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.

(C|Net)   NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants   (news.cnet.com) divider line 781
    More: Obvious, NSA, United States, phone calls, FISA Amendments Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Legal liability, Internet Archive  
•       •       •

11315 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jun 2013 at 9:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-16 04:45:41 AM

bunner: SunsetLament: 80% of the country who knows who Sarah Palin is thinks she said "I can see Russia from my house"

Yeah, "you an actually see land in Russia from here in Alaska" bespeaks an incisive political acuity that "from my house" never could.


Is your complaint that she said something factually accurate?  Or that she actually was aware of the fact and the garden variety ivory tower elitist liberal had no clue?
 
2013-06-16 04:45:42 AM
The people who run this country do not give a William nor Nilliam, polly wolly doo dah f*ck who cracks the figurehead in chief gig.
 
2013-06-16 04:45:53 AM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: insertsnarkyusername: Are there any ways to communicate that aren't monitored?

[coneofsilence.jpg]


Thanks. I needed that.
 
2013-06-16 04:46:31 AM

BullBearMS:

If he keeps his word to us, somebody might criticize him isn't the genius excuse you seem to think it is.
Okay, I LOLed...
 
2013-06-16 04:47:08 AM

SunsetLament: Is your complaint that she said something factually accurate?  Or that she actually was aware of the fact and the garden variety ivory tower elitist liberal had no clue?


"See those two holes in the ground?  Which one's your ass?  Five seconds!"  said the partisan hack.  Oh, Prunella, you are a caution.
 
2013-06-16 04:51:26 AM

SunsetLament: she actually was aware of the fact and the garden variety ivory tower elitist liberal had no clue


No clue about Alaska's proximity to Russia?

[unlikely]

Sarah Palin had no clue how clueless claiming foreign policy credentials based on that proximity was until Tina Fey helpfully pointed it out to her.

Is that what you mean?
 
2013-06-16 04:54:36 AM
BullBearMS: derpotyderpderpderp

Uh, yeah, you got mad about it after the black guy was elected. I was mad before. But really, no, it's great how you see all problems are caused by Democrats. Really. It's powerfully insightful, and certainly gives you some sort of "derp cred." Or something.
 
2013-06-16 05:07:11 AM

cptjeff:

Gyrfalcon: I could go on, but I doubt you actually care because you are happily part of the problem.

OK, so what's your SOLUTION? We know the problem, what is the way to SOLVE it?

His solution is to vote for some as yet unknown third party that will magically be able to change things despite being able to win exactly zero elections.

OgreMagi: So long as you continue to defend the two parties in power, you don't actually care about the problem. So fark off.

I'm not defending them. I'm saying that thanks to the structure of our system, no third party is ever going to be able to influence it significantly. Basic game theory, if you have a Weeners the post system, you get two parties. As a simple practical matter, if you want to change the system, you have to work through that two party structure, and that means changing one or both of the parties from within. And achieving that is actually realistic.

That's not true...  There was a two-party system in the U.S. before: the Federalist Party, and the Democrat-Republicans.  The Federalist Party ended up drying up and blowing away through it's own elitism, and the Democrat-Republican party split into the Democrats and the Whigs.  The Whigs died out, kind of literally, and the remains of the party split up over slavery issues.  The Whig Party was replaced by the new Republican Party, founded on anti-slavery.

So a re-arrangement of parties is not out of the question at all.  The Democrats and Republicans of today are, despite many protestations, pretty much the same group.  They are both statist parties, with different first choices of the behaviors the government should control.  A more reasonable split would be, to make up names, a Statist party and a more libertarian party, perhaps a Freedom Party.  The former would favor massive government intervention in every phase of life, and the latter would oppose those power grabs, favoring the individual's control of their own lives.

 
2013-06-16 05:07:46 AM
imagine servants fighting each other over who would be permitted to continue to serve their masters
 
2013-06-16 05:18:54 AM
"NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants to being complete pack of Fourth Reich dildos and what are you going to do about it, plebe?"
 
2013-06-16 05:20:10 AM
WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT SARAH PALIN AND THE BLACK GUY?

Christ, you people are hopeless.   The government is farking the People.  All of it.

ALL OF IT.

Are you too dense to realize that it doesn't matter what "side" these asshats belong to?  They are on THEIR side. They are not on YOUR side!
 
2013-06-16 05:22:29 AM

sendtodave: WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT SARAH PALIN AND THE BLACK GUY?

Christ, you people are hopeless.   The government is farking the People.  All of it.

ALL OF IT.

Are you too dense to realize that it doesn't matter what "side" these asshats belong to?  They are on THEIR side. They are not on YOUR side!


I've mentioned that, but it seems to get in the way of the partisan shilling and scathing sarcasm.
 
2013-06-16 05:23:45 AM

sendtodave: WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT SARAH PALIN AND THE BLACK GUY?

Christ, you people are hopeless.   The government is farking the People.  All of it.

ALL OF IT.

Are you too dense to realize that it doesn't matter what "side" these asshats belong to?  They are on THEIR side. They are not on YOUR side!


People like Palin and Obama are absolutely perfect for the government's needs.  They are guaranteed to divide the people over petty shiat, while the elitists can continue basking in their power.
 
2013-06-16 05:25:31 AM

cptjeff: Gyrfalcon: I could go on, but I doubt you actually care because you are happily part of the problem.

OK, so what's your SOLUTION? We know the problem, what is the way to SOLVE it?

His solution is to vote for some as yet unknown third party that will magically be able to change things despite being able to win exactly zero elections.

OgreMagi: So long as you continue to defend the two parties in power, you don't actually care about the problem. So fark off.

I'm not defending them. I'm saying that thanks to the structure of our system, no third party is ever going to be able to influence it significantly. Basic game theory, if you have a Weeners the post system, you get two parties. As a simple practical matter, if you want to change the system, you have to work through that two party structure, and that means changing one or both of the parties from within. And achieving that is actually realistic.


Not too familiar with the structure of our system, are you?  If third parties can garner enough influence to win the occasional gubernatorial election then why is it too far-fetched to imagine them winning a presidential election?
 
2013-06-16 05:27:22 AM
How to be a politician in ten easy lessons or five hard ones.


"We are looking into this matter and the subsets of events pertinent to this matter and a committee will be appointed."

*smile beatifically*  "I think you may be a tad misinformed."  *polite applause and giggling*

"Don't believe everything you are told my mainstream media."

*collect paycheck*

*launder lobby cash*

*play golf*
 
2013-06-16 05:29:03 AM

Allen. The end.:

Honestly, there's got to be something like this - I mean, how can one person completely change the way they view the world SO completely and quickly?

Are you discounting the idea that he might have simply lied to get elected?
 
2013-06-16 05:32:16 AM

bunner: sendtodave: WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT SARAH PALIN AND THE BLACK GUY?

Christ, you people are hopeless.   The government is farking the People.  All of it.

ALL OF IT.

Are you too dense to realize that it doesn't matter what "side" these asshats belong to?  They are on THEIR side. They are not on YOUR side!

I've mentioned that, but it seems to get in the way of the partisan shilling and scathing sarcasm.


I'm farking done.

You know I really don't like the Republican party, platform.  I agree with most of the Democratic party platform.

That that means jack squat.  Because their platforms are bullshiat.

Oh, change is coming!  we'll respect civil liberties now!

Bullshiat.  Bullshiat bullshiat BULLshiat.

And these guys here keep wading in it, tossing it about, blaming the "other side" for the stink?  Anymore, they all stink!
 
2013-06-16 05:32:56 AM

sendtodave:

Always relevant.

Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought-and paid for-the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls.

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want.  Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want:

They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests.
That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they're getting farked by a system that threw them overboard 30 farking years ago. They don't want that!

You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shiatty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they're coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money!

They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street-and you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all from you sooner or later 'cause they own this farking place! It's a big club, and you ain't in it! You, and I, are not in the big clu ...

George Carlin?
 
2013-06-16 05:34:37 AM

OgreMagi: People like Palin and Obama are absolutely perfect for the government's needs.  They are guaranteed to divide the people over petty shiat, while the elitists can continue basking in their power.


Useful idiots.

But Bush!  But Obama!  Palin is stupid!

What does any of that have to do with the government spying on the people of the US wholesale?

"HOW CAN I BLAME THE OTHER PARTY FOR THIS!?"
 
2013-06-16 05:35:16 AM

GeneralJim: sendtodave: Always relevant.

Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought-and paid for-the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls.

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want.  Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want:

They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests.
That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they're getting farked by a system that threw them overboard 30 farking years ago. They don't want that!

You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shiatty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they're coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money!

They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street-and you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all from you sooner or later 'cause they own this farking place! It's a big club, and you ain't in it! You, and I, are not in ...


Yes.  I like to believe that he's looking down on us right now.

Because I'm a mean bastard.
 
2013-06-16 05:35:54 AM

GeneralJim: George Carlin?


Quote fail.

Yes.  I like to believe that he's looking down on us right now.

Because I'm a mean bastard.
 
2013-06-16 05:35:54 AM

GeneralJim: George Carlin?


Word for word.  And spot on.
 
2013-06-16 05:39:29 AM

Mock26: cptjeff: Gyrfalcon: I could go on, but I doubt you actually care because you are happily part of the problem.

OK, so what's your SOLUTION? We know the problem, what is the way to SOLVE it?

His solution is to vote for some as yet unknown third party that will magically be able to change things despite being able to win exactly zero elections.

OgreMagi: So long as you continue to defend the two parties in power, you don't actually care about the problem. So fark off.

I'm not defending them. I'm saying that thanks to the structure of our system, no third party is ever going to be able to influence it significantly. Basic game theory, if you have a Weeners the post system, you get two parties. As a simple practical matter, if you want to change the system, you have to work through that two party structure, and that means changing one or both of the parties from within. And achieving that is actually realistic.

Not too familiar with the structure of our system, are you?  If third parties can garner enough influence to win the occasional gubernatorial election then why is it too far-fetched to imagine them winning a presidential election?


Because it takes several magnitudes more influence and money to win the presidency.
 
2013-06-16 05:40:59 AM
To be honest, I think anyone who doesn't believe that every phone call and e-mail isn't recorded, archived, and sifted with voice/text recognition software for keywords is being horribly naive. The technology has existed for 2 decades now so why wouldn't they do it?
 
2013-06-16 05:44:21 AM

Terrible Old Man: To be honest, I think anyone who doesn't believe that every phone call and e-mail isn't recorded, archived, and sifted with voice/text recognition software for keywords is being horribly naive. The technology has existed for 2 decades now so why wouldn't they do it?


Because they're not supposed to?  Because the document setting up the framework for the government restricts them for invading people's privacy to such a degree, and they shouldn't just ignore that?

The technology for reading everyone's letters has existed for quite a while longer than that.
 
2013-06-16 05:45:46 AM

RobertBruce:

We're living n J. Edgar Hoover's wet dream.

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-16 05:46:24 AM

Terrible Old Man: The technology has existed for 2 decades now so why wouldn't they do it?


Crack houses exist, too.  Also illegal.
 
2013-06-16 05:47:33 AM

OgreMagi: Mock26: cptjeff: Gyrfalcon: I could go on, but I doubt you actually care because you are happily part of the problem.

OK, so what's your SOLUTION? We know the problem, what is the way to SOLVE it?

His solution is to vote for some as yet unknown third party that will magically be able to change things despite being able to win exactly zero elections.

OgreMagi: So long as you continue to defend the two parties in power, you don't actually care about the problem. So fark off.

I'm not defending them. I'm saying that thanks to the structure of our system, no third party is ever going to be able to influence it significantly. Basic game theory, if you have a Weeners the post system, you get two parties. As a simple practical matter, if you want to change the system, you have to work through that two party structure, and that means changing one or both of the parties from within. And achieving that is actually realistic.

Not too familiar with the structure of our system, are you?  If third parties can garner enough influence to win the occasional gubernatorial election then why is it too far-fetched to imagine them winning a presidential election?

Because it takes several magnitudes more influence and money to win the presidency.


Yeah, so what?  It does not mean that "no third party is ever going to be able to influence" the system significantly, which is what the other poster claimed.
 
2013-06-16 05:55:45 AM

Mock26: OgreMagi: Mock26: cptjeff: Gyrfalcon: I could go on, but I doubt you actually care because you are happily part of the problem.

OK, so what's your SOLUTION? We know the problem, what is the way to SOLVE it?

His solution is to vote for some as yet unknown third party that will magically be able to change things despite being able to win exactly zero elections.

OgreMagi: So long as you continue to defend the two parties in power, you don't actually care about the problem. So fark off.

I'm not defending them. I'm saying that thanks to the structure of our system, no third party is ever going to be able to influence it significantly. Basic game theory, if you have a Weeners the post system, you get two parties. As a simple practical matter, if you want to change the system, you have to work through that two party structure, and that means changing one or both of the parties from within. And achieving that is actually realistic.

Not too familiar with the structure of our system, are you?  If third parties can garner enough influence to win the occasional gubernatorial election then why is it too far-fetched to imagine them winning a presidential election?

Because it takes several magnitudes more influence and money to win the presidency.

Yeah, so what?  It does not mean that "no third party is ever going to be able to influence" the system significantly, which is what the other poster claimed.


Actually, that's my claim.  A third party doesn't need to win to get the attention of those bastards.  They just need to get a significant number of votes.  In the presidential elections, third parties get about 1% of the vote.  An amount that can easily be ignored.  If they can get 10% however, now we're talking about enough votes to swing an election.   Maybe (a real big maybe) they'll actually keep the occasional promise if that happens.  But I doubt it.
 
2013-06-16 05:59:04 AM

bunner: R.A.Danny: bunner: You think that's bad?  Every four years, we take a couple of mooks at THEIR about everything and give them a 400k a year job.

huh?

Presidential types.  They say stuff we're supposed to believe and we elect one of them.  Whoever "took Snowdon at his word" has done a better job than the last 5, so far.


[shrug] People who still believe in McDonald's cheeseburgers in the cafeteria on Fridays deserve what they get. If you're that breathtakingly naive past the age of 15, then this kind of thing will shock you unless or until you grow up and accept that the world is much more complex than even a game of Risk.

As to how and why Obama could "change" so "dramatically" after his election, well, here's a story from the 1980 presidential election that you may find enlightening. Or not, if you lack the ability to make logical inferences. In 1978, Pres. Carter cut the then-nascent B-1 bomber program from the defense budget, to the howls of Congress and a lot of people who wanted America to have lots of shiny bombers. Carter cut it because it was drawing too much money from the ultrablack B-2 Stealth bomber project. However, because the B-2 was so secret, Carter couldn't tell anyone why he'd cut the B-1. As a result, he took a lot of fire from nearly everyone for his action.

Fade in on the 1980 election: Reagan won massive points for attacking Carter on his "anti-American" B-1 cuts, and promising to restore the program if he was elected. Part of his huge win came from his pro-America-first rhetoric and his promises to pour money back into the B-1 program. However....when he won, and was privy to the stuff Carter couldn't divulge beforehand, Reagan learned that the reason the B-1 had been axed was because 1. they needed all the money for the B-2 that was 2. going to make the B-1 obsolete. Being Reagan, he decided not to renege on his promises and pay for both; the result was that neither the B-1 OR the B-2 got the funding they needed to be successful. This meant we did not get the full production run of B-2s; however, the B-1 was plagued with problems, took seven upgrades for its electronics suite to be fully operational, and is still considered inferior in many respects to the B-52 it was meant to replace. All because there are things a President knows that no one else does.

So to sum up, for those who cannot connect the dots: There may be things Obama thought he knew when he was running for office in 2008 that he did not know; there may be things he knows now that he CANNOT TELL ANYONE because, despite everyone's dumbass belief that we get to know everything, we just don't. That doesn't mean that he's noble for not telling; I'm not suggesting that it's okay for him to keep secrets if people think Hey! we should just put the nuclear codes online and f*ck covert operations. Maybe it's time to no longer have any secrets at all and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe so. But until that is decided, the President can't tell everyone everything. That's how it's going to be.

And if you're dumb enough to believe in McDonald's cheeseburgers, then you deserve what you get.
 
2013-06-16 06:05:17 AM

Gyrfalcon: If you're that breathtakingly naive past the age of 15, then this kind of thing will shock you unless or until you grow up and accept that the world is much more complex


If you accept a culture wherein "growing up" is tacitly acknowledged as arriving at an age when you accept that 90% of everything is an utter, unfixable, dangerous crock of shiat, the you are promoting a culture that is about as useless as titties on a fish and equates wisdom with accepting the girth of the dick up your ass that is the price of living in it.  And that culture sucks rhino assflap.  And accepting it is the problem.
 
2013-06-16 06:06:43 AM
There's no complexity in disingenuous hypocrisy.  Just a pivot point where you find that you either have to eat sh*t of eat taser.  And that's broken.
 
2013-06-16 06:08:19 AM
Gyrfalcon: ...  to the howls of Congress and a lot of people who wanted America to have lots of shiny bombers ...  Fade in on the 1980 election: Reagan won massive points for attacking Carter on his "anti-American" B-1 cuts, and promising to restore the program if he was elected. Part of his huge win came from his pro-America-first rhetoric and his promises to pour money back into the B-1 program.

Seems to me that is the problem, more than anything else in that CSB.  Appeasing the people that profit from "security," and letting them lead the public to believe that such security is a good, and necessary thing.

Is what makes America exceptional our views on civil liberties, or our really large military and security state?

Because we can't have both.

/cue Eisenhower
 
2013-06-16 06:10:30 AM

bunner: Gyrfalcon: If you're that breathtakingly naive past the age of 15, then this kind of thing will shock you unless or until you grow up and accept that the world is much more complex

If you accept a culture wherein "growing up" is tacitly acknowledged as arriving at an age when you accept that 90% of everything is an utter, unfixable, dangerous crock of shiat, the you are promoting a culture that is about as useless as titties on a fish and equates wisdom with accepting the girth of the dick up your ass that is the price of living in it.  And that culture sucks rhino assflap.  And accepting it is the problem.


Adults give up hope.

I guess that I'm growing up.
 
2013-06-16 06:12:32 AM
We live in a covert police state.  Hope it doesn't become overt in your lifetime.
 
2013-06-16 06:13:25 AM

sendtodave: Adults give up hope.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-16 06:15:32 AM

sendtodave: bunner: Gyrfalcon: If you're that breathtakingly naive past the age of 15, then this kind of thing will shock you unless or until you grow up and accept that the world is much more complex

If you accept a culture wherein "growing up" is tacitly acknowledged as arriving at an age when you accept that 90% of everything is an utter, unfixable, dangerous crock of shiat, the you are promoting a culture that is about as useless as titties on a fish and equates wisdom with accepting the girth of the dick up your ass that is the price of living in it.  And that culture sucks rhino assflap.  And accepting it is the problem.

Adults give up hope.

I guess that I'm growing up.


I'm an atheist, but, hope is a favored tool of the devil.  It's what keeps people tolerating what should be intolerable.  The hope that things will get better.  It's when people lose hope that they do something about it.
 
2013-06-16 06:15:34 AM
The right to privacy started disappearing when the Income Tax was created.  Think about it, the W-2 form is a government intrusion into the relationship between the employer and the employee.  It explicitly tells both parties that they cannot be trusted to obey the law, therefor all financial transactions between the two parties must be reported and estimated taxes must be confiscated by the government immediately.

Monitoring phone calls is just another facet of that belief that the government is all-knowing and all-caring and must protect us from ourselves.  We might break the law and plan a terrorist activity.  Or we might be conspiring to sell over-sized sodas.  We might have unreported income.  We might be planning to have a medical procedure outside of government control.  We might be trying to buy a gas-guzzler.  We might be trying to purchase a new hunting rifle that happens to fire a bullet every time you pull the trigger.  The list of laws we could be breaking is endless.  Or we could be planning on attending a political meeting with the intent to throw an incumbent out of office next term.

But, if you're not breaking any laws (or doing anything that might upset someone in power) you have nothing to fear.
 
2013-06-16 06:16:12 AM

insertsnarkyusername: Are there any ways to communicate that aren't monitored?

upload.wikimedia.org

 
2013-06-16 06:33:17 AM
Every 2 to four years, we head out the door to pick a collection of people whom we we allow to tell us what to do - and lay down stiff  penalties for thinking otherwise, out of a pack of people whom we have just learned are mostly disingenuous douchesockets.  Cause it's our duty and privilege.  And if that isn't a functional definition of batsnot nuts, I do't know what is.
 
2013-06-16 06:37:35 AM
Republocrats want this.
 
2013-06-16 06:52:20 AM

Harry_Seldon: insertsnarkyusername: Are there any ways to communicate that aren't monitored?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x565]


If someone knows semaphore that is probably less secure than a cell phone.  Sure, it is very limited in distance, but still very insecure.
 
2013-06-16 07:04:18 AM
I see the crazies were let out of the asylum for the night.
 
2013-06-16 07:07:28 AM

Halli: I see the crazies were let out of the asylum for the night.


Don't forget the posturing, self important drive by smirkers casting baseless opprobrium like so much pee stained confetti!
 
2013-06-16 07:27:18 AM

Oldiron_79: Insert the DNC apologists saying "Its not fascism when WE do it" here.


Seeing a lot of that, are you?
 
2013-06-16 07:45:15 AM

cman: Democrats tell Liberals to "shut up you are giving the GOP a win" to make them stop talking about this government overreach. Republicans are pretty solidly against him and tell their base to "shut up you are being partisan" to those who speak up against this.

Notice a pattern? Both the GOP and Dems are telling everyone to shut up, and that says something.


It says we vote for a 3rd party next time.
 
2013-06-16 07:52:35 AM
Lemme try and sum up the partisan hack blame game.

www.lloydmarcus.com

www.godlikeproductions.com

isafe.org


VOTE! --------------------------------------- DECIDE!
 
2013-06-16 08:04:52 AM

Phil Moskowitz: Oldiron_79: Insert the DNC apologists saying "Its not fascism when WE do it" here.

Seeing a lot of that, are you?


In his head, yes. The world is an un-ending onslaught of unfairness.
 
2013-06-16 08:11:26 AM

LasersHurt: Phil Moskowitz: Oldiron_79: Insert the DNC apologists saying "Its not fascism when WE do it" here.

Seeing a lot of that, are you?

In his head, yes. The world is an un-ending onslaught of unfairness.


Great now I have the imaginationland song from South Park stuck in my head.
 
2013-06-16 08:16:34 AM
I just can't get over how poor the execution of this project has been.  There's been plenty of technical expertise, but there needed to be change management applied to the entire country for it to truly work.  It was one gigantic risk to the project that would have been more ethical and less damaging to do ahead of time.  They're probably banking on the idea that it's "better to ask forgiveness than permission," but that's always been self-serving crap.  Whoever decided that this didn't have to involve the public's knowledge simply doesn't respect the public.  That's a problem in a democracy.
 
Displayed 50 of 781 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report