Ash Small wrote ...

They can track you through your cell phone anyway, as mentioned in the links posted by Carbon Rod.

(For years I never registered my cell phones, but eventually had to give my number to various government departments. I also had to register it before I could access Ebay when using it for internet access. Ebay is defined as 'adult content' because you have to be 18 to buy or sell (at least here, anyway). It's also now 'linked' to my debit card, so I can buy credit easier (as they had my number anyway).

These days, with number plate (license plate) recognition cameras, cctv, and automatic surveillance of E-mails, text messages and phone calls they can track you anyway without attaching tracker devices to your car.

The tracker devices are just a way of them reminding you that 'Big Brother is watching you!'

James wrote ...



Really "they" always could if there was reason, just by having somebody tail you, tap your phone, interview your employer, businesses you deal with, etc, all stuff that has been going on for decades. Sure it's a bit more effort doing it the old fashioned way, but not a lot.

Frankly most of us are just not interesting enough to stand out from the crowd. I don't like things that make it easier to track what I'm doing, but I don't lose sleep over it either.


As for the cell phone jammers, that's the first I've heard about them being integrated into any cars, can you cite an example? It's not illegal for a passenger to use a cell phone in a car. Not that it matters to me anyway since my newest car is 24 years old and still going strong.

wrote ...

Won't they just renew it? Whether it violates the constitution unfortunately makes little difference in many cases, especially in areas where the constitutional wording is ambiguous. It sucks, but what are you gonna do about it?

wrote ...

It's a point I've been trying to make for a long time. The real BS isn't covered up by wacky conspiracies, it's blatantly done right in front of us.

jpsmith123 wrote ...


There really aren't too many areas where the Constitution is "ambiguous", are there? The contemporary literature and many relevant, unequivocal statements by the Founding Fathers generally leaves little doubt as to what was intended. Of course, an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda (of which there are many in and around government) will always construe the Constitution as an ambiguous "living" document.

Where we run into trouble is when we refuse to believe that dishonest people with an agenda would seek high political office, or having done so, would subsequently abuse that political power.

To put it into proper perspective, the consummate police state that we now find ourselves in didn't just "happen"; our rulers are making it happen, by way of a series of deliberate, calculated acts.

And if you believe it's all being done for our own good because they really care about "us" and don't want to see us fall victim to "terrorism", then I also have to tell you, you just won the Nigerian lottery, so if you'll kindly send me all your personal information, credit and debit cards, PINs, etc., I'll see that you get what's coming to you right away.


So "conspiracy", especially when it involves government, is something that never actually happens, e.g., the Watergate scandal never really happened?

In any case, even when "they" do things right in front of us, many of us still refuse to see. And then, when those of who do see it, politely try to point it out, we get shouted down and denigrated as "wacky" "conspiracy theorists".

James wrote ...

.The issue I have with most conspiracy theories is that they take the fact that people (which politicians are) do lie sometimes, and use that to assume that it's feasible to organize a large group of people in numerous levels of government to tell exactly the same lie when so many of them have much to gain by outing their fellow conspirators. The more people who would have to be "in on it", the less likely a conspiracy is to be true, especially when it crosses party lines. Those guys can't even work together well enough sometimes to accomplish the most basic duties of government, much less come up with some crazy convoluted story and stick to it for years or decades, keeping track of and paying off countless people to remain silent.

.

wrote ...

Well there is not much that I consider to be ambiguous, but once in a while someone interprets something differently than I would. Let's take the right to bear arms for example. Some interpret it as the people have the right to bear arms, others interpret it as the people have the right to form a well organized militia, members of which have the right to bear arms. The guys who wrote it are all dead, so who's to say who is right?

wrote ...

I have my opinions, but that's just me. No matter how strong my opinions are, I can't go back and ask them to clarify what they really meant. This is the sort of thing that gets debated endlessly, the supreme court has their say but that doesn't end the debate because it's like debating religious beliefs, there is no way to prove one way or the other.

wrote ...

Watergate was a scandal, it involved a relatively small number of people, and you may recall they were busted in a relatively short amount of time and the scandal was completely exposed along with quite a large array of conclusive evidence.

wrote ...

A conspiracy would be claiming Nixon and associates were completely innocent and that the CIA, FBI, the army, General Motors, and Fidel Castro conspired together to frame Nixon for some reason or another. Yes, it would be absurdly unlikely and ridiculous to suggest that actually happened. In fact it's a lot more likely that Nixon and/or his associates committed a relatively simple crime in an attempt at political gain, just like the official investigation on the matter concluded.

wrote ...

The issue I have with most conspiracy theories is that they take the fact that people (which politicians are) do lie sometimes, and use that to assume that it's feasible to organize a large group of people in numerous levels of government to tell exactly the same lie when so many of them have much to gain by outing their fellow conspirators. The more people who would have to be "in on it", the less likely a conspiracy is to be true, especially when it crosses party lines. Those guys can't even work together well enough sometimes to accomplish the most basic duties of government, much less come up with some crazy convoluted story and stick to it for years or decades, keeping track of and paying off countless people to remain silent.

wrote ...

It's much easier to just come up with a an excuse to justify what they want to do, ranging from stretching the truth slightly to completely bogus.

wrote ...

I'll take for example our recent meddling in Libya: We were told that we were going in there for humanitarian reasons. Is that true?

wrote ...

I don't know and frankly it's not relevant to me at the moment, I'm not here to debate that.

wrote ...

My point is that there may be some truth to it, but if so, why aren't we going into all the other countries where stuff like that is happening?

wrote ...

Could it have something to do with oil? Other international relationships? I can speculate, but it's pretty hard to conclusively prove motives one way or another. Either way it's not a conspiracy.

wrote ...

What about tax cuts for the top few percent of earners? Does it trickle down and create jobs? I don't personally think so, but plenty claim that it does, and plenty of people living in poverty believe it too and support it. I personally think it's a lie, but it's hardly a conspiracy. Nobody had to cover it up, nobody is hiding the tax cuts, they just said we're creating/extending these tax cuts because of this reason and they did it. Doesn't mean everyone saying "tax cuts for the rich create jobs" is lying and "in on it", they just heard it somewhere, thought it sounded reasonable, and started saying it themselves.