Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Dopes and Changes for the worse: "The U.S. intelligence community will now be able to store information about Americans with no ties to terrorism for up to five years under new Obama administration guidelines"   (npr.org) divider line 204
    More: Asinine, intelligence community, obama, U.S., Americans, Obama administration, National Counterterrorism Center, Marc Rotenberg, Electronic Privacy Information Center  
•       •       •

1107 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Mar 2012 at 10:20 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



204 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-23 11:40:06 AM  

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.


It would help if we actually had some liberal fiscal policy. Besides no country lasts long on a weak government.
 
2012-03-23 11:40:57 AM  

cman: You can't find one on Gary Johnson. He is quite sane and he should be in the white house come next year.


"Government should cease subsidizing or giving favorable treatment to Internet service providers and content-creators. 'Net Neutrality' leads to a government role in the Internet that can only lead to unwanted regulation."

From Johnson's campaign site.
 
2012-03-23 11:41:40 AM  

sprawl15: 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.


Just looking over it again now. Certainly a few clunkers in there but I'm still interested. Especially when you consider what powers the President has to act unilaterally - not too shabby (new window)
 
2012-03-23 11:43:47 AM  
I'd be more bothered, but credit bureaus can store information for 7 years.
 
2012-03-23 11:44:51 AM  

RedPhoenix122: I'd be more bothered, but credit bureaus can store information for 7 years.


...and other government agencies already store the data that the NCTC is now allowed to store.
 
2012-03-23 11:45:00 AM  

sprawl15: cman: You can't find one on Gary Johnson. He is quite sane and he should be in the white house come next year.

"Government should cease subsidizing or giving favorable treatment to Internet service providers and content-creators. 'Net Neutrality' leads to a government role in the Internet that can only lead to unwanted regulation."

From Johnson's campaign site.


Thats not really a crazy statement.

Something like "Expanding the patriot act to cover all american citizens" is. Saying "Arresting all the gays for just being so" is.

Plus that would include shiat like SOPA he would not sign
 
2012-03-23 11:45:15 AM  

LarryDan43: Quick Obamaniacs, rationalize this. Difficulty: No mention of W.How about you give me a Republican option for President who will repeal these laws?Difficulty: No replacing it with even broader attacks on privacy.


Oooh, can I play too?

Name one nationally known, electable Democratic candidate who would repeal them.

Difficulty: as you mentioned.
 
2012-03-23 11:46:17 AM  

cman: sprawl15: cman: You can't find one on Gary Johnson. He is quite sane and he should be in the white house come next year.

"Government should cease subsidizing or giving favorable treatment to Internet service providers and content-creators. 'Net Neutrality' leads to a government role in the Internet that can only lead to unwanted regulation."

From Johnson's campaign site.

Thats not really a crazy statement.

Something like "Expanding the patriot act to cover all american citizens" is. Saying "Arresting all the gays for just being so" is.

Plus that would include shiat like SOPA he would not sign


given the incredibly high barriers to entry for ISPs and the fact that the internet was built and maintained in large part with direct federal money and subsidies, we need net neutrality
 
2012-03-23 11:46:20 AM  
Let me get this straight, people in here believe both that the government is doing nefarious things with this data and that they were deleting it like they were supposed to before this happened? You think the government is out spying on innocent people, but, at the same time, trust that they are deleting information at the proper time? Interesting...

Like skullkrusher said, the problem is that the data exists, not how quickly it gets deleted.
 
2012-03-23 11:46:29 AM  

Geotpf: 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.


Yeah that's more what I meant. I'm not going to vote Gary Johnson. I just don't think he's a douche like I think Ron Paul is.
 
2012-03-23 11:47:11 AM  

Hydra: The second claims that too many young people today will continue to vote for Republicans when they're old tomorrow, so we'll never have a truly left-wing president - to which I responded that there are plenty of young people today who are ardent leftists and would write in Karl Marx if they could.


Which has nothing to do with the fact that there are plenty of young people who vote republican, the fact that there are young leftist doesn't mean the young republicans don't exist and won't continue to vote republican.
 
2012-03-23 11:49:00 AM  

cman: Thats not really a crazy statement.


Saying that net neutrality leads to overregulation is absolutely a crazy statement.
 
2012-03-23 11:49:11 AM  

Cletus C.: Dopes and Changes? Weak.

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


Oh, that's easy. Speaking as a far left liberal who will vote for Obama this fall -

Obama is wrong.

Why would I rationalize something he is completely wrong about?

/W
 
2012-03-23 11:49:25 AM  

fortheloveof: It would help if we actually had some liberal fiscal policy.


we have progressive income taxes...for now...
 
2012-03-23 11:50:38 AM  
Who cares if they can store redundant information? Anyone else RTFA?
 
2012-03-23 11:51:32 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Let me get this straight, people in here believe both that the government is doing nefarious things with this data and that they were deleting it like they were supposed to before this happened? You think the government is out spying on innocent people, but, at the same time, trust that they are deleting information at the proper time? Interesting...

Like skullkrusher said, the problem is that the data exists, not how quickly it gets deleted.


I would like to add that, if someone questioned why they were keeping the data longer than the law allowed, I'm sure they could "link" you to terrorism and keep it all nice and legal.
 
2012-03-23 11:53:17 AM  

Headso: fortheloveof: It would help if we actually had some liberal fiscal policy.

we have progressive income taxes...for now...


no we don't. We have parabolic income taxes
 
2012-03-23 11:53:37 AM  

Geotpf: 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.


yeah. if they weren't biatching about this they would be biatching about "the wall" that separated the intelligence agencies that caused 9/11

Heck I'd hope the govt keeps records longer than 5 yrs. I might need that info.
heck just today I had to go back through my newegg purchases in 2009 to rma a psu that went bad on me. yeah it had a 3 yr wty that would have expired in May.
 
2012-03-23 11:53:55 AM  

Headso: fortheloveof: It would help if we actually had some liberal fiscal policy.

we have progressive income taxes...for now...


Really? This is what you call a progressive income tax? I liked Reagan's better.
 
2012-03-23 11:54:21 AM  

skullkrusher: cman: sprawl15: cman: You can't find one on Gary Johnson. He is quite sane and he should be in the white house come next year.

"Government should cease subsidizing or giving favorable treatment to Internet service providers and content-creators. 'Net Neutrality' leads to a government role in the Internet that can only lead to unwanted regulation."

From Johnson's campaign site.

Thats not really a crazy statement.

Something like "Expanding the patriot act to cover all american citizens" is. Saying "Arresting all the gays for just being so" is.

Plus that would include shiat like SOPA he would not sign

given the incredibly high barriers to entry for ISPs and the fact that the internet was built and maintained in large part with direct federal money and subsidies, we need net neutrality


Thats funny. Out of everything Johnson stands on you pick this, and it is pretty weak at it.

Now, tell me, who is closer to your own beliefs overall? Obama or Johnson?

Johnson is for it
Obama is against gay marriage, (new window) Johnson is for it
 
2012-03-23 11:54:52 AM  
If Johnson was the Republican Party nominee, I might consider voting for him, although he is a libertarian in every sense of the word, meaning he wants massive cuts to the safety net, public education, public infrastructure, Social Secuirty, Medicare, etc.

But he won't be. He might be the Libertarian Party nominee, but that means he gets to be King of the Losers, just like the Green Party nominee and the Constitution Party nominee. Voting for any of them is a vote to not to vote, a vote to not change the outcome of the election.

It's a binary choice: Romney or Obama. Pick the one you like the most. If you hate them both, pick the one you hate the least. Voting for anybody else, in effect, means you hate the top two exactly equally.

Actually, the only votes I'm really worried about are for Congress and the other downticket races. Obama has this in the bag; he's basically at dead girl/live boy status at this point. Sure, there will be 8 months of nonsense about the race, but it's all merely kabuki theater.
 
2012-03-23 11:56:08 AM  

skullkrusher: Headso: fortheloveof: It would help if we actually had some liberal fiscal policy.

we have progressive income taxes...for now...

no we don't. We have parabolic income taxes


Assuming you accept capital gains are not regular income.
 
2012-03-23 11:56:46 AM  

Geotpf: If Johnson was the Republican Party nominee, I might consider voting for him, although he is a libertarian in every sense of the word, meaning he wants massive cuts to the safety net, public education, public infrastructure, Social Secuirty, Medicare, etc.

But he won't be. He might be the Libertarian Party nominee, but that means he gets to be King of the Losers, just like the Green Party nominee and the Constitution Party nominee. Voting for any of them is a vote to not to vote, a vote to not change the outcome of the election.

It's a binary choice: Romney or Obama. Pick the one you like the most. If you hate them both, pick the one you hate the least. Voting for anybody else, in effect, means you hate the top two exactly equally.

Actually, the only votes I'm really worried about are for Congress and the other downticket races. Obama has this in the bag; he's basically at dead girl/live boy status at this point. Sure, there will be 8 months of nonsense about the race, but it's all merely kabuki theater.


If enough people drop that mentality then it won't be so. Perception is reality.
 
2012-03-23 11:58:15 AM  
We should vote Republican! The GOP would never infringe on our civil liberties like...oh.
 
2012-03-23 11:58:21 AM  

cman: Thats funny. Out of everything Johnson stands on you pick this, and it is pretty weak at it.


I didn't pick it. sprawl15 did. I happen to disagree with Johnson's position on the matter from both a practical and ideological standpoint.

cman: Now, tell me, who is closer to your own beliefs overall? Obama or Johnson?


If we were to just total positions without assigning weight to each, Johnson. When considering importance of the issues, I can't say. I'll probably still vote for Johnson though. Any little bit of exposure helps

cman: Obama is against gay marriage, (new window) Johnson is for it


yep... well I suppose Johnson is technically against government involvement in marriage period. Either works for me
 
2012-03-23 11:59:18 AM  

lennavan: skullkrusher: Headso: fortheloveof: It would help if we actually had some liberal fiscal policy.

we have progressive income taxes...for now...

no we don't. We have parabolic income taxes

Assuming you accept capital gains are not regular income.


well, they're not but that's why I say it is parabolic.
 
2012-03-23 12:00:51 PM  

Geotpf: Voting for any of them is a vote to not to vote


Speak for yourself, bub. My state ain't going no color but blue in November no matter what I do. At least if I vote for a third party, someone might notice that party trending upward. I haven't decided what criteria I'll use to pick my guy, but it's likely to be support for gay marriage and legalization.

/ Would vote for Obama if I lived in a swing state.
 
2012-03-23 12:02:41 PM  

soy_bomb: /burning hot


thedilettantista.files.wordpress.com

Hotter?
 
2012-03-23 12:03:30 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Geotpf: Voting for any of them is a vote to not to vote

Speak for yourself, bub. My state ain't going no color but blue in November no matter what I do. At least if I vote for a third party, someone might notice that party trending upward. I haven't decided what criteria I'll use to pick my guy, but it's likely to be support for gay marriage and legalization.

/ Would vote for Obama if I lived in a swing state.


amen brother. It isn't all bad to be a right winger in Sodom. You can vote for the guy you like rather than having to vote for the guy who would prevent the other guy from spreading his pestilence across the land.
 
2012-03-23 12:05:44 PM  

Hydra: 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.

The fact that you say so many liberals progressives call Obama "center-right" because of these sorts of policies just speaks to the vast ignorance of so many liberals progressives out there.

These sorts of intrusive police-force policies have always been practiced by ardent so-called leftist regimes and communist nations historically speaking. There's nothing "left/right" about building a police state since such policies don't fall on a "left/right" paradigm, and voting straight-line Democrat for the rest of anyone's life will not change that - not because they aren't a leftist party, but precisely because they are.



Leftist and right-wing. Both end with a police state and death squads at their extreme edges; history has proven that. Of course, to the extreme edges,right-wing especially (at least in the US), all those death squads were leftists. No true Scotsman and all that.
 
2012-03-23 12:07:49 PM  

skullkrusher: lennavan: skullkrusher: Headso: fortheloveof: It would help if we actually had some liberal fiscal policy.

we have progressive income taxes...for now...

no we don't. We have parabolic income taxes

Assuming you accept capital gains are not regular income.

well, they're not but that's why I say it is parabolic.


I can see that point but there are protections on when a lower income person would likely pay capital gains taxes. So in that way they are a bit progressive i guess..
 
2012-03-23 12:11:12 PM  

cman: Geotpf: If Johnson was the Republican Party nominee, I might consider voting for him, although he is a libertarian in every sense of the word, meaning he wants massive cuts to the safety net, public education, public infrastructure, Social Secuirty, Medicare, etc.

But he won't be. He might be the Libertarian Party nominee, but that means he gets to be King of the Losers, just like the Green Party nominee and the Constitution Party nominee. Voting for any of them is a vote to not to vote, a vote to not change the outcome of the election.

It's a binary choice: Romney or Obama. Pick the one you like the most. If you hate them both, pick the one you hate the least. Voting for anybody else, in effect, means you hate the top two exactly equally.

Actually, the only votes I'm really worried about are for Congress and the other downticket races. Obama has this in the bag; he's basically at dead girl/live boy status at this point. Sure, there will be 8 months of nonsense about the race, but it's all merely kabuki theater.

If enough people drop that mentality then it won't be so. Perception is reality.


Basically, you are saying that if more people supported Johnson, more people would be supporting Johnson.

Johnson had his chance at the GOP nominee, but the GOP is run by crazy theocrats, warmongering neocons, and rent seeking corporalists. Plus, the few libertarians in that party already had their man (Paul).

And it's not just in the Republican party. Few Americans overall support (small l) libertarians (Fark in particular and the internet in general are much more libertarian than the general public). And you need a majority of voters.

Now, if Johnson had a billion dollars or so to Ross Perot it up, maybe he could convince the public. But he doesn't, and even if he did, he probably wouldn't succeed, because the vast majority of voters don't like libertarian policies.
 
2012-03-23 12:13:23 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Geotpf: Voting for any of them is a vote to not to vote

Speak for yourself, bub. My state ain't going no color but blue in November no matter what I do. At least if I vote for a third party, someone might notice that party trending upward. I haven't decided what criteria I'll use to pick my guy, but it's likely to be support for gay marriage and legalization.

/ Would vote for Obama if I lived in a swing state.


Yeah, well, if you don't live in a swing state, you don't really get to vote and you can safely vote for whoever.

I voted for the Libertarian myself in 2000. But I live in California, so, like you, I don't get to vote for President.
 
2012-03-23 12:15:29 PM  

Geotpf: Yeah, well, if you don't live in a swing state, you don't really get to vote and you can safely vote for whoever.


This just makes me feel so warm and fuzzy inside that I think I might shiat red white and blue tonight.
 
2012-03-23 12:19:27 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Geotpf: Yeah, well, if you don't live in a swing state, you don't really get to vote and you can safely vote for whoever.

This just makes me feel so warm and fuzzy inside that I think I might shiat red white and blue tonight.


Don't blame me; blame the founding fathers and their stupid Electoral College.
 
2012-03-23 12:19:28 PM  

soy_bomb: [img.gawkerassets.com image 300x372]

/burning hot


img.gawkerassets.com

This is the firey consumption of the constitution that was lit by republicans under GW Bush. Partisan bias! Support our president in a time of war! You're either with us or against us!

BUT GOD FORBID YOU MENTION IT BECAUSE RETARDS CRY

b-b-b-but bushia

tHATS RIGHT F*CKFACE, BUSH, THE GUY WHO F*CKED AMERICA

THE FACT THAT YOU MISS HIM IS THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM YOUR PARTY HAS

But do you want to know how I really feel?

I wish that hell were real just so you shi*t faced cockmasters could go there. Because you really farking deserve it.

F*ck the confederacy, f*ck the neonazis, f*ck the fundies, and f*ck the legions of dittoheads and strawman beating douchebags. I hate you more than you hate jews raised to the power of how much you hate blacks. I hate you as much as I hate people who, though not terrorists themselves, approve of terrorism and are gladdened when they hear about another martyr who has slain khafirs. (thats infidels, cletus)

Burn in your hell, and experience the full awareness of how deeply evil you are.

Best part, forever.

seriously f*ck you guys

♫ I really mean it, ♪ seriously.... ♪ f*ck ♪ you guyyyyyyys! ♫ chahhhh

/f*ck you guys
 
2012-03-23 12:20:43 PM  

Headso: skullkrusher: lennavan: skullkrusher: Headso: fortheloveof: It would help if we actually had some liberal fiscal policy.

we have progressive income taxes...for now...

no we don't. We have parabolic income taxes

Assuming you accept capital gains are not regular income.

well, they're not but that's why I say it is parabolic.

I can see that point but there are protections on when a lower income person would likely pay capital gains taxes. So in that way they are a bit progressive i guess..


progressive to a point at which they become regressive when talking about total incomes.
 
2012-03-23 12:23:59 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Geotpf: Yeah, well, if you don't live in a swing state, you don't really get to vote and you can safely vote for whoever.

This just makes me feel so warm and fuzzy inside that I think I might shiat red white and blue tonight.


Growing up in California, I got used to the election being decided before the polls closed in my state. It was a little frustrating considering that Cali makes the highest contribution to GDP of any state, usually running at about 12-14%.

Probably sucks worse for Hawaii, I don't know why they even bother voting.
 
2012-03-23 12:25:37 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Probably sucks worse for Hawaii, I don't know why they even bother voting.


seriously. They haven't even ever had a candidate from there!
 
2012-03-23 12:25:56 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: soy_bomb: [img.gawkerassets.com image 300x372]

/burning hot

[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x372]

This is the firey consumption of the constitution that was lit by republicans under GW Bush. Partisan bias! Support our president in a time of war! You're either with us or against us!

BUT GOD FORBID YOU MENTION IT BECAUSE RETARDS CRY

b-b-b-but bushia

tHATS RIGHT F*CKFACE, BUSH, THE GUY WHO F*CKED AMERICA

THE FACT THAT YOU MISS HIM IS THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM YOUR PARTY HAS

But do you want to know how I really feel?

I wish that hell were real just so you shi*t faced cockmasters could go there. Because you really farking deserve it.

F*ck the confederacy, f*ck the neonazis, f*ck the fundies, and f*ck the legions of dittoheads and strawman beating douchebags. I hate you more than you hate jews raised to the power of how much you hate blacks. I hate you as much as I hate people who, though not terrorists themselves, approve of terrorism and are gladdened when they hear about another martyr who has slain khafirs. (thats infidels, cletus)

Burn in your hell, and experience the full awareness of how deeply evil you are.

Best part, forever.

seriously f*ck you guys

♫ I really mean it, ♪ seriously.... ♪ f*ck ♪ you guyyyyyyys! ♫ chahhhh

/f*ck you guys



You need to get off the fence and pick a side.
 
2012-03-23 12:27:02 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: soy_bomb: [img.gawkerassets.com image 300x372]

/burning hot

[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x372]

This is the firey consumption of the constitution that was lit by republicans under GW Bush. Partisan bias! Support our president in a time of war! You're either with us or against us!

BUT GOD FORBID YOU MENTION IT BECAUSE RETARDS CRY

b-b-b-but bushia

tHATS RIGHT F*CKFACE, BUSH, THE GUY WHO F*CKED AMERICA

THE FACT THAT YOU MISS HIM IS THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM YOUR PARTY HAS

But do you want to know how I really feel?

I wish that hell were real just so you shi*t faced cockmasters could go there. Because you really farking deserve it.

F*ck the confederacy, f*ck the neonazis, f*ck the fundies, and f*ck the legions of dittoheads and strawman beating douchebags. I hate you more than you hate jews raised to the power of how much you hate blacks. I hate you as much as I hate people who, though not terrorists themselves, approve of terrorism and are gladdened when they hear about another martyr who has slain khafirs. (thats infidels, cletus)

Burn in your hell, and experience the full awareness of how deeply evil you are.

Best part, forever.

seriously f*ck you guys

♫ I really mean it, ♪ seriously.... ♪ f*ck ♪ you guyyyyyyys! ♫ chahhhh

/f*ck you guys


Heh. I imagined TOOL music to this.
 
2012-03-23 12:32:40 PM  

lennavan: Cletus C.: Dopes and Changes? Weak.

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

Oh, that's easy. Speaking as a far left liberal who will vote for Obama this fall -

Obama is wrong.

Why would I rationalize something he is completely wrong about?

/W


Not to worry. The void has been filled.
 
2012-03-23 12:34:13 PM  

skullkrusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Probably sucks worse for Hawaii, I don't know why they even bother voting.

seriously. They haven't even ever had a candidate from there!


You're right, there has never been a presidential candidate who was, at the time of their candidacy, a resident of Hawaii.

I'm pretty sure that Obama was the first presidential candidate born in the state of Hawaii just as McCain was the first presidential candidate born in Panama.

In any case, there has never been a presidential election where Hawaii's results made one iota of difference in the outcome.
 
2012-03-23 12:35:34 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: skullkrusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Probably sucks worse for Hawaii, I don't know why they even bother voting.

seriously. They haven't even ever had a candidate from there!

You're right, there has never been a presidential candidate who was, at the time of their candidacy, a resident of Hawaii.

I'm pretty sure that Obama was the first presidential candidate born in the state of Hawaii just as McCain was the first presidential candidate born in Panama.

In any case, there has never been a presidential election where Hawaii's results made one iota of difference in the outcome.


damn man, why you gotta go ruin it?
 
2012-03-23 12:39:38 PM  

Cletus C.: Some future mystery Republican president did the same thing so B-Rack is still cool. I'm buying that.


That described Dubya once upon a time.
 
2012-03-23 12:41:43 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: This is the firey consumption of the constitution that was lit by republicans under GW Bush. Partisan bias! Support our president in a time of war! You're either with us or against us!
BUT GOD FORBID YOU MENTION IT BECAUSE RETARDS CRY
b-b-b-but bushia
tHATS RIGHT F*CKFACE, BUSH, THE GUY WHO F*CKED AMERICA
THE FACT THAT YOU MISS HIM IS THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM YOUR PARTY HAS
But do you want to know how I really feel?
I wish that hell were real just so you shi*t faced cockmasters could go there. Because you really farking deserve it.
F*ck the confederacy, f*ck the neonazis, f*ck the fundies, and f*ck the legions of dittoheads and strawman beating douchebags. I hate you more than you hate jews raised to the power of how much you hate blacks. I hate you as much as I hate people who, though not terrorists themselves, approve of terrorism and are gladdened when they hear about another martyr who has slain khafirs. (thats infidels, cletus)
Burn in your hell, and experience the full awareness of how deeply evil you are.
Best part, forever.
seriously f*ck you guys
♫ I really mean it, ♪ seriously.... ♪ f*ck ♪ you guyyyyyyys! ♫ chahhhh
/f*ck you guys


This is a perfect example of why I support birth control & abortion.
 
2012-03-23 12:46:20 PM  

thurstonxhowell: At least if I vote for a third party, someone might notice that party trending upward.


Unlikely. The Greens didn't gain any extra traction or exposure after getting a significant chunk of the vote in 2000.
 
2012-03-23 12:52:08 PM  

AcademGreen:

"Total Information Awareness" project (which may have just been classified and renamed).


Carnivore (new secretly monitored window)

T.I.A. Project (new secretly monitored window)

The Machine (new publicly monitored window)
 
2012-03-23 12:58:43 PM  
the FBI already knows everything about you. I was interviewed by them one time when I needed a top-secret clearance and those guys knew everything. stuff i thought i'd gotten away with.

ended up with just a secret clearance.
 
2012-03-23 01:12:19 PM  

qorkfiend: thurstonxhowell: At least if I vote for a third party, someone might notice that party trending upward.

Unlikely. The Greens didn't gain any extra traction or exposure after getting a significant chunk of the vote in 2000.


You're right, but I need to keep believing that to keep me from writing in Mike Hock for president.
 
Displayed 50 of 204 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report