User blog comment:Semanticdrifter/Digital Protest Against the FISA Improvements Act/@comment-24317070-20140214010622/@comment-24459455-20140226230130

Now, ignoring the ad hominem points aside, let's address your other argument points:

"I am merely thinking for myself rather than following "mob rules". Mob's have no common sense they just loot and freak. That will never be me."

Hasty generalisation fallacy. Also, Wikia isn't 'looting' anything. Nor is it a mob guided by mob rule.

"As far as snowden & wikileaks "making me wonder if it's disinformation", I'm not talking about them in particular, I am saying I wonder if our government purposely leaked that false information to throw off our enemies. Yes I am wondering if Snowden is a double. Throwing your enemies off the trail with fake information is a very old tactic. My point there is I don't know what to believe anymore."

The irony is you call me insane and paranoid but then you claim that Snowden, being attacked by various governments, censored (even to the degree of the UK persecuting the guardian and the US censoring the washington post) is merely a stage act for fooling the Russians. And what would you call the huge data centre in Utah? An illusion? A prop set?

"I am sick and tired of our constitution being destroyed. I do want oversight, maybe you should look at my older post in here."

Really? Because in the immediate post you formed, you clearly stated "Signing petitions to tie one hand behind the very back and balls of the agencies trying to protect us doesnt exactly sound like a good idea" which clearly indicates you're against oversight and restrictions on the surveillancing, and thus you're lying when you claim you are in favour of oversight.

"How am I lieing? I'm making good common sense here. These agencies are in fact here to protect us. You sir are a paranoid mess."

Ad hominem fallacy. I like how you claim you're making "good common sense" but are unable to back up your claims. For example, your false claim of "these agencies are in fact here to protect us", what examples do you have to back up that claim? There's plenty of evidence they failed to stop any plots.

Bloomberg reported that it has no impact on terrorism, what so ever. No terrorism plots stopped, says NBC. NSA chief admits to lying about the number of plots foiled.

Burden of evidence remains squarely on you to prove it would have any effective defence at all. The allocation of billions to a system that does not work is a waste of billions. As for those Chinese hackers? The irony is the NSA data centres are a ripe target for blackmail material and thus an extremely bad idea...