even if you was CORRECT [that they are personal property] that the owner of their site can't PROTECT their "personal property" by knowing info [like city/state/country, partial IP adresses and length of time of visits] of the "invaders" of their personal property?

Youre hilarious! You are just one contradictory statement after the other and it's quite fun exposing the fact that you dont even know what YOU believe, let alone anything about others.

Would I have the right to know info about people if they came onto my personal property at my house? Would I have the right to film them if they were about to steal my car, or walk inside my fence and camp out on my front lawn?

Apparently you have contradictory views about this, because you DEFENDED Ostroy's right to keep out "invaders" of "personal property" but with me [at my site] you are saying that the "invaders" have the right to be completely anonymous and they should be given EVERY RIGHT to not have info about them [even if it IS ONLY city/state/country and PARTIAL IP address] disclosed.

How am I "snooping" if they are coming to MY "personal property"? Am I "snooping" if someone I dont know walks in the front door to my house, sits down and starts watching TV, and I ask who they are????

You are a COMPLETE sap!

the_last_name_left said...

Worried? No.

I just want to point out your hypocrisy......and the fact you appear to be running close to breaking the law.. if not definitely. And that you're instinctively careless and regardless for ethics and law over matters of privacy.

L: For your info, Sitemeter does not give COMPLETE IP addresses. It gives PARTIAL IP addresses---no law broken there, pal

No - the point is you are publishing information derived from a profile you have created around a particular IP address.

You're sailing well close to the wind like that - you are certainly acting unethically, and you are certainly compromising my privacy.

I don't even NEED A REASON to find your behaviour disgusting.....it's simply unethical...and possibly criminal. I don't have to have anything to hide to find your behaviour disgusting. UNDERSTAND?????? You act unethically - regardless of whether it makes any difference to me. You don't know what difference it makes.....so don't even try to pretend that as an excuse.

Week in week out you have complained about creeping police state SURVEILLANCE BLAH BLAH BLAH.

And look at how you act in your own life with the tiny bit of data you do have access to?

You'll act unethically and compromise PRINCIPLES -- simply to get in a little dig......wow. pathetic.

You act unethically and hypocritically over privacy. Simple.

Larry said...

Since you IGNORED EVERY WORD OF MY POST, I'll post it again:

"And look how the little libertarian snoops?

Don't you think you should put up a prominent notice saying that ALL USERS SHOULD TAKE NOTICE THAT INFORMATION IS BEING COLLECTED ABOUT THEM....AND USED TO CONSTRUCT PERSONAL PROFILES WHICH WILL BE MADE PUBLIC IF THE OWNER WISHES?"

Im "collecting" info on people who come here? I construct "personal profiles"? Oh really? And exactly what info would I post about them? Their city, state, length of time on my site and PARTIAL IP address? This PROVES you do NO investigation before opening your big trap.

Even if Sitemeter DID give me personal names, addresses and other private info of people coming here, why would that be a violation to THEM if they are coming to MY site?

I recall you saying on another thread on another story that blogs are PRIVATE PROPERTY of the blogger [which youre wrong about, but you said it]. So, even if you was RIGHT and this website was my PRIVATE PROPERTY, why would I not have the right to know who is coming onto my private property?

In fact, it was the 2009 Fraud of the Year thread, you said [about Ostroy]:

"You support his property rights, don't you? It's his website, after all.

That fits your worldview - support for private property rights.

Yet now you feel "silenced" by Ostroy, you're complaining that Ostroy's exercise of his property rights is functioning as "censorship".

Can I ask you to remember that idea, whenever you're next tempted to extoll the virtues of private property?"

So, let me get this straight:

You call websites "personal property" [of which youre wrong about---especially on blogger.com] but you're saying that even if you was CORRECT [that they are personal property] that the owner of their site can't PROTECT their "personal property" by knowing info [like city/state/country, partial IP adresses and length of time of visits] of the "invaders" of their personal property?

Youre hilarious! You are just one contradictory statement after the other and it's quite fun exposing the fact that you dont even know what YOU believe, let alone anything about others.

Would I have the right to know info about people if they came onto my personal property at my house? Would I have the right to film them if they were about to steal my car, or walk inside my fence and camp out on my front lawn?

Apparently you have contradictory views about this, because you DEFENDED Ostroy's right to keep out "invaders" of "personal property" but with me [at my site] you are saying that the "invaders" have the right to be completely anonymous and they should be given EVERY RIGHT to not have info about them [even if it IS ONLY city/state/country and PARTIAL IP address] disclosed.

How am I "snooping" if they are coming to MY "personal property"? Am I "snooping" if someone I dont know walks in the front door to my house, sits down and starts watching TV, and I ask who they are????

You are a COMPLETE sap!

the_last_name_left said...

L: You call websites "personal property" [of which youre wrong about---especially on blogger.com]

All websites are "property". Blogger owns blogger.....you rent webspace...or it's loaned out to you "free". IT's still property even on blogger, and on private individual sites, or corporate ones, the point of them being "private property" is obvious.

but you're saying that even if you was CORRECT [that they are personal property]

I am correct - they are property.

the owner of their site can't PROTECT their "personal property" by knowing info [like city/state/country, partial IP adresses and length of time of visits] of the "invaders" of their personal property?

Not if they fail to warn visitors that they are doing so and especially not if they are also identifying and profiling users via their IP and then maliciously publishing the information so garnered in an attempt to personally attack or incriminate the user in some way.

It's simply unethical. I expect it is on the borderline of legal, at best.

Larry said...

"Not if they fail to warn visitors that they are doing so and especially not if they are also identifying and profiling users via their IP and then maliciously publishing the information so garnered in an attempt to personally attack or incriminate the user in some way."

So, youre saying I have to WARN people NOT to walk inside my house if they are strangers? I have to WARN people NOT to walk in my yard and camp out on my lawn? YOURE INSANE!

PLUS, my sitemeter icon is on my page for ALL TO SEE, displayed OPENLY!! If you dont know what it is and what it does, TOUGH SHIT.

Thats EXACTLY what sitemeter is FOR! Why do you think its made and available? Its a tracking device to show where people are coming from that visit your site! It gives NO PERSONAL INFORMATION!

Hell, a letter you get in the mail gives more info than sitemeter does! When you get letters from people in the mail, it gives their personal names and personal addresses! Sitemeter gives less info than that! If sitemeter was illegal, then the Post Office would definately be as well!

You IGNORED about 75% of my post. Ill re-post what you IGNORED.

"Would I have the right to know info about people if they came onto my personal property at my house? Would I have the right to film them if they were about to steal my car, or walk inside my fence and camp out on my front lawn?

Apparently you have contradictory views about this, because you DEFENDED Ostroy's right to keep out "invaders" of "personal property" but with me [at my site] you are saying that the "invaders" have the right to be completely anonymous and they should be given EVERY RIGHT to not have info about them [even if it IS ONLY city/state/country and PARTIAL IP address] disclosed.

How am I "snooping" if they are coming to MY "personal property"? Am I "snooping" if someone I dont know walks in the front door to my house, sits down and starts watching TV, and I ask who they are????

Im "collecting" info on people who come here? I construct "personal profiles"? Oh really? And exactly what info would I post about them? Their city, state, length of time on my site and PARTIAL IP address? This PROVES you do NO investigation before opening your big trap.

Even if Sitemeter DID give me personal names, addresses and other private info of people coming here, why would that be a violation to THEM if they are coming to MY site?"

You keep saying Im "PUBLISHING" the info-----where??? Where do you see it PUBLISHED???

Wikipedia says this about Sitemeter:

"Site Meter is a service which provides counter and tracking information for Web sites. By logging IP addresses and using JavaScript or HTML to track visitor information, Site Meter provides Web site owners with information about their visitors, including how they reached the site, the date and time of their visit, and more."

If it was illegal, sitemeter would be facing lawsuits. They arent!

Now, answer my question:

"The question still remains...what was you doing on my site for over an hour without posting anything? Getting educated?"

Youre just pissed because I know you were on my site for OVER and hour, viewing 5 pages, reading info and most importantly-----NOT posting anything. That means NONE of that hour's worth of time you were posting. That ENTIRE HOUR you was reading the info and getting educated! And your pissed that I KNOW!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

the_last_name_left said...

So, youre saying I have to WARN people NOT to walk inside my house if they are strangers?

No. I am saying if you invite people into your house, you are an unethcial tosser if you take photos of them in your toilet, say.

Pretty obvious?

And sod your stupid weak analogy.

The facts are you snoop on your visitors and are quite prepared to disclose non-public information about them - all so you can attempt to somehow incriminate or attack them.

Pathetic, wholly unethical, and of dubious legality.

Sitemeter does not make public the information you have access to. See the difference? Plus, the use made of the information..... Sitemeter would likely never maliciously publish details of user individual activity at their own sites. I'm sure they wouldn't recommend anyone do so. Who would?

Larry can't even see the problem.

Larry said...

"Sitemeter does not make public the information you have access to. See the difference? Plus, the use made of the information..... Sitemeter would likely never maliciously publish details of user individual activity at their own sites. I'm sure they wouldn't recommend anyone do so. Who would?"

Assdart, I didnt INVITE you to my site...you just appeared one day and posted. That's the equivalent to you just walking in my front door. Sitemeter gives the user the CHOICE of whether the user wants the info to be seen by just them or by all---and my settings are PUBLIC. That means you can click that icon right now and see all the info yourself! Moron. YOU have access to it TOO, dickbrain. I told you that already, but it was among the 80% of my posts you IGNORE.

You keep saying "PUBLISH"..."PUBLISH"------who's fucking PUBLISHING IT??? You completely IGNORED [as usual] my Post Office analogy. Mail has personal names AND addresses on them-----why cant the post office be sued then???

You keep saying its because they dont have a WARNING their info is being tracked when they come onto my site---but what you CONTINUALLY fail to comprehend is that the info sitemeter tracks is NOT PERSONAL INFO. It doesnt list the persons NAME [or Id know YOUR name, asshole], it doesnt list their address. It ONLY lists CITY/STATE/COUNTRY and a PARTIAL------PARTIAL IP ADDRESS. Do you know what PARTIAL means? It means "NOT THE COMPLETE ADDRESS". Its like having a PARTIAL phone number----pretty useless unless its the WHOLE number, eh???

When, oh WHEN will you answer my question???????

"The question still remains...what was you doing on my site for over an hour without posting anything? Getting educated?"

Larry said...

"No. I am saying if you invite people into your house, you are an unethcial tosser if you take photos of them in your toilet, say."

You say MY analogies are bad??? Wow! Youre saying taking photos of you shitting is the EXACT SAME THING as knowing what city/state/country you live in????

Its killing you that I KNOW you spent over an hour on my site. You LOVE my site, dont you?? Obviously! You didnt even post anything! That means you spent the ENTIRE 62 minutes browsing and reading---hahahahahaha. You LOVE this site.

Anonymous said...

tossers last fraud name left will toss your salad. hes a queenie.

Anonymous said...

Naughty Naughty, realtruthonline.

Spying just like Bush.

Corey Nolan said...

wow i started reading this thread and damn larry you got patience with this ass clown , how many different ways can you say the same thing and (lastname)just dosent understand and keeps making himself look stupid. its all out there all you have to have is a 1st grade education to understand we are in for it....