What I'm objecting is the substitution of rhetoric for reasoned argument, with these post-facto pronouncements of the nation's death and suchlike. If I want emotional appeals that seek to exploit confirmation bias I can just turn on talk radio or listen to commercials for gold and rifle ammo.

That is, I don't know what "reasoned argument" you need other than the very real and constant accretion of power by the federal government. Power, I might add, that frequently comes at the expense of our rights and privacy. From the Patriot Act to the ugliness it empowered (NSLs, etc.) to the broadening of power referenced in the subject article and everything in between; there is a constant, undeniable power creep. Now, you may need "reasoned argument" to help you establish whether you believe this is justified, etc. But, you cannot deny the existence of an ever-broadening government power.

Perhaps you found my wording too rhetorical for your taste. I can certainly live with that. But, if it is substance you seek, that substance can be found in the article itself along with the countless other instances of the government accruing more power. My comment was merely commentary on this substance.

Still, we may disagree on where all of this is taking us. You say that it's hyperbole to speak of the nation's dismantling. I would argue that the nation is already fundamentally differerent and that its demise, on principal, is not only imminent, but nearly complete. It is the sum total of changes like this one that makes it so.

Because, irrespective of the opinion you reach through reasoned argument as to the "neccessity" of the changes, the changes themselves represent the morphing of our nation into something entirely different; in other words, its dismantling piece by piece.

There are quite a few people that have completely lost faith in the government, especially as it expands its powers by exploiting fear in the masses, to handle newly acquired power with the responsibility we would expect them to have. We've already learned the federal government does not give up power, so when it takes steps in this direction it's worrying to some of us. There is no way to reverse this now, this will be acceptable policy for the foreseeable future.

Next the limits to what gets flagged will be lowered. Eventually the banks wont be trusted to flag anything, and all transactions will be filtered by the government for later analysis.

I don't blame anyone for calling that outlook one of a conspiracy theorist, or an unhealthy cynic.

but this is simply not true, and when it does so people ignore it to the point of obtuseness. two recent examples are a (slight) relaxation of TSA rules about carry-on items, and the decison to try an Al-Qaeda member in criminal court in Ny instead of just sending him to Guantanamo. Today in particular, the administrationis urging the Supreme Court o limit the government's power to say who can or can't call themselves married. These exmples may not matter to you, but they seem to matter quite a lot to various other people. Your arguments rests on a false premise, one which assumes things will inevitably get worse.

You could be arguing that withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a great time to rewire and substantially narrow, or even repeal, the AUMF, and great time to review the Patriot act in the light of over a decade's experience. I would lolve to see these laws narrowed or repealed. Instead you prefer to sit on your hands and prognosticate about things automatically getting worse.

When you're finished with the part that explains what they're really doing, be sure to also read the last few paragraphs which discuss the potential for abuse, past civil rights violations, and the fact that they invariably end up with data on innocent citizens, which they have increasing latitide in retaining and managing.

You should also considering comparing that with other 'privileges' certain government agencies have and their record of abusing those privileges.

Or you can be intentionally obtuse about it.

Including, apparently, the author of the article:

"Banks, for instance, are required to report all personal cash transactions exceeding $10,000, as well as suspected incidents of money laundering, loan fraud, computer hacking or counterfeiting"

Did you actually read the article?

And, it appears that the author sourced that nasty lie from the federal government (FinCEN) itself:

http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/materials/e...

Edit: BTW, while you're burrowing down into irrelevant minutiae to make who-knows-what point, why not see my questions above regarding your material misread of the actual article. That, and my points regarding your glossing over of the actual problems with this issue.

Ok, so you were talking about cash vs non-cash, instead of solely threshhold amounts, as initially appeared to be the case. We get that. But, it doesn't matter. Again, you are missing the point about EXPANDED GOVERNMENT CAPABILITIES, irrespective of whether this one point about threshholds is about cash vs. non-cash. The article itself is about far more than just what's reportable. It is about things like broader access for sifting data, which also catches up innocent citizens, and under liberal retention policies.

You seem to be getting stuck. This is why you need to re-read the article instead of demanding that others do the same. And this is why you have failed to respond to my previous post, which clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're just angry and making meaningless, half-baked points. Why are you so pissed anyway?

And, do I need to drop f-bombs to help you understand the article/discussion here?

Or maybe you should start over from the top:

Step 1: Read the article (for comprehension this time)... Step 2: Form a relevant conclusion...