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  
•       •       •

11310 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 08:25:40 AM

SilentStrider: Not to be all "But Bush" but didn't we know this already?


I had Hoped the new administration had Changed that sort of thing.
 
2013-06-16 08:32:26 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: VOTE REPUBLICAN
so NSA wiretapping can go back to not being a scandal!




You got THAT right. This is for all the Johnny Popcorns out there that seem to believe a Republican would actually be blamed for this...

i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-16 08:34:23 AM

Jackpot777: Lee Jackson Beauregard: VOTE REPUBLICAN
so NSA wiretapping can go back to not being a scandal!

You got THAT right. This is for all the Johnny Popcorns out there that seem to believe a Republican would actually be blamed for this...

[i.imgur.com image 403x397]


What a dick!
 
2013-06-16 08:34:38 AM
And this is a week after the president said something that turns out to be flatly untrue. "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls" I believe was the exact quote.
 
2013-06-16 08:37:14 AM

GoldSpider: And this is a week after the president said something that turns out to be flatly untrue. "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls" I believe was the exact quote.


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_L is tening_to_US_Phone_Calls_-_But_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows

Hmm maybe people should just take a bit of a chill pill. There is probably a reason only CNET is going with this story. I'm guessing they will end up walking this back like how the Guardian and the Post did with a lot of their PRISM reporting.
 
2013-06-16 08:37:48 AM

GoldSpider: And this is a week after the president said something that turns out to be flatly untrue. "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls" I believe was the exact quote.


And now one guy has contradicted that. I'm glad to see that everyone is correctly weighting the statements.
 
2013-06-16 08:38:41 AM

bunner: 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!


I'm sorry should I be ranting about Hitler and 1984?
 
2013-06-16 08:43:45 AM

Halli: I'm sorry should I be ranting about Hitler and 1984?


No, you should be blowing snot at people who think it gives you a credible degree of authority and will worry what you think.  Bye.
 
2013-06-16 08:48:32 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?


Again: a real world example of what "it's not fascism when WE do it" actually looks like, on this very issue.

i.imgur.com

The projection from the [f]right[ened] wing is so strong, you could use the Moon as a screen to show movies with it. They know it directly reflects badly on their lockstep support of the PATRIOT Act, and we know they know it.

Right now, it's fun knowing they don't have a single consistent political opinion from one year to the next ("whatever is happening when we're not in power, we're against it" is not consistent when there are things you were for when there was a different resident in 1600 Penn Ave).

Spying without a warrant is not what America should be about. No matter who's in power. But I'm just one of those libruls that has consistent views, f*** me right right-wingers?!?!!
 
2013-06-16 08:53:53 AM

bunner: Halli: I'm sorry should I be ranting about Hitler and 1984?

No, you should be blowing snot at people who think it gives you a credible degree of authority and will worry what you think.  Bye.


Yeah Hitler and 1984 was probably a bit highbrow for this thread.
 
2013-06-16 08:55:01 AM

WhoopAssWayne: Barack Hussein Obama. Voted in not once but twice by the neoliberal fascist scumbags.


You used liberal and fascist in the same sentence, thereby invalidating your comment.

0/10
 
2013-06-16 08:57:04 AM
HOOSAIN!

DON'T YOU SHEEPLE SEE?

HOO SAIN!

H O O S A I N ! !  LIKE THAT FURRINER GUY!
 
2013-06-16 09:08:33 AM
Stupid partisans don't get it.  While you are arguing about whether this is Bush's fault or Obama's fault, you're missing out on the fact that you are BOTH of their enemies.  They both want to use this against you.
 
2013-06-16 09:16:25 AM
Building where NSA data stored.
blog.foreignpolicy.com
 
2013-06-16 09:17:11 AM

OnlyM3: I Like Bread


Not surprised. The government has overstepped its power for decades and no one has been too interested in stopping it. Find me a candidate who will bring the NSA and FBI to heel without also being an anti-establishment nutcase and I'll vote for him.
Circular logic like that, could form a tornado.

Translation "Find me someone that doesn't support this while completely supporting this". uh huh

Guess how we can tell you're an obama voter. Go ahead, guess.


And you clearly voted for Bush twice.  wah wah wah

Find me a candidate who opposes this but doesn't also want to dismantle the IRS, repeal Obamacare, or dismantle the US military in its entirety.

Can ya do that?
 
2013-06-16 09:19:48 AM

Bucky Katt: BullBearMS: cptjeff: '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.

History shows you are wrong.

Not voting for the two owned parties is exactly how we got out of this problem back in America's Gilded Age.

As a matter of fact, this is the origin of the phrase "Progressive" Democrats.

Progressive Democrats were the ones who felt that they represented the interests of the common man and not just the interests of the wealthy with plenty of bribe money.

Hell, those people amended the Constitution so that the people got to vote for Senators who until that time were appointed by State politicians instead of elected.

Huge change is possible, once you abandon those who sold you out in the first place.

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 850x652]

"global elite bankers" is a euphamism for Jews.


Not as much these days.

The problem with that comic is that democrat and republican voters don't actually switch sides much at all.
 
2013-06-16 09:26:21 AM

Jackpot777: Phil Moskowitz: Oldiron_79: Insert the DNC apologists saying "Its not fascism when WE do it" here.

Seeing a lot of that, are you?

Again: a real world example of what "it's not fascism when WE do it" actually looks like, on this very issue.

[i.imgur.com image 403x397]

Spying without a warrant is not what America should be about. No matter who's in power. But I'm just one of those libruls that has consistent views, f*** me right right-wingers?!?!!


well, good thing that we didn't elect Hannity as President.
 
2013-06-16 09:32:16 AM
All this says is that our NSA is weak in traditional intelligence techniques. To be honest, if I was the director of the NSA, and in lieu of sending agents it the field I just needed to turn on a computer, I'd probably do the same.

That said, Hayden and Alexander need to be put on trial. At minimum. It is not OK under ANY interpretation of the law I can think of.
 
2013-06-16 09:33:17 AM

SunsetLament: WhyteRaven74: ipsofacto: What specifically is garbage about Greenwald's reporting

that he took Snowden at his word about everything

... he also directly quoted the NSA's own document ("direct server access").  The guy deserves a Pulitzer.  Snowden should be Time's Man of the Year; it's a no brainer.


jpo2269: EngineerAU,

Given your level of experience and expertise, I would sincerely would like to hear your opinion on how to balance the government's "need to know" and our individual rights to privacy...

While you have pointed out the lax security at many facilities, I am still perplexed as how Bradley Manning and Eric Snowden walk out of secured facilities with a treasure trove of top-secret information...

Lastly, I am not angry with Snowden (at this point) for how he released the information, but I feel Bradley Manning is a traitor.  Am I wrong?


This.  I feel a little vindicated.  I felt Snowden was a hero and was telling the truth.  Clearly both are true today.

 
2013-06-16 09:39:43 AM
All you people saying Hannity is inconsistent is odd.  I don't think anyone has been more consistent in their partisan hackery.
 
2013-06-16 09:51:12 AM

SunsetLament: Only two things I want to know ...

1.  When did this particular policy start? and
2.  The government explanation how this does not violate the fourth amendment.


The Constitution had its day. Move along.
 
2013-06-16 09:54:37 AM

Nick Nostril: SunsetLament: Only two things I want to know ...

1.  When did this particular policy start? and
2.  The government explanation how this does not violate the fourth amendment.

The Constitution had its day. Move along.


As cheap shot funny and as cynic boy as that sounds, that's pretty much the message, here, ain't it?  :   \
 
2013-06-16 09:56:30 AM
Step 1: Believe whatever you want if there's even a shred of evidence
Step 2: Panic
 
2013-06-16 10:10:32 AM
Is it just me, or does Keith look pissed that another Farking photographer is taking his picture?

asset3.cbsistatic.com
 
2013-06-16 10:13:30 AM

mrshowrules: All you people saying Hannity is inconsistent is odd.  I don't think anyone has been more consistent in their partisan hackery.


indeed.

http://gawker.com/sean-hannity-doesnt-know-hes-being-recorded-513136 49 1
 
2013-06-16 10:24:17 AM

Oldiron_79: BullBearMS: firefly212: Oldiron_79: Insert the DNC apologists saying "Its not fascism when WE do it" here.

I don't think we're gonna see a whole lot of that... I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal... and this practice is absolutely indefensible... IDGAF whether we're talking about the people who voted for it like Peter King and Diane Feinstein, or the people who implemented it like Bush and Obama... it's an absolutely terrible practice that violates everything the fourth amendment is all about, and to some extent even the first. These people who would use the losses of 9/11 as a rationale for torching our constitution have no place in government, not a farking one of them, regardless of party.

None of the real liberals are doing anything but condemning this in the strongest possible terms.

It's the Democratic party shills who are but, but, but Bushing about it and making other lame ass excuses.

Obama promised to end this.

He lied.

It's indefensible.

So are you "real liberals™" gonna vote against the bums that did this shiat in '14 and '16 or are you gonna vote for them anyways and say"well our guys did shiat that makes watergate look beneign, but I cant risk letting the republicans win by voting 3rd party"?

I voted 3rd party in the 08, 10, and 12 cycles because of the shenanigans of the Schrub administration, I wasnt gonna vote dem but as a true conservative the GOP had went too far to the dark side for me to follow.


Well, obviously I won't be voting for Obama. Neither of my Senators was in the house or senate when the PATRIOT Act Passed... my representative voted for him, but I've voted against that a-hole every chance I've gotten for years, but for a different reason... as for third parties, I'll continue to evaluate everyone on his or her own merit... but being part of a third party doesn't grant you automatic trust... the reality is that I think they're all a bunch of dirty liars who are bought and paid for too.
 
2013-06-16 10:32:55 AM
It must be fark-all easy for nsa analysts (or their private contractor brethren) to get raises.

Hmmmm.. let's see if ol' bossy is still seeing that chick on the side. For national security, of course.
 
2013-06-16 10:49:21 AM

Halli: GoldSpider: And this is a week after the president said something that turns out to be flatly untrue. "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls" I believe was the exact quote.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_L is tening_to_US_Phone_Calls_-_But_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows

Hmm maybe people should just take a bit of a chill pill. There is probably a reason only CNET is going with this story. I'm guessing they will end up walking this back like how the Guardian and the Post did with a lot of their PRISM reporting.


Wow. The Cnet article also ellipses out the words "and you didn't need a NEW warrant". "New" seems to imply the data gathering and analysis they were discussing was covered under some sort of warrant.

That is a pretty questionable edit.
 
2013-06-16 10:54:18 AM

SunsetLament: Only two things I want to know ...

1.  When did this particular policy start? and
2.  The government explanation how this does not violate the fourth amendment.


1) It started in the 1960s.
2) What fourth Amendment? Get back to work, peasant.
 
2013-06-16 11:03:45 AM

djkutch: Bin Laden got every thing he wanted. Good job, America.

And, for the bootlickers mentioned by Nabb1, it starts with the Patriot Act. Obama isn't innocent, but please remember the administration and party that was in power that started it all.


Actually, it started with the National Security Act of 1947, which created the CIA, and the creation of the Armed Forces Security Agency (the NSA's predecessor) in 1949. We've been doomed ever since.
 
2013-06-16 11:16:33 AM
whidbey
People can and have been inspired to change. Just in the past 50 years alone.

The systems have changed but people have not. "Systems" includes social norms. A lot of that was the result of organization, not sudden mystical awakenings or alienated mass political appeals to the already-powerful.

Again, the system is for all of us. The vast majority of the people DO NOT USE IT.

Rather than look at actual causes, you just want to scream, "HEY! STOP BEING SO LAZY!" at people. Let me know how that works.

ANY Congress.

The 111th was when the Democrats had full control in Washington, and squandered it.

People seem to think we just hand over the keys to Congress and they're going to automagically do the right thing. You know as well as I do that people have to become more involved no matter, whatever system we're talking about. And so far, we have the best system available, and a strongly polarized populace, mostly because of the far right in this society.

We don't have the option to not hand over the keys. In fact that implies that we at some point have the keys.
And when people DO stand up and make noise, Democratic mayors and other politicians coordinate messaging and send in the police to crack skulls. And then the media pretends it never happened and politicians ignore it and get back to work boning us in the ass again, momentarily interrupted at most.

Again, the reason is because our level of support all but tapers off after an election. We need the kind of dialogue we're having now about PATRIOT all the time.

We're having it now and Obama is telling us to go pound sand. You seem to be saying that Obama is on our side but we need to have an adversarial relationship with him. Which is it?

How about instead of wasting time pointing fingers, people come up with an effective grass-roots campaign/election reform strategy?

I'm an economic materialist. Political power flows from economic power. Before you can even think about elections, you have to look at the political economy throughout society. As long as regular-ass people don't have economic power, they'll never have political power; with economic power, elections are an afterthought. And, yes, economic power can come from places other than the government (and trying to take control of the government as a means to economic empowerment- well, we've seen how that works).


BullBearMS
I supported Jill Stein quite publicly in the last election.

Her campaign was nothing but attention-whoring.
 
2013-06-16 11:16:59 AM

Tigger: 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.


I never saw that ep, but now I have the small world ride in mine.
 
2013-06-16 11:19:23 AM

firefly212: Oldiron_79: BullBearMS: firefly212: Oldiron_79: Insert the DNC apologists saying "Its not fascism when WE do it" here.

I don't think we're gonna see a whole lot of that... I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal... and this practice is absolutely indefensible... IDGAF whether we're talking about the people who voted for it like Peter King and Diane Feinstein, or the people who implemented it like Bush and Obama... it's an absolutely terrible practice that violates everything the fourth amendment is all about, and to some extent even the first. These people who would use the losses of 9/11 as a rationale for torching our constitution have no place in government, not a farking one of them, regardless of party.

None of the real liberals are doing anything but condemning this in the strongest possible terms.

It's the Democratic party shills who are but, but, but Bushing about it and making other lame ass excuses.

Obama promised to end this.

He lied.

It's indefensible.

So are you "real liberals™" gonna vote against the bums that did this shiat in '14 and '16 or are you gonna vote for them anyways and say"well our guys did shiat that makes watergate look beneign, but I cant risk letting the republicans win by voting 3rd party"?

I voted 3rd party in the 08, 10, and 12 cycles because of the shenanigans of the Schrub administration, I wasnt gonna vote dem but as a true conservative the GOP had went too far to the dark side for me to follow.

Well, obviously I won't be voting for Obama. Neither of my Senators was in the house or senate when the PATRIOT Act Passed... my representative voted for him, but I've voted against that a-hole every chance I've gotten for years, but for a different reason... as for third parties, I'll continue to evaluate everyone on his or her own merit... but being part of a third party doesn't grant you automatic trust... the reality is that I think they're all a bunch of dirty liars who are bought and paid for too.


Ahh, the perfect slave,,,
Believes all that voting drivel, strong Divided and Conquered Partisanship, and speaks with authority, our last missing piece.

"It is not illegal when we do it"
 
2013-06-16 11:25:36 AM

RanDomino: whidbey
People can and have been inspired to change. Just in the past 50 years alone.

The systems have changed but people have not. "Systems" includes social norms. A lot of that was the result of organization, not sudden mystical awakenings or alienated mass political appeals to the already-powerful.

Again, the system is for all of us. The vast majority of the people DO NOT USE IT.

Rather than look at actual causes, you just want to scream, "HEY! STOP BEING SO LAZY!" at people. Let me know how that works.

ANY Congress.

The 111th was when the Democrats had full control in Washington, and squandered it.

People seem to think we just hand over the keys to Congress and they're going to automagically do the right thing. You know as well as I do that people have to become more involved no matter, whatever system we're talking about. And so far, we have the best system available, and a strongly polarized populace, mostly because of the far right in this society.

We don't have the option to not hand over the keys. In fact that implies that we at some point have the keys.
And when people DO stand up and make noise, Democratic mayors and other politicians coordinate messaging and send in the police to crack skulls. And then the media pretends it never happened and politicians ignore it and get back to work boning us in the ass again, momentarily interrupted at most.

Again, the reason is because our level of support all but tapers off after an election. We need the kind of dialogue we're having now about PATRIOT all the time.

We're having it now and Obama is telling us to go pound sand. You seem to be saying that Obama is on our side but we need to have an adversarial relationship with him. Which is it?

How about instead of wasting time pointing fingers, people come up with an effective grass-roots campaign/election reform strategy?

I'm an economic materialist. Political power flows from economic power. Before you can even think about elections, you have to look at the political economy throughout society. As long as regular-ass people don't have economic power, they'll never have political power; with economic power, elections are an afterthought. And, yes, economic power can come from places other than the government (and trying to take control of the government as a means to economic empowerment- well, we've seen how that works).


BullBearMS
I supported Jill Stein quite publicly in the last election.

Her campaign was nothing but attention-whoring.


Also, one before the election we pressed him on his pick and he swore up and down he was writing in Elizabeth Warren because only by voting for a non-candidate can a real message be sent to our elected officials.
 
2013-06-16 11:37:23 AM

djkutch: Bin Laden got every thing he wanted. Good job, America.

And, for the bootlickers mentioned by Nabb1, it starts with the Patriot USA PATRIOT Act. Obama isn't innocent, but please remember the administration and party that was in power that started it all.


FTFY.  It's a farking acronym, people!  Although you are still right.
 
2013-06-16 11:38:53 AM

Skleenar: Halli: GoldSpider: And this is a week after the president said something that turns out to be flatly untrue. "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls" I believe was the exact quote.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_L is tening_to_US_Phone_Calls_-_But_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows

Hmm maybe people should just take a bit of a chill pill. There is probably a reason only CNET is going with this story. I'm guessing they will end up walking this back like how the Guardian and the Post did with a lot of their PRISM reporting.

Wow. The Cnet article also ellipses out the words "and you didn't need a NEW warrant". "New" seems to imply the data gathering and analysis they were discussing was covered under some sort of warrant.

That is a pretty questionable edit.


It's enough to cast doubt on whether they admitted to doing so without a warrant.

In other words, it's license to believe what you want - either side.
 
2013-06-16 11:40:08 AM
 
2013-06-16 11:40:38 AM

DrPainMD: SunsetLament: Only two things I want to know ...

1.  When did this particular policy start? and
2.  The government explanation how this does not violate the fourth amendment.

1) It started in the 1960s.
2) What fourth Amendment? Get back to work, peasant.


FDR had Western Union give our spies an hour with any telegram originating outside the U.S. before delivering it to the Japanese embassy, for example.
 
2013-06-16 11:41:29 AM

DrPainMD: SunsetLament: Only two things I want to know ...

1.  When did this particular policy start? and
2.  The government explanation how this does not violate the fourth amendment.

1) It started in the 1960s.
2) What fourth Amendment? Get back to work, peasant.


Oh, and we've been doing it FOR the government. Think the "E" in SETI is "Extra-terrestrial"? It stands for "Echelon".
 
2013-06-16 12:08:46 PM
Smackledorfer
Also, one before the election we pressed him on his pick and he swore up and down he was writing in Elizabeth Warren because only by voting for a non-candidate can a real message be sent to our elected officials.

Partial credit. Jill Stein was basically a non-candidate.


47 is the new 42
FTFY. It's a farking acronym, people!

They picked the word first and then found other words to match the letters.
 
2013-06-16 12:12:24 PM
I can't wait to run out and get an Xbox One so they have a camera too!
 
2013-06-16 12:16:50 PM
Can somebody please explain why this is a news story?  This practice has been common knowledge for 7 years.

It smells to me like nothing more than a coordinated display of disingenuous, partisan faux-outrage.
 
2013-06-16 12:24:39 PM

udhq: It smells to me like nothing more than a coordinated display of disingenuous, partisan faux-outrage.


At last they hope so.
 
2013-06-16 12:32:58 PM

RanDomino: Smackledorfer
Also, one before the election we pressed him on his pick and he swore up and down he was writing in Elizabeth Warren because only by voting for a non-candidate can a real message be sent to our elected officials.

Partial credit. Jill Stein was basically a non-candidate.


47 is the new 42
FTFY. It's a farking acronym, people!

They picked the word first and then found other words to match the letters.


I have no doubt that's what happened.  I just like to make it clear it's an acronym by capitalizing the letters instead of using "Patriot" because the USA PATRIOT Act is absolutely, in no certain terms, unpatriotic and unconstitutional.
 
2013-06-16 12:38:12 PM

RanDomino: Smackledorfer
Also, one before the election we pressed him on his pick and he swore up and down he was writing in Elizabeth Warren because only by voting for a non-candidate can a real message be sent to our elected officials.

Partial credit. Jill Stein was basically a non-candidate.


47 is the new 42
FTFY. It's a farking acronym, people!

They picked the word first and then found other words to match the letters.


There are non-candidates, and there are LITERALLY non-candidates.  Like people who aren't running and are in fact running for a different office.

But the point isn't stein vs. warren, the point is bullbearms is dishonest and changes his tune when it suits him. His personal politics are whatever it takes to biatch about Obama at any given time or place, and his supposed past history is always exactly whatever he needs to fuel the narrative he picks in a given thread.
 
2013-06-16 12:43:15 PM

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Hey, I got a few skids of paranoia, hyperbole and Nazi Germany metaphors on the 18 wheeler out front. Someone is going to have to sign for it before it gets unloaded on this thread.


How does boot black taste? I always kinda figured it would be a bit bitter, but vary in flavor depending upon whose head was just kicked in.
 
2013-06-16 12:43:55 PM

ZipSplat: Given the gun-jumping that usually abounds with NSA stories, I'm betting what was actually meant by "can" in the meeting was that an analyst isn't physically prevented from accessing domestic communications prior to court authorization.  But that doesn't tacitly mean they are authorized to.


According to another article about this, this is just the one Senators recollection of what he heard in the private meeting. When he brought it up in the public meeting he was told he probably misunderstood but that they would get back with him in private.
 
2013-06-16 12:47:07 PM

GoldSpider: And this is a week after the president said something that turns out to be flatly untrue. "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls" I believe was the exact quote.


Actually it appears that it was true.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/video-congressman-claims-he- wa s-told-government-could-listen

Bad cnet article is bad.
 
2013-06-16 12:47:17 PM

RanDomino: Smackledorfer
Also, one before the election we pressed him on his pick and he swore up and down he was writing in Elizabeth Warren because only by voting for a non-candidate can a real message be sent to our elected officials.

Partial credit. Jill Stein was basically a non-candidate.


47 is the new 42
FTFY. It's a farking acronym, people!

They picked the word first and then found other words to match the letters.


Citation or is your tin foil hat telling you things again?
 
2013-06-16 12:48:37 PM

udhq: Can somebody please explain why this is a news story?  This practice has been common knowledge for 7 years.

It smells to me like nothing more than a coordinated display of disingenuous, partisan faux-outrage.


Sure
Go listen to Obama's comments a week ago about this issue
 
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