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.

(Denver Post)   Pragmatism, principles prolapse pending presidential perspective. Possible perusal pertaining to removal of people's personal property provokes phenomenal prattle   (denverpost.com) divider line 43
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

934 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jun 2013 at 5:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-08 03:08:47 PM  
Perhaps "purloining" instead of "removal"?
 
2013-06-08 03:59:54 PM  
Pinch, pilfer, pluck, pillage, pirate, poach, peculate...
 
2013-06-08 04:29:36 PM  
precisely
 
2013-06-08 05:46:47 PM  
Penis
 
2013-06-08 05:49:28 PM  

Kome: Penis


This comment generated a quality lawl.
 
2013-06-08 05:51:39 PM  
Balance is hard.
 
2013-06-08 05:54:38 PM  
why is anyone surprised by this? we've seen it coming since jan 20, 2009 while for one reason or another the worst of bushco was left in place or expanded.

your friends upset? your family? stay away from them, they haven't a clue to the real world. BBQs fine, political conversations, don't waste your energy.
 
2013-06-08 05:54:57 PM  
Gah, to alliterative "p" based headlines in a row can give one an aneurism.
 
2013-06-08 05:55:27 PM  
P-alliteration trifecta in play?
 
2013-06-08 06:01:01 PM  
Priapism?
 
2013-06-08 06:03:17 PM  
Preposterous.
 
2013-06-08 06:06:40 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Gah, totwo alliterative "p" based headlines in a row can give one an aneurism.


Not even drunk yet.
 
2013-06-08 06:16:56 PM  
Peter Piper picked peppers, but Run rocked rhymes. . .
 
2013-06-08 06:19:53 PM  
.
 
2013-06-08 06:25:07 PM  
Pusillanimous prattle
 
2013-06-08 06:27:10 PM  
i37.photobucket.com

/after reading the headline
 
2013-06-08 06:28:23 PM  
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
 
2013-06-08 06:35:57 PM  
Talk
Talk
It's only talk
Debates
Discussions
These are words with a D this time
Dialogue
Dualogue
Diatribe
Dissention
Declamation
Double talk
Double talk

/Headline gave me a KC earworm. Thought I'd pass it on.
 
2013-06-08 06:40:48 PM  
Do not GIS prolapse.

Trust me on this one.
 
2013-06-08 06:50:36 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-08 07:00:16 PM  

quatchi: Talk
Talk
It's only talk
Debates
Discussions
These are words with a D this time
Dialogue
Dualogue
Diatribe
Dissention
Declamation
Double talk
Double talk

/Headline gave me a KC earworm. Thought I'd pass it on.


If every sign that I see is complete then I'm a fool in your game
And all you want to do is tell me your lies
Won't show the other side
You're just wasting my time
All you do to me is talk, talk
Talk, talk, talk, talk
 
2013-06-08 07:03:08 PM  

Cytokine Storm: [i.imgur.com image 320x242]


Ain't no Party like a P-Funk Party 'cause a P-Funk Party don't stop!
 
2013-06-08 07:03:19 PM  
Peter Piper packed a pile of pickled peckers...POOP!
 
2013-06-08 07:14:33 PM  
 
2013-06-08 07:20:36 PM  
Pshaw.
 
2013-06-08 07:28:46 PM  

HighOnCraic: All you do to me is talk, talk


TT ref FTW. Freaking love those guys. Mad geniuses.
 
2013-06-08 07:48:26 PM  

quatchi: Talk
Talk
It's only talk
Debates
Discussions
These are words with a D this time
Dialogue
Dualogue
Diatribe
Dissention
Declamation
Double talk
Double talk

/Headline gave me a KC earworm. Thought I'd pass it on.


Elephant talk?
Elephant talk?
 
2013-06-08 07:51:51 PM  
"So-called meta data."

Nice one Obama.
 
2013-06-08 08:10:44 PM  
I am having a hard time dealing with with the "outrage."

Boobies Cold War foreign policy invites a fair amount of hatred for our government policies, and the rhetoric does not help. The United State created a post WW II regime which was designed to institutionalize cooperation and dispute resolutions between state and certain non-state actors. The goal was to create  a bulwark of institutions which would provide legitimate binding avenues for peaceful legitimate dispute resolution.

Basically, the "neocons" have worked for the last 30 years to dismantle the post WW II security regime.

My point is that is you want to reduce the impetus for the whole "Homeland Security" regime, you need to ultimately change US Foreign policy, and move back to greater integration in an international binding institutional framework for solving disputes between state, and non state actors.
 
2013-06-08 09:05:20 PM  

Curious: BBQs fine


Dry rub or sauce?
 
2013-06-08 10:04:04 PM  
fusillade762

Dry Rub of course...

oh wait, you weren't talking about my wife, you were talking about BBQ... Still go with dry rub though..
 
2013-06-08 10:08:37 PM  
We've acknowledged that no one is listening to our conversations. That's kind of the point - you have so much other information about the conversation that the content itself is irrelevant. You're attempting to construct a model for predictive analysis of possible criminal behavior.

Here's a simple question - if the justification is foreign-based terrorism, why not only request telephone calls in which one or both ends of the call were either outside of the U.S., either by GPS or phone number? Why pull ALL of them? As the NSA has repeatedly and explicitly stated, that's their charter - foreign intelligence. Even "domestic terrorism" doesn't justify requesting the metadata for millions of calls made and completed, at both ends, within the United States. The only reason for requesting that metadata is to mine it.
 
2013-06-08 10:22:01 PM  

FormlessOne: We've acknowledged that no one is listening to our conversations. That's kind of the point - you have so much other information about the conversation that the content itself is irrelevant. You're attempting to construct a model for predictive analysis of possible criminal behavior.

Here's a simple question - if the justification is foreign-based terrorism, why not only request telephone calls in which one or both ends of the call were either outside of the U.S., either by GPS or phone number? Why pull ALL of them? As the NSA has repeatedly and explicitly stated, that's their charter - foreign intelligence. Even "domestic terrorism" doesn't justify requesting the metadata for millions of calls made and completed, at both ends, within the United States. The only reason for requesting that metadata is to mine it.


Mine it for what though? What exactly are people so worried about that they think the government is going to do with the data--"meta" or otherwise? And nevermind all this "well, they COULD use it for..." imaginary evil black helicopter/Illuminati/reverse lizard vampire nonsense. Look at what our government has done in the last 50 years--god knows they've done enough really bad shiat that you should be able to devise a genuine argument for what you're actually worried about. What is the REAL worry here that people think the government WILL DO if they continue to use phone data and other types of data mining?

Because so far, all I've ever heard is nebulous fears of what a repressive government which we don't have could do if they were so inclined at some time in the distant future if they wanted to get One World Ordery on us in some paranoid conspiracy theorist's wet dream. All I can see that this kind of thing will let them do, is do what they ALREADY do, only easier for them. It wouldn't allow them to  cut any more legal corners than they already do; it wouldn't let them set up any more innocent people than they already do, or put the screws to any more noncooperating witnesses than they already do--it would just make it a little bit easier to do it.

All the things people seem to be afraid of, the FBI and CIA did just fine in the days of COINTELPRO and not a single computer in sight. So what are you thinking will happen now that didn't happen then?
 
2013-06-08 10:25:14 PM  
"You can't have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society."

That quote is going to be hung around Obama's neck like an albatross. He ran to the very argument fascists use to justify such surveillance. Yes, we all realize that the product of freedom and security is a constant - if you want more security, you have to give up some freedom, and vice versa. Except, well, we lost a lot more freedom than we received in the way of security since the Dubya Decade - my paranoid fear is that the "security" in question is that of the ruling class, not of the country in general.

I'm surprised he didn't end the press conference with "America Prevails!"
 
2013-06-08 10:31:20 PM  

Gyrfalcon: It wouldn't allow them to  cut any more legal corners than they already do; it wouldn't let them set up any more innocent people than they already do, or put the screws to any more noncooperating witnesses than they already do--it would just make it a little bit easier to do it.


That's the point, obviously. I'm not claiming any "conspiracy theory" - I'm claiming that, despite the assurances that the metadata is being used solely for foreign intelligence, there's no other reason to mine what they've taken except to monitor both domestic and foreign activity. That's worth protesting, regardless of whether they've actually put it into practice yet.
 
2013-06-08 10:40:48 PM  

FormlessOne: That quote is going to be hung around Obama's neck like an albatross.


Yes, I'm pretty sure he won't win another presidential election.

FormlessOne: He ran to the very argument fascists use to justify such surveillance.


Not quite. The argument real fascists use is "if you have nothing to hide..." Which has been used in our country to defend stuff like this in the past, so I don't mean to imply it's not an argument that has been put forward in American politics before. Still, the meaning behind the quotation the president actually used though, in the abstract, is very much the essence of our entire judicial system, our political process, our economic policy, etc. etc. and it is this: We can't have it all, so we need to figure out the right balance between our competing and mutually exclusive interests in order to maximize what we want with what is possible, and pretending we can have it all is delusional and dangerous.

Does that make widespread domestic spying morally acceptable (much less morally obligatory; to say nothing of the legality of it which is another ball of wax)? Hell to the no. But that doesn't mean the meaning behind what he said isn't sound and logical... and by contrast very much the opposite to how fascists lay forth their position.
 
2013-06-08 10:51:21 PM  

FormlessOne: "You can't have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society."

That quote is going to be hung around Obama's neck like an albatross.


In what way is that statement incorrect?

He's talking about necessity of balancing privacy concerns with security concerns which is a zero sum game in which absolutes are unfeasible.

What is your fear here?

What specific terrible consequence do you see in either the long or short term through the collection of this data?

Obama seemed to be at pains to explain that nobody is listening to your calls without a warrant which puts this practice as close to being above board as it's been since it's inception many years ago including its many subsequent incarnations.
 
m00
2013-06-08 11:45:02 PM  

FormlessOne: "You can't have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society."


Well, it's a true statement. But what he should have done is followed it up with a famous quote from Ben Franklin.

I get that it's a balancing act. But the disingenuous part is that we do not have 100% security. Domestic spying decreases privacy and adds inconvenience, but does little to increase actual security. For us. I'm sure the corporations feel more secure that it is substantially less safe to leak information about how they've subverted government, however.
 
2013-06-09 01:45:25 AM  

Curious: why is anyone surprised by this? we've seen it coming since jan 20, 2009 while for one reason or another the worst of bushco was left in place or expanded.

your friends upset? your family? stay away from them, they haven't a clue to the real world. BBQs fine, political conversations, don't waste your energy.


If you think the government's surveillance fetish started under Bush, you haven't been paying attention. It took root decades ago, probably at some point during the Cold War. And because we, the voters, didn't care enough, or were too scared of "TEH COMMIEZ", to stomp it out then, we're stuck with it now. No politician (and ESPECIALLY one who''d actually be able to get elected) is going to give up that sort of power, Democrat, Republican or otherwise.

Best we can hope for is to vote for the people least likely to abuse or expand that power.
 
2013-06-09 01:56:38 AM  

quatchi: FormlessOne: "You can't have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society."

That quote is going to be hung around Obama's neck like an albatross.

In what way is that statement incorrect?

He's talking about necessity of balancing privacy concerns with security concerns which is a zero sum game in which absolutes are unfeasible.

What is your fear here?

What specific terrible consequence do you see in either the long or short term through the collection of this data?

Obama seemed to be at pains to explain that nobody is listening to your calls without a warrant which puts this practice as close to being above board as it's been since it's inception many years ago including its many subsequent incarnations.


Nobody's ever been able to explain that one to me, and I suspect I'll never get an answer. So far, nobody--on either side of the aisle--has come up with anything more sinister than what has ALREADY been done (via COINTELPRO and its unholy progeny) that would require us to be more afraid of this, or more outraged, than some of us already were, or than we should be simply because it's governmental spying and we should be wary of that because it is bad. But it isn't any worse merely because they're using Verizon or Google or whatever the latest iteration of data collection is available.

And Obama is quite correct about his reply here: There cannot be 100% safety and 100% privacy. This is the result of people demanding 100% security in the name of the "war on terror." It means the government MUST be free to collect data in every way they can, in the name of finding any possible threat to US interests and stopping them before they evolve. What if (to borrow from those who envision dreadful consequences of this latest intrusion) the NSA had been able to intercept and correlate the Tsarnaev brothers' Facebook posts, phone calls, texts, Tweets and trips to Chechnya? There might have been no Boston Bombing. That is 100% security.

Now people are FINALLY asking themselves if they really want to live in that kind of world. Some of us already knew we didn't want to be totally safe, if the price was loss of total freedom--I'd much rather take the chance on a few random bombings or shootings if it meant I could do whatever I wanted. But too many people didn't want to take that chance. Well, this is what you bought. Aren't you sorry now? Don't you wish you'd been a little less hasty when it came to supporting the Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act? What exactly did you think "appropriate tools required to INTERCEPT and OBSTRUCT terrorism" were?
 
2013-06-09 02:03:27 AM  

Gyrfalcon: quatchi: FormlessOne: "You can't have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society."

That quote is going to be hung around Obama's neck like an albatross.

In what way is that statement incorrect?

He's talking about necessity of balancing privacy concerns with security concerns which is a zero sum game in which absolutes are unfeasible.

What is your fear here?

What specific terrible consequence do you see in either the long or short term through the collection of this data?

Obama seemed to be at pains to explain that nobody is listening to your calls without a warrant which puts this practice as close to being above board as it's been since it's inception many years ago including its many subsequent incarnations.

Nobody's ever been able to explain that one to me, and I suspect I'll never get an answer. So far, nobody--on either side of the aisle--has come up with anything more sinister than what has ALREADY been done (via COINTELPRO and its unholy progeny) that would require us to be more afraid of this, or more outraged, than some of us already were, or than we should be simply because it's governmental spying and we should be wary of that because it is bad. But it isn't any worse merely because they're using Verizon or Google or whatever the latest iteration of data collection is available.

And Obama is quite correct about his reply here: There cannot be 100% safety and 100% privacy. This is the result of people demanding 100% security in the name of the "war on terror." It means the government MUST be free to collect data in every way they can, in the name of finding any possible threat to US interests and stopping them before they evolve. What if (to borrow from those who envision dreadful consequences of this latest intrusion) the NSA had been able to intercept and correlate the Tsarnaev brothers' Facebook posts, phone calls, texts, Tweets and trips to ...


^ This.

My fellow Americans? You ASKED for this shiat. Not all of you, of course- A good number of us were warning you that this kind of shiat would happened, but we were drowned out and overruled. Most of you farks didn't protest, or even care, as long you felt 'safe'.

You gave up liberty in the name of security, and, as a wise man predicted, you lost both.
 
2013-06-09 05:50:17 AM  

Gyrfalcon: FormlessOne: We've acknowledged that no one is listening to our conversations. That's kind of the point - you have so much other information about the conversation that the content itself is irrelevant. You're attempting to construct a model for predictive analysis of possible criminal behavior.

Here's a simple question - if the justification is foreign-based terrorism, why not only request telephone calls in which one or both ends of the call were either outside of the U.S., either by GPS or phone number? Why pull ALL of them? As the NSA has repeatedly and explicitly stated, that's their charter - foreign intelligence. Even "domestic terrorism" doesn't justify requesting the metadata for millions of calls made and completed, at both ends, within the United States. The only reason for requesting that metadata is to mine it.

Mine it for what though? What exactly are people so worried about that they think the government is going to do with the data--"meta" or otherwise? And nevermind all this "well, they COULD use it for..." imaginary evil black helicopter/Illuminati/reverse lizard vampire nonsense. Look at what our government has done in the last 50 years--god knows they've done enough really bad shiat that you should be able to devise a genuine argument for what you're actually worried about. What is the REAL worry here that people think the government WILL DO if they continue to use phone data and other types of data mining?

Because so far, all I've ever heard is nebulous fears of what a repressive government which we don't have could do if they were so inclined at some time in the distant future if they wanted to get One World Ordery on us in some paranoid conspiracy theorist's wet dream. All I can see that this kind of thing will let them do, is do what they ALREADY do, only easier for them. It wouldn't allow them to  cut any more legal corners than they already do; it wouldn't let them set up any more innocent people than they already do, or put the screws t ...


what could they possibly do with that information citizen?

www.bsu.edu
ww2 german punch cards for those of u that didnt know
 
2013-06-09 10:04:16 AM  

LordJiro: If you think the government's surveillance fetish started under Bush, you haven't been paying attention.


in another thread i reference mc carthy. and there was hoover with his blatant misuse of the office. my point was that this got vastly expanded and legalized with the patriot act and the subsequent misuses. all of which got grandfathered in and all of which were reported in the MSM.

while we all should be outraged no one should be surprised.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report