I’m honestly not interested in arguing this further. There’s obviously a significant mindset difference between us.
To me answering a different question than what was asked and insisting that it was the question has two explanations: The person genuinely misunderstood the question, or they are intellectually dishonest akin to a politican trying to maintain their image. Both cases lose all their credibility in my eyes, even if I agree with their message. But it seems many people are okay with any manner of speech as long as the message is one they already believe in
I don’t think I can change your worldview. Good day
Then block me if my way of speech is that annoying?
You’ll never have to see anything that doesn’t fit neatly into your beliefs or anything that isn’t a purely literal answer to a question again.
But hey, in an effort to seem like less of a cunt; I googled it for you.
" In 2015, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act, which placed some limitations on the government’s use of Section 215. Under the new law, the government must provide a “specific selection term” that identifies the subject of the investigation before it can obtain a business records order. "
It’s still alive. It’s just been changed to fit with the times, because like with all that I brought up, the times have changed, and surveillance has changed with it.
Want to know if it’s actually stopped any terrorist attacks since 2015? Ask yourself how many mass shootings have occurred since then, and if they would count as a terrorist attack (or if the government would even tell you that the attacker/s were manipulated by a foreign entity or instead just say they were public enemy du jour.)
Which is once again not what was asked.
I’m honestly not interested in arguing this further. There’s obviously a significant mindset difference between us.
To me answering a different question than what was asked and insisting that it was the question has two explanations: The person genuinely misunderstood the question, or they are intellectually dishonest akin to a politican trying to maintain their image. Both cases lose all their credibility in my eyes, even if I agree with their message. But it seems many people are okay with any manner of speech as long as the message is one they already believe in
I don’t think I can change your worldview. Good day
Then block me if my way of speech is that annoying?
You’ll never have to see anything that doesn’t fit neatly into your beliefs or anything that isn’t a purely literal answer to a question again.
But hey, in an effort to seem like less of a cunt; I googled it for you.
" In 2015, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act, which placed some limitations on the government’s use of Section 215. Under the new law, the government must provide a “specific selection term” that identifies the subject of the investigation before it can obtain a business records order. "
It’s still alive. It’s just been changed to fit with the times, because like with all that I brought up, the times have changed, and surveillance has changed with it.
Want to know if it’s actually stopped any terrorist attacks since 2015? Ask yourself how many mass shootings have occurred since then, and if they would count as a terrorist attack (or if the government would even tell you that the attacker/s were manipulated by a foreign entity or instead just say they were public enemy du jour.)