Icy watt ewe did their ↑

Nice Subby Nice.

To be fair, Brownback is one of the few Republicans to oppose Bush's illegal wiretapping. I am amazed at this but you have to give him credit.

Sabyen91: To be fair, Brownback is one of the few Republicans to oppose Bush's illegal wiretapping. I am amazed at this but you have to give him credit.

So, maybe we should be sayin I see what you did there, Senator.

Meh. They're foreigners. Who cares- oh, wait.

Crewmannumber6: Sabyen91: To be fair, Brownback is one of the few Republicans to oppose Bush's illegal wiretapping. I am amazed at this but you have to give him credit.

So, maybe we should be sayin I see what you did there, Senator.

Yeah, I would say this might be a little FU to Bush. He put him between a rock and a hard place, put his feet to the fire, etc.

Also is Wikipedia blocks DOJ IP address

:ROFL:
:facepalm:
:ROFL:
:facepalm:
:ROFL:
:facepalm:

Nice subby.

The US is currently using wire taps and searches on citizens without the benefit of a warrant. I am not sure why a member of the Senate would worry more about China than his/her own country.

I expect to see more and more of this dissonance in our government. It's going to be hard to score points by shaming an oppressive regime when you share core policies with them.

RandomExcess
The US is currently using wire taps and searches on citizens without the benefit of a warrant. I am not sure why a member of the Senate would worry more about China than his/her own country.

Yes, you nailed!

/pretty sure that was the point of the sub
//pretty sure that's why it got the ever-controversial "irony" tag

Sabyen91: Crewmannumber6: Sabyen91: To be fair, Brownback is one of the few Republicans to oppose Bush's illegal wiretapping. I am amazed at this but you have to give him credit.

So, maybe we should be sayin I see what you did there, Senator.

Yeah, I would say this might be a little FU to Bush. He put him between a rock and a hard place, put his feet to the fire, etc.

I'd say it's more of a careful tactical maneuver, as others have suggested.

Demonstrable hipocrasy is entertaining to watch. Thus, goading Bush into making a statement.

Technically, under FISA, we could do the same thing.

You see, FISA only protects "US Persons". A "US Person" is either a US citizen, an alien legally admitted into the US for permanent residence, a US corporation, or an organization whose members are predominantly "US Persons".

We could tap the communications of foreign athletes with each other, and those going outside of the United States, without having to get a warrant. We'd only need one to listen in on their communications with "US Persons", and that need can be satisfied retroactively (ie., you can intercept the communication during your normal course of monitoring, and then apply for a warrant when you know a US Person is involved, after the fact).

Having said that, would we bother? Probably not, unless we suspected that one or more of the athletes was a spy or a terrorist.

RandomExcess: The US is currently using wire taps and searches on citizens without the benefit of a warrant. I am not sure why a member of the Senate would worry more about China than his/her own country.

Since Brownback opposes illegal wiretaps in the US, one can only hope he is trying to point out the hypocracy of our own policy. I am probably being too optimistic.

/DRTFA

dittybopper
Having said that, would we bother? Probably not, unless we suspected that one or more of the athletes was a spy or a terrorist.

True, I don't think we would. But, then, we're not the paranoid control freaks that the Chinese are.

I mean, Bush and his cronies are paranoid control freaks, but the Chinese take that to a whole new level.

dorkman: dittybopper
Having said that, would we bother? Probably not, unless we suspected that one or more of the athletes was a spy or a terrorist.

True, I don't think we would. But, then, we're not the paranoid control freaks that the Chinese are.

I mean, Bush and his cronies are paranoid control freaks, but the Chinese take that to a whole new level.

Bush is almost gone. Problem is the replacements have thier own stupid ideas.

dorkman: True, I don't think we would. But, then, we're not the paranoid control freaks that the Chinese are.

I mean, Bush and his cronies are paranoid control freaks, but the Chinese take that to a whole new level.

nanos gigantum humeris insidentes

HotWingConspiracy
I expect to see more and more of this dissonance in our government. It's going to be hard to score points by shaming an oppressive regime when you share core policies with them.

Yup. It's very interesting to me to watch how dramatically our attitudes have shifted since China went from being outright communist to outright fascist.

The treatment of the their citizens appears to have been, all this time, actually just a cover for the fact that we didn't like their economic system. Our government could give a rat's ass about Chinese human rights.

Headso: nanos gigantum humeris insidentes

Wait, am I the midget, or is Bush??

/a relatively new poster, wondering if I'm getting zinged here
//guess my wondering means I am the midget...

dorkman: Wait, am I the midget, or is Bush??

In a convoluted way I was agreeing with you, the current Chinese are standing on the shoulders of giants with their paranoid-control-freaking...

mrexcess: Our government could give a rat's ass about Chinese human rights.

Headso: nanos gigantum humeris insidentes

These midgets, they go to the house?

globalwarmingpraiser: Bush is almost gone. Problem is the replacements have thier own stupid ideas.

At least on the wiretapping issue, a couple of them are right.

Ah.

I can here Alberto Gonzales now: "Rights?!? They don't need no stinkin' rights!"

Some friends and I actually approached Brownback at a McCain rally in Iowa about this warrantless wiretapping thing and got the brush off. He is an immense scumbag in my book.

Paedophile_Deluxe: At least on the wiretapping issue, a couple of them are right.

That would be Obama and Paul. Hillary "conveniently" didn't show up for the vote on that, and McCain, of course, favors extra-Constitutional snooping.

I'll try to remember how oppressed and spied upon you all are when I go to the polls. If I see somebody with unkempt hair and wide eyes that looks like he needs to shave and doesn't drink water because it has flouride in it I'll know just the sort of paranoid delusional idiot I'm trying to remember.

The government does not spy on the average ordinary person because the government DOESN'T CARE what you are doing. You are not that interesting. Nobody in the DHS cares about your porno collection or your insipid conversations about American Idol. This is not even "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about", this is "What on Earth makes you believe for one minute that the government even has the capacity to spy on 300,000,000 people? They have more information they can deal with now and they're TRYING to avoid useless information."

I mean honestly, do you really think the American government is running around spying on innocent people? Why the hell would they even bother? Let's pretend for a minute that you run an organization with limited resources, where are you likely to spend those resources? Where they will do you the most good? What a shocking idea. Yet you seem to think that the government is wasting it's time spying on poor poor innocent people.

Grow up, quit being paranoid, you are not important and in spite of what mama might have told you to the contrary you are not that special.

randomjsa: The government does not spy on the average ordinary person because the government DOESN'T CARE what you are doing. You are not that interesting. Nobody in the DHS cares about your porno collection or your insipid conversations about American Idol. This is not even "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about", this is "What on Earth makes you believe for one minute that the government even has the capacity to spy on 300,000,000 people? They have more information they can deal with now and they're TRYING to avoid useless information."

THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS!!!!

/going in my profile

Oh, and for eloquent and clear restatement of the blatantly f*cking obvious, I hereby award randomjsa one free month of TF.

randomjsa: I'll try to remember how oppressed and spied upon you all are when I go to the polls. If I see somebody with unkempt hair and wide eyes that looks like he needs to shave and doesn't drink water because it has flouride in it I'll know just the sort of paranoid delusional idiot I'm trying to remember.

The government does not spy on the average ordinary person because the government DOESN'T CARE what you are doing. You are not that interesting. Nobody in the DHS cares about your porno collection or your insipid conversations about American Idol. This is not even "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about", this is "What on Earth makes you believe for one minute that the government even has the capacity to spy on 300,000,000 people? They have more information they can deal with now and they're TRYING to avoid useless information."

I mean honestly, do you really think the American government is running around spying on innocent people? Why the hell would they even bother? Let's pretend for a minute that you run an organization with limited resources, where are you likely to spend those resources? Where they will do you the most good? What a shocking idea. Yet you seem to think that the government is wasting it's time spying on poor poor innocent people.

Grow up, quit being paranoid, you are not important and in spite of what mama might have told you to the contrary you are not that special.

Yeah, because data-mining is just done on those dirty terrorists. Right. You call us paranoid but you see a terrorist around every corner and want daddy Bush to protect you from those scary men.

randomjsa: What on Earth makes you believe for one minute that the government even has the capacity to spy on 300,000,000 people?

Um, because I know for a fact the technology NSA has is capabile of collecting and parsing data more efficiently and effectively than ever before in the history of man, by a long shot.

And, yes, the Feds are not interested in every Tom Dick or Harry, unless their data mining turns up something suspicious.

This whole issue goes directly to the Bill of Rights, and the unbelievable foresight had by our founding fathers. This point should not be minimized be some of the ridiculous arguments for violating our rights found in this thread.

*capable
and
"minimized *by* some of the..."

/guess I should proofread more...

what a moron.