Let's pretend this outrages conservatives.

cman: You refuse to consider anyone else outside your party. Vote 3rd party FFS

/Proud donor to Gary Johnson campaign

As much as I wish I could consider a third party, I fear that they do not have any strength and voting for them would be a vote that does not go towards keeping Obama in office and more importantly, keeping one of the four stooges out of office.

I do not want to vote 100% democrat for the rest of my life, but I do not dare allow Rmoney/Frothy/Grinchy/Crazy Old Guy become president

If Johnson or Huntsman had stronger support, had even a chance, I would consider them. Even if the GOP ticket had picked them up and they had Rs next to their names, I would consider them (because frankly, that would be a sign of moderatism in the GOP.)

But I don't see them as being remotely viable. And I feel that if I do not vote for Obama, I give the four stooges a stronger chance at gaining the oval office.

I also understand the Catch 22 here, that they need support before they become viable and they need to be viable before they have support. That is a symptom of our shiatty electorate system.

DHS, too.

I was astounded people were clamoring for yet another redundant bureaucracy so they could sleep at night.

Johnny Savage: Jake Havechek: Cletus C.: Dopes and Changes? Weak.

Quick Obamaniacs, rationalize this. Difficulty: No mention of W.

One leads directly to the other. It was you bedwetting pansies who are piss scared of terrorists that started us on this path.

House
357 (Y) to 56 (N)

Senate
98(Y) to 1 (N)


He said bedwetting pansies. There is nothing to suggest the Democrats weren't bedwetting pansies for being afraid to vote against the bill. If they had the nerve to object, they were absolutely defined as America-hating treasonists. Yeah, I said treasonist. Don't even try to suggest this wasn't the atmosphere pre-patriot act.

The ultimate goal, I'm convinced, is to find a "terrorist pattern" in all of the data collected using data mining. Data mining is just a technical term for finding a pattern in a large collection of information. In of itself it isn't dangerous (think about how all the Facebook data or your grocery store rewards card are used), but in a legal application it gets tricky. It can be used to mark someone a potential criminal. It is like the movie The Man with One Red Shoe. Seemingly benign behavior associates someone with being a terrorist or a criminal.

For example: Combining information from your store rewards card, credit card, travel information, and bank information the system might see you buy batteries and socks but not milk with cash on a Tuesday before a plane trip but not fill up on gasoline for two weeks and be late on your mortgage. That specific pattern might be enough to mark you as a potential terrorist/criminal if that pattern has been previously associated with a terrorist or criminal's behavior. Of course the main difficulty, aside from having all your information catalogued and examined routinely, is that there are very few terrorists. Any "terrorist" pattern would result in a lot of false positives; very few people being marked as suspicious would actually be a terrorist.

States tried to start such a system under a project called MATRIX. It got shut down after public criticism, much like Information Awareness Office and its "Total Information Awareness" project (which may have just been classified and renamed).

Jake Havechek: DHS, too.

I was astounded people were clamoring for yet another redundant bureaucracy so they could sleep at night.


It's either all part of small-government fiscal conservatism or the Democrats' fault for expanding government, i forget which. Anyone have the GOP playbook?

cman: We have the FBI and CIA different organizations for a VERY good reason. They are separate because, combined together, they would be a very powerful secret police force akin to the KGB NYPD.

Have you seen the shiat they're getting away with?

Sir Vanderhoot: Most frustrating thing for me is that it's highly unlikely that I'm going to see an *actual* liberal president any time in the next few decades. This, right here, is why so many liberals call Obama center-right. And judging by the level of horror exhibited by the right when a moderate like Obama takes office, I don't think you'll see a true liberal, left-wing president until this generation literally dies.

It's especially frustrating knowing just how much momentum federal programs have and how hard it is to un-do them. It takes a good amount to get them set up, but it requires a herculean effort to get them disbanded.

God what useless fluff. Here's a hint. Authoritarianism can disguise itself as the road to good intentions. It is not a right wing virtue you partisan hack. Liberals want power to shape the world as they wish. They can be authoritarian asshats too. Stop being a partisan retard.

isn't the issue really the means to gather this information in the first place? Practically speaking, what greater harm is done by not deleting the files immediately? The information has already been gathered, the surveillance already conducted. The wiretaps of dubious constitutionality made. Privacy and protections violated.

That's it. I'm voting Santorum.

Johnny Savage: Jake Havechek: Cletus C.: Dopes and Changes? Weak.

Quick Obamaniacs, rationalize this. Difficulty: No mention of W.

One leads directly to the other. It was you bedwetting pansies who are piss scared of terrorists that started us on this path.

House
357 (Y) to 56 (N)

Senate
98(Y) to 1 (N)

Shhhhh. Fark leftists live in an imaginary made up revisionist world.

cman: cman: cman: Geotpf: Wow, you guys will panic and complain over anything. Let me repeat the post I made previously, this time using bold and large text so more people will actually notice it:

From the farking article:

Until now, the National Counterterrorism Center had to immediately destroy information about Americans that was already stored in other government databases when there were no clear ties to terrorism.

So, now government agency A will be able to keep records that government agency B also kept already. Whoopie-farking-do.

There is a reason why the CIA cannot conduct operations on US soil. When you learn why, come back to your statement and read it again.

Sorry, should have elaborated.

Yes I know they are different Governmental organizations, but after you see why the CIA cannot conduct operations in the US you will understand why this is a bad idea.

fark it, you won't Google it so I will tell you why.

We have the FBI and CIA different organizations for a VERY good reason. They are separate because, combined together, they would be a very powerful secret police force akin to the KGB.

This is why this law is a terrible idea. The merging of intelligence and law enforcement had extreme detrimental effects upon the Soviet Union.


You having a conversation with yourself, or forgot to login to your alt?

heinekenftw: cman: You refuse to consider anyone else outside your party. Vote 3rd party FFS

/Proud donor to Gary Johnson campaign

As much as I wish I could consider a third party, I fear that they do not have any strength and voting for them would be a vote that does not go towards keeping Obama in office and more importantly, keeping one of the four stooges out of office.

I do not want to vote 100% democrat for the rest of my life, but I do not dare allow Rmoney/Frothy/Grinchy/Crazy Old Guy become president

If Johnson or Huntsman had stronger support, had even a chance, I would consider them. Even if the GOP ticket had picked them up and they had Rs next to their names, I would consider them (because frankly, that would be a sign of moderatism in the GOP.)

But I don't see them as being remotely viable. And I feel that if I do not vote for Obama, I give the four stooges a stronger chance at gaining the oval office.

I also understand the Catch 22 here, that they need support before they become viable and they need to be viable before they have support. That is a symptom of our shiatty electorate system.

What blathering partisan bullshiat. This is why America sucks. They would rather vote for.the winning team than actually vote with convictions. It's not a farking game.

Hydra: Headso: On NPR today they were interviewing someone who was talking about supporting Gingrich for the primary and how he was going to try to get all his friends to support him. He sounded like he was probably in his early 20s...

And any of the Occupy Wall Street protests were largely a bunch of bored college kids with nothing better to do demanding more stuff for no cost (to them, that is).

Your point?

uh, if you read the post I was responding to my point was pretty clear...

cman: There is a reason why the CIA cannot conduct operations on US soil. When you learn why, come back to your statement and read it again.

Who said anything about the CIA? The article is about the NCTC, not the CIA.

Hydra: words

Do you really think changing the words from liberal to progressive has any meaning for anyone other than you?

cman: Geotpf: cman: There is a reason why the CIA cannot conduct operations on US soil. When you learn why, come back to your statement and read it again.

Who said anything about the CIA? The article is about the NCTC, not the CIA.

Read my above posts. I went over that question a bit further down.

The NCTC has full access to all FBI (etc.) criminal and non-terrorist databases at all times. This order merely lets them copy said database on to their own computers. It's not a big deal, even if you want it to be.

Cletus C.: Dopes and Changes? Weak.

Quick Obamaniacs, rationalize this. Difficulty: No mention of W.

Obama's never been a supporter of civil liberties. Unfortunately, neither are any of his opponents.

/That includes RON PAUL

It's always entertaining to watch conservatives go with the "HA HA YOUR PRECIOUS MESSIAH IS NO BETTER THAN A REPUBLICAN" insult, while never actually making it to the end of that particular thought.

Sir Vanderhoot: Most frustrating thing for me is that it's highly unlikely that I'm going to see an *actual* liberal president any time in the next few decades. This, right here, is why so many liberals call Obama center-right. And judging by the level of horror exhibited by the right when a moderate like Obama takes office, I don't think you'll see a true liberal, left-wing president until this generation literally dies.

It's especially frustrating knowing just how much momentum federal programs have and how hard it is to un-do them. It takes a good amount to get them set up, but it requires a herculean effort to get them disbanded.

What are you looking for? An ultra-left answer to the Tea Party? That candidate would have as much chance of winning an election as Michelle Bachman

The national security apparatus is the greatest threat to freedom that's out there. Greater than Al Qaeda, greater than Iran, greater than North Korea.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Conservatives/Republicans took this as an opportunity to join Democrats and liberals in opposition to this sort of bullshiat, rather than just use it to score pretend political points and attack Obama?

Shock of all shocks, subby - Fartbama is not the far left kenyan you think he is. Some of us libtards dislike some of the crap he pulls too. You can make buddies with us on these issues, or stand back and say LOL UR BAD TOO. I see you have chosen.

Grow up farkers. I imagine that most of you have gleefully loaded all sorts of information about your life on the internet but now you wet your pants over this?

The DERP is strong.

Hydra: Either you were trying to say that age/generation has nothing to do with politics (more sensible), or you were trying to say that we'll never have a left-wing president because too many dumb young people today vote for right wingers

these things mean the same thing.

cman: Or they could be realistic and become libertarians

That would imply there is something realistic about libertarians.

Hydra: Lord_Baull: Do you really think changing the words from liberal to progressive has any meaning for anyone other than you?

Given the classical definition of "liberal" has hardly anything to do with the people who call themselves "liberals" today, it should.

Excuse me for being accurate.

/semantics? That's the best you can come up with?


Irony, thy hammer is mighty.

fortheloveof: cman: Or they could be realistic and become libertarians

That would imply there is something realistic about libertarians.

As idiotic as libertarianism is it is atleast the other pole to liberal fiscal policy and statism. Republicanism is some weird jesus freak, creepy big government, fascism kinda thing.

Hydra: I'd bring up Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, but you'll probably just call them crazy, anyway.

shiathouse rat

Hydra: I'd bring up Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, but you'll probably just call them crazy, anyway.

intriguing

Geotpf: Wow, you guys will panic and complain over anything. Let me repeat the post I made previously, this time using bold and large text so more people will actually notice it:

From the farking article:

Until now, the National Counterterrorism Center had to immediately destroy information about Americans that was already stored in other government databases when there were no clear ties to terrorism.

So, now government agency A will be able to keep records that government agency B also kept already. Whoopie-farking-do.

Nobody ever reads the article.

Headso: fortheloveof: cman: Or they could be realistic and become libertarians

That would imply there is something realistic about libertarians.

As idiotic as libertarianism is it is atleast the other pole to liberal fiscal policy and statism. Republicanism is some weird jesus freak, creepy big government, fascism kinda thing.



So's the left, minus the Jesus freak part.

Hydra: I'd bring up Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, but you'll probably just call them crazy, anyway.

Nah, I'd pull up direct quotes from them to clearly demonstrate that. It would have a much bigger impact. And I wouldn't stop at just crazy, I'd probably round it out with some quotes clearly demonstrating they would completely destroy society.

Then again, libertarians don't buy into society so much, so that's not really a shocker is it.

lennavan: Hydra: I'd bring up Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, but you'll probably just call them crazy, anyway.

Nah, I'd pull up direct quotes from them to clearly demonstrate that. It would have a much bigger impact. And I wouldn't stop at just crazy, I'd probably round it out with some quotes clearly demonstrating they would completely destroy society.

Then again, libertarians don't buy into society so much, so that's not really a shocker is it.

Oh, and for clarity, that would be Ron Paul. I actually don't have much beef with Gary Johnson, it was kinda a dick move for you to put the two together like that.

lennavan: lennavan: Hydra: I'd bring up Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, but you'll probably just call them crazy, anyway.

Nah, I'd pull up direct quotes from them to clearly demonstrate that. It would have a much bigger impact. And I wouldn't stop at just crazy, I'd probably round it out with some quotes clearly demonstrating they would completely destroy society.

Then again, libertarians don't buy into society so much, so that's not really a shocker is it.

Oh, and for clarity, that would be Ron Paul. I actually don't have much beef with Gary Johnson, it was kinda a dick move for you to put the two together like that.

Both of them did a mock debate against an Obama impersonator on Stossel's show. They are a pair of clowns.

skullkrusher: Hydra: I'd bring up Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, but you'll probably just call them crazy, anyway.

intriguing

The more I looked into him, the less intriguing he became. Roemer's still intriguing, but i haven't done much look-see.

lennavan: lennavan: Hydra: I'd bring up Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, but you'll probably just call them crazy, anyway.

Nah, I'd pull up direct quotes from them to clearly demonstrate that. It would have a much bigger impact. And I wouldn't stop at just crazy, I'd probably round it out with some quotes clearly demonstrating they would completely destroy society.

Then again, libertarians don't buy into society so much, so that's not really a shocker is it.

Oh, and for clarity, that would be Ron Paul. I actually don't have much beef with Gary Johnson, it was kinda a dick move for you to put the two together like that.

They both are on the "libertarian" side of the spectrum. Their actually policy positions on the issues are very similar. Now, their tone and emphasis is a bit different.