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
 
2013-06-15 09:42:44 PM
Surprised?
 
2013-06-15 09:43:57 PM
Color me shocked...
 
2013-06-15 09:44:13 PM
"NSA Director Keith Alexander says his agency's analysts, which until recently included Edward Snowden among their ranks, take protecting "civil liberties and privacy and the security of this nation to their heart every day."

Oh gee, well if they take it to their heart every day then I guess you should just carry on.
 
2013-06-15 09:44:19 PM
I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.
 
2013-06-15 09:45:15 PM
Well, that is an excellent excuse for every dictator and wannabe out there, from China to Bulgaria to do the same.
 
2013-06-15 09:45:22 PM
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.
 
2013-06-15 09:45:34 PM
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.
 
2013-06-15 09:45:40 PM
"Nobody's listening to your phone calls."
 
2013-06-15 09:45:56 PM
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-15 09:46:15 PM
Don't you god damn GET IT!!! These people take IT TO THEIR HEARTS EVERY GOD DAMN DAY!!!!

MOVE
ALONG.
 
2013-06-15 09:46:37 PM
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-15 09:47:04 PM
Are there any ways to communicate that aren't monitored?
 
2013-06-15 09:47:16 PM
Not to be all "But Bush" but didn't we know this already?
 
2013-06-15 09:47:21 PM
This is in no way Obama's fault, the President is only to blame for crap like this when a Republican is in the White House.
 
2013-06-15 09:47:43 PM

Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.


Conference call w/Journolist now, give em a sec.
 
2013-06-15 09:48:06 PM
Duh.
It's the NSA.  They've been doing that for decades.
 
2013-06-15 09:48:08 PM
I'm waiting for the fark sock puppets to stop sucking Obama's peener long enough to admit they were wrong.

I wont' hold my breath.
 
2013-06-15 09:48:10 PM
In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance
 
2013-06-15 09:48:11 PM
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.
 
2013-06-15 09:48:31 PM

blacksho89: "Nobody's listening to your phone calls."


That's what I am hoping Snowden and Greenwald are doing. They release the most innocuous stuff first to get the powers-that-be to say publicly that "That's the extent of the surveillance", and then drop the more alarming stuff that demonstrates that the NSA and others lie, lie, lie.
 
2013-06-15 09:49:24 PM

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. The day the telephone was invented.
2. What Constitution?
 
2013-06-15 09:49:34 PM

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


Two cups and a string.

/I think.
 
2013-06-15 09:49:35 PM
 
2013-06-15 09:49:38 PM

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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers
 
2013-06-15 09:50:05 PM

Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.


I ain't gonna be one of 'em.
 
2013-06-15 09:50:08 PM
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.
 
2013-06-15 09:50:16 PM

OgreMagi: I'm waiting for the fark sock puppets to stop sucking Obama's peener long enough to admit they were wrong.

I wont' hold my breath.


But, but, but..

The Government can't possibly afford hard disks to store the data!
 
2013-06-15 09:50:23 PM

Popcorn Johnny: This is in no way Obama's fault, the President is only to blame for crap like this when a Republican is in the White House.


This is only Obama's fault, the President is only to blame for crap like this when a Democrat is in the White House herp herp derp HERP DERP HERP DERPDERPDERP!

Dumbass.
 
2013-06-15 09:50:37 PM
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Wait... from where is this argument coming from? Surely he means "without any other legal authorization 'sought'" rather than "required".
 
2013-06-15 09:50:54 PM
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.
 
2013-06-15 09:51:10 PM

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 for this 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.


HOLY fark wow Preview isnt the Add Comment button
 
2013-06-15 09:51:15 PM

Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.


Yep. Here you are, trixi
 
2013-06-15 09:51:24 PM
I really cannot figure out why people are so upset by all these activities by the NSA.  Seriously, what is the big deal?  They are NOT interested in your personal information.  They are not trying to catch people breaking the law.  All they care about is Setec Astronomy.  They are just trying to improve our understanding of the stars.  So all you paranoid conspiracy theorists just need to lighten up.
 
2013-06-15 09:51:54 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Dumbass.


You sure are.
 
2013-06-15 09:51:55 PM

Popcorn Johnny: This is in no way Obama's fault, the President is only to blame for crap like this when a Republican is in the White House.


I know it's shocking that the president might do something congress has apparently authorized him to do. You'll get over it.


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


Carrier chickens.
 
2013-06-15 09:52:24 PM
Pro-tip to the teahadists: most liberals are angry at Obama over this, just as we were angry at Bush. For those of you who are only now "outraged" about this since a brown guy is in the White House, and didn't give a f*ck when this entire program began under Bush because "MURKA!!!", sorry, you have no right to an opinion. Eat a bag of dicks.
 
2013-06-15 09:52:33 PM
Barack Hussein Obama. Voted in not once but twice by the neoliberal fascist scumbags.
 
2013-06-15 09:52:49 PM
Not that I'm defending them... but for the record, the NSA has been intercepting every wireless communication in existence since... well forever.  Its generally referred to as ECHELON.  You think your cell phone only has a range of a few miles?  Hah... with more sensitive receivers, they can scoop that shiat out of the air a much longer distance away.  Not that it matters, since they use satellites for most of it anyhow.  Cant get away from those things.  Which reminds me, and this is very important... er.. hang on brb doorbell.
 
2013-06-15 09:53:14 PM
If Nadler is revealing this info, from a classifed briefing, is he breaking any law? Is he legally able to disclose this?
 
2013-06-15 09:53:20 PM

Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.


Well, so much for having a rational discussion on the topic.
 
2013-06-15 09:54:55 PM

Mock26: I really cannot figure out why people are so upset by all these activities by the NSA.  Seriously, what is the big deal?  They are NOT interested in your personal information.  They are not trying to catch people breaking the law.  All they care about is Setec Astronomy.  They are just trying to improve our understanding of the stars.  So all you paranoid conspiracy theorists just need to lighten up.


Would you mind terribly if every so often, while you were away from your home, that the local police used their personal copy of your house key to enter your house, do a quick look-see to see if you were growing any pot plants, and then left without touching anything?
 
2013-06-15 09:55:23 PM
Why can someone go to a secret Congressional briefing and then tell us what went on without having to hide in Iceland?
 
2013-06-15 09:55:36 PM
I never thought I'd say this again.

I'm getting the pig!
 
2013-06-15 09:55:49 PM

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.


Hell, the Republican leadership is criticizing the Democratic leadership for not defending the NSA enough.

Meanwhile, thankfully, there are still a few Democrats who will speak out publicly against this bullshiat.

Unlike other leading Democrats and his former allies, Gore said he was not persuaded by the argument that the NSA surveillance had operated within the boundaries of the law.

"This in my view violates the constitution. The fourth amendment and the first amendment - and the fourth amendment language is crystal clear," he said. "It is not acceptable to have a secret interpretation of a law that goes far beyond any reasonable reading of either the law or the constitution and then classify as top secret what the actual law is."

Gore added: "This is not right."
 
2013-06-15 09:56:03 PM

NSA: " You can't stop the signal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere."


fcovers.net

 
2013-06-15 09:57:22 PM
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.
 
2013-06-15 09:57:44 PM
And zeros of people will be prosecuted for this.
 
2013-06-15 09:58:06 PM
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-15 09:58:31 PM

fusillade762: Popcorn Johnny: This is in no way Obama's fault, the President is only to blame for crap like this when a Republican is in the White House.

I know it's shocking that the president might do something congress has apparently authorized him to do. You'll get over it.


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

Carrier chickens.


Sure, right up to the time they get raped.

/rape
 
2013-06-15 09:58:40 PM
I am strongly against the method by which the politician chose to bring this 'information' to light.  He asked targeted questioning with the intent of trapping the individual under question to respond in a way which enabled their own specific paraphrasing of events.  Until the actual transcript of the classified briefing is released, this is all based on the commentary of a politician, who was 'startled'.

There are many ways to interpret that information, and if someone makes a presentation behind close doors that you personally don't agree with, releasing the information in this fashion gives YOU the ultimate control over how that information is perceived UNTIL such a time as the other parties decide to speak openly about it.  If they have already concluded that they cannot be more open without creating issues, that effectively gives ONE person the power to manipulate the situations perspective in any manner they wish.

Would you put it past a politician to manipulate a situation for personal gain?  I personally wouldn't.
 
2013-06-15 09:58:40 PM
The government is arguing that it's not unconstitutional to collect all the data in the first place, and just let it sit there.

Isn't that the "seizure" part of "no search and seizure"?
 
2013-06-15 09:59:03 PM

BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance


What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this.  What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing?  Has to be some scary shiat.
 
2013-06-15 09:59:04 PM
his bill that would defund President Barack Obama's deferred action program.

How does the program cost money, exactly, that it can be defunded?
 
2013-06-15 09:59:13 PM
Late to the topic but I don't farking care about any privacy breaches.  They can snoopity snoop all they want.  Whatever they find they can use against me.  Yep.  I said it.  And they'd better hurry up.  I have thirty years to live at most.

Come at me motherf&ckers.  The fear is nonexistent.
 
2013-06-15 10:00:11 PM

Ryker's Peninsula: And zeros of people will be prosecuted for this.


are they bankers?
 
2013-06-15 10:00:41 PM

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


Three-eyed ravens.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-06-15 10:01:06 PM

djkutch: And, for the bootlickers mentioned by Nabb1, it starts with the Patriot Act.


Bullshiat.  There is nothing in the Patriot Act that authorizes this.  Absolutely nothing.  This is complete Executive branch overreach and violation of Constitutional rights.  We know this administration is complicit; the relevant question is who started it?
 
2013-06-15 10:01:10 PM

theknuckler_33: his bill that would defund President Barack Obama's deferred action program.

How does the program cost money, exactly, that it can be defunded?


oops/
 
2013-06-15 10:01:26 PM

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.


dl.dropboxusercontent.com

As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government."
 
2013-06-15 10:01:37 PM
Most of the calls started with, "so, what are you wearing?"
 
2013-06-15 10:01:50 PM
Doesn't matter one damn bit. There's nobody, NOBODY who has even a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected that will get rid of this kind of power. The surveillance state took root decades ago, and we're not getting rid of it. Ever,

If you thought Obama would, or think Elizabeth Warren or, RON PAUL, or whoever would...You're a farking idiot.
 
2013-06-15 10:02:18 PM

DeathByGeekSquad: I am strongly against the method by which the politician chose to bring this 'information' to light.  He asked targeted questioning with the intent of trapping the individual under question to respond in a way which enabled their own specific paraphrasing of events.  Until the actual transcript of the classified briefing is released, this is all based on the commentary of a politician, who was 'startled'.

There are many ways to interpret that information, and if someone makes a presentation behind close doors that you personally don't agree with, releasing the information in this fashion gives YOU the ultimate control over how that information is perceived UNTIL such a time as the other parties decide to speak openly about it.  If they have already concluded that they cannot be more open without creating issues, that effectively gives ONE person the power to manipulate the situations perspective in any manner they wish.

Would you put it past a politician to manipulate a situation for personal gain?  I personally wouldn't.


So...whom WOULD you trust for a truthful account of our right to know what happens to OUR data? Given that the NSA, which is stealing it illegally, won't tell us directly.
 
2013-06-15 10:02:52 PM

Mock26: I really cannot figure out why people are so upset by all these activities by the NSA.  Seriously, what is the big deal?  They are NOT interested in your personal information.  They are not trying to catch people breaking the law.  All they care about is Setec Astronomy.  They are just trying to improve our understanding of the stars.  So all you paranoid conspiracy theorists just need to lighten up.


It;s that the information can be misused.  Used against political opponents, journalists, ex-wives, whoever.

Not to mention  foreign nationals are furious. You think the French are happy with PRISM, the Swiss, the Palestinians?
 
2013-06-15 10:02:56 PM
Can we all just agree to get Obama out of the White House now? As well as Boehner, McConnell, Reid, and Pelosi. All of them love this crap and they gotta go. I swear Obama's best friend is Boehner.

assets0.ordienetworks.com
 
2013-06-15 10:03:27 PM

Herb Utsmelz: Late to the topic but I don't farking care about any privacy breaches.  They can snoopity snoop all they want.  Whatever they find they can use against me.  Yep.  I said it.  And they'd better hurry up.  I have thirty years to live at most.

Come at me motherf&ckers.  The fear is nonexistent.


It's not about you.
 
2013-06-15 10:03:58 PM

Herb Utsmelz: Late to the topic but I don't farking care about any privacy breaches.  They can snoopity snoop all they want.  Whatever they find they can use against me.  Yep.  I said it.  And they'd better hurry up.  I have thirty years to live at most.

Come at me motherf&ckers.  The fear is nonexistent.


That's nice for you. The rest of us don't consent, but since you have, I'll direct the authorities to conduct a weekly search of your house. Just to be sure.
 
2013-06-15 10:04:34 PM
Can we just start calling it Minihome now?
 
2013-06-15 10:04:36 PM

Faith Logic Passion: Can we all just agree to get Obama out of the White House now? As well as Boehner, McConnell, Reid, and Pelosi. All of them love this crap and they gotta go. I swear Obama's best friend is Boehner.

[assets0.ordienetworks.com image 274x206]


Sure we can agree.  I'll also say that Gore is on the few Washington people who came out against it.
 
2013-06-15 10:04:47 PM

DeathByGeekSquad: I am strongly against the method by which the politician chose to bring this 'information' to light.  He asked targeted questioning with the intent of trapping the individual under question to respond in a way which enabled their own specific paraphrasing of events.  Until the actual transcript of the classified briefing is released, this is all based on the commentary of a politician, who was 'startled'.

There are many ways to interpret that information, and if someone makes a presentation behind close doors that you personally don't agree with, releasing the information in this fashion gives YOU the ultimate control over how that information is perceived UNTIL such a time as the other parties decide to speak openly about it.  If they have already concluded that they cannot be more open without creating issues, that effectively gives ONE person the power to manipulate the situations perspective in any manner they wish.

Would you put it past a politician to manipulate a situation for personal gain?  I personally wouldn't.


Tough tits.  Nadler is an elected federal official accusing the Executive branch of intentionally violating the Constitutional rights of a massive portion of the country.  It's the entire point of the Legislative branch's oversight powers.
 
2013-06-15 10:04:52 PM

SunsetLament: djkutch: And, for the bootlickers mentioned by Nabb1, it starts with the Patriot Act.

Bullshiat.  There is nothing in the Patriot Act that authorizes this.  Absolutely nothing.  This is complete Executive branch overreach and violation of Constitutional rights.  We know this administration is complicit; the relevant question is who started it?


It's bad, so we just KNOW it's Obama's fault! Despite the same shiat happening long before Obama!

See, this is why, even with legitimate scandals, nobody takes you retards seriously. Instead of saying "It was bad when Republicans did it AND it's bad when Obama does it", you swear up and down that IOKIYAR, and everything negative about the scandal is purely Obama's fault.
 
2013-06-15 10:04:56 PM

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.


Obama signed the Patriot Act into law more times than Bush.  He is as far from innocent as you can get.
 
2013-06-15 10:04:58 PM
You people don't get it.  We NEED this kind of surveillance to protect America from terrorists.

There are sinister people out there, who have infiltrated our society and live among us, pretending to be law-abiding, freedom-loving Americans.

They will not rest until America, land of the free and home of the brave, ceases to exist as we know it.

But enough about the NSA, you should be scared of the terrorists.  BOOGA BOOGA
 
2013-06-15 10:05:43 PM

Cheops: Can we just start calling it Minihome now?


That makes it sound a little more cozy.
 
2013-06-15 10:05:44 PM
*shrug *
 
2013-06-15 10:06:04 PM

OgreMagi: sucking Obama's peener


The obsession continues...
 
2013-06-15 10:06:10 PM
"A requirement of the 2008 law is that the NSA 'may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States.' A possible interpretation of that language, some legal experts said, is that the agency may vacuum up everything it can domestically -- on the theory that indiscriminate data acquisition was not intended to 'target' a specific American citizen. "

Really? The law says not to target any American, so surely they meant that doing it to all Americans is okay? WTF? Clearly that was not the intent of that law.
 
2013-06-15 10:06:29 PM

Lsherm: BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance

What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this.  What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing?  Has to be some scary shiat.


No. He's a politician. He told you what you wanted to hear so he could get your vote.  He never had any intention of keeping his promises.
 
2013-06-15 10:06:45 PM

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


Pheromones?

But more practically, I believe that some places diamond merchants bargain with hand signals performed under a cloth covering.
 
kab
2013-06-15 10:06:51 PM
Land of the free!
 
2013-06-15 10:08:21 PM

OgreMagi: 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.

Obama signed the Patriot Act into law more times than Bush.  He is as far from innocent as you can get.


Again, if you thought ANY Presidential contender, from Ds and Rs all the way down, would get RID of that kind of power, you're deluded. Even moreso if you thought that hypothetical President would get past Congress.

At BEST, they might've symbolically dropped the PATRIOT act, but they'd still do whatever the fark they felt like. And there is precisely DICK any of us can do about it.
 
2013-06-15 10:08:27 PM

Parthenogenetic: You people don't get it.  We NEED this kind of surveillance to protect America from terrorists.

There are sinister people out there, who have infiltrated our society and live among us, pretending to be law-abiding, freedom-loving Americans.

They will not rest until America, land of the free and home of the brave, ceases to exist as we know it.

But enough about the NSA, you should be scared of the terrorists.  BOOGA BOOGA


What's to protect us from government if government is everywhere and all knowing.  All go things come to an end, goverments eventually go corrupt/tyrannical. It's not just about you or us, it's about the future Americans, how will they protect themselves against a tyrant? The constitution is there to protect us from these things.
 
2013-06-15 10:08:33 PM

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


0/10

This started under Bush who was elected by neocon fascist scumbags.

Wait, this started under Echelon and Carnivore...
 
2013-06-15 10:08:42 PM

kab: Land of the free!


Home of the brave!

OMG TERRORISTS!  Please spy on us!  If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!
 
2013-06-15 10:08:43 PM

BullBearMS: 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.

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 641x354]

As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government."


Extension. Again, no pass given to Obama. But, this little gift was given to us under the Bush Administration and a Republican Congress. If you want to discuss it, own its birth.
 
2013-06-15 10:08:46 PM

Faith Logic Passion: Can we all just agree to get Obama out of the White House now? As well as Boehner, McConnell, Reid, and Pelosi. All of them love this crap and they gotta go. I swear Obama's best friend is Boehner.

[assets0.ordienetworks.com image 274x206]


Who the fark are, Rip Van Winkle?  Where were you when Bush started doing this a decade ago?
 
2013-06-15 10:08:48 PM
Occupy Tea Party

Throw the bastards out.
 
2013-06-15 10:08:52 PM

LordJiro: SunsetLament: djkutch: And, for the bootlickers mentioned by Nabb1, it starts with the Patriot Act.

Bullshiat.  There is nothing in the Patriot Act that authorizes this.  Absolutely nothing.  This is complete Executive branch overreach and violation of Constitutional rights.  We know this administration is complicit; the relevant question is who started it?

It's bad, so we just KNOW it's Obama's fault! Despite the same shiat happening long before Obama!

See, this is why, even with legitimate scandals, nobody takes you retards seriously. Instead of saying "It was bad when Republicans did it AND it's bad when Obama does it", you swear up and down that IOKIYAR, and everything negative about the scandal is purely Obama's fault.


We don't know that the Republicans did it, dipshiat.  I'd like to know; that's the entire point of my statement - "the relevant question is who started it?"  For all we know, Bush was following the Patriot Act as written.  It's also very possible that he wasn't.  I want to know the truth; not the liberal "I really really want it to be true, so it is" fan fiction.

However, I know one thing ... it's going on right now and Bush isn't the jerkoff in the oval office.
 
2013-06-15 10:09:18 PM

uber humper: Parthenogenetic: You people don't get it.  We NEED this kind of surveillance to protect America from terrorists.

There are sinister people out there, who have infiltrated our society and live among us, pretending to be law-abiding, freedom-loving Americans.

They will not rest until America, land of the free and home of the brave, ceases to exist as we know it.

But enough about the NSA, you should be scared of the terrorists.  BOOGA BOOGA

What's to protect us from government if government is everywhere and all knowing.  All go things come to an end, goverments eventually go corrupt/tyrannical. It's not just about you or us, it's about the future Americans, how will they protect themselves against a tyrant? The constitution is there to protect us from these things.


Please re-calibrate your sarcasm meter, and read again.  Thank you.
 
2013-06-15 10:09:29 PM

kab: Land of the free!


Home of the brave!!
 
2013-06-15 10:10:09 PM
 
2013-06-15 10:10:42 PM

Parthenogenetic: kab: Land of the free!

Home of the brave!

OMG TERRORISTS!  Please spy on us!  If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!


beat me to it
 
2013-06-15 10:11:00 PM

Faith Logic Passion: Can we all just agree to get Obama out of the White House now? As well as Boehner, McConnell, Reid, and Pelosi. All of them love this crap and they gotta go. I swear Obama's best friend is Boehner.

[assets0.ordienetworks.com image 274x206]


Good luck with that. This whole this started right after 9/11 with the Bush administration, and he was re-elected. Hell, here's the story from 2006 of the NSA having direct access to customer data at an AT&T switching center, but I doubt many has even heard of this even now, and this didn't get Bush in trouble. Bush, Obama, it doesn't matter. Good luck convincing Congress Obama needs to be tossed over this. They are more comfortable trying to get rid of Obama because they think he's from Kenya.

They won't get rid of Obama over this, because Congress would have to admit they are just as guilty of letting the NSA have their way.
 
2013-06-15 10:11:03 PM

Parthenogenetic: uber humper: Parthenogenetic: You people don't get it.  We NEED this kind of surveillance to protect America from terrorists.

There are sinister people out there, who have infiltrated our society and live among us, pretending to be law-abiding, freedom-loving Americans.

They will not rest until America, land of the free and home of the brave, ceases to exist as we know it.

But enough about the NSA, you should be scared of the terrorists.  BOOGA BOOGA

What's to protect us from government if government is everywhere and all knowing.  All go things come to an end, goverments eventually go corrupt/tyrannical. It's not just about you or us, it's about the future Americans, how will they protect themselves against a tyrant? The constitution is there to protect us from these things.

Please re-calibrate your sarcasm meter, and read again.  Thank you.


It's hard to tell with this crowd.
 
2013-06-15 10:11:12 PM

LordJiro: And there is precisely DICK any of us can do about it.


Not true. There is plenty that can be done. If you mean "there's no one to vote for", that is true, but voting does not actually qualify as "doing anything".
 
2013-06-15 10:11:26 PM

Wolfman Johnny: Why can someone go to a secret Congressional briefing and then tell us what went on without having to hide in Iceland?


Because a Congressman just wedged a boot up someone's ass:

Rep. Nadler's disclosure that NSA analysts can listen to calls without court orders came during a House Judiciary hearing on Thursday that included FBI director Robert Mueller as a witness.

Mueller initially sought to downplay concerns about NSA surveillance by claiming that, to listen to a phone call, the government would need to seek "a special, a particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual."

Is information about that procedure "classified in any way?" Nadler asked.

"I don't think so,"
Mueller replied.

"Then I can say the following," Nadler said. "We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that...In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there's a conflict."
 
2013-06-15 10:11:47 PM

Corn_Fed: If Nadler is revealing this info, from a classifed briefing, is he breaking any law? Is he legally able to disclose this?


He's on a plane to Hong Kong right now. This will end well.
 
2013-06-15 10:12:20 PM
Reminds me, I wanted to see what this whole 'facebook' thing is about

/Eh, maybe later
 
2013-06-15 10:12:52 PM

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


All of the new ones are legally required (at least in the US) to allow snooping by law enforcement. Of course, if you encrypt your communication, then all they know is who you talked to.
 
2013-06-15 10:13:02 PM

Corn_Fed: DeathByGeekSquad: I am strongly against the method by which the politician chose to bring this 'information' to light.  He asked targeted questioning with the intent of trapping the individual under question to respond in a way which enabled their own specific paraphrasing of events.  Until the actual transcript of the classified briefing is released, this is all based on the commentary of a politician, who was 'startled'.

There are many ways to interpret that information, and if someone makes a presentation behind close doors that you personally don't agree with, releasing the information in this fashion gives YOU the ultimate control over how that information is perceived UNTIL such a time as the other parties decide to speak openly about it.  If they have already concluded that they cannot be more open without creating issues, that effectively gives ONE person the power to manipulate the situations perspective in any manner they wish.

Would you put it past a politician to manipulate a situation for personal gain?  I personally wouldn't.

So...whom WOULD you trust for a truthful account of our right to know what happens to OUR data? Given that the NSA, which is stealing it illegally, won't tell us directly.


I'd trust the actual disclosure of legitimate information, not the second-hand paraphrasing of a career schmoozer.  I would hope that others would see past the emotional appeals being made and request actual information on the topic rather than be entirely too blinded to see the probability based phrasing used in the story.

Step #1:  Paraphrase with your bias
Step #2:  Wait for media to bring in the 'experts' to give credit to your paraphrased bias as if it were fact and spin it into various alternative perspectives
Step #3:  Watch as your paraphrased commentary become accepted as the new facts in light of the actual facts being classified/secret
 
2013-06-15 10:13:18 PM
Can we please stop pretending that this is an R vs D issue?  It is a Constitution vs corrupt bastards running this country issue.  It is way past time to stand up for our Constitution.  It's probably too late.  We are sheep.
 
2013-06-15 10:13:22 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Popcorn Johnny: This is in no way Obama's fault, the President is only to blame for crap like this when a Republican is in the White House.

This is only Obama's fault, the President is only to blame for crap like this when a Democrat is in the White House herp herp derp HERP DERP HERP DERPDERPDERP!

Dumbass.


Yeah, Bush should totally pull rank on Obama on this.
 
2013-06-15 10:13:25 PM

omg bbq: Oh gee, well if they take it to their heart every day then I guess you should just carry on.


Think they may have employed this guy:

www.the-stockyard.com
 
2013-06-15 10:13:49 PM

EVERYBODY PANIC: Corn_Fed: If Nadler is revealing this info, from a classifed briefing, is he breaking any law? Is he legally able to disclose this?

He's on a plane to Hong Kong right now. This will end well.


Wasn't he just calling Obama the "The biggest con man," or something to that effect?
 
2013-06-15 10:14:00 PM

OgreMagi: Lsherm: BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance

What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this.  What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing?  Has to be some scary shiat.

No. He's a politician. He told you what you wanted to hear so he could get your vote.  He never had any intention of keeping his promises.


I'm pretty sure I've flamed you in a partisan way, and that I strongly disagree with a lot of your political stances, but I just wanted to say

www.makegooglemyhomepage.info
 
2013-06-15 10:14:51 PM
Obviously there is a role for the NSA or some intelligence gathering organization in the debate about national security.  However, the picture being painted is not what makes a "free society" and when an analyst can just decide to listen in on a call without someone being held accountable, things have gone entirely too far.

The NSA predates both Presidents Bush and Obama and those that choose to focus the debate on either of these gentlemen are hijacking the debate and ensuring that the current abuses continue.

IMO, the annual Congressional August "work period" should be cancelled.  The Patriot Act should be repealed and replaced by a very minimal-basic National Security Act.  During the August session, members of the House and Senate would have 10 days to introduce provisions to add to the National Security Act which would be available online for everyone to have access to read.  The last 15 days of the month would be dedicated to debate each individual provision-no amendments allowed.  This way each member would be on record for each vote they take, no hiding behind multiple provisions to explain a bad one getting through to be part of the new law.
 
2013-06-15 10:14:54 PM

0x1a4: Can we please stop pretending that this is an R vs D issue?  It is a Constitution civil and human rights vs corrupt bastards running this country issue.  It is way past time to stand up for our Constitution civil and human rights.  It's probably too late.  We are sheep.


Step 0: Stop fetishizing government.
 
2013-06-15 10:14:57 PM

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


Talking someplace private
 
2013-06-15 10:15:28 PM

SunsetLament: DeathByGeekSquad: I am strongly against the method by which the politician chose to bring this 'information' to light.  He asked targeted questioning with the intent of trapping the individual under question to respond in a way which enabled their own specific paraphrasing of events.  Until the actual transcript of the classified briefing is released, this is all based on the commentary of a politician, who was 'startled'.

There are many ways to interpret that information, and if someone makes a presentation behind close doors that you personally don't agree with, releasing the information in this fashion gives YOU the ultimate control over how that information is perceived UNTIL such a time as the other parties decide to speak openly about it.  If they have already concluded that they cannot be more open without creating issues, that effectively gives ONE person the power to manipulate the situations perspective in any manner they wish.

Would you put it past a politician to manipulate a situation for personal gain?  I personally wouldn't.

Tough tits.  Nadler is an elected federal official accusing the Executive branch of intentionally violating the Constitutional rights of a massive portion of the country.  It's the entire point of the Legislative branch's oversight powers.


If he were doing that, he would be going about it in an entirely different fashion, not bringing it up during an Oversight Hearing concerning the FBI.  He required Mueller as bait, and used his response as a soapbox.  Why would someone with authority, armed with facts, be forced to go about it in such a fashion?
 
2013-06-15 10:15:59 PM

Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.


Upset?  Yeah, but what makes anybody think that the President could've said "End it." and it would've?
 
2013-06-15 10:16:06 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Mock26: I really cannot figure out why people are so upset by all these activities by the NSA.  Seriously, what is the big deal?  They are NOT interested in your personal information.  They are not trying to catch people breaking the law.  All they care about is Setec Astronomy.  They are just trying to improve our understanding of the stars.  So all you paranoid conspiracy theorists just need to lighten up.

Would you mind terribly if every so often, while you were away from your home, that the local police used their personal copy of your house key to enter your house, do a quick look-see to see if you were growing any pot plants, and then left without touching anything?


If it was all just part of a movie then I would have absolutely no problem with it.
 
2013-06-15 10:16:18 PM
Here's the exchange the article is based on:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4456141
 
2013-06-15 10:16:37 PM

OgreMagi: Lsherm: BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance

What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this.  What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing?  Has to be some scary shiat.

No. He's a politician. He told you what you wanted to hear so he could get your vote.  He never had any intention of keeping his promises.


This

Lying politician is lying

Remember when he claimed the Bush tax cuts for the rich "offended his conscious"?

He was sure willing to fight like hell for them when they finally expired.

Twice.

The second time, he made them permanent.

/IF WE LET THEM EXPIRE IT'S THE FISCAL CLIFF!!!!11!
 
2013-06-15 10:16:58 PM

Popcorn Johnny: This is in no way Obama's fault


For once you're absolutely correct. Note the date on the article.

That being said although he didn't start it, Obushma needs to be the one that ends it.
 
2013-06-15 10:16:58 PM
Well now we are starting to have to eat the shiat sandwich that both progressives and hard right paranoids have made for all of us to eat up. Hard right used fear and progressives used the promises of "equality" and "fairness" and here we are. Two sides of the same messed up totalitarian coin. Now we just need a Nixon or JFK to get in office and the full power of the totalitarian infrastructure will be wielded. Thanks a lot guys. I fear for the country we have left our children.
 
2013-06-15 10:17:17 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: LordJiro: And there is precisely DICK any of us can do about it.

Not true. There is plenty that can be done. If you mean "there's no one to vote for", that is true, but voting does not actually qualify as "doing anything".


What do you suggest?
 
2013-06-15 10:17:18 PM

BullBearMS: SunsetLament: There is nothing in the Patriot Act that authorizes this. Absolutely nothing. This is complete Executive branch overreach and violation of Constitutional rights.

This.

Nothing in the Patriot Act, or in the rewritten FISA law allows them to wiretap Americans without getting a warrant.

Obama has created a secret interpretation of the law and kept it from the American people.

Just as Bush had a secret interpretation of the law that he claimed would allow torture.

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.

On Thursday, two of those senators - Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado - went further. They said a top-secret intelligence operation that is based on that secret legal theory is not as crucial to national security as executive branch officials have maintained.

The senators, who also said that Americans would be "stunned" to know what the government thought the Patriot Act allowed it to do


Thanks for being on the Democrats side.
 
2013-06-15 10:18:56 PM
Didn't this get shut down in 2007?
If it really is still on again, we need to get a little vocal...
 
2013-06-15 10:19:07 PM
On a related note, I really, really hope there are a few indictments for lying to Congress coming down soon. Mueller for that little exchange, the Director of the NSA for that bit a while ago when he said, under oath, that the NSA was not collecting data in Americans. I think that one was in response to a direct question from Wyden very obviously targeted at the programs that are now public.
 
2013-06-15 10:19:51 PM

Herb Utsmelz: Late to the topic but I don't farking care about any privacy breaches.  They can snoopity snoop all they want.  Whatever they find they can use against me.  Yep.  I said it.  And they'd better hurry up.  I have thirty years to live at most.

Come at me motherf&ckers.  The fear is nonexistent.


The mindset of one who does not care about the safety and security of others?

Hey guy, it isn't just about you and your life. Folks should respect the privacy of others, and a good government would do the same.

This is not what a good government would do, and no, it isn't really about partisan parties. It's actually about bad people abusing power entrusted to them by good people. What is happening here is wrong. It's gone on for decades and it is wrong no matter who authorizes it, and as importantly, by who allows it.
 
2013-06-15 10:20:21 PM

walkingtall: Well now we are starting to have to eat the shiat sandwich that both progressives and hard right paranoids have made for all of us to eat up. Hard right used fear and progressives used the promises of "equality" and "fairness" and here we are. Two sides of the same messed up totalitarian coin. Now we just need a Nixon or JFK to get in office and the full power of the totalitarian infrastructure will be wielded. Thanks a lot guys. I fear for the country we have left our children.


There hasn't been a progressive in office for decades. Democrats are center-right authoritarians, while Republicans are extreme-right authoritarians. Just because Fox says every Democrat is the most liberal lib EVAR doesn't make it true.
 
2013-06-15 10:20:26 PM

uber humper: Mock26: I really cannot figure out why people are so upset by all these activities by the NSA.  Seriously, what is the big deal?  They are NOT interested in your personal information.  They are not trying to catch people breaking the law.  All they care about is Setec Astronomy.  They are just trying to improve our understanding of the stars.  So all you paranoid conspiracy theorists just need to lighten up.

It;s that the information can be misused.  Used against political opponents, journalists, ex-wives, whoever.

Not to mention  foreign nationals are furious. You think the French are happy with PRISM, the Swiss, the Palestinians?


Misused?  Never.  Robert Redford, Sidney Poitier, Dan Aykroyd, River Phoenix, and David Strathairn made sure of that.
 
2013-06-15 10:20:39 PM

uber humper: Herb Utsmelz: Late to the topic but I don't farking care about any privacy breaches.  They can snoopity snoop all they want.  Whatever they find they can use against me.  Yep.  I said it.  And they'd better hurry up.  I have thirty years to live at most.

Come at me motherf&ckers.  The fear is nonexistent.

It's not about you.


Corn_Fed: Herb Utsmelz: Late to the topic but I don't farking care about any privacy breaches.  They can snoopity snoop all they want.  Whatever they find they can use against me.  Yep.  I said it.  And they'd better hurry up.  I have thirty years to live at most.

Come at me motherf&ckers.  The fear is nonexistent.

That's nice for you. The rest of us don't consent, but since you have, I'll direct the authorities to conduct a weekly search of your house. Just to be sure.


You two are darling.
 
2013-06-15 10:21:05 PM
www.paranormalpeopleonline.com i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-15 10:23:24 PM

EVERYBODY PANIC: Herb Utsmelz: Late to the topic but I don't farking care about any privacy breaches.  They can snoopity snoop all they want.  Whatever they find they can use against me.  Yep.  I said it.  And they'd better hurry up.  I have thirty years to live at most.

Come at me motherf&ckers.  The fear is nonexistent.

The mindset of one who does not care about the safety and security of others?

Hey guy, it isn't just about you and your life. Folks should respect the privacy of others, and a good government would do the same.

This is not what a good government would do, and no, it isn't really about partisan parties. It's actually about bad people abusing power entrusted to them by good people. What is happening here is wrong. It's gone on for decades and it is wrong no matter who authorizes it, and as importantly, by who allows it.


Go ahead.  Whip yourself into a froth.  When it's over, the government will do what it wants and I'll be calm.
 
2013-06-15 10:23:57 PM
I hope they hire a 50 million more low level analysts so that every phone call can be monitored in real time.  Maybe then I will finally stop pissing my pants in fear of a terror attack.  I mean, it's not like I have better chance of slipping when I get out of the shower every morning and bleeding out on the floor.
 
2013-06-15 10:24:03 PM

blacksho89: "Nobody's listening to your phone calls."


President Obama said exactly that on June 7.  Let's see the White House explain how that wasn't a flat-out lie.
 
2013-06-15 10:24:52 PM

djkutch: BullBearMS: SunsetLament: There is nothing in the Patriot Act that authorizes this. Absolutely nothing. This is complete Executive branch overreach and violation of Constitutional rights.

This.

Nothing in the Patriot Act, or in the rewritten FISA law allows them to wiretap Americans without getting a warrant.

Obama has created a secret interpretation of the law and kept it from the American people.

Just as Bush had a secret interpretation of the law that he claimed would allow torture.

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.

On Thursday, two of those senators - Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado - went further. They said a top-secret intelligence operation that is based on that secret legal theory is not as crucial to national security as executive branch officials have maintained.

The senators, who also said that Americans would be "stunned" to know what the government thought the Patriot Act allowed it to do

Thanks for being on the Democrats side.


Aside from the libertarians, it's extremely difficult to find anyone on the right in Congress even willing to criticize this. Much less call it blatantly unconstitutional as Senator Gore has done.

The author of the Patriot Act did come forward to say that nothing in the Patriot Act authorizes warrantless spying.
 
2013-06-15 10:25:23 PM
To: Mom
CC: Drew Curtis
BCC: NSA

My poop was brown and firm today, both times.  My a** is recovering nicely from the rough toilet paper incident from last week and I hope to finish my  Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator in the next couple days, at which time I will blow up the earth.
 
2013-06-15 10:25:38 PM

Herb Utsmelz: the government will do what it wants


We started this joint on a simple premise.  "We, the government, the people".  We.  Us.  We say what goes and you mooks clock in nd relay the message.  Guess what happened.
 
2013-06-15 10:25:47 PM

jpo2269: However, the picture being painted is not what makes a "free society" and when an analyst can just decide to listen in on a call without someone being held accountable, things have gone entirely too far.


Unfortunately this is how things are done all over the place. When I was a consultant, almost every large company or government agency I worked for had their databases wide open. In some cases there were a few restrictions in place on which employees could access the databases directly but anyone with database access was able to get into almost anything. I can think of only two exceptions: one was a law firm that kept a small amount of information about current cases tightly controlled (though we did find an unencrypted Access database on the webserver full of credit card numbers in a public directory) and the headquarters of Home Depot, which kept data locked down pretty well. Almost everyone else was wide open internally. A few made me sign an NDA but I'm sure most would rather I simply not have access to their medical files in the first place. Rarely did I not have access to tons of databases filled with things totally unrelated to what I was working on. Digital information security in general is a joke.
 
2013-06-15 10:25:51 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: 0x1a4: Can we please stop pretending that this is an R vs D issue?  It is a Constitution civil and human rights vs corrupt bastards running this country issue.  It is way past time to stand up for our Constitution civil and human rights.  It's probably too late.  We are sheep.

Step 0: Stop fetishizing government.


Isn't the Constitution about civil and human rights?  Particularly the Bill of Rights?  The Constitution outlined what the government COULD do, the Bill of Rights was what they COULD NOT do.  Civil and human rights were very much intended.  I don't disagree that is what it's about.  I am pointing to the defining document of this country where it defines those very things.  Trust me, I am far from any 'fetishing' of our government.
 
2013-06-15 10:25:55 PM

LordJiro: There hasn't been a progressive in office for decades. Democrats are center-right authoritarians, while Republicans are extreme-right authoritarians. Just because Fox says every Democrat is the most liberal lib EVAR doesn't make it true.


Bullcrap. There is nothing center right about the current platforms and policies of the Democrats. You simply claim they are center right because as most extreme progressives the Democrats don't go far enough. It is all about power. The far left wants it for their agenda. The far right wants it for their agenda. That much power concentrated in govt is always bad. Has never been and never will be good. It has to stop.
 
2013-06-15 10:26:41 PM
 
2013-06-15 10:27:13 PM

bunner: you mooks clock in nd relay the message


I understand, but WHUT
 
2013-06-15 10:27:22 PM
Well, I guess there's nothing left for anyone to do except play their saxophone.

criticalmassesmedia.com
 
2013-06-15 10:27:33 PM

bunner: Herb Utsmelz: the government will do what it wants

We started this joint on a simple premise.  "We, the government, the people".  We.  Us.  We say what goes and you mooks clock in nd relay the message.  Guess what happened.


He gets of on pulling your chain
 
2013-06-15 10:27:45 PM
So they have their hands on all of our data... all of it.  They can see who we're calling and when, and now we know for sure that they can even listen in to our phone calls and access our emails and text messages all without our knowing, oh and by the way, they can save it all for later just in case.  The President is on board with this, Congress is on board with this, and the secret courts have OK'd this.  Even if we could sue in the public federal courts (where there's no guarantee that we would have standing) both W and Obama approved civil and criminal immunity.

Good lord we're screwed.
 
2013-06-15 10:28:45 PM
I'm actually kind of surprised that there are still people that act surprised when this stuff gets public... but I guess I shouldn't be.

People on both sides of the political spectrum are still just ignorant as shiat.
 
2013-06-15 10:29:24 PM

uber humper: He gets of on pulling your chain


It's fark.  Nothing anyone says here matters.
 
2013-06-15 10:29:39 PM

djkutch: Thanks for being on the Democrats side.


There aren't any democrats, there aren't any republicans, there are no liberals or conservatives.

Stop that.

It's silly.

There's the sock puppet on this hand and the sock puppet on that hand and that's IT.  Stop being a sucker.
 
2013-06-15 10:29:39 PM

shut_it_down: So they have their hands on all of our data... all of it.  They can see who we're calling and when, and now we know for sure that they can even listen in to our phone calls and access our emails and text messages all without our knowing, oh and by the way, they can save it all for later just in case.  The President is on board with this, Congress is on board with this, and the secret courts have OK'd this.  Even if we could sue in the public federal courts (where there's no guarantee that we would have standing) both W and Obama approved civil and criminal immunity.

Good lord we're screwed.


Nope. We live in a democracy where this can come to light and be criticized in the open. It can be fixed
 
2013-06-15 10:31:14 PM

Herb Utsmelz: uber humper: He gets of on pulling your chain

It's fark.  Nothing anyone says here matters.


And here I was thinking that I could get you to pull my chain, and you pull this cold, sweating palm bullshiat
 
2013-06-15 10:31:39 PM
"This guy sure likes porno!"
 
2013-06-15 10:31:50 PM
VOTE REPUBLICAN
so NSA wiretapping can go back to not being a scandal!
 
2013-06-15 10:32:03 PM

uber humper: He gets of on pulling your chain


Yeah, yank, yank, ow.  woo.
 
2013-06-15 10:32:42 PM

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


Yes, in Klingon Sign Language deep in a cave with no lights, but even then you have to do it slowly, otherwise the subtle air currents created by your gestures may be picked up by sensors from the spy satellites overhead.
 
2013-06-15 10:33:18 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Pro-tip to the teahadists: most liberals are angry at Obama over this, just as we were angry at Bush. For those of you who are only now "outraged" about this since a brown guy is in the White House, and didn't give a f*ck when this entire program began under Bush because "MURKA!!!", sorry, you have no right to an opinion. Eat a bag of dicks.


This type of activity didn't begin under Bush.

/google Echelon
 
2013-06-15 10:33:39 PM

Herb Utsmelz: Nothing anyone says here matters.


Said the man posting over and over.  I hope you got more of this drivel cause it's a pretty slow day, here.   :  )
 
2013-06-15 10:34:17 PM
So who's going to jail? My bet is on a congressman that leaked information from a classified briefing.

/has another Victory Gin
 
2013-06-15 10:34:49 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: VOTE REPUBLICAN  No.

 
2013-06-15 10:36:22 PM

bunner: Herb Utsmelz: Nothing anyone says here matters.

Said the man posting over and over.  I hope you got more of this drivel cause it's a pretty slow day, here.   :  )


Just bored.  This may be the final one before knapsack time.  Thanks everybody. ;-)
 
2013-06-15 10:37:28 PM

Herb Utsmelz: bunner: Herb Utsmelz: Nothing anyone says here matters.

Said the man posting over and over.  I hope you got more of this drivel cause it's a pretty slow day, here.   :  )

Just bored.  This may be the final one before knapsack time.  Thanks everybody. ;-)


Buenas Snowshoes
 
2013-06-15 10:37:30 PM
Let me repeat.  VOTE THIRD PARTY.  I don't care which third party.  Just stop farking voting for democrats and republicans.

And for you idiots who say, "Oh, noes! That would destroy our entire political system."  YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT IT WOULD.  That's called a feature.  Causing a complete collapse of the existing political process is a damn sight better than armed insurrection.
 
2013-06-15 10:37:52 PM
So what arse hole leaked this info from a classified hearing?
 
2013-06-15 10:38:42 PM

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


That's odd.

The Democrats, including our President, were all very clear that it was a scandal under Bush.

Strangely, the vast majority of them stopped thinking so as soon as Obama was the one doing it.

Thankfully we still have Issa, Wyden, Gore and the like to keep them the party from looking like total farkwits.

Their just mostly farkwits.
 
2013-06-15 10:39:33 PM

Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.


For the uninitiated, this is called, "Poisoning the Well."
 
2013-06-15 10:39:51 PM

OgreMagi: Let me repeat.  VOTE THIRD PARTY.  I don't care which third party.  Just stop farking voting for democrats and republicans.

And for you idiots who say, "Oh, noes! That would destroy our entire political system."  YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT IT WOULD.  That's called a feature.  Causing a complete collapse of the existing political process is a damn sight better than armed insurrection.


Looks like we got us a reader, boys.
 
2013-06-15 10:40:10 PM

Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.


Just start cc'ing publ­i­caff­airs­[nospam-﹫-backwards]asn­*g­ov on all your emails, it saves them the trouble of getting them from your provider.
 
2013-06-15 10:40:13 PM

shut_it_down: So they have their hands on all of our data... all of it.  They can see who we're calling and when, and now we know for sure that they can even listen in to our phone calls and access our emails and text messages all without our knowing, oh and by the way, they can save it all for later just in case.  The President is on board with this, Congress is on board with this, and the secret courts have OK'd this.  Even if we could sue in the public federal courts (where there's no guarantee that we would have standing) both W and Obama approved civil and criminal immunity.

Good lord we're screwed.


Nah.  The important thing here is that Presidents of both major political parties presided over this.  OBAMA DID IT! BUSH DID IT! OBAMA DID IT! BUSH DID IT! RABBIT SEASON! DUCK SEASON!

Everyone can be outraged that the other guy did it, while asserting that their guy can be trusted to use these powers responsibly.

Politicians can exploit some outrage, PAC scammers can solicit funds to stop the other guys from wiretapping, and while we fight over politics the national security apparatus, which persists no matter which political party is in charge and is accountable to no voter, will continue to merrily go about its business, awaiting the firm hand of a leader with the will and audacity to use it to its full extent.
 
2013-06-15 10:40:39 PM

BullBearMS: Strangely, the vast majority of them stopped thinking so as soon as Obama was the one doing it.


Actually early on in his administration Obama put a stop to certain non-warranted NSA activities.
 
2013-06-15 10:40:56 PM
"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."
   - Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, 1999
 
2013-06-15 10:40:57 PM

bunner: Lee Jackson Beauregard: VOTE REPUBLICAN  No.


How?  By voting libertarian?  I've been doing that for a couple decades.  The R's and D's lie about it to get elected, and then make excuses for supporting it.  The D's get pissed when the R's do it.  The R's get pissed when the D's do it.  But when it comes down to it, our elected officials all vote to keep their power.   What do you define as a 'No' vote?  Not voting at all?
 
2013-06-15 10:42:25 PM

blacksho89: "Nobody's listening to your phone calls."


THIS.  Keep farking that chicken, obama.  glad gitmo is closed.  good job putting all of those monsanto folks in governmental power, too.  It is pretty interesting to see how well somebody lies pandering to good ideas only to get elected and switch to lies to cover up how farked up this country is.
 
2013-06-15 10:42:26 PM

findthefish: So what arse hole some patriot leaked this info from a classified hearing? remembered that the oath of office is to defend and protect the Constitution.

 
2013-06-15 10:43:09 PM

feckingmorons: Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.

Just start cc'ing publicaffairs

img.fark.netnsa.gov on all your emails, it saves them the trouble of getting them from your provider.

It would be hilarious if a large number of people started doing that, as a protest.
 
2013-06-15 10:43:12 PM

0x1a4: What do you define as a 'No' vote?  Not voting at all?


How about 70% of the population just writes in "Jesus of Nazareth" and see if he shows up?  Even if he doesn't, it'd be better than this.
 
2013-06-15 10:43:42 PM

bunner: OgreMagi: Let me repeat.  VOTE THIRD PARTY.  I don't care which third party.  Just stop farking voting for democrats and republicans.

And for you idiots who say, "Oh, noes! That would destroy our entire political system."  YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT IT WOULD.  That's called a feature.  Causing a complete collapse of the existing political process is a damn sight better than armed insurrection.

Looks like we got us a reader, boys.


dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-06-15 10:44:12 PM
Bu-bu-but Bush!

LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!!!!

jamiedubs.com

/Bush isn't President, you farking retards
//Do everyone a favor and kill yourselves
 
2013-06-15 10:44:47 PM

bunner: 0x1a4: What do you define as a 'No' vote?  Not voting at all?

How about 70% of the population just writes in "Jesus of Nazareth" and see if he shows up?  Even if he doesn't, it'd be better than this.


Well, I'll go with he ain't gonna show.  But yeah, I agree it would still be better!
 
2013-06-15 10:45:34 PM
I already gave my permission to listen, anybody else???
 
2013-06-15 10:45:59 PM

Nabb1:

I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.

Yeah...  SOMEONE (not me) should check the day-old thread bin to see who was justifying this fascism on the basis that "only metadata was collected, and that's legal."
 
2013-06-15 10:46:28 PM

0x1a4: bunner: 0x1a4: What do you define as a 'No' vote?  Not voting at all?

How about 70% of the population just writes in "Jesus of Nazareth" and see if he shows up?  Even if he doesn't, it'd be better than this.

Well, I'll go with he ain't gonna show.  But yeah, I agree it would still be better!


What are you talking about. Jesus is always on time. 9 am every Sunday. Then by noon he's done with the yard and roses.
 
2013-06-15 10:46:28 PM
We all have every reason to be upset.  The sad thing is I doubt any of us are really surprised.  Wouldn't you be more surprised to find out the NSA didn't have this capability?
 
2013-06-15 10:46:29 PM

BullBearMS: djkutch: BullBearMS: SunsetLament: There is nothing in the Patriot Act that authorizes this. Absolutely nothing. This is complete Executive branch overreach and violation of Constitutional rights.

This.

Nothing in the Patriot Act, or in the rewritten FISA law allows them to wiretap Americans without getting a warrant.

Obama has created a secret interpretation of the law and kept it from the American people.

Just as Bush had a secret interpretation of the law that he claimed would allow torture.

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.

On Thursday, two of those senators - Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado - went further. They said a top-secret intelligence operation that is based on that secret legal theory is not as crucial to national security as executive branch officials have maintained.

The senators, who also said that Americans would be "stunned" to know what the government thought the Patriot Act allowed it to do

Thanks for being on the Democrats side.

Aside from the libertarians, it's extremely difficult to find anyone on the right in Congress even willing to criticize this. Much less call it blatantly unconstitutional as Senator Gore has done.

The author of the Patriot Act did come forward to say that nothing in the Patriot Act authorizes warrantless spying.


Cripes, even AL FRANKEN defended this! WTF??? I mean, are we actually surrounded by people that are SO bent on our destruction that we have to - ah, fark it, I can't even imagine a scenario that would justify this...
 
2013-06-15 10:46:35 PM

pinktaco4lunch: Surprised?


nope
 
2013-06-15 10:46:49 PM

OgreMagi: Let me repeat.  VOTE THIRD PARTY.  I don't care which third party.  Just stop farking voting for democrats and republicans.

And for you idiots who say, "Oh, noes! That would destroy our entire political system."  YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT IT WOULD.  That's called a feature.  Causing a complete collapse of the existing political process is a damn sight better than armed insurrection.


No, the issue, and why everybody with a even the slightest understanding of how this stuff works thinks you're in idiot, is that it wouldn't do a damned thing to our political system. Voting for a third party wastes your vote, nothing else. It does not make a statement- the people you would be trying to make a statement to do not pay attention or care. the only thing it can ever do is increase the odds of the major party candidate you would find to be the most distasteful.

Put your energy into major party primaries and fermenting public debate. What issues we're talking about and how we're talking about them matters.
 
2013-06-15 10:47:03 PM
Hbo newsroom had episode about this... The NSA dude killed himself in the episode.
 
2013-06-15 10:47:19 PM

WhyteRaven74: BullBearMS: Strangely, the vast majority of them stopped thinking so as soon as Obama was the one doing it.

Actually early on in his administration Obama put a stop to certain non-warranted NSA activities.


Apparently not.
 
2013-06-15 10:47:49 PM
You know what metadata is without the accompanying content?  A DNA sample with nothing to match it to.  The collect all of it or  they're dense as dirt.
 
2013-06-15 10:47:52 PM
Headline about 50 years late.   BWahahahahahahaha!!!!!
 
2013-06-15 10:48:33 PM

WhyteRaven74: BullBearMS: Strangely, the vast majority of them stopped thinking so as soon as Obama was the one doing it.

Actually early on in his administration Obama put a stop to certain non-warranted NSA activities.


Apparently not, since he came up with a secret interpretation of the law allowing the NSA to wiretap everyone without a warrant.
 
2013-06-15 10:48:57 PM

cptjeff: you're in an idiot,


What an excellent phrase for a typo.
 
2013-06-15 10:49:28 PM
Obama didn't start it, so fark the fourth amendment.
 
2013-06-15 10:50:05 PM
The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

fark you! And tomorrow's 'acknowledgement' will be that they record ALL CALLS, domestic and foreign. Keep those shoes dropping, you farks.
 
2013-06-15 10:50:20 PM

LordJiro: A Dark Evil Omen: LordJiro: And there is precisely DICK any of us can do about it.

Not true. There is plenty that can be done. If you mean "there's no one to vote for", that is true, but voting does not actually qualify as "doing anything".

What do you suggest?


Withdraw support for the capitalist state as much as possible. Trade or share instead of purchasing things, when you can. Pay cash when you can, buy and sell under the counter when you can. Try to work with co-ops and labor unions; keep the decisions, information and money associated with your work local. Any way you can make money not go into the government or capitalist structures, do it.

No, it doesn't immediately dismantle the national security state, but it does take some of your information out and helps undermine all of the structures that enable and create it. It will take a lot of people withdrawing support for the systems to start failing, but every person who starts making the effort... well, that's one step closer.
 
2013-06-15 10:50:38 PM

0x1a4: How?  By voting libertarian?  I've been doing that for a couple decades.  The R's and D's lie about it to get elected, and then make excuses for supporting it.  The D's get pissed when the R's do it.  The R's get pissed when the D's do it.  But when it comes down to it, our elected officials all vote to keep their power.   What do you define as a 'No' vote?  Not voting at all?


The solution might be in voting for non-establishment candidates within the Republican or Democratic party. Before the primaries, there are usually one or two candidates that the party leadership has deemed the "real" candidate(s), and everybody else is fringe. Start supporting these "insurgent" candidates in the major parties if you agree with them.
 
2013-06-15 10:51:00 PM
uber humper:
What are you talking about. Jesus is always on time. 9 am every Sunday. Then by noon he's done with the yard and roses.

But illegal aliens aren't allowed to have an opinion.  Sub-humans, yadda yadda..
 
2013-06-15 10:51:46 PM

bunner: You know what metadata is without the accompanying content?  A DNA sample with nothing to match it to.  The collect all of it or  they're dense as dirt.


This thread isn't about metadata. What are you talking about?
 
2013-06-15 10:51:51 PM

cptjeff: OgreMagi: Let me repeat.  VOTE THIRD PARTY.  I don't care which third party.  Just stop farking voting for democrats and republicans.

And for you idiots who say, "Oh, noes! That would destroy our entire political system."  YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT IT WOULD.  That's called a feature.  Causing a complete collapse of the existing political process is a damn sight better than armed insurrection.

No, the issue, and why everybody with a even the slightest understanding of how this stuff works thinks you're in idiot, is that it wouldn't do a damned thing to our political system. Voting for a third party wastes your vote, nothing else. It does not make a statement- the people you would be trying to make a statement to do not pay attention or care. the only thing it can ever do is increase the odds of the major party candidate you would find to be the most distasteful.

Put your energy into major party primaries and fermenting public debate. What issues we're talking about and how we're talking about them matters.


Standard sock puppet answer.  It will waste your vote, so you must vote for a republican/democrat.

No, it doesn't farking waste my vote.  There is no chance in hell I will ever again vote for a democrat or republican.  Because voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.  I will vote my conscious and not care if it swings to vote for some criminal with a D or R after his name, because it doesn't farking matter which one wins.  You get the same result.

Look at how things were done under Bush.  Compare them to how things are now being done under Obama.  Do you see a difference?  No, you don't.  Because they both work for the same farking party.  The "we have the power so fark the people" party.

You are part of the problem.  You help perpetuate the lie that a third party vote is a waste and a bad thing.  You've been brainwashed into believing that shiat and you help pass along "the one true message."  People like you are pathetic tools.
 
2013-06-15 10:51:55 PM
Imagine the outrage if a Republican was in office. That's why you should vote Republican. Nixon got shiatcanned for bugging an office.
 
2013-06-15 10:51:59 PM

Daraymann: Obama didn't start it, so fark the fourth amendment.


Neither did Bush, for the record.  Go back about 50 years.
 
2013-06-15 10:52:27 PM
"I don't feel like I'm being bent over the sink."

"You feel that?  That?  There?  That's you being bent over the sink and boned up the bottom."

"It feels normal."

"They sort of count on that."
 
2013-06-15 10:52:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984:

Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.

I ain't gonna be one of 'em.


chan.catiewayne.com
 
2013-06-15 10:52:45 PM

Evil High Priest: The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

fark you! And tomorrow's 'acknowledgement' will be that they record ALL CALLS, domestic and foreign. Keep those shoes dropping, you farks.


You're right, every few days it get's worse and worse.  But at least we're getting closer to the truth. But god damn, how can anyone have any trust in the government.  I still have some trust in the system but the players I cannot believe a word from.
 
2013-06-15 10:52:50 PM

cptjeff: No, the issue, and why everybody with a even the slightest understanding of how this stuff works thinks you're in idiot, is that it wouldn't do a damned thing to our political system.


Horse shait.

The last time the rich owned both parties happened in America's Gilded Age.

It turned out that once the people abandoned the two traditional parties, those parties had a choice between becoming irrelevant and cleaning up their act.

It worked just fine, for a while anyway.

Now the filthy rich own both parties again, so it's time to abandon them again.
 
2013-06-15 10:53:35 PM
That's unpossible.

Dozens of fark-tards have sworn the obama administration is just noting the time stamp of calls and not listening to the content.

I'm sure they have the integrity to now step forward and admit they are naive tw*ts.

Just like they did when they were wrong about the boston bomber being a tea-party member.
Just like they did when they were wrong about the Family Resource Center shooter being a tea-party member.
Just like they did when they were wrong about the TX IRS building attacker being a tea-party member.
Just like they did when they were wrong about the Family Resource Center shooter wasn't a tea-party member.
Just like they did when they were wrong about claiming their obamessiah would never renew the patriot act.
Just like they did when they were wrong about claiming obama's batfe was not selling guns to drug lords.

etc...etc...etc...
 
2013-06-15 10:53:40 PM

umad: Bu-bu-but Bush!

LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!!!!

[jamiedubs.com image 316x316]

/Bush isn't President, you farking retards
//Do everyone a favor and kill yourselves


The surveillance was already established, but Bush cemented it with the PATRIOT act. And at the time, liberals were TELLING you cowardly shiatheads that, once given this power, the government would never get rid of it.

The PATRIOT act was probably our last chance to deal any sort of lasting damage to the surveillance state. We should have fought it. Instead, we let them exploit our fear of 'terrorists' to put the final nail in privacy's coffin.
 
2013-06-15 10:53:43 PM

Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.


56% of Americans want them to do it. Who is the bootlicker?
 
2013-06-15 10:54:03 PM

0x1a4: uber humper:
What are you talking about. Jesus is always on time. 9 am every Sunday. Then by noon he's done with the yard and roses.

But illegal aliens aren't allowed to have an opinion.  Sub-humans, yadda yadda..


Not Superman.  He's an illegal alien and an Ubermensch .
 
2013-06-15 10:54:07 PM
Look, I don't like it more than anyone else, but if we don't allow this slight intrusion on our privacy, do you know what would happen? JONES would come back!!! Comrades, don't you remember how terrible it was when Jones was running thing???

FOUR LEGS GOOD!
TWO LEGS BAD!
FOUR LEGS GOOD!
TWO LEGS BAD!
FOUR LEGS GOOD!
TWO LEGS BAD!
FOUR LEGS GOOD!
TWO LEGS BAD!
FOUR LEGS GOOD!
TWO LEGS BAD!
FOUR LEGS GOOD!
TWO LEGS BAD!
 
2013-06-15 10:54:13 PM

OgreMagi: Look at how things were done under Bush. Compare them to how things are now being done under Obama. Do you see a difference? No, you don't.


Yes, I do. I see quite a few differences. Not as many as I'd like to see on this issue, but if you can't see quite a few very major differences between Bush and Obama, then I'm glad you're choosing to remove yourself from even the tiny levels of influence you might have had.
 
2013-06-15 10:54:19 PM

jack21221: bunner: You know what metadata is without the accompanying content?  A DNA sample with nothing to match it to.  The collect all of it or  they're dense as dirt.

This thread isn't about metadata. What are you talking about?


an earlier post from general jim about a post in a thread that was about tapping metadata only.
 
2013-06-15 10:55:02 PM

jack21221: 0x1a4: How?  By voting libertarian?  I've been doing that for a couple decades.  The R's and D's lie about it to get elected, and then make excuses for supporting it.  The D's get pissed when the R's do it.  The R's get pissed when the D's do it.  But when it comes down to it, our elected officials all vote to keep their power.   What do you define as a 'No' vote?  Not voting at all?

The solution might be in voting for non-establishment candidates within the Republican or Democratic party. Before the primaries, there are usually one or two candidates that the party leadership has deemed the "real" candidate(s), and everybody else is fringe. Start supporting these "insurgent" candidates in the major parties if you agree with them.


Oh yea. The biggest chance to change a party from within is through primary challenges.

So few people vote in primaries that a small number of people have a large opportunity to effect change.
 
2013-06-15 10:55:16 PM

OgreMagi: cptjeff: OgreMagi: Let me repeat.  VOTE THIRD PARTY.  I don't care which third party.  Just stop farking voting for democrats and republicans.

And for you idiots who say, "Oh, noes! That would destroy our entire political system."  YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT IT WOULD.  That's called a feature.  Causing a complete collapse of the existing political process is a damn sight better than armed insurrection.

No, the issue, and why everybody with a even the slightest understanding of how this stuff works thinks you're in idiot, is that it wouldn't do a damned thing to our political system. Voting for a third party wastes your vote, nothing else. It does not make a statement- the people you would be trying to make a statement to do not pay attention or care. the only thing it can ever do is increase the odds of the major party candidate you would find to be the most distasteful.

Put your energy into major party primaries and fermenting public debate. What issues we're talking about and how we're talking about them matters.

Standard sock puppet answer.  It will waste your vote, so you must vote for a republican/democrat.

No, it doesn't farking waste my vote.  There is no chance in hell I will ever again vote for a democrat or republican.  Because voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.  I will vote my conscious and not care if it swings to vote for some criminal with a D or R after his name, because it doesn't farking matter which one wins.  You get the same result.

Look at how things were done under Bush.  Compare them to how things are now being done under Obama.  Do you see a difference?  No, you don't.  Because they both work for the same farking party.  The "we have the power so fark the people" party.

You are part of the problem.  You help perpetuate the lie that a third party vote is a waste and a bad thing.  You've been brainwashed into believing that shiat and you help pass along "the one true message."  People like you are pathetic tools.


Let me be the first to say seconded for the Third Party idea to get back our Fourth Amendment.
 
2013-06-15 10:55:45 PM

DmGdDawg: Look, I don't like it more than anyone else, but if we don't allow this slight intrusion on our privacy, do you know what would happen? JONES would come back!!! Comrades, don't you remember how terrible it was when Jones was running thing???

FOUR LEGS GOOD!
TWO LEGS BAD!
FOUR LEGS GOOD!
TWO LEGS BAD!
FOUR LEGS GOOD!
TWO LEGS BAD!
FOUR LEGS GOOD!
TWO LEGS BAD!
FOUR LEGS GOOD!
TWO LEGS BAD!
FOUR LEGS GOOD!
TWO LEGS BAD!


I think we should all just work harder, even if some animals are more equal than others.
 
2013-06-15 10:55:47 PM
CSB Time: I was a van driver for the Ragnar Relay Race in Niagara/Ontario this weekend and this was the logo we had taped to the side of our van:

i.imgur.com

The Border Patrol did not seem amused.
 
2013-06-15 10:55:59 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.


Nazi germany wasn't a surveillance state, take it back.  We ordered soviet Russia metaphors, since that's actually a fairly valid analogy in many ways.

bunner: You know what metadata is without the accompanying content?


Something completely unrelated to what the NSA was doing here?  All their surveillance is personally identifiable, they can put in a search on a specific time and get back a list of names and addresses.

So either you don't know what the NSA scandal is about, or you don't actually know what metadata is.  Both, maybe?
 
2013-06-15 10:56:08 PM

skinink: Well, I guess there's nothing left for anyone to do except play their saxophone.

[criticalmassesmedia.com image 800x507]


The solution to 1974 is 1988?

Farked if I know, at the rate we're going, maybe it is.
 
2013-06-15 10:56:43 PM

badhatharry: Imagine the outrage if a Republican was in office. That's why you should vote Republican. Nixon got shiatcanned for bugging an office.


This shiat DID happen when a Republican was in office, you twat. And liberals were outraged, but you called us 'traitors' and 'weak on terror', and said we were 'aiding the enemy'. And WE FARKING TOLD YOU that once this genie was out of the bottle, there was no putting it back. We WARNED you to think of what would happen if that power was in the hands of someone you didn't like. And you STILL called us traitors.
 
2013-06-15 10:56:44 PM
move alone, citizen
 
2013-06-15 10:57:27 PM
cptjeff:
No, the issue, and why everybody with a even the slightest understanding of how this stuff works thinks you're in idiot, is that it wouldn't do a damned thing to our political system. Voting for a third party wastes your vote, nothing else. It does not make a statement- the people you would be trying to make a statement to do not pay attention or care. the only thing it can ever do is increase the odds of the major party candidate you would find to be the most distasteful.

Put your energy into major party primaries and fermenting public debate. What issues we're talking about and how we're talking about them matters.


That's so cute you think either major party would ever give up power.  Which letter are you supporting?  Bush pushed the PATRIOT act, Obama campained against it, and has supported it since he took office.  Why should we believe anything either side says anymore?  Wasting my vote is voting for either one of those assholes.

/Yes, this started long before Bush.  Was it when a third party held the presidency and the majority of Congress?
 
2013-06-15 10:57:36 PM

jack21221: 0x1a4: How?  By voting libertarian?  I've been doing that for a couple decades.  The R's and D's lie about it to get elected, and then make excuses for supporting it.  The D's get pissed when the R's do it.  The R's get pissed when the D's do it.  But when it comes down to it, our elected officials all vote to keep their power.   What do you define as a 'No' vote?  Not voting at all?

The solution might be in voting for non-establishment candidates within the Republican or Democratic party. Before the primaries, there are usually one or two candidates that the party leadership has deemed the "real" candidate(s), and everybody else is fringe. Start supporting these "insurgent" candidates in the major parties if you agree with them.


And why would you assume these "non-establishment" types would be any better? The problem is that, once elected, the available power is intoxicating for EVERYONE.
 
2013-06-15 10:57:57 PM

Jim_Callahan: So either you don't know what the NSA scandal is about, or you don't actually know what metadata is.  Both, maybe?


Or you didn't read the post I replied to or you desperately need to come here and sell snide postures of "1337ness" to anybody who's buying.  I ain't.  Take it back to Wal Mart
 
2013-06-15 10:57:57 PM
move *along*, citizen
 
2013-06-15 10:57:57 PM
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.
 
2013-06-15 10:58:06 PM

Jim_Callahan: 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.

Nazi germany wasn't a surveillance state, take it back.  We ordered soviet Russia metaphors, since that's actually a fairly valid analogy in many ways.


Although, the Stasi of East Germany is a great comparison.
 
2013-06-15 10:58:57 PM

BullBearMS: Oh yea. The biggest chance to change a party from within is through primary challenges.

So few people vote in primaries that a small number of people have a large opportunity to effect change.


It worked for the loons in the tea party, why not for sane people?
 
2013-06-15 10:59:00 PM

Lsherm: BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance

What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this.  What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing?  Has to be some scary shiat.


He was brought into a smoke-filled room and shown a video of the Kennedy assassination from an angle the public hasn't seen.

media.tumblr.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MRykTpw1RQ (NSFW)
 
2013-06-15 10:59:34 PM

cptjeff: OgreMagi: Look at how things were done under Bush. Compare them to how things are now being done under Obama. Do you see a difference? No, you don't.

Yes, I do. I see quite a few differences. Not as many as I'd like to see on this issue, but if you can't see quite a few very major differences between Bush and Obama, then I'm glad you're choosing to remove yourself from even the tiny levels of influence you might have had.


There is no difference where it matters.

We still have the government spying without probably cause.
We're still getting involved in foreign wars that are none of our farking business.
The rich still don't get prosecuted for raping financial institutions for immense profits.
Corporations still control our political process.

I could go on, but I doubt you actually care because you are happily part of the problem.
 
2013-06-15 10:59:51 PM

Corn_Fed: And why would you assume these "non-establishment" types would be any better? The problem is that, once elected, the available power is intoxicating for EVERYONE.


Even you? You'd be corrupt as soon as you got into office?
 
2013-06-15 10:59:55 PM

LordJiro: The surveillance was already established, but Bush cemented it with the PATRIOT act. And at the time, liberals were TELLING you cowardly shiatheads that, once given this power, the government would never get rid of it.


I was against the PATRIOT act from day 1, you insipid shiatstain. So take your holier-than-thou attitude, shove it up your ass, then kill yourself. I didn't vote for Bush either time and I didn't vote for Obama either time. I would rather "throw my vote away" than sink to your level of partisan football. Fark off.

/yes I mad
 
2013-06-15 11:00:02 PM

ghare: Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.

56% of Americans want them to do it. Who is the bootlicker?


Oh look.

More Democratic party shills defending this.

More Americans disapprove (53%) than approve (37%) of the federal government agency program that as part of its efforts to investigate terrorism obtained records from U.S. telephone and Internet companies to "compile telephone call logs and Internet communications."

That was before they even knew their actual conversations were being recorded.
 
2013-06-15 11:00:08 PM
The sad truth is that, no matter how egregiously the NSA is violating the 4th Amendment, I don't think the American public at large gives a shiat. I suspect they won't rise up, they'll continue happily supporting this crap.
 
2013-06-15 11:00:09 PM

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.


This, and this again.
 
2013-06-15 11:00:52 PM

Corn_Fed: The sad truth is that, no matter how egregiously the NSA is violating the 4th Amendment, I don't think the American public at large gives a shiat. I suspect they won't rise up, they'll continue happily supporting this crap.


I don't see you rising up, dude.
 
2013-06-15 11:01:13 PM

Gyrfalcon:

Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.

Well, so much for having a rational discussion on the topic.

Hey, don't let his insensitive comment deter you -- lick away.


theraf69.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-15 11:02:01 PM

0x1a4: Wasting my vote is voting for either one of those assholes.


Which is why you use your vote to choose which asshole winds up on the ticket during the primary.

Engaging in the system moves the system closer to your aims, as the tea party has shown pretty damn well. Rejecting the system and going off on stupid attempts to defeat it gets you crushed by the system. But then you don't get to pretend you're superior to everybody else, so I suppose you lose on that front.
 
2013-06-15 11:02:15 PM

Herb Utsmelz: Late to the topic but I don't farking care about any privacy breaches.  They can snoopity snoop all they want.  Whatever they find they can use against me.  Yep.  I said it.  And they'd better hurry up.  I have thirty years to live at most.

Come at me motherf&ckers.  The fear is nonexistent.


7/10  a little obvious but you got several bites
 
2013-06-15 11:02:30 PM
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?
 
2013-06-15 11:02:39 PM

jack21221: Corn_Fed: And why would you assume these "non-establishment" types would be any better? The problem is that, once elected, the available power is intoxicating for EVERYONE.

Even you? You'd be corrupt as soon as you got into office?


Oh HELL yeah!
 
2013-06-15 11:03:23 PM

jack21221: Corn_Fed: The sad truth is that, no matter how egregiously the NSA is violating the 4th Amendment, I don't think the American public at large gives a shiat. I suspect they won't rise up, they'll continue happily supporting this crap.

I don't see you rising up, dude.


I'm typing furiously!
 
2013-06-15 11:03:50 PM

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


I do care about those issues, I just think you're a moron.
 
2013-06-15 11:04:08 PM
When I worked at the IRS, we weren't allowed to look up anything not directly related to something we were working on (and the system left a nice long trail if you did. Took about 8 months or so for it to catch up with you). For instance, I couldn't look up Beyonce's or Meryl Streep's tax records because I'd be fired (Clinton passed that one). Or my mom's or even my own. Nor could I handle the records of anyone I even MIGHT know. Most of these rules were in place because people hate paying taxes and congress thought the IRS was abusing its power.

Snowden actually raises the point that they can look at whatever they want because they are no rules in place to stop them. Sure warrants are required, but to punish the employees for misusing this power could lessen the power of the agency and warrants take longer than just looking at the data and confirming your suspicions or making sure your girlfriend isn't out with her "friend" again. When someone actually can dig through your life, we do nothing unless it there's a mild inconvenience like taxes to pin it on. Hopefully, we can get the same kind of laws for the NSA but I doubt it.
 
2013-06-15 11:04:57 PM
The NSA yesterday declined to comment to CNET.

Not even a "Was that wrong? Should we not have done that?"

So now they've gone from "Hey, we're only mining metadata here don't get upset" to "Hey, sure we're tapping phones but nobody is listening without a warrant" to "Hey, sure thousands of low level analysts could wiretap anyone's communications at anytime for any reason without any warrant or oversight or consequences but don't worry they all have good intentions and pure hearts".

The potential for this power to be abused is as massive as it seems inevitable.

What to do, though?

Both parties (with only a couple of notable exceptions) and the Executive seem to want the damn thing despite the concerns of their constituents. It appears to be a zero sum game here where the more secrecy the NSA engage in the less privacy everyone else ends up with.

NSA's annual budget is classified but is to be around $10 billion.

Classified? So... no sequester for those guys, eh? Figures.
 
2013-06-15 11:05:45 PM

LordJiro: Bush cemented it with the PATRIOT act


The Patriot Act that Obama, Reed, and Boehner just worked together to reauthorize for four more years without changes?

With as little publicity as possible?

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government."

You keep on making lame ass excuses for your guy though.
 
2013-06-15 11:06:15 PM
This story was apparently posted seven hours ago, and yet I'm not seeing any mention of it in any major press outlet. Is there any confirmation, or are people just freaking out over nothing again?
 
2013-06-15 11:06:46 PM
I think the important thing is that we use this forum to blow snotty remarks at each other before going back to our safe, suburban, lower middle class lives.
 
2013-06-15 11:07:06 PM

fusillade762: Popcorn Johnny: This is in no way Obama's fault, the President is only to blame for crap like this when a Republican is in the White House.

I know it's shocking that the president might do something congress has apparently authorized him to do. You'll get over it.



Fark off troll, a real representative of the people would say "this isn't legal and I won't do it"

Yeah I'll get over it when a president takes his oath of office seriously, those aren't just word there is should be meaning behind it.
 
2013-06-15 11:08:11 PM

badhatharry: Imagine the outrage if a Republican was in office. That's why you should vote Republican. Nixon got shiatcanned for bugging an office.


You GOPers are such martyrs, but let's review:

<img src="http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2003/06/16/image558769g.jpg" >
Tricky Dick's Taint
What: Nixon's legacy of outright treason, rat-farking, dirty tricks, blackmail, enemies lists, burglary, bribery, wire tapping, McCarthyism, red-baiting, misuse of the IRS, corporate payoffs, money laundering, electoral and voter fraud, perjury, mafia ties, domestic spying by the CIA, anti-Semitism, racism, and war crimes.
Who: Taint carried by members of Nixon's administration who continue to infect others.  Such as
Roger Ailes (Der Leader of Fox News)
Pat Buchanan (Chardonnay-drinking, Brie-eating culture warrior)
Robert Bork (invented "original intent" as cover for reactionary social engineering and judicial activism)
Antonin Scalia (SCOTUS wild man)
Dick Cheney (war criminal)
Donald Rumsfeld (war criminal)
George H.W. Bush (took money from illegal Nixon slush fund and later gave us Clarence Thomas)
Karl Rove (member of CREEP and current GOP bagman)
David Gergan
John Warner
William Safire (a congenital liar)
Alan Greenspan (Ayn Rand devotee who enginered the housing/banking bubble)
Gerald Ford (eaten by wolves)
Warren Burger
Alexander Haig (war criminal)
George Schultz (has tatoo on his ass)
Caspar Weinberger (war criminal)
Spiro Agnew (a nattering nabob of negativity and outright racist)
William Renquist (Bush v. Gore)
Henry Kissinger (war criminal)
Ben Stein (creationist nutbag)
Hank Paulson (the Wall Street bailout was his idea)
Peter Peterson (Peterson Foundation and balanced budget jihadist)
G. Gordon Liddy (bagman and burglar turned propagandist)
E. Howard Hunt
Richard Helms (lied to Congress and given medal by Ronald Reagan)
H.R. Haldeman (crook)
John Ehrlichman (crook)
Charles Colson (convicted felon & advocate of theocracy)
(bribes and illegal contributions made by Howard Hughes, H. Ross Perot, Charles Rebozo, J. Paul Getty, and ITT)
 
2013-06-15 11:09:01 PM

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.

Personally, I prefer to remember the candidate who promised to end it, and extended and deepened it instead. Besides that, the USA PATRIOT Act passed the House 357 to 66, and passed the Senate by 98 to 1. Truly bipartisan bullshiat, despite your need to blame Bush.
 
2013-06-15 11:09:12 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Pro-tip to the teahadists: most liberals are angry at Obama over this, just as we were angry at Bush. For those of you who are only now "outraged" about this since a brown guy is in the White House, and didn't give a f*ck when this entire program began under Bush because "MURKA!!!", sorry, you have no right to an opinion. Eat a bag of dicks.


So only people who agree with you are entitled to an opinion?  If you really feel this way, you advocate a dictatorship where only government approved opinions are allowed to be expressed.

Try doing a bit of research.  If you did, you would know that tea party members don't care about the color of someone.  They do care about how government officials act and the harm their policies cause.  You'll also find out that many Democrats are bigots.  It was Democrats that kept black people in the south from voting for a hundred years.  It was Democrats who started segregation and who fought to keep it in the 50s and 60s.  LBJ needed Republican votes to pass the civil rights act because so many Democrats opposed it.  If you don't know which party Lincoln was a member of, I'll let you look it up.
 
2013-06-15 11:09:33 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: LordJiro: A Dark Evil Omen: LordJiro: And there is precisely DICK any of us can do about it.

Not true. There is plenty that can be done. If you mean "there's no one to vote for", that is true, but voting does not actually qualify as "doing anything".

What do you suggest?

Withdraw support for the capitalist state as much as possible. Trade or share instead of purchasing things, when you can. Pay cash when you can, buy and sell under the counter when you can. Try to work with co-ops and labor unions; keep the decisions, information and money associated with your work local. Any way you can make money not go into the government or capitalist structures, do it.

No, it doesn't immediately dismantle the national security state, but it does take some of your information out and helps undermine all of the structures that enable and create it. It will take a lot of people withdrawing support for the systems to start failing, but every person who starts making the effort... well, that's one step closer.


Why labor unions?  They are part of the reason this country is so farked up.  Break them all.  Start with the teachers unions.  Labor unions are as outdated as butter churns.  Sad state of affairs, but people need to remind their children NOT to trust the government.  After we "won" WWII, and things started getting "Cold Warry" is probably when things started really going south.  Now Obama will singlehandedly DOUBLE the national debt.  Then US committed suicide last November.  Romney is no rocket scientist, but he isn't an evil U.S. hater like B. Insane Obama.

In case of a nuclear attack, hide under your desks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUBEuGa1_HA     start at 50:12
 
2013-06-15 11:10:47 PM

GeneralJim: 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.
Personally, I prefer to remember the candidate who promised to end it, and extended and deepened it instead. Besides that, the USA PATRIOT Act passed the House 357 to 66, and passed the Senate by 98 to 1. Truly bipartisan bullshiat, despite your need to blame Bush.


Yes, we need to excise ALL rightists from power, regardless of party.
 
2013-06-15 11:11:05 PM

Corn_Fed: jack21221: Corn_Fed: The sad truth is that, no matter how egregiously the NSA is violating the 4th Amendment, I don't think the American public at large gives a shiat. I suspect they won't rise up, they'll continue happily supporting this crap.

I don't see you rising up, dude.

I'm typing furiously!


If you were thinking about rising up, you probably shouldn't talk about it here. They are listening.
 
2013-06-15 11:11:09 PM

LordJiro: This shiat DID happen when a Republican was in office, you twat. And liberals were outraged, but you called us 'traitors' and 'weak on terror', and said we were 'aiding the enemy'.


Yet here you are trying to make excuses for it now.

Proving you never opposed it in the first place.

This is why I have nothing but contempt for you party shills.
 
2013-06-15 11:11:37 PM

Lsherm: BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance

What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this.  What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing?  Has to be some scary shiat.


I've said that about Obama before. There are a lot of things he's done that don't flow with what he said he believed before the first election. I think some of it has to do with "WTF" classified info that he's gotten since being in office, but crap like this and the drone killings, it's too much and far beyond what any administration should be doing.
 
2013-06-15 11:11:45 PM
I honestly don't understand how/why anyone is surprised at this....
 
2013-06-15 11:12:09 PM

cptjeff: 0x1a4: Wasting my vote is voting for either one of those assholes.

Which is why you use your vote to choose which asshole winds up on the ticket during the primary.

Engaging in the system moves the system closer to your aims, as the tea party has shown pretty damn well. Rejecting the system and going off on stupid attempts to defeat it gets you crushed by the system. But then you don't get to pretend you're superior to everybody else, so I suppose you lose on that front.


Hmm, Obama campaigned strongly against the PATRIOT act.   He lied.  I made the mistake of voting for him. He has done the exact opposite of what he promised.  So yes, I 'reject the system' of being lied to.  How is choosing to vote for people that seem to have more integrity stupid?  I don't feel superior about it, I simply no longer trust what either party says.  At all.  They have been proven to be liars.  Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a sign of insanity...
 
2013-06-15 11:13:37 PM
When did the Cell Phone Generation start giving a shiat about others being able to listen in on their "private" conversations?

/get off my lawn!
 
2013-06-15 11:13:37 PM
Why do so many people keep saying "Obama this" and "Bush that?"

This isn't partisan.  Neither party seems to really give two squirts about civil liberties.

Does it really matter which side is "more" to blame?  They're all to blame!

If politics is a horse race, the same stable owns all the horses.
 
2013-06-15 11:13:42 PM

GeneralJim: Gyrfalcon: Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.

Well, so much for having a rational discussion on the topic.
Hey, don't let his insensitive comment deter you -- lick away.


[theraf69.files.wordpress.com image 400x400]


Your boots are facing the wrong way.
 
2013-06-15 11:14:16 PM

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

I do care about those issues, I just think you're a moron.


So long as you continue to defend the two parties in power, you don't actually care about the problem.  So fark off.
 
2013-06-15 11:14:44 PM

OgreMagi: cptjeff: OgreMagi: Look at how things were done under Bush. Compare them to how things are now being done under Obama. Do you see a difference? No, you don't.

Yes, I do. I see quite a few differences. Not as many as I'd like to see on this issue, but if you can't see quite a few very major differences between Bush and Obama, then I'm glad you're choosing to remove yourself from even the tiny levels of influence you might have had.

There is no difference where it matters.

We still have the government spying without probably cause.
We're still getting involved in foreign wars that are none of our farking business.
The rich still don't get prosecuted for raping financial institutions for immense profits.
Corporations still control our political process.

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?
 
2013-06-15 11:14:56 PM

Biological Ali: This story was apparently posted seven hours ago, and yet I'm not seeing any mention of it in any major press outlet. Is there any confirmation, or are people just freaking out over nothing again?


People have come to expect the sun to rise in the east. They don't freak out about it.
 
2013-06-15 11:15:09 PM
I'm astounded that anyone is astounded by this (though looks like not too many on here).

If They Can, They Will
 
2013-06-15 11:15:18 PM

sendtodave: Why do so many people keep saying "Obama this" and "Bush that?"

This isn't partisan.  Neither party seems to really give two squirts about civil liberties.

Does it really matter which side is "more" to blame?  They're all to blame!

If politics is a horse race, the same stable owns all the horses.


I've been saying that all along.  Which, according to some farkers, makes me a moron.  Who'd of thunk?
 
2013-06-15 11:16:42 PM

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


They have trouble interceping smoke signals. Too low tech for them to fool with

Thats how i make all my phone calls
 
2013-06-15 11:17:23 PM

sendtodave: Why do so many people keep saying "Obama this" and "Bush that?"

This isn't partisan.  Neither party seems to really give two squirts about civil liberties.

Does it really matter which side is "more" to blame?  They're all to blame!

If politics is a horse race, the same stable owns all the horses.


Because US politics isn't about the good of the country, its about making sure that MY side beats YOUR side.  sure - the GOP pushed the patriot act thru, knowing it was going to be abused at some point.  And yes, a Democratic president abused the f*ck outta his ability to wiretap damn near anyone anywhere at any time.  Fox news is outraged.  Left wing pundits rush to defend Obama.  But will any of it actually get our privacy rights restored?  oh hells no.

look - we gave up a lot of our rights when we all accepted the patriot act.  well, I didn't accept it but the rest of y'all did.  Anyways, the point here is that our rights are gone.  G-O-N-E.  not coming back.  ever.  the fedgov isn't going to give up its ability to spy on us.  accept it.  And learn from this lesson...anything you give to the government is gone forever.  we don't get it back.  stop giving up what little we've got left.
 
2013-06-15 11:17:25 PM

pedobearapproved: Lsherm: BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance

What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this.  What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing?  Has to be some scary shiat.

I've said that about Obama before. There are a lot of things he's done that don't flow with what he said he believed before the first election. I think some of it has to do with "WTF" classified info that he's gotten since being in office, but crap like this and the drone killings, it's too much and far beyond what any administration should be doing.


I suspect one of the motivations is that if he DID get rid of it, and then some terrorist group managed to attack us, the GOP would spend night and day saying that Obama allowed the attack to happen because he got rid of a "vital" national security program. Whether true or not, he'd get hanged over it for the rest of his days.
 
2013-06-15 11:17:38 PM

Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: cptjeff: OgreMagi: Look at how things were done under Bush. Compare them to how things are now being done under Obama. Do you see a difference? No, you don't.

Yes, I do. I see quite a few differences. Not as many as I'd like to see on this issue, but if you can't see quite a few very major differences between Bush and Obama, then I'm glad you're choosing to remove yourself from even the tiny levels of influence you might have had.

There is no difference where it matters.

We still have the government spying without probably cause.
We're still getting involved in foreign wars that are none of our farking business.
The rich still don't get prosecuted for raping financial institutions for immense profits.
Corporations still control our political process.

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?


I already stated my solution.  Stop voting for democrats or republicans.  Vote third party.  I don't care which third party, just don't vote for a D or an R.  It doesn't even have to be enough people to win the election.  It just needs to be a significant enough number of votes to get the attention of the people running for office.  It will tell them, "I'm mad as hell" etc.  Maybe then they'll start working for us again.
 
2013-06-15 11:18:00 PM

Tanuki no Kintama: Here's the exchange the article is based on:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4456141


I'm skeptical that this exchange is conclusive proof of the article's claim. Smells like click-whoring.
 
2013-06-15 11:19:03 PM
Gyrfalcon:

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

We all know what the solution is, but to write it here would get us arrested.
 
2013-06-15 11:19:20 PM

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

They have trouble interceping smoke signals. Too low tech for them to fool with

Thats how i make all my phone calls


Gaelic Sign Language!

/Sorry to the NSA grunt that now has to learn Gaelic Sign Language
//a little
 
2013-06-15 11:19:41 PM

YodaBlues: CSB Time: I was a van driver for the Ragnar Relay Race in Niagara/Ontario this weekend and this was the logo we had taped to the side of our van:

[i.imgur.com image 850x833]

The Border Patrol did not seem amused.


Citizen 35036, if you shooped that, I can neither confirm nor deny that you will soon be called upon to do something with it.
 
2013-06-15 11:20:48 PM
content.internetvideoarchive.com
 
2013-06-15 11:21:37 PM

LordJiro: The surveillance was already established, but Bush cemented it with the PATRIOT act. And at the time, liberals were TELLING you cowardly shiatheads that, once given this power, the government would never get rid of it.


Most "liberals"  in power voted for the Patriot Act.   Just about everyone did.

So, apparently, the Democratic party doesn't represent liberals.

Why vote for it?
 
2013-06-15 11:21:58 PM

ipsofacto: Tanuki no Kintama: Here's the exchange the article is based on:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4456141

I'm skeptical that this exchange is conclusive proof of the article's claim. Smells like click-whoring.


You're not allowed to reserve judgment.
 
2013-06-15 11:22:23 PM

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



sıɥʇ ǝʞıן sǝnbınɥɔǝʇ noıʇdʎɹɔnǝ ʇǝɹɔǝs nɹɐǝן oʇ dǝǝn noʎ
 
2013-06-15 11:22:36 PM

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

They have trouble interceping smoke signals. Too low tech for them to fool with

Thats how i make all my phone calls


At one time you could type a note on your e-mail, hit send later, then someone else could log in on your account and read the unsent letter. They couldn't trace it because you never sent it. I'm sure it's busted now.
 
2013-06-15 11:22:49 PM

sendtodave: LordJiro: The surveillance was already established, but Bush cemented it with the PATRIOT act. And at the time, liberals were TELLING you cowardly shiatheads that, once given this power, the government would never get rid of it.

Most "liberals"  in power voted for the Patriot Act.   Just about everyone did.

So, apparently, the Democratic party doesn't represent liberals.

Why vote for it?


*sigh* Because then you just Nader-ize a Bush into the Oval Office.
 
2013-06-15 11:22:57 PM
 
2013-06-15 11:23:24 PM

Herb Utsmelz:

Late to the topic but I don't farking care about any privacy breaches.  They can snoopity snoop all they want.  Whatever they find they can use against me.  Yep.  I said it.  And they'd better hurry up.  I have thirty years to live at most.

Come at me motherf&ckers.  The fear is nonexistent.

*CLICK*

2.bp.blogspot.com
Challenge Accepted
 
2013-06-15 11:23:24 PM
I work for the government. I'm an analyst for FEMA. F*ck it, I need to work for these guys. The info you get access to is much cooler.
 
2013-06-15 11:23:34 PM

GeneralJim: 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.
Personally, I prefer to remember the candidate who promised to end it, and extended and deepened it instead. Besides that, the USA PATRIOT Act passed the House 357 to 66, and passed the Senate by 98 to 1. Truly bipartisan bullshiat, despite your need to blame Bush.


So, you admit it was mistake, pre-Obama?
 
2013-06-15 11:23:47 PM

Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: cptjeff: OgreMagi: Look at how things were done under Bush. Compare them to how things are now being done under Obama. Do you see a difference? No, you don't.

Yes, I do. I see quite a few differences. Not as many as I'd like to see on this issue, but if you can't see quite a few very major differences between Bush and Obama, then I'm glad you're choosing to remove yourself from even the tiny levels of influence you might have had.

There is no difference where it matters.

We still have the government spying without probably cause.
We're still getting involved in foreign wars that are none of our farking business.
The rich still don't get prosecuted for raping financial institutions for immense profits.
Corporations still control our political process.

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?


I wish I knew. It requires a political solution, and unfortunately our political system isn't functioning properly. The levers of power aren't connected to anything.
 
2013-06-15 11:24:03 PM
www.libertynews.comhttp://www.libertynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/obama-nixon.jp g


Even the Liberals can see Obama is no better than Nixon.
 
2013-06-15 11:25:40 PM
uber humper
Nope. We live in a democracy where this can come to light and be criticized in the open.

Due to the efforts of people who are branded as traitors and have indictments cooked up against them in record time

It can be fixed

Not through the system that caused it.
 
2013-06-15 11:26:02 PM

sendtodave: LordJiro: The surveillance was already established, but Bush cemented it with the PATRIOT act. And at the time, liberals were TELLING you cowardly shiatheads that, once given this power, the government would never get rid of it.

Most "liberals"  in power voted for the Patriot Act.   Just about everyone did.

So, apparently, the Democratic party doesn't represent liberals.

Why vote for it?


You would ask a party shill that question?

Corn_Fed: pedobearapproved: Lsherm: BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance

What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this.  What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing?  Has to be some scary shiat.

I've said that about Obama before. There are a lot of things he's done that don't flow with what he said he believed before the first election. I think some of it has to do with "WTF" classified info that he's gotten since being in office, but crap like this and the drone killings, it's too much and far beyond what any administration should be doing.

I suspect one of the motivations is that if he DID get rid of it, and then some terrorist group managed to attack us, the GOP would spend night and day saying that Obama allowed the attack to happen because he got rid of a "vital" national security program. Whether true or not, he'd get hanged over it for the rest of his days.


If he keeps his word to us, somebody might criticize him isn't the genius excuse you seem to think it is.
 
2013-06-15 11:26:32 PM

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


i236.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-15 11:26:57 PM

Corn_Fed: pedobearapproved: Lsherm: BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance

What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this.  What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing?  Has to be some scary shiat.

I've said that about Obama before. There are a lot of things he's done that don't flow with what he said he believed before the first election. I think some of it has to do with "WTF" classified info that he's gotten since being in office, but crap like this and the drone killings, it's too much and far beyond what any administration should be doing.

I suspect one of the motivations is that if he DID get rid of it, and then some terrorist group managed to attack us, the GOP would spend night and day saying that Obama allowed the attack to happen because he got rid of a "vital" national security program. Whether true or not, he'd get hanged over it for the rest of his days.




After AG Holder's Fast&Furious campaign to send guns to Mexican drug lords, a couple of white kids blowing up a marathon would hardly affect Obama's approval rating.
 
2013-06-15 11:27:15 PM

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.
 
2013-06-15 11:27:19 PM

Corn_Fed: sendtodave: LordJiro: The surveillance was already established, but Bush cemented it with the PATRIOT act. And at the time, liberals were TELLING you cowardly shiatheads that, once given this power, the government would never get rid of it.

Most "liberals"  in power voted for the Patriot Act.   Just about everyone did.

So, apparently, the Democratic party doesn't represent liberals.

Why vote for it?

*sigh* Because then you just Nader-ize a Bush into the Oval Office.


Right now, I'm not finding the alternative to be all that great, either.
 
2013-06-15 11:28:29 PM
images.politico.com

"I would not have allowed this, but you called me a racist and bat shiat crazy. So deal with it."
 
2013-06-15 11:29:00 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.


At least it's not floorload, I'm not unloading that shiat.  I'll take Nazi Metaphors for $800 Alex.
 
2013-06-15 11:29:12 PM

Mock26: I really cannot figure out why people are so upset by all these activities by the NSA.  Seriously, what is the big deal?  They are NOT interested in your personal information.  They are not trying to catch people breaking the law.  All they care about is Setec Astronomy.  They are just trying to improve our understanding of the stars.  So all you paranoid conspiracy theorists just need to lighten up.


Are you a troll, incredibly stupid, incredibly naive , or an incredibly stupid naive troll?
 
2013-06-15 11:29:26 PM

RanDomino: uber humper
Nope. We live in a democracy where this can come to light and be criticized in the open.

Due to the efforts of people who are branded as traitors and have indictments cooked up against them in record time


its interesting, isn't it?  the people who expose the lies, corruption and dirty politics are reviled, branded traitors and punished harshly.  and nobody really seems to care.  we just sit here on the 'net, pontificating, watching NCIS and pirating copies of 'Game of Thrones'.  meanwhile bankers still millions, our government loots and pillages our communication records, and congress does nothing but toss political footballs between various factions.

I wonder how much longer we can last?  are we going to survive the 21st century?
 
2013-06-15 11:29:36 PM
HempHead:
Even the Liberals can see Obama is no better than Nixon.

Nixon got caught spying on ONE office in ONE city.  Can you imagine if this same information came out then?  He would have been hung.  If Obama did the exact same thing today Nixon did then, it wouldn't even make the news on FOX.
 
2013-06-15 11:29:54 PM
NavajoCode Talkers of WW II didn't worry about anyone listening to them !
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/navajocodetalk.htm
 
2013-06-15 11:31:03 PM

Weaver95: I honestly don't understand how/why anyone is surprised at this....


They've been in a coma for the last decade?
 
2013-06-15 11:31:41 PM

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.


Well, it has happened before.

But say we keep betting on the same two teams.  How do we put pressure on them to actually work for us, and not for themselves?

There's been a real shift, where government now seems to see the people as something to be managed, not something to be feared.  We're no longer the boss of our own government.  We're China-lite.
 
2013-06-15 11:32:17 PM

Bucky Katt: Weaver95: I honestly don't understand how/why anyone is surprised at this....

They've been in a coma for the last decade?


I guess so.
 
2013-06-15 11:32:53 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Eat a bag of dicks.


s3.amazonaws.com

Don't mind if I do! :)
 
2013-06-15 11:33:13 PM

Parthenogenetic: You people don't get it.  We NEED this kind of surveillance to protect America from terrorists.

There are sinister people out there, who have infiltrated our society and live among us, pretending to be law-abiding, freedom-loving Americans.

They will not rest until America, land of the free and home of the brave, ceases to exist as we know it.

But enough about the NSA, you should be scared of the terrorists.  BOOGA BOOGA


If we really cared about saving lives we would direct the NSA to install security cameras in every shower so they can send help when people slip and fall. More people die from slipping in the shower every year than in the last 10 via terrorist.
 
2013-06-15 11:33:15 PM

sendtodave: Corn_Fed: sendtodave: LordJiro: The surveillance was already established, but Bush cemented it with the PATRIOT act. And at the time, liberals were TELLING you cowardly shiatheads that, once given this power, the government would never get rid of it.

Most "liberals"  in power voted for the Patriot Act.   Just about everyone did.

So, apparently, the Democratic party doesn't represent liberals.

Why vote for it?

*sigh* Because then you just Nader-ize a Bush into the Oval Office.

Right now, I'm not finding the alternative to be all that great, either.


That's been my argument all along.  It doesn't make any difference, so you should truly vote your conscious even (especially?) if it's for a third party.
 
2013-06-15 11:33:16 PM
Before you GOP shills start spiking the football over this, ask yourself who actually pushed for the apparatus in the first place, the sort of cloth he is cut from and the two most recent republicans to run for the POTUS.

John McCain and Romney would have been doing this as well.  The issue is not republican or democrat, but big government.  You're all welcome
 
2013-06-15 11:33:40 PM

Walter Paisley: Lsherm: BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance

What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this.  What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing?  Has to be some scary shiat.

He was brought into a smoke-filled room and shown a video of the Kennedy assassination from an angle the public hasn't seen.

[media.tumblr.com image 480x288]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MRykTpw1RQ (NSFW)


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?
 
2013-06-15 11:34:57 PM

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.


Pretty much. Oh, and to heap scorn and abuse on anyone who dares to suggest the problem is much more complex than BSABSVT and will take a lot more than outrage and neckbeards to change.
 
2013-06-15 11:35:18 PM
Can or does the NSA listen to phones without warrants? I don't know. But if you are concluding that from this video exchange you are retarded.
 
2013-06-15 11:35:23 PM

sendtodave: 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.

Well, it has happened before.

But say we keep betting on the same two teams.  How do we put pressure on them to actually work for us, and not for themselves?

There's been a real shift, where government now seems to see the people as something to be managed, not something to be feared.  We're no longer the boss of our own government.  We're China-lite.


first everyone needs to stop arguing L/R and trying to get their team to win and for the first time in a long time actually try to fix the problems even if it means some true give and take.
 
2013-06-15 11:35:49 PM

djkutch: GeneralJim: 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.
Personally, I prefer to remember the candidate who promised to end it, and extended and deepened it instead. Besides that, the USA PATRIOT Act passed the House 357 to 66, and passed the Senate by 98 to 1. Truly bipartisan bullshiat, despite your need to blame Bush.

So, you admit it was mistake, pre-Obama?


And the evidence that domestic warrantless (before or after) wiretaps was occurring before Obama is ...?
 
2013-06-15 11:36:33 PM

o5iiawah: Before you GOP shills start spiking the football over this, ask yourself who actually pushed for the apparatus in the first place, the sort of cloth he is cut from and the two most recent republicans to run for the POTUS.

John McCain and Romney would have been doing this as well.  The issue is not republican or democrat, but big government.  You're all welcome


Exactly. The Republicans have proven themselves to be every bit as Big Government as Dems. Actually, more so.
 
2013-06-15 11:36:57 PM
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 club.

By the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted, folks.

The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care! Good honest hard-working people; white collar, blue collar it doesn't matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue-these are people of modest means-continue to elect these rich cock suckers who don't give a fark about you....they don't give a fark about you... they don't give a fark about you.

They don't care about you at all... at all... AT ALL.
 
2013-06-15 11:37:45 PM

Corn_Fed: The government is arguing that it's not unconstitutional to collect all the data in the first place, and just let it sit there.

Isn't that the "seizure" part of "no search and seizure"?


Not any more than downloading movies is "stealing".
 
2013-06-15 11:38:46 PM
cptjeff:  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.

Again, how?  They lie.  Obama was quite convincing per-election.  He is getting no repercussions from what he said in relation to the PATRIOT act before the elections, and the 180 turn he is spouting now.  So how do you vote from withing a corrupt party?  How do we hold Obama accountable?  If we can't, how do we hold the next guy accountable?  Third party candidates don't have a chance because most people think like you. "I've always been a ?(D|R) so all other options are null" is part of the problem.   If they say whatever we want to hear, then do whatever they want with no repercussions, how can we reform either one, seriously?  You can say it's realistic, but how?
 
2013-06-15 11:38:51 PM

Weaver95: Bucky Katt: Weaver95: I honestly don't understand how/why anyone is surprised at this....

They've been in a coma for the last decade?

I guess so.


Watching the Bourne movies while he was tracked? I didn't blink an eye.
 
2013-06-15 11:39:34 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Corn_Fed: The government is arguing that it's not unconstitutional to collect all the data in the first place, and just let it sit there.

Isn't that the "seizure" part of "no search and seizure"?

Not any more than downloading movies is "stealing".


Uh...isn't it?
 
2013-06-15 11:40:08 PM

Parthenogenetic: You people don't get it.  We NEED this kind of surveillance to protect America from terrorists.

There are sinister people out there, who have infiltrated our society and live among us, pretending to be law-abiding, freedom-loving Americans.

They will not rest until America, land of the free and home of the brave, ceases to exist as we know it.

But enough about the NSA, you should be scared of the terrorists.  BOOGA BOOGA


Favorited, label: Witty
 
2013-06-15 11:40:57 PM

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
 
2013-06-15 11:41:02 PM

Vectron: [images.politico.com image 605x328]

"I would not have allowed this, but you called me a racist and bat shiat crazy. So deal with it."


Ron, you ARE a batshiat crazy racist.
 
2013-06-15 11:41:07 PM

mizchief: Mock26: I really cannot figure out why people are so upset by all these activities by the NSA.  Seriously, what is the big deal?  They are NOT interested in your personal information.  They are not trying to catch people breaking the law.  All they care about is Setec Astronomy.  They are just trying to improve our understanding of the stars.  So all you paranoid conspiracy theorists just need to lighten up.

Are you a troll, incredibly stupid, incredibly naive , or an incredibly stupid naive troll?


Sigh. Next time you see a phrase that you do not understand (setec astronomy) try Googling it first, OK?
 
2013-06-15 11:41:30 PM

Weaver95: RanDomino: uber humper
Nope. We live in a democracy where this can come to light and be criticized in the open.

Due to the efforts of people who are branded as traitors and have indictments cooked up against them in record time

its interesting, isn't it?  the people who expose the lies, corruption and dirty politics are reviled, branded traitors and punished harshly.  and nobody really seems to care.  we just sit here on the 'net, pontificating, watching NCIS and pirating copies of 'Game of Thrones'.  meanwhile bankers still millions, our government loots and pillages our communication records, and congress does nothing but toss political footballs between various factions.

I wonder how much longer we can last?  are we going to survive the 21st century?


You ever watch the West Wing?
 
2013-06-15 11:41:38 PM

Corn_Fed: o5iiawah: Before you GOP shills start spiking the football over this, ask yourself who actually pushed for the apparatus in the first place, the sort of cloth he is cut from and the two most recent republicans to run for the POTUS.

John McCain and Romney would have been doing this as well.  The issue is not republican or democrat, but big government.  You're all welcome

Exactly. The Republicans have proven themselves to be every bit as Big Government as Dems. Actually, more so.


Neo-conservatives don't even pretend to be for small government.
 
2013-06-15 11:41:50 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-15 11:42:31 PM

cig-mkr: NavajoCode Talkers of WW II didn't worry about anyone listening to them !
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/navajocodetalk.htm


Also during World War II, American-Japanese troops fighting in Europe communicated in Japanese over the radios.
 
2013-06-15 11:43:16 PM

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.
 
2013-06-15 11:43:26 PM
So I take it that Obama was fibbing when he said that they only review the pertinent conversations after an event happens ? Sort of like closing the barn door.......
 
2013-06-15 11:44:03 PM

Vectron: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x646]


Cool headphones.  He really is the President of Awesome.
 
2013-06-15 11:44:06 PM

sendtodave: 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.

Well, it has happened before.



I'm guessing you're trying to refer to the Progressive Party. Do you know what happened in that election? They lost. And the fairly progressive, but apparently not progressive enough Taft also lost. Clearing the way for a Democrat who started rolling back progressive reforms and started laying down a pro-corporate agenda that eventually led to the crash in '29 and the Great Depression. Oh, and the Republican Party wound up going more conservative in the wake of that, and it took a progressive Democrat, emerging from within the system, to fix it.

That really what you want to accomplish?

sendtodave: But say we keep betting on the same two teams. How do we put pressure on them to actually work for us, and not for themselves?


You vote in primaries, dumbass. You start running primaries against incumbent members of your own party. You empower the Wydens and Bennets of the world, just like the Tea Party brought an entirely different flavor to the Republican Party and empowered the Rand Paul and Ted Cruzs in its midst. You don't move things by losing elections, you change things by winning them. And if you've waited until the general election, it's too late.

Seriously, it hasn't been that long since 2010. You have one of the most effectively organized internal movements within a major political party in American history staring you in the face, and you have to ask how to put pressure on a political party?
 
2013-06-15 11:44:41 PM

cig-mkr: So I take it that Obama was fibbing when he said that they only review the pertinent conversations after an event happens ? Sort of like closing the barn door.......


I'm sure he was just "mistaken."
 
2013-06-15 11:45:04 PM

Mock26: cig-mkr: NavajoCode Talkers of WW II didn't worry about anyone listening to them !
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/navajocodetalk.htm

Also during World War II, American-Japanese troops fighting in Europe communicated in Japanese over the radios.


Hummm, never knew that.
 
2013-06-15 11:45:05 PM

SunsetLament: djkutch: GeneralJim: 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.
Personally, I prefer to remember the candidate who promised to end it, and extended and deepened it instead. Besides that, the USA PATRIOT Act passed the House 357 to 66, and passed the Senate by 98 to 1. Truly bipartisan bullshiat, despite your need to blame Bush.

So, you admit it was mistake, pre-Obama?

And the evidence that domestic warrantless (before or after) wiretaps was occurring before Obama is ...?

Hepting v. AT&T

is a United States class action lawsuit filed in January 2006 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) against the telecommunications company AT&T, in which the EFF alleges that AT&T permitted and assisted the National Security Agency (NSA) in unlawfully monitoring the communications of the United States, including AT&T customers, businesses and third parties whose communications were routed through AT&T's network, as well as Voice over IP telephone calls routed via the Internet.

Jewel v. National Security Agency is a similar class action suit filed in September 2008 and naming the NSA and the Bush administration.

Source: about 1.5 seconds on Wiki; you could do your own search if you wanted to.
 
2013-06-15 11:45:10 PM
would anyone care to comment that maybe the NSA should use all this data to help American business kick some obama on the international/world market? i mean 1/2 those monitored calls / emails / etc... are all foreign obama, right?
 
2013-06-15 11:46:08 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-15 11:47:27 PM

Skip Whiffle: [i.imgur.com image 680x1024]


Fo' shizzle.
 
2013-06-15 11:47:49 PM

sendtodave: cig-mkr: So I take it that Obama was fibbing when he said that they only review the pertinent conversations after an event happens ? Sort of like closing the barn door.......

I'm sure he was just "mistaken."


Got bad intel from his subordinates, yeah that's the ticket.
 
2013-06-15 11:47:53 PM

cptjeff: Wydens and Bennets of the world


Sorry, meant to say Udall. Other Senator from Colorado.
 
2013-06-15 11:47:55 PM

vygramul: ipsofacto: Tanuki no Kintama: Here's the exchange the article is based on:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4456141

I'm skeptical that this exchange is conclusive proof of the article's claim. Smells like click-whoring.

You're not allowed to reserve judgment.


ikr. I wanted to jump on this; but without any 'clarification' by Mueller, Alexander or Rep. Nadler on this exchange, it's really just bad journalism, imo.
 
2013-06-15 11:48:54 PM

cig-mkr: Mock26: cig-mkr: NavajoCode Talkers of WW II didn't worry about anyone listening to them !
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/navajocodetalk.htm

Also during World War II, American-Japanese troops fighting in Europe communicated in Japanese over the radios.

Hummm, never knew that.


It was not an official policy or anything like that, but just something some of the radio operators came up with.
 
2013-06-15 11:49:43 PM

Mock26: mizchief: Mock26: I really cannot figure out why people are so upset by all these activities by the NSA.  Seriously, what is the big deal?  They are NOT interested in your personal information.  They are not trying to catch people breaking the law.  All they care about is Setec Astronomy.  They are just trying to improve our understanding of the stars.  So all you paranoid conspiracy theorists just need to lighten up.

Are you a troll, incredibly stupid, incredibly naive , or an incredibly stupid naive troll?

Sigh. Next time you see a phrase that you do not understand (setec astronomy) try Googling it first, OK?


I honesty skimmed over that part of your post. Just so sick of this "I have nothing to hide, I don't care if they snoop". BS argument. The scotch isn't helping, but is delicious.
 
2013-06-15 11:50:09 PM

Bucky Katt: "global elite bankers" is a euphamism for Jews.


So you're not aware that plenty of them are gentiles, yet they destroyed the global economy with massive endemic fraud and were not even prosecuted?
 
2013-06-15 11:50:19 PM
KILL 'EM ALL -  by Metallica was a great album
 
2013-06-15 11:50:31 PM
This is why I voted for Saxon.
 
2013-06-15 11:50:42 PM
If it's OK for the NSA, what's to stop the IRS, CIA, FBI ?
 
2013-06-15 11:51:04 PM
I don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative, if you think this is ok you should be shot in the farking head.
 
2013-06-15 11:51:24 PM
Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell:

Clinton's big lie: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Bush's big lie: Sadaam Hussein conspired with Al Queda to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Obama's big lie: We're not listening to your phone calls.
 
2013-06-15 11:51:31 PM

mizchief: Mock26: mizchief: Mock26: I really cannot figure out why people are so upset by all these activities by the NSA.  Seriously, what is the big deal?  They are NOT interested in your personal information.  They are not trying to catch people breaking the law.  All they care about is Setec Astronomy.  They are just trying to improve our understanding of the stars.  So all you paranoid conspiracy theorists just need to lighten up.

Are you a troll, incredibly stupid, incredibly naive , or an incredibly stupid naive troll?

Sigh. Next time you see a phrase that you do not understand (setec astronomy) try Googling it first, OK?

I honesty skimmed over that part of your post. Just so sick of this "I have nothing to hide, I don't care if they snoop". BS argument. The scotch isn't helping, but is delicious.


people only think they have nothing to hide. just go back to the days of McCarthy and what he used against folks who thought they had nothing to hide.
 
2013-06-15 11:51:49 PM

dennysgod: This is why I voted for Saxon.


Denim and Leather!
 
2013-06-15 11:52:06 PM
Anyway, moving away from "both sides are bad;"

National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.

Hrm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak

This case is notable because it is the first court from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals to explicitly hold that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of e-mails stored on third party servers and that the content of these emails is subject to Fourth Amendment protection.[1]

Of course, I guess there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy for one's gawd damned phone conversations, too.

How is this program possibly Constitutional?
 
2013-06-15 11:52:20 PM
We're living n J. Edgar Hoover's wet dream.
 
2013-06-15 11:53:07 PM

cig-mkr: If it's OK for the NSA, what's to stop the IRS, CIA, FBI ?


Is anyone seriously doubting they don't have the same power?
 
2013-06-15 11:53:21 PM

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.


Actually I did notice this. Also, lately the blatant pandering has been way more obvious. They're all using the exact same arguments and talking points but simply blaming the other side.

We've been had.
 
2013-06-15 11:53:26 PM

Waldo Pepper: mizchief: Mock26: mizchief: Mock26: I really cannot figure out why people are so upset by all these activities by the NSA.  Seriously, what is the big deal?  They are NOT interested in your personal information.  They are not trying to catch people breaking the law.  All they care about is Setec Astronomy.  They are just trying to improve our understanding of the stars.  So all you paranoid conspiracy theorists just need to lighten up.

Are you a troll, incredibly stupid, incredibly naive , or an incredibly stupid naive troll?

Sigh. Next time you see a phrase that you do not understand (setec astronomy) try Googling it first, OK?

I honesty skimmed over that part of your post. Just so sick of this "I have nothing to hide, I don't care if they snoop". BS argument. The scotch isn't helping, but is delicious.

people only think they have nothing to hide. just go back to the days of McCarthy and what he used against folks who thought they had nothing to hide.


http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-t he -wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/

Everyone has something to hide.
 
2013-06-15 11:54:26 PM
I'd like to get Wyden and Udall on a "Meet the Press" type show, and simply ask them if they think the Executive branch has violated the 4th Amendment, given what they know.  Have them give a yes or no answer.

That would be a good start. From there, we can start tying down officials with probing questions that don't allow them to escape the issue.
 
2013-06-15 11:55:33 PM

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.

"global elite bankers" is a euphamism for Jews.



media.hamptonroads.com

"Now, you may very well think that but of course, I couldn't possibly comment."
 
2013-06-15 11:55:48 PM
Waldo Pepper:
people only think they have nothing to hide. just go back to the days of McCarthy and what he used against folks who thought they had nothing to hide.

Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it
 
2013-06-15 11:56:02 PM

cptjeff: sendtodave: 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.

Well, it has happened before.

I'm guessing you're trying to refer to the Progressive Party. Do you know what happened in that election? They lost. And the fairly progressive, but apparently not progressive enough Taft also lost. Clearing the way for a Democrat who started rolling back progressive reforms and started laying down a pro-corporate agenda that eventually led to the crash in '29 and the Great Depression. Oh, and the Republican Party wound up going more conservative in the wake of that, and it took a progressive Democrat, emerging from within the system, to fix it.

That really what you want to accomplish?

sendtodave: But say we keep betting on the same two teams. How do we put pressure on them to actually work for us, and not for themselves?

You vote in primaries, dumbass. You start running primaries against incumbent members of your own party. You empower the Wydens and Bennets of the world, just like the Tea Party brought an entirely different flavor to the Republican Party and empowered the Rand Paul and Ted Cruzs in its midst. You don't move things by losing elections, you change things by winning them. And if you've waited until the general election, it's too late.

Seriously, it hasn't been that long since 2010. You have one of the most effectively organized internal movements within a major political party in American history staring you in the face, and you have to ask how to put pressure on a political party?


In the recent mayoral election here in Los Angeles, just about the same time as all this nonsense, 19% of the voting-eligible population of L.A. voted. NINETEEN PERCENT. In one of the most heavily populated cities, arguably one of the most powerful mayors in America...less than one-fifth of the eligible voters cared enough to get off their asses and decide who'd be making decisions about things for the next four years. This after people had been excoriating Villaraigosa for months over his policies. 19%.

Now, Wendy Gruel and Eric Garcetti are just flip and flop of the same mayoral candidate; but the fact remains that a handful of people got to decide who is going to run the rest of Los Angeles for everyone else. Where is this mythical "third party" that everyone keeps proclaiming will save us? Because this is where they could make a difference,if they existed. Imagine if a "third party" got some traction in LA or NYC or Chicago and really took control there, before making a run for the Governor's mansion or the White House. But we only ever hear of the "third party" every eight years, when there's a contested presidential election, and then there's not enough support to put them into office--where it wouldn't matter anyway because whoever controlled Congress would run things anyway.

So why isn't there a "third party" making a play for a big city? If they could make that much of a difference, why aren't they trying where it could count?
 
2013-06-15 11:56:16 PM
OgreMagi
I've been saying that all along. Which, according to some farkers, makes me a moron. Who'd of thunk?

Didn't we used to argue constantly? What was that all about? ehh capitalism I suppose... it's always one or the other.


Weaver95
Anyways, the point here is that our rights are gone. G-O-N-E. not coming back. ever. the fedgov isn't going to give up its ability to spy on us. accept it. And learn from this lesson...anything you give to the government is gone forever. we don't get it back. stop giving up what little we've got left.

Undoubtably, with that kind of attitude. Look, when the British rode into Washington DC and demanded our tea, did Paul Revere give up? No! And when the Cubans tried to invade Louisiana, did Andrew Jackson cry like a little girl? Hell no! And when the Nazis bombed Pearl Harbor, Teddy Roosevelt stood right up and said, "Remember the Alamo!". So are you going to sit back and take it? Or are you going to fight back like those who came before you, like Rick Blaine, Col. Robert Hogan, and Lt. Col. Andrew Tanner?
 
2013-06-15 11:57:32 PM

RanDomino: Undoubtably, with that kind of attitude. Look, when the British rode into Washington DC and demanded our tea, did Paul Revere give up? No! And when the Cubans tried to invade Louisiana, did Andrew Jackson cry like a little girl? Hell no! And when the Nazis bombed Pearl Harbor, Teddy Roosevelt stood right up and said, "Remember the Alamo!". So are you going to sit back and take it? Or are you going to fight back like those who came before you, like Rick Blaine, Col. Robert Hogan, and Lt. Col. Andrew Tanner?


You're rolling
 
2013-06-15 11:57:42 PM
The thing that dumbfounds me the most about this "leak" is the fact that you idiots didn't know this was happening since 2001.

Is everyone here a bunch of morons? What did you guys think the Patriot Act was? Most of the morans that are whining about this "intrusion" are the same idiots that said I hated America when anyone with 1/2 a brain knew this was what was going to happen.

God damn people are stupid. fark.
 
2013-06-15 11:59:00 PM
I would say I wasn't surprised but they already know that.
 
2013-06-15 11:59:33 PM
The good thing about Re-education Camps is that they are Shovel Ready.

www.nps.gov
 
2013-06-16 12:00:24 AM
Repeal the Patriot Act and any law that okays this sort of thing. And, while we're at it, fire a whole bunch of people over this.
 
2013-06-16 12:00:33 AM

Gyrfalcon: So why isn't there a "third party" making a play for a big city? If they could make that much of a difference, why aren't they trying where it could count?


That's a good point.  Have this new party work up from the bottom, as opposed to impotently flailing about at the top.

I guess they'd get less campaign contributions that way.
 
2013-06-16 12:01:26 AM

Granny_Panties: The thing that dumbfounds me the most about this "leak" is the fact that you idiots didn't know this was happening since 2001.


Even worse, anyone accusing the government of doing it was labeled "paranoid" and more recently a capitalist shill.
I don't consider myself particularly conservative, but I have been accused of being so because for some reason the left thinks that Obama can do no wrong.
DON'T TRUST YOUR GOVERNMENT!
 
2013-06-16 12:01:46 AM

sendtodave: Waldo Pepper: mizchief: Mock26: mizchief: Mock26: I really cannot figure out why people are so upset by all these activities by the NSA.  Seriously, what is the big deal?  They are NOT interested in your personal information.  They are not trying to catch people breaking the law.  All they care about is Setec Astronomy.  They are just trying to improve our understanding of the stars.  So all you paranoid conspiracy theorists just need to lighten up.

Are you a troll, incredibly stupid, incredibly naive , or an incredibly stupid naive troll?

Sigh. Next time you see a phrase that you do not understand (setec astronomy) try Googling it first, OK?

I honesty skimmed over that part of your post. Just so sick of this "I have nothing to hide, I don't care if they snoop". BS argument. The scotch isn't helping, but is delicious.

people only think they have nothing to hide. just go back to the days of McCarthy and what he used against folks who thought they had nothing to hide.

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-t he -wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/

Everyone has something to hide.


I don't have much to hide, but I've got a lot most people would rather not see...
 
2013-06-16 12:02:19 AM

Hermione_Granger: Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell:

Clinton's big lie: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Bush's big lie: Sadaam Hussein conspired with Al Queda to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Obama's Bush's big lie #2: We're not listening to your phone calls.

Obama's big lie: Change.


I fixed it it for accuracy. This was in place long before Obama got there. The only thing he did was going along with it.
 
2013-06-16 12:02:34 AM

DeaH: Repeal the Patriot Act and any law that okays this sort of thing. And, while we're at it, fire KILL a whole bunch of people over this.



We are pretty much at a point where a Second Amendment solution is appropriate.
 
2013-06-16 12:03:00 AM

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

 
2013-06-16 12:03:16 AM

Granny_Panties: What did you guys think the Patriot Act was?


The Patriot Act does not in any way, shape or form allow warrantless spying on Americans telephone conversations.

Neither did the FISA rewrite in 2008.

The whole point of FISA was to set a a secret court where they could go and get warrants.

They couldn't even be bothered to do that.
 
2013-06-16 12:03:45 AM
So when can we ask if and when we have been monitored? I think it's a valid question and people should be allowed to come forth with their stories, with honest answers about how it has affected their life, if at all. We will never get that though and we are completely not in control of our government. We lost that control around 9/11/01.
 
2013-06-16 12:04:44 AM

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


25.media.tumblr.com
 
PKY
2013-06-16 12:04:54 AM
It's nothing sadder than people who voted democrat trying to defend their party and Obama accomplishing nothing progressive, but instead staying the course after Bush or even expanding surveillance, secret courts, letting the three-letter agencies running wild, hunting whistle-blowers, ignoring habeas corpus, foreign policy etc. Everything change was about. Will go down in history as eight years of world's biggest nothing.
 
2013-06-16 12:04:57 AM

sendtodave: Gyrfalcon: So why isn't there a "third party" making a play for a big city? If they could make that much of a difference, why aren't they trying where it could count?

That's a good point.  Have this new party work up from the bottom, as opposed to impotently flailing about at the top.

I guess they'd get less campaign contributions that way.


Where do you live?  Here in Colorado, there's third party candidates all they way down to local.  Not that they get many votes, for the most part.  The two party system is turtles all the way down.
 
2013-06-16 12:05:07 AM

R.A.Danny: DeaH: Repeal the Patriot Act and any law that okays this sort of thing. And, while we're at it, fire KILL a whole bunch of people over this.


We are pretty much at a point where a Second Amendment solution is appropriate.


Not quite. Before a revolution can be successful, the government has to be unable to pay the military.
 
2013-06-16 12:05:09 AM
https://www.whispersystems.org/#privacy

Call and text encryption for Andriod.  Open source.
 
2013-06-16 12:05:51 AM

R.A.Danny: Granny_Panties: The thing that dumbfounds me the most about this "leak" is the fact that you idiots didn't know this was happening since 2001.

Even worse, anyone accusing the government of doing it was labeled "paranoid" and more recently a capitalist shill.
I don't consider myself particularly conservative, but I have been accused of being so because for some reason the left thinks that Obama can do no wrong.
DON'T TRUST YOUR GOVERNMENT!


Obama did wrong. He said Hope and Change and we got Dubya Lite's 3rd term. Obama is a scumbag. I still trust his scum more than Romney's scum. I hate voting for the better of two scums.
 
2013-06-16 12:06:06 AM
We have to have fundamental change in Washington DC.  Dismantle the Empire. Bring the troops home. Stop making enemies that fuel the need for a military industrial complex. Introduce an amendment to the constitution that specifies a right to privacy in our high tech age. If Washington doesn't listen, perhaps secession is the answer.
 
2013-06-16 12:06:54 AM

Gyrfalcon: R.A.Danny: DeaH: Repeal the Patriot Act and any law that okays this sort of thing. And, while we're at it, fire KILL a whole bunch of people over this.


We are pretty much at a point where a Second Amendment solution is appropriate.

Not quite. Before a revolution can be successful, the government has to be unable to pay the military.


We're really at a historic point when you bring up the subject of revolution though. You gotta admit that no matter what side of the subject you are on.
 
2013-06-16 12:07:29 AM

0x1a4: sendtodave: Gyrfalcon: So why isn't there a "third party" making a play for a big city? If they could make that much of a difference, why aren't they trying where it could count?

That's a good point.  Have this new party work up from the bottom, as opposed to impotently flailing about at the top.

I guess they'd get less campaign contributions that way.

Where do you live?  Here in Colorado, there's third party candidates all they way down to local.  Not that they get many votes, for the most part.  The two party system is turtles all the way down.


Pearl River Delta.

Really only one party here.  I don't vote for it.
 
2013-06-16 12:07:35 AM
I love how retarded Republicans are up in arms about the surveillance and yet seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that their good old boy George W. Bush was the one who made all this possible.
 
2013-06-16 12:08:08 AM
Threads like this pretty much make me hate everyone.

JIHAD!
 
2013-06-16 12:08:27 AM
Now if we could get people to understand that government officials as a whole (Democrats and Republicans) are both in on it, we could get somewhere. Sadly for the past decade the political atmosphere is so damn polarized that we take one side at fault and not the other.
 
2013-06-16 12:08:47 AM

OgreMagi: Let me repeat.  VOTE THIRD PARTY.  I don't care which third party.  Just stop farking voting for democrats and republicans.

And for you idiots who say, "Oh, noes! That would destroy our entire political system."  YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT IT WOULD.  That's called a feature.  Causing a complete collapse of the existing political process is a damn sight better than armed insurrection.


wrong.

Not "vote third party". Vote pirate party. Get this shiat over with, by voting in people that understand these issues. even green party won't understand the tiniest significance of these issues any better than the democrats and republicans that are either willingly or unintentionally ignorant.

Technology is our society and has been for a millenia. If you don't make sure people understand technology properly you end up with abuses like we're dealing with.
 
2013-06-16 12:09:02 AM

Vectron: We have to have fundamental change in Washington DC.  Dismantle the Empire. Bring the troops home. Stop making enemies that fuel the need for a military industrial complex. Introduce an amendment to the constitution that specifies a right to privacy in our high tech age. If Washington doesn't listen, perhaps secession is the answer.


PRISMED
 
2013-06-16 12:09:10 AM

Asphyxium: I love how retarded Republicans are up in arms about the surveillance and yet seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that their good old boy George W. Bush was the one who made all this possible.


No. People that value liberty were against this all along. Don't pretend for a second that it's a partisan issue, the left failed to fix anything.
 
2013-06-16 12:09:22 AM

Vectron: We have to have fundamental change in Washington DC.  Dismantle the Empire. Bring the troops home. Stop making enemies that fuel the need for a military industrial complex. Introduce an amendment to the constitution that specifies a right to privacy in our high tech age. If Washington doesn't listen, perhaps secession is the answer.


We need to support Israel.

If that means we need to watch everyone 24/7 to keep safe from the pissed-off Muslims, well, it's a small price to pay.
 
2013-06-16 12:09:42 AM

Gyrfalcon: R.A.Danny: DeaH: Repeal the Patriot Act and any law that okays this sort of thing. And, while we're at it, fire KILL a whole bunch of people over this.


We are pretty much at a point where a Second Amendment solution is appropriate.

Not quite. Before a revolution can be successful, the government has to be unable to pay the military.



The Fed's shenanigans fuel the empire. I don't see an end to this anytime soon.
 
2013-06-16 12:10:31 AM

Asphyxium: I love how retarded Republicans are up in arms about the surveillance and yet seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that their good old boy George W. Bush was the one who made all this possible.


Yeah, we're past finger pointing at parties.

I hope.
 
2013-06-16 12:10:46 AM

Asphyxium: I love how retarded Republicans are up in arms about the surveillance and yet seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that their good old boy George W. Bush was the one who made all this possible.


I love how people can't seem to stop pointing fingers at everyone but themselves.

We're all responsible for this. We enabled it, and until we take responsibility we will have no power to stop it.
 
2013-06-16 12:10:48 AM
Are there people who think this hasn't been going on for decades?
 
2013-06-16 12:12:14 AM
2016 elections won't matter on who wins. If Obama vowed to stop the surveillance crap Bush did only to continue it, what's going to make any of the candidates on either side throw away the forbidden fruit?
 
2013-06-16 12:12:23 AM

Craptastic: Threads like this pretty much make me hate everyone.

JIHAD!


Your kung fu is weak. Only Sean Hannity fits that profile.
 
2013-06-16 12:13:45 AM

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


Again, this is not a partisan issue.
Partisans are like racists when they forgo what is right for what is popular and the mistaken feeling of what is self gratifying with what is in truth counterproductive.
 
2013-06-16 12:14:06 AM

BullBearMS: Granny_Panties: What did you guys think the Patriot Act was?

The Patriot Act does not in any way, shape or form allow warrantless spying on Americans telephone conversations.

Neither did the FISA rewrite in 2008.

The whole point of FISA was to set a a secret court where they could go and get warrants.

They couldn't even be bothered to do that.


Keep telling yourself that. Warrantless wiretapping has been a key "feature" since 2001. I don't even have to guess that you are a Republican. Or what Republicans on Fark call themselves "Libertarian" or "Independent" that always vote straight ticket GOP.

This was a Republican act. Own up to it. Obama was just doing what his masters told him to do. The only thing Obama did here was spinelessly went along for the ride.
 
2013-06-16 12:15:07 AM

Asphyxium: I love how retarded Republicans are up in arms about the surveillance and yet seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that their good old boy George W. Bush was the one who made all this possible.


You sound young.  It's been going on a lot longer than that.
 
2013-06-16 12:15:18 AM

WizardofToast: 2016 elections won't matter on who wins. If Obama vowed to stop the surveillance crap Bush did only to continue it, what's going to make any of the candidates on either side throw away the forbidden fruit?


Hillary is worse than Obama. Romney WOULD have been worse than Obama. We will get no chance at all to vote for anyone that reflects our concerns.
 
2013-06-16 12:15:36 AM

GhostFish: Asphyxium: I love how retarded Republicans are up in arms about the surveillance and yet seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that their good old boy George W. Bush was the one who made all this possible.

I love how people can't seem to stop pointing fingers at everyone but themselves.

We're all responsible for this. We enabled it, and until we take responsibility we will have no power to stop it.


Well, our representatives enabled it.   We enabled them by giving them the power.  But that's how the system is supposed to work, right?

I mean, I guess you could argue that we should have picked other representatives, but they would have supported it, too.

No, really, I think the blame is on the government not the people.  The people got shafted.
 
2013-06-16 12:15:48 AM
"This idea that no court will review, no Congress will know, and we're gonna trust the President and the Vice-President of the United States that they're doin' the right thing, don't count me in on that."

Joe Biden, 2006
 
2013-06-16 12:17:03 AM

WizardofToast: 2016 elections won't matter on who wins. If Obama vowed to stop the surveillance crap Bush did only to continue it, what's going to make any of the candidates on either side throw away the forbidden fruit?


By making it clear that we will not allow fear to dictate our vote.

They do this shiat because the risk of not doing it seems too great. We need to break them of that. We need to let them know that some amount of risk and danger and ignorance is acceptable.

The government does not need to be aware of or control all factors. Bad shiat is going to happen occasionally. If we try to deny that reality, we'll just end up with different bad shiat of our own making.
 
2013-06-16 12:17:09 AM

Granny_Panties: BullBearMS: Granny_Panties: What did you guys think the Patriot Act was?

The Patriot Act does not in any way, shape or form allow warrantless spying on Americans telephone conversations.

Neither did the FISA rewrite in 2008.

The whole point of FISA was to set a a secret court where they could go and get warrants.

They couldn't even be bothered to do that.

Keep telling yourself that. Warrantless wiretapping has been a key "feature" since 2001. I don't even have to guess that you are a Republican. Or what Republicans on Fark call themselves "Libertarian" or "Independent" that always vote straight ticket GOP.

This was a Republican act. Own up to it. Obama was just doing what his masters told him to do. The only thing Obama did here was spinelessly went along for the ride.


YOU'RE NOT HELPING.

Patriot Act was bipartisan, and so is this.  Fark your team spirit, get on the side of the People.
 
2013-06-16 12:17:12 AM

Vangor: If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Wait... from where is this argument coming from? Surely he means "without any other legal authorization 'sought'" rather than "required".


With Nadler, it's probably someone he ate over the last few years.

I always thought if Nadler met Depardieu, it would be like that time KITT ran into KARR.  I'm not sure who would end up eating who, or whether or not it would create a vortex/vacuum in space-time.
 
2013-06-16 12:17:45 AM

sendtodave: Where do you live? Here in Colorado, there's third party candidates all they way down to local. Not that they get many votes, for the most part. The two party system is turtles all the way down.

Pearl River Delta.

Really only one party here. I don't vote for it.


Well, I guess not being able to vote at all is a little different.  For now.  I wonder if it even makes any difference anymore here.  We're headed to a bad place politically.  No one cares though.  As long as we can keep up with Paris Hilton and the Beiber.  Would you vote if you could?  So many here don't.  Turnout is depressing.
 
2013-06-16 12:18:42 AM

Granny_Panties: BullBearMS: Granny_Panties: What did you guys think the Patriot Act was?

The Patriot Act does not in any way, shape or form allow warrantless spying on Americans telephone conversations.

Neither did the FISA rewrite in 2008.

The whole point of FISA was to set a a secret court where they could go and get warrants.

They couldn't even be bothered to do that.

Keep telling yourself that. Warrantless wiretapping has been a key "feature" since 2001. I don't even have to guess that you are a Republican. Or what Republicans on Fark call themselves "Libertarian" or "Independent" that always vote straight ticket GOP.

This was a Republican act. Own up to it. Obama was just doing what his masters told him to do. The only thing Obama did here was spinelessly went along for the ride.


The desire for public surveillance is too engrained into the culture of American politicians. When a president leaves office, it doesn't poof into thin air. The next president will have to go their own way to get rid of it and more likely they'll just ignore the hassle and keep it. Why yes, the last president was terrible for watching on the public! But I think I'll be doing it the right way!
 
2013-06-16 12:19:14 AM

WizardofToast: 2016 elections won't matter on who wins. If Obama vowed to stop the surveillance crap Bush did only to continue it, what's going to make any of the candidates on either side throw away the forbidden fruit?


Nothing, if we keep on voting for the same two parties into office.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

Stop listening to the assholes who tell you we have to keep on electing them.
 
2013-06-16 12:19:48 AM
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - T-Jef
 
2013-06-16 12:20:31 AM

0x1a4: sendtodave: Where do you live? Here in Colorado, there's third party candidates all they way down to local. Not that they get many votes, for the most part. The two party system is turtles all the way down.

Pearl River Delta.

Really only one party here. I don't vote for it.

Well, I guess not being able to vote at all is a little different.  For now.  I wonder if it even makes any difference anymore here.  We're headed to a bad place politically.  No one cares though.  As long as we can keep up with Paris Hilton and the Beiber.  Would you vote if you could?  So many here don't.  Turnout is depressing.


I'm American.   I can (and do) still vote for American races (though only the big one, really) at the Consulate.

Don't votet for the Chinese government, of course.  So, I'm not missing much, neither can anyone else.

/that's the joke
 
2013-06-16 12:21:13 AM

farkingatwork: OgreMagi: Let me repeat.  VOTE THIRD PARTY.  I don't care which third party.  Just stop farking voting for democrats and republicans.

And for you idiots who say, "Oh, noes! That would destroy our entire political system."  YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT IT WOULD.  That's called a feature.  Causing a complete collapse of the existing political process is a damn sight better than armed insurrection.

wrong.

Not "vote third party". Vote pirate party. Get this shiat over with, by voting in people that understand these issues. even green party won't understand the tiniest significance of these issues any better than the democrats and republicans that are either willingly or unintentionally ignorant.

Technology is our society and has been for a millenia. If you don't make sure people understand technology properly you end up with abuses like we're dealing with.


I don't actually believe any one party will fix it.  What will fix it is finally sending the message that we are tired of their shiat.  Voting the bastards out doesn't work because the replacement is from "the other party", which I don't believe is a different party.  When a significant count of votes goes for a third option we might get their attention.

Though I doubt that.  I've pretty much lost all faith in our entire political process.
 
2013-06-16 12:22:50 AM
Weaver95
its interesting, isn't it? the people who expose the lies, corruption and dirty politics are reviled, branded traitors and punished harshly. and nobody really seems to care. we just sit here on the 'net, pontificating, watching NCIS and pirating copies of 'Game of Thrones'. meanwhile bankers still millions, our government loots and pillages our communication records, and congress does nothing but toss political footballs between various factions.

Actually, I'm working on several projects to help build an economic base for a sustainable anti-capitalist and anti-State movement by empowering people to have economic control over their own lives, under the theory that when people aren't under constant pressure then they make dignity a priority and are more likely to 'spontaneously' fight back against this kind of shiat. It's slow and thankless, but I've seen more results in the last three years since adopting this strategy than in the previous ten, and it seems to be gradually building momentum (I suspect that when it hits a critical point of participation among the general population, it will rapidly become mainstream, under the "innovator, early adopter, majority" trajectory).

So what are YOU doing?


cptjeff
You vote in primaries, dumbass.

A Progressive push in the Democratic Party Primaries was attempted in 2006. It had some success. And then the Party leadership crushed them. Within the Parties, the good-old-boys clubs have total control. They control the social networking. They have the funders on their side. They control the paid professionals who do all the electioneering work. The Party apparatuses are not just used to win elections externally, but internally as well.

Look, here's what would happen if you tried to do this plan. First, the local Party would greet you enthusiastically as fresh meat. Then, upon discovering that you have principles, you would be shunned and asked to do demoralizing election work (and put on lists to be hit up for donations). If you actually tried to run someone in the primary against the local Golden Child (office-holding politicians), they would react with horror and disgust and unite to crush you. The e-mail lists would carry endorsement after endorsement for the incumbent. Funders would give scandalous amounts of money to the incumbent to beat that little twerp upstart. The professionals would line up to help the incumbent, knowing that siding with you would be instant death to their chances at getting picked up as an aide in the statehouse or Washington. The Party hoi polloi would vote as directed. If you run a really fantastic campaign, you might get 20%. Maybe.

The amount of organization to reform the Democrats through primaries would require first building a new party of comparable power from scratch. Good luck with that.
 
2013-06-16 12:24:22 AM

PKY: Obama accomplishing nothing progressive,


Just a few things liberals ought to be happy with:

Health Care Reform. Not as good as it could or should have been, but a really big farking deal nonetheless.
Bank Reform. See above.
Stopped a Recession from deepening and started a slow recovery, despite massive opposition.
Saved the US Auto Industry.
Dismantled the Minerals Management Service.
Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Signed Hate Crimes legislation for crimes targeting LGBT victims.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Got the VAWA re-authorization passed over significant Republican opposition.
Dramatically revamped US Foreign Policy to work in a much smarter way.
Ended the Iraq War
In the process of ending the Afghanistan War.
Changed US armed engagement strategy from the use of conventional forces to lower impact targeted strikes and special forces missions.
Tried to close Gitmo.
Ended torture and released the Bush torture memos.
Negotiated and passed a new SALT Treaty.
New GI Bill
Raised taxes on the wealthy while maintaining lower middle class rates
Increased fuel economy standards and allowed states to raise standards above the Federal level
CO2 ruled to be a pollutant.
Stricter labor and environmental enforcement within existing free trade agreements.


I'll start caring about what the "both sides are bad so vote third party" people have to say when they stop being stupid. Deal?
 
2013-06-16 12:25:22 AM

sendtodave: GhostFish: Asphyxium: I love how retarded Republicans are up in arms about the surveillance and yet seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that their good old boy George W. Bush was the one who made all this possible.

I love how people can't seem to stop pointing fingers at everyone but themselves.

We're all responsible for this. We enabled it, and until we take responsibility we will have no power to stop it.

Well, our representatives enabled it.   We enabled them by giving them the power.  But that's how the system is supposed to work, right?

I mean, I guess you could argue that we should have picked other representatives, but they would have supported it, too.

No, really, I think the blame is on the government not the people.  The people got shafted.


We elected them, and we did it because we allowed them to play on our fears, anxieties, and hopes through slick advertising paid for by the highest bidder.

We allow ourselves to be played, and then throw up our hands and abandon responsibility for that.

Refusal to take responsibility just allows people to blame Bush, or Obama, or any side they want to put it on. And as long as it's being arbitrarily blamed on the left or right then we're just stuck back where we began with a subjective choice of the lesser evil.
 
2013-06-16 12:28:10 AM

GhostFish: sendtodave: GhostFish: Asphyxium: I love how retarded Republicans are up in arms about the surveillance and yet seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that their good old boy George W. Bush was the one who made all this possible.

I love how people can't seem to stop pointing fingers at everyone but themselves.

We're all responsible for this. We enabled it, and until we take responsibility we will have no power to stop it.

Well, our representatives enabled it.   We enabled them by giving them the power.  But that's how the system is supposed to work, right?

I mean, I guess you could argue that we should have picked other representatives, but they would have supported it, too.

No, really, I think the blame is on the government not the people.  The people got shafted.

We elected them, and we did it because we allowed them to play on our fears, anxieties, and hopes through slick advertising paid for by the highest bidder.

We allow ourselves to be played, and then throw up our hands and abandon responsibility for that.

Refusal to take responsibility just allows people to blame Bush, or Obama, or any side they want to put it on. And as long as it's being arbitrarily blamed on the left or right then we're just stuck back where we began with a subjective choice of the lesser evil.


What I'm saying is that the alternative wouldn't have been any different.  Damn near everyone was in favor of increased government power in 2001, and with good reason.  Democrat, Republican, it hardly mattered!
 
2013-06-16 12:28:28 AM
Has anyone tried to enter those conversations into evidence in a criminal trial? No? Then sue the government for invasion of privacy and see what you get.
 
2013-06-16 12:28:32 AM

BullBearMS: Granny_Panties: What did you guys think the Patriot Act was?

The Patriot Act does not in any way, shape or form allow warrantless spying on Americans telephone conversations.

Neither did the FISA rewrite in 2008.

The whole point of FISA was to set a a secret court where they could go and get warrants.

They couldn't even be bothered to do that.



It was the rewrite in 2007, the Protect America Act of 2007, that added "communications that begin or end in a foreign country may be wiretapped by the U.S. government without supervision by the FISA Court" meaning that since 2007 if half the phone conversation is in a foreign country it could be wiretapped w/o a warrant assuming they had probably cause that either of the two parties, regardless country of citizenship status, was a member of a foreign power or terrorist organization.

The only thing "safe" is communication within the Unites States.
 
2013-06-16 12:28:55 AM

Vectron: WizardofToast: 2016 elections won't matter on who wins. If Obama vowed to stop the surveillance crap Bush did only to continue it, what's going to make any of the candidates on either side throw away the forbidden fruit?

Hillary is worse than Obama. Romney WOULD have been worse than Obama. We will get no chance at all to vote for anyone that reflects our concerns.


Don't you love how Bill called Obama a coward for not rolling into Syria?

Granny_Panties: his was a Republican act. Own up to it. Obama was just doing what his masters told him to do. The only thing Obama did here was spinelessly went along for the ride.


Horse shiat.

Obama's been working to expand warrantless spying all along.

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects' vehicles to track their every move.

along with

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans' e-mail stored in the cloud.

along with

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

along with

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order

and

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country, according to a Treasury Department document seen by Reuters.

also

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications - including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct "peer to peer" messaging like Skype - to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy.


Don't even try to pretend he opposes this. Lying politician was lying.
 
2013-06-16 12:29:20 AM

BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance


You forgot to spell "Obama" with a zero.
 
2013-06-16 12:29:46 AM

OgreMagi: I've pretty much lost all faith in our entire political process.


I'm about there, too.

Meh.

China does OK with government oppression, overall, I guess the US can handle a lighter version of it, too.

We are all authoritarians now.
 
2013-06-16 12:30:01 AM
The MSM is complicit in all this. Everyone needs to kill their television.
Remember Howard Dean's Yell? How it was played over and over again all that weekend?
Why? He was anti-war.
 
2013-06-16 12:30:57 AM

Gyrfalcon: Jewel v. National Security Agency


Gyrfalcon: Hepting v. AT&T is a United States class action lawsuit filed in January 2006 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) against the telecommunications company AT&T, in which the EFF alleges that AT&T permitted and assisted the National Security Agency (NSA) in unlawfully monitoring the communications of the United States, including AT&T customers, businesses and third parties whose communications were routed through AT&T's network, as well as Voice over IP telephone calls routed via the Internet.


Took me 60 seconds on Google to find out that in Hepting, the plaintiffs alleged the US government had the capability to wiretap, record and store phone calls (presumably foreign and domestic), but had absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they were doing so without a court order.  The case was dismissed by the 9th Circuit.

Jewel v. National Security Agency is a similar class action suit filed in September 2008 and naming the NSA and the Bush administration.

And in this case (about five minutes of my life wasted), the entire lawsuit is built upon the affidavit of William Binney who (again, as in Hepting) alleges the NSA had the capability to wiretap domestic calls, but concedes he had no first hand knowledge of the program.  Further, he has no evidence that wiretapping without a court order was taking place ... he simply states that it's his opinion that it must be ("The NSA also has the capability to seize and store most electronic communications passing through its U.S. intercept centers. The wholesale collection of data allows the NSA to identify and analyze Entities or Communities of interest later in a static database. Based on my proximity to the PSP and my years of experience at the NSA, I can draw informed conclusions from the available facts. Those facts indicate that the NSA is doing both.").  That's it.  It's an entire lawsuit built around the notion that, since the NSA owns computers that he knows can intercept and record phone calls, they must be doing so in an unconstitutional and illegal manner.  No evidence.

Then, he tacks on at the very end that because the government started building the Utah facility in 2009 (hint, Bush wasn't president then) to store NSA data, they must be intending to use that facility to store illegally intercepted and recorded conversations.  Again, no evidence.  It's just "Hey, I've got a hunch."

tl;dr:
Try again.
 
2013-06-16 12:33:58 AM

RanDomino: The amount of organization to reform the Democrats through primaries would require first building a new party of comparable power from scratch. Good luck with that.


Didn't stop the tea party from tossing incumbents on their ass.

The incumbents who pretended to oppose this under Bush but have been making excuses for the same behavior under Obaama need to go.

Hell, anyone who voted for the NDAA and indefinite detention of American citizens without a trial needs to go.
 
2013-06-16 12:34:36 AM
insertsnarkyusername
Are there any ways to communicate that aren't monitored?

PGP e-mail encryption for dummies
One-button Tor anonymized interwebs


Asphyxium
I love how retarded Republicans

Just stop talking about Republicans. At this point the only people who support them are completely insane. Admittedly, it's a large number of people...
 
2013-06-16 12:34:49 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.


That would be the Carter administration, since the secret government court for this was started in 1978.
 
2013-06-16 12:36:21 AM

R.A.Danny: Gyrfalcon: R.A.Danny: DeaH: Repeal the Patriot Act and any law that okays this sort of thing. And, while we're at it, fire KILL a whole bunch of people over this.


We are pretty much at a point where a Second Amendment solution is appropriate.

Not quite. Before a revolution can be successful, the government has to be unable to pay the military.

We're really at a historic point when you bring up the subject of revolution though. You gotta admit that no matter what side of the subject you are on.


Well, it's closer to likely than it has been before; which is still not very likely. Too many things still have to happen. And if there is, it would probably be the Teahadists and the militias stringing up the barbed wire and daring everyone else to cross their line (and we'd all say "No, you're fine where you are" and go about our business). But realistically speaking, before a revolution can succeed, the revolutionaries have to be at least 95% assured that not only can they take on the military (a favorite wet dream of gun-nuts everywhere) but that the military will not shoot back. And unless or until that day comes, no revolution can ever succeed.

That's why the rebels in Libya had to ask for help from France before they could finally take Qaddafi down; and why Assad had to turn to sarin gas but is still in control of his government. The rebels can fight the army on their own terms; but so long as the guys with the big guns are obeying orders, the rebels can't win UNLESS someone with bigger guns helps out. Or unless the army turns around and shoots the leaders behind the lines, as Mubarak found out.

America isn't nearly to that point yet. Our "rebels" aren't nearly as organized or unified; and even if they were, they can't fight the US Marines on their own terms. So any revolution has to depend on the Marines shooting the other way and that's not nearly close to being possible yet. You don't shoot the guy who writes your check.
 
2013-06-16 12:37:28 AM
Bush was throwing puppies into a wood chipper so I'm going to keep throwing puppies into a wood chipper.

This is how Democrats really think.
 
2013-06-16 12:37:52 AM

Granny_Panties: The thing that dumbfounds me the most about this "leak" is the fact that you idiots didn't know this was happening since 2001.

Is everyone here a bunch of morons? What did you guys think the Patriot Act was? Most of the morans that are whining about this "intrusion" are the same idiots that said I hated America when anyone with 1/2 a brain knew this was what was going to happen.

God damn people are stupid. fark.


this nation   of  bootlickers
 
2013-06-16 12:38:48 AM

Granny_Panties: This was a Republican act. Own up to it. Obama was just doing what his masters told him to do. The only thing Obama did here was spinelessly went along for the ride.


Go fark yourself

The PATRIOT act was as bipartisan as it gets.
 
2013-06-16 12:39:43 AM

Gyrfalcon: Well, it's closer to likely than it has been before; which is still not very likely. Too many things still have to happen. And if there is, it would probably be the Teahadists and the militias stringing up the barbed wire and daring everyone else to cross their line (and we'd all say "No, you're fine where you are" and go about our business). But realistically speaking, before a revolution can succeed, the revolutionaries have to be at least 95% assured that not only can they take on the military (a favorite wet dream of gun-nuts everywhere) but that the military will not shoot back. And unless or until that day comes, no revolution can ever succeed.


If you look at most of the recent revolutions and the present uprisings you'll notice one thing: None of those revolting are fat asses.

Yeah, we'll accept the status quo so long as we're able to go to McDonalds and fill our pie holes. it's pathetic.
 
2013-06-16 12:39:58 AM
Sad tag is being secretly held without bail.
 
2013-06-16 12:40:04 AM
Sure we've known they've been doing this since the Patriot Act?
 
m00
2013-06-16 12:41:09 AM

Lsherm: What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this. What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing? Has to be some scary shiat.


I thought about this.

I think after he was elected, but before he took office. He had the "presidential handoff thing" with Bush. It went something like this:

Obama: Hey Bush, I have some questions. Even though we are from different political parties, I believe in mutual respect and want to hear your thoughts.
Bush: Shoot, pardner
Obama: What was the toughest thing you ever had to do?
Bush: Do? Presidents don't do anything. I just sat around and did some busy-work policy. Nothing that really matters.
Obama: With all due respect Mr. Bush, but I'm going to clean up Washington. Starting with Gitmo, Patriot Act...
Bush: Hold on son. I had the same conversation with Clinton when I took office. I didn't want nation building. I wanted smaller government. I thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea. But you do what you're told to do.
Obama: Oh, come on. You're telling me your hands were tied on this?
Bush: I'm going to give you a file here. It will take you awhile to digest. Hell, when I read this file I thought Ol Slick Willy was putting one over on me. But let me tell you a bit about history. In the 1950s, we made contact with aliens. That's right, little green men. They came from a small cluster of stars -- about 1000 -- that's on the edge of the milky way. It's there due to dark matter or some such. Well, after the first contact, they started to infiltrate us. They weren't peaceful. But hell we deserve it for what we did to the Indians. Nixon, bless his heart, sat down with the Soviets and hammered out a deal, that we would be partners in this war.
Obama: You're kidding me.
Bush: Sadly, I'm not. Now the whole Watergate thing was Nixon trying to keep a lid on this. Could you imagine if people knew? There would be panic on the streets. Riots. Chaos. End of civilization. Hell, the US Presidency had sovereignty until under Carter when certain people with a lot of power decided it was best not to let citizens pick their leaders. So Reagan was the first president picked by the group. He had the charisma to pull it off. He was chosen because as an actor, well... he'd be able to keep everything on the "down low" as my daughters say. Really sell the whole debt thing.
Obama: Aliens? Really?
Bush: That's right. It hasn't been all bad. In the 1990s we were able to reverse engineer some of their technology. That's what Moore's law is -- the more technology we can reverse engineer, the more we're able to. Anyway, we had to tell Gore about this so he would stop contesting the election, and that's why he grew a beard and went off the deep end there for a bit.
Obama: So, we're in a galactic war with Aliens... and the President is a puppet... what about Iraq, the Patriot Act... axis of evil...
Bush: Well, the Iraq thing is tricky. The aliens, well they'd been here before. The prophet Mohammed was an attempt at taking over the world through religion. See, these little buggers have some sort of mind control. But they can't use it on public figures because it completely changes their personality. One of the side affects of even being in the vicinity of a MCH  -- mind controlled human that is -- you'll learn the jargon soon enough -- is it turns people homosexual. Part of the reason I wanted to keep the sodomy laws on the books is it was a good way to sniff out activity. I have no problem with gay marriage, but it's easier to monitor mind control incidents by tracking pride rallies. If homosexuality was perceived as normal, then we'd be lost if the aliens ever moved out of their San Francisco stronghold.
Obama: You were talking about Iraq...
Bush: Oh, I was getting ahead of myself there. You see, Saddam was convinced by the aliens that he was the next prophet. See they couldn't mind control him, because his personality would change. Saddam was letting them build a massive Mind Control generator in Iraq that could be used to enslave all of us. Out there in the desert. Due to the earth's magnetic currents, building the thing in the middle east would have amplified the signal... covered the whole world. That's what we were there for. The whole nuke thing was the best we could come up with. But they've been doing this for years. You think the Soviets really wanted to invade Afghanistan? Carter, the dummy, tried to block the war for humanitarian reasons. That's why Americans don't get to vote for their president any more. Diebold made that a lot easier for us to hide.
Obama: And... the Patriot Act...?
Bush: Funny thing about these aliens is that they don't talk like you and me. They use telepathic communication. Because it's all electromagnetic based, that's what the boys in A51 say, the aliens can tap into cell phones, internet, whatever... and pretend to talk to people. So see this phone here? Lets say Dick Cheney calls me up. I can't tell if it's Dick Cheney or an alien foolin' the system. Now with enough data crunching, we can tell. Also figure out where they are transmitting from. We're working on a way to monitor all communication devices and dump the data on a server somewhere. Then go through it and figure out which calls have been spoofed. It's called PRISM. You'll be briefed on it later.
Obama: This is insane! A war with aliens! Mind control! I have to tell someone!
Bush: Oh, I wouldn't be doing that. No, sir. The group wouldn't like it very much. There would be consequences. That message would never get out. You think the Secret Service is here to protect us? No, they're here to keep things running smoothly.
Obama: I see. This is mind-blowing. So who runs things?
Bush: Well, it's those Bliderberg guys. They have a lot going on, but running this country is one of them. It's not all bad.
Obama: A puppet, you're telling me I'm a puppet and I can't do anything about it.
Bush: Oh, it ain't all bad. You can play a lot of golf, give fancy speeches. Hell, the election won't even matter. If you say the right things, they'll give you a second term. I've never read so many books as I did being president. You signed up to serve your country right? Well, this is the service it needs.
Obama: Okay. Okay. This will be okay.
Bush: One more thing. Watch out for that Ron Paul fellow. With think the aliens got to him. As I said, the mind control leaves some strange footprints on a man's personality.
Obama: Who else has been compromised?
Bush: Well, Denis Kucinich. Denis Rodman. The whole Kim family over in North Korea. Most suicide bombers, but you don't know that till later. The psych boys have a profile worked up if you're interested, but we got agencies to deal with that.
Obama: I need some time... to think about this...
Bush: Sure, sure. Take your time. It's not easy. In the beginning of my term, I thought I would be a bit subversive. You know, let a few hints slide here and there. I hate being under someone's thumb. But boy, then they stated writing my speeches to make me sound like a moron. So it's easier just to do what they say. They'll put the words on the teleprompter. Just read them and smile.
Obama: Thanks, George. I think I can do this.
Bush: Sure you can. They wouldn't have picked you if you couldn't. And hell, ol' Hillary already knows about this. If you don't think you're ready, arrangements can be made. But they want her in 2016 for some reason. I think they're going to crash the housing and banking sector as a distraction to hide the massive cost of this war. But don't tell anyone you heard that from me, that's a bit above my pay grade.
Obama: I'll be in touch. Take care George.
Bush: See ya! Read that file, let me know if you have any questions. Also, if you get in any trouble just call up the Koch brothers. Good people.
 
2013-06-16 12:41:38 AM

Rwa2play:

Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.

Upset?  Yeah, but what makes anybody think that the President could've said "End it." and it would've?

Oh, come on...   I know we haven't had any in quite a while, but that's what LEADERSHIP is....   It might go like this:

"General Alexander, as Director of the NSA, you are hereby ordered to cease and desist ANY activity pursuant to intelligence operations which violate the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.  Do this immediately."

"Yes, sir."


...  Two weeks later:

"General Alexander, I note that the NSA is still carrying on extra-constitutional spying on U.S. citizens."

"Only when absolutely necessary, Mr. President."

"Sergeant, place General Alexander under arrest, and convene a courts martial to determine if his violations are serious enough to warrant execution."

"General Alexander, your weapon please, and please come with me..."

"Hello, Secretary of Defense?   This is the President.  I need you to recommend a new NSA Director -- one who will follow the Constitution, according to the oath.   Yes, right away."


The above might have to be repeated several times. The NSA director reports to the Sec Def, who reports to the President. It's not like convincing Congress to pass legislation, it is a case of military orders passed down from the Commander in Chief.

 
2013-06-16 12:41:54 AM
What really makes all this wonderful is that most Senators skipped the classified NSA briefing on Friday, so they could get home early.
 
2013-06-16 12:43:58 AM

Vectron: The MSM is complicit in all this. Everyone needs to kill their television.
Remember Howard Dean's Yell? How it was played over and over again all that weekend?
Why? He was anti-war.


I'm firmly convinced that "unelectable" is nothing more than a code phrase meaning "we don't own them".

The corporate owned media certainly does spend a whole lot of time telling us who is "unelectable" and that if we don't vote for one of the two "electable" choices they give us, we're just "wasting our vote".

It cuts down on the number of people they have to buy off.
 
2013-06-16 12:44:21 AM

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?


None of my experience is in top secret agencies. Think things more like the FDA or your local DMV. So I can't really say much on how government secrets could best be kept but for sensitive data in other agencies and in Fortune 500 companies, making a bit of effort would be a good start. Seriously, most of these places hand over the keys to the kingdom to everyone who walks in the door of the IT department.  Blocking people from using USB drives and taking them home with them wouldn't be such an issue if the data copied on to them wasn't easily accessible to so many in the first place. Restricting access to only those who need it slows down development of new products and makes it much harder to manage data. There's a cost involved both financially and in terms of opportunity costs. Until there is real pain involved beyond a token fine and an embarrassing news story that's soon forgotten, most places aren't going to go through the extra effort to protect data. It requires extra people, annoys other people trying to get their job done, and slows everything down. But if we want to have privacy, it's an expense that must be paid.

I'm not really in a position to say you're right or wrong about your feelings on Snowden or Manning. In both cases we discovered our government doing things that we'd rather think ir doesn't do. The things that Manning released that get him labeled a traitor are the things you'd expect our government to do (have spies inside terrorist organizations and hostile governments). The other things he released, such as how much government spying is done for the benefit of corporate interests, needs to get more attention. Not that using government and military resources to help corporations get what they want is anything new but it's still a part of our spy structure that most don't recognize as existing. Should we really put people in harms way so GE can learn what Siemens is up to and do it at taxpayer expense?
 
2013-06-16 12:44:33 AM

Corn_Fed: What really makes all this wonderful is that most Senators skipped the classified NSA briefing on Friday, so they could get home early.


Most being Democrats.
 
2013-06-16 12:47:35 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Bush was throwing puppies into a wood chipper so I'm going to keep throwing puppies into a wood chipper.

This is how Democrats really think.


1/10.  Even for you that's weak.
 
2013-06-16 12:48:14 AM

m00: Lsherm: What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this. What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing? Has to be some scary shiat.

I thought about this.

I think after he was elected, but before he took office. He had the "presidential handoff thing" with Bush. It went something like this:

Obama: Hey Bush, I have some questions. Even though we are from different political parties, I believe in mutual respect and want to hear your thoughts.
Bush: Shoot, pardner
Obama: What was the toughest thing you ever had to do?
Bush: Do? Presidents don't do anything. I just sat around and did some busy-work policy. Nothing that really matters.
Obama: With all due respect Mr. Bush, but I'm going to clean up Washington. Starting with Gitmo, Patriot Act...
Bush: Hold on son. I had the same conversation with Clinton when I took office. I didn't want nation building. I wanted smaller government. I thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea. But you do what you're told to do.
Obama: Oh, come on. You're telling me your hands were tied on this?
Bush: I'm going to give you a file here. It will take you awhile to digest. Hell, when I read this file I thought Ol Slick Willy was putting one over on me. But let me tell you a bit about history. In the 1950s, we made contact with aliens. That's right, little green men. They came from a small cluster of stars -- about 1000 -- that's on the edge of the milky way. It's there due to dark matter or some such. Well, after the first contact, they started to infiltrate us. They weren't peaceful. But hell we deserve it for what we did to the Indians. Nixon, bless his heart, sat down with the Soviets and hammered out a deal, that we would be partners in this war.
Obama: You're kidding me.
Bush: Sadly, I'm not. Now the whole Watergate thing was Nixon trying to keep a lid on this. Could you imagine if people knew? There would be panic on the streets. Riots. Chaos. End of civilization. ...


tl;dr
 
2013-06-16 12:48:22 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Corn_Fed: What really makes all this wonderful is that most Senators skipped the classified NSA briefing on Friday, so they could get home early.

Most being Democrats.


Citation Needed

I really want to know exactly who skipped this meeting.

My shiat list needs updating.
 
2013-06-16 12:48:26 AM

LordJiro:

There hasn't been a progressive in office for decades. Democrats are center-right authoritarians, while Republicans are extreme-right authoritarians. Just because Fox says every Democrat is the most liberal lib EVAR doesn't make it true.

If Democrats are "center-right" and Republicans are "far-right," then who has made this country about half socialist? The problem is, YOU are a bit to the left of Che Guevara, so EVERYBODY looks like a rightist -- to you.
 
2013-06-16 12:48:33 AM

Bucky Katt: Popcorn Johnny: Bush was throwing puppies into a wood chipper so I'm going to keep throwing puppies into a wood chipper.

This is how Democrats really think.

1/10.  Even for you that's weak.


The fact that you think I'm trolling just shows how blinded your side is.
 
2013-06-16 12:49:06 AM
*sigh*
 
2013-06-16 12:50:14 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Bucky Katt: Popcorn Johnny: Bush was throwing puppies into a wood chipper so I'm going to keep throwing puppies into a wood chipper.

This is how Democrats really think.

1/10.  Even for you that's weak.

The fact that you think I'm trolling just shows how blinded your side is.


Do you have something with with who skipped?
 
2013-06-16 12:53:00 AM

GeneralJim: LordJiro: There hasn't been a progressive in office for decades. Democrats are center-right authoritarians, while Republicans are extreme-right authoritarians. Just because Fox says every Democrat is the most liberal lib EVAR doesn't make it true.
If Democrats are "center-right" and Republicans are "far-right," then who has made this country about half socialist? The problem is, YOU are a bit to the left of Che Guevara, so EVERYBODY looks like a rightist -- to you.


"Half socialist." In a country with 7% union penetration and mass privatization in every sector of government. You're beyond ridiculous.
 
2013-06-16 12:53:09 AM
Good night and....

cdn.thedroidguy.com

pleasant dreams, everyone.
 
2013-06-16 12:53:23 AM

R.A.Danny: Do you have something with with who skipped?


Nothing I've seen named names, and I want to see the names of the members who skipped the meeting so I can forevermore oppose their reelection.
 
2013-06-16 12:54:23 AM

m00: Lsherm: What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this. What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing? Has to be some scary shiat.

I thought about this.

I think after he was elected, but before he took office. He had the "presidential handoff thing" with Bush. It went something like this:

Obama: Hey Bush, I have some questions. Even though we are from different political parties, I believe in mutual respect and want to hear your thoughts.
Bush: Shoot, pardner
Obama: What was the toughest thing you ever had to do?
Bush: Do? Presidents don't do anything. I just sat around and did some busy-work policy. Nothing that really matters.
Obama: With all due respect Mr. Bush, but I'm going to clean up Washington. Starting with Gitmo, Patriot Act...
Bush: Hold on son. I had the same conversation with Clinton when I took office. I didn't want nation building. I wanted smaller government. I thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea. But you do what you're told to do.
Obama: Oh, come on. You're telling me your hands were tied on this?
Bush: I'm going to give you a file here. It will take you awhile to digest. Hell, when I read this file I thought Ol Slick Willy was putting one over on me. But let me tell you a bit about history. In the 1950s, we made contact with aliens. That's right, little green men. They came from a small cluster of stars -- about 1000 -- that's on the edge of the milky way. It's there due to dark matter or some such. Well, after the first contact, they started to infiltrate us. They weren't peaceful. But hell we deserve it for what we did to the Indians. Nixon, bless his heart, sat down with the Soviets and hammered out a deal, that we would be partners in this war.
Obama: You're kidding me.
Bush: Sadly, I'm not. Now the whole Watergate thing was Nixon trying to keep a lid on this. Could you imagine if people knew? There would be panic on the streets. Riots. Chaos. End of civilization. ...


Brilliant.  Simply brilliant.
 
2013-06-16 12:54:27 AM
Warrants?

They don't even need badges....
 
2013-06-16 12:55:37 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Bucky Katt: Popcorn Johnny: Bush was throwing puppies into a wood chipper so I'm going to keep throwing puppies into a wood chipper.

This is how Democrats really think.

1/10.  Even for you that's weak.

The fact that you think I'm trolling just shows how blinded your side is.


Do tell, Gracie, what side would that be?
 
2013-06-16 12:55:39 AM

BullBearMS: R.A.Danny: Do you have something with with who skipped?

Nothing I've seen named names, and I want to see the names of the members who skipped the meeting so I can forevermore oppose their reelection.


That's why I'm asking for a citation. Not that I am accusing anyone of being dishonest, I really want to know who skipped.
 
2013-06-16 12:56:24 AM

EngineerAU:

jpo2269: However, the picture being painted is not what makes a "free society" and when an analyst can just decide to listen in on a call without someone being held accountable, things have gone entirely too far.

Unfortunately this is how things are done all over the place. When I was a consultant, almost every large company or government agency I worked for had their databases wide open. In some cases there were a few restrictions in place on which employees could access the databases directly but anyone with database access was able to get into almost anything. I can think of only two exceptions: one was a law firm that kept a small amount of information about current cases tightly controlled (though we did find an unencrypted Access database on the webserver full of credit card numbers in a public directory) and the headquarters of Home Depot, which kept data locked down pretty well. Almost everyone else was wide open internally. A few made me sign an NDA but I'm sure most would rather I simply not have access to their medical files in the first place. Rarely did I not have access to tons of databases filled with things totally unrelated to what I was working on. Digital information security in general is a joke.

Correct.  I was a consultant for the Health Department, and the database of all the state citizens with AIDS was left on a conference table, unencrypted, on a disk, neatly labeled, with nobody in the room.  I picked it up and delivered it to the chief of security, who almost crapped himself.  This was supposedly their "most secure" data.   Right.
 
2013-06-16 12:58:31 AM
Since 1914.  And stepped up from the 1920s.  Mitchell Palmer, Jedgar Hoover, blah, blah, blah.
recollectionbooks.com
 
2013-06-16 12:58:50 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: GeneralJim: LordJiro: There hasn't been a progressive in office for decades. Democrats are center-right authoritarians, while Republicans are extreme-right authoritarians. Just because Fox says every Democrat is the most liberal lib EVAR doesn't make it true.
If Democrats are "center-right" and Republicans are "far-right," then who has made this country about half socialist? The problem is, YOU are a bit to the left of Che Guevara, so EVERYBODY looks like a rightist -- to you.

"Half socialist." In a country with 7% union penetration and mass privatization in every sector of government. You're beyond ridiculous.


Hey, everybody, let's get into a partisan slap fight, and ignore that we are being farked!  That always works so well.

If you can't win, you may as well be entertained.
 
2013-06-16 01:05:43 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/nsa-phone-calls-warrant_n_34 4 8299.html

Huffington Post footage. Not sure whether or not c net's got it right. Their headline may be misleading.
 
2013-06-16 01:08:22 AM

LordJiro: Doesn't matter one damn bit. There's nobody, NOBODY who has even a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected that will get rid of this kind of power. The surveillance state took root decades ago, and we're not getting rid of it. Ever,

If you thought Obama would, or think Elizabeth Warren or, RON PAUL, or whoever would...You're a farking idiot.


True.
I would add that the average american likely supports this stuff anyways.

Pants pissing is common in response to a threat like terror.people will continue crying for safety until they have dry warm pants on again.
 
2013-06-16 01:08:53 AM
cptjeff
Health Care Reform. Not as good as it could or should have been, but a really big farking deal nonetheless.

Possibly better than what existed before, but all of the liberals' yapping about how progressives needed to get on board because it would be a stepping stone to single-payer or some other kind of UHC (or even government option) turned out to be nothing but excuses to get them to shut up long enough for the media to assume the healthcare was solved forever.

Seriously, you guys need to start recognizing that you are the only faction that likes ACA.

Bank Reform. See above.

lol

Stopped a Recession from deepening and started a slow recovery, despite massive opposition.

Used massive government debt to momentarily avert further disaster, until that gets worked through in which

Saved the US Auto Industry.

oh thank god, because car culture is so awesome.
Those factories and workers should have been put to work making wind turbines and trains instead of perpetuating the old, dead economy. But "keep things exactly the same" has been Obama's real slogan since day 1.

Dismantled the Minerals Management Service.

Okay, that's one.

Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Great, now more people can participate in our imperial adventures.

Signed Hate Crimes legislation for crimes targeting LGBT victims.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Got the VAWA re-authorization passed over significant Republican opposition.


Blatant pandering

Dramatically revamped US Foreign Policy to work in a much smarter way.

Babble

Ended the Iraq War

Obama wanted to keep some troops but the Iraqi government wouldn't give them legal immunity.
Oh, and the Iraqi Civil War is still going strong, with bombings routinely killing dozens of people. But, yeah, it's over or whatever. Granted, that was the inevitable result of the invasion, which was mostly Bush's doing, with the explicit approval of the Democrats who voted to give him that option in 2002, even while we were screaming at them that it would be a disaster.

In the process of ending the Afghanistan War.

like how the sun is in the process of burning out?

Changed US armed engagement strategy from the use of conventional forces to lower impact targeted strikes and special forces missions.

yay for assassinations of noncombatants and American citizens without anything resembling due process. Double-tapping a 16 year old from Colorado, classy!

Tried to close Gitmo.

Not sure I'd even call his effort half-hearted. Sixteenth-hearted at best.

Ended torture and released the Bush torture memos.

Refused to investigate and prosecute. Continues torturing Gitmo hunger strikers with tube force-feeding.

Negotiated and passed a new SALT Treaty.
New GI Bill


well thank goodness

Raised taxes on the wealthy while maintaining lower middle class rates
Increased fuel economy standards and allowed states to raise standards above the Federal level
CO2 ruled to be a pollutant.
Stricter labor and environmental enforcement within existing free trade agreements.


Usually these lists are more specific.


BullBearMS
Didn't stop the tea party from tossing incumbents on their ass.

And all they had helping them was millions of dollars in backing from a bunch of oligarchs to fund a slick astroturf campaign promoted by a major cable network. Bootstrappy.
 
2013-06-16 01:09:20 AM
The oath to uphold the US Constitution must just be a big PITA for some of these farks. Probably a big damn inconvenience.
 
PKY
2013-06-16 01:11:58 AM
A long list of nothings, tried tos and WGAS.
 
2013-06-16 01:12:15 AM
Glenn Greenwald appears to be telegraphing that he has something more to come on this: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/346057044949864449

//See comments, replies or whatever the fark you call the back/forth on Twitter
 
2013-06-16 01:12:59 AM

EdNortonsTwin: The oath to uphold the US Constitution must just be a big PITA for some of these farks. Probably a big damn inconvenience.


I took it just like every other Marine. One wonders what they think of that oath.
 
2013-06-16 01:14:03 AM

ghare:

Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.

56% of Americans want them to do it. Who is the bootlicker?

YOU are. Do the questions get harder as we go along?
 
2013-06-16 01:16:54 AM

R.A.Danny: We are pretty much at a point where a Second Amendment solution is appropriate.


In a stable democracy like the US, that "solution" would never be appropriate.

The great majority of us do not want Revolution 2: Electric Boogaloo or whatever mob-style anarchy horror that comes to mind.


Again, the only way we are going to change is through the system, from the top down. Sorry to harsh your mellow.
 
2013-06-16 01:17:02 AM

GeneralJim: ghare: Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.

56% of Americans want them to do it. Who is the bootlicker?
YOU are. Do the questions get harder as we go along?


You'd better hope not.
 
2013-06-16 01:20:14 AM
whidbey
the only way we are going to change is through the system

The system itself is what needs changing! How do you change a broken system from within that broken system?
Let me guess- "shut up and vote for Democrats"?  Or is "say whatever you want, as long as you vote for Democrats" also allowed?
 
2013-06-16 01:21:26 AM

Smackledorfer: If you thought Obama would, or think Elizabeth Warren or, RON PAUL, or whoever would...You're a farking idiot.

True.


Whoever might have convinced us that a lying politician like Obama might end this?

I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."

Oh yea. He did.
 
2013-06-16 01:22:51 AM

Corn_Fed:

And why would you assume these "non-establishment" types would be any better? The problem is that, once elected, the available power is intoxicating for EVERYONE.

That's not true.  Some people love the idea of freedom more than personal power.  An example is George Washington.   Yeah, that's hella far to have to go back, but old George has an answer to THAT, too.  He TOLD us not to get involved with political parties.  Candidates' loyalty to the country is diluted when they have loyalty to the party.  And, pretty much NOBODY with the stones to stand up for freedom at the expense of personal or party power is EVER going to make it through the primaries for any major party.  That process is so soaked in evil that NOBODY clean is ever "The Candidate."
 
PKY
2013-06-16 01:25:14 AM
They're also wiretapping foreign based Internet and phone lines and intersections, and have exchange programs with other nations which give them the same access in other countries, but who cares about non-citizens. Following this this debate I've concluded they have no rights and everyone is fine with it.
 
2013-06-16 01:27:14 AM
A government based on the pinkie swear, he's-allowed-in-the-tree-house-now oaths, repeated with pomp and circumstance by disingenuous men whom we all know got no skin in the game as they spit out what they are told to swear to is the best we can do, why is everybody so amazed that there hasn't been any useful governance to come out of it?
 
2013-06-16 01:38:29 AM

RanDomino: whidbey
the only way we are going to change is through the system

The system itself is what needs changing! How do you change a broken system from within that broken system?


The system isn't "broken." Because of the apathy and cynicism, the 1% is more than happy to glean the benefits.

Let me guess- "shut up and vote for Democrats"?  Or is "say whatever you want, as long as you vote for Democrats" also allowed?

Honestly, if we had thrown every ounce of our support to the Democratic Party, telling the Republicans to fark off and holding Obama et al to a high standard of transparency, this country would be sailing along a lot farther than it is now.

It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

Again, I have asked you repeatedly what your solution is to the current system, and I know damn well you don't have one.
 
2013-06-16 01:40:29 AM
We need a national "Talk like a terrorist day". Everybody should make phone calls, send texts and emails talking about blowing shiat up. That would make for some lulz.
 
2013-06-16 01:42:34 AM
Remember when   J. Kirk Wiebe, Loomis and Drake built a program like this that protected the citizens rights and the NSA threw it out in favor of a far more invasive program?  Then prosecuted everybody, including Thomas Andrew Drake, ruining careers and lives?  Yeah, the tried to blow the whistle on this a decade ago.  Good times.
 
2013-06-16 01:43:13 AM

whidbey: Honestly, if we had thrown every ounce of our support to the Democratic Party, telling the Republicans to fark off and holding Obama et al to a high standard of transparency, this country would be sailing along a lot farther than it is now.


We should demand Obama live up to his promises!

whidbey: It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.


But don't you dare criticize him when he farks up!


dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-06-16 01:45:39 AM

utah dude: would anyone care to comment that maybe the NSA should use all this data to help American business kick some obama on the international/world market? i mean 1/2 those monitored calls / emails / etc... are all foreign obama, right?


Anything that any US business interests could possibly gain from industrial espionage is far outweighed by the SaaS/cloud business model becoming nonviable. If this is the future of the 'net, no prospect with two million dollars to rub together is going to rely on services from any US-based cloud startups, and that means that nobody with two billion dollars to rub together is going to provide an exit for the founders of said startups.
 
2013-06-16 01:47:26 AM

red5ish: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/nsa-phone-calls-warrant_n_34 4 8299.html

Huffington Post footage. Not sure whether or not c net's got it right. Their headline may be misleading.


Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of the CNET article too. Take a look at this from CSPAN, the part of the video relevant to TFA is about 46 minutes in

The quote in question from Mueller here is "We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone." Notice that he did not say  "they could listen to the phone call," he said "get the specific information." Also, TFA does not mention this, but that entire discussion was about metadata (it was explicitly stated as such several times) which isn't the same thing as "listening to telephone calls" and The Supreme Court did rule that it isn't covered by the Fourth Amendment.

Now, it really would not surprise me one bit if the NSA has indeed been doing what CNET is alleging here, but after looking over what actually took place within the discussion, I'm thinking that TFA was a bit misleading, some clarification is sorely needed. Making hyperbolic claims is the last thing we need in times like this.
 
2013-06-16 01:53:37 AM

Corn_Fed: DeathByGeekSquad: I am strongly against the method by which the politician chose to bring this 'information' to light.  He asked targeted questioning with the intent of trapping the individual under question to respond in a way which enabled their own specific paraphrasing of events.  Until the actual transcript of the classified briefing is released, this is all based on the commentary of a politician, who was 'startled'.

There are many ways to interpret that information, and if someone makes a presentation behind close doors that you personally don't agree with, releasing the information in this fashion gives YOU the ultimate control over how that information is perceived UNTIL such a time as the other parties decide to speak openly about it.  If they have already concluded that they cannot be more open without creating issues, that effectively gives ONE person the power to manipulate the situations perspective in any manner they wish.

Would you put it past a politician to manipulate a situation for personal gain?  I personally wouldn't.

So...whom WOULD you trust for a truthful account of our right to know what happens to OUR data? Given that the NSA, which is stealing it illegally, won't tell us directly.


Sorry if I am late to the thread, but had to put my 2 cents on this - In answer to this, I would have to say the Honorable Mrs. Bachman - Why you may ask? - It is because it will really expose all the misogynists in the liberal (ahem) Democratic party.

The way she is demeaned and "Put in her place" by FARK libs is astounding. If you compare the public record of what she has said vs the public record of the Honorable Mrs Nancy "We will know what is in it AFTER it is PASSED" Pelosi - I will let you draw your own conclusions.....

Regardless of whether it is Michelle Bachman, or Sarah Palin - FARK libs (and the MASTERS -Yes I mean it that way-  they are speaking for) dismiss, vilify,  demean any conservative female who is in the political arena.

 After all, they should be in the kitchen making you a sammich, right?
 
2013-06-16 01:56:50 AM

Notabunny: Biological Ali: This story was apparently posted seven hours ago, and yet I'm not seeing any mention of it in any major press outlet. Is there any confirmation, or are people just freaking out over nothing again?

People have come to expect the sun to rise in the east. They don't freak out about it.


Eh?
 
2013-06-16 01:57:18 AM

Lsherm: BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance

What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this.  What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing?  Has to be some scary shiat.


Okay, so it's not just me.

 I didn't really have a dog in the election fight. Other than a concern about Obama coming from Chicago, which has something of a reputation in politics.

 However, I did notice fairly quickly that he went from "Campaign Obama" to... looked "Looking Sick as Fark Obama" and I'm pretty sure he didn't get a cold. I highly doubt the trained group of people who make other people look good, would suddenly just say "fark it" after a win. You want to at least show yourself as the winner during the post-election honeymoon before you go back to "normal".

 When I saw him just after the election (and his first presidential meetings) he looked awful. His appearance was haggard, he seemed to be reeling a bit mentally, his eyes had dark circles...he looked exhausted, his skin even had an almost greyish cast to it, which I have never seen before but I've read about in books. He looked less sure of himself too.

 From just an objective standpoint I could only figure one of two things...he had partied too hard the night before (some folks made reference to toking)...but that honestly didn't quite seem to fit.

 Or....he had just been told what was *really* going on, and it had deeply unsettled him.

 If I had had to take my best guess...it was #2, and I really hoped I was wrong.

 But you make a good point. For a 180 degree turn around like that...without even trying to politically dance around it like normal.

 That's not encouraging.
 
2013-06-16 01:58:04 AM
whidbey
apathy and cynicism

You can't blame people. People will never change. Systems, however, CAN be changed.

thrown every ounce of our support to the Democratic Party, telling the Republicans to fark off

You mean like in the 111th Congress?

and holding Obama et al to a high standard of transparency

How? You've already foresworn all leverage by guaranteeing you'll vote for him. Why should he listen to you? Because he's a nice guy and he owes you one?

It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

Are you sure you're not actually a Leninist?

Again, I have asked you repeatedly what your solution is to the current system, and I know damn well you don't have one.

Any proposal for a strategy which doesn't include winning elections sails right past your eyes.
 
2013-06-16 02:01:22 AM

GeneralJim: ghare: Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.

56% of Americans want them to do it. Who is the bootlicker?
YOU are. Do the questions get harder as we go along?


You're the one who by his own admission had access to secure data that should not have been in existence, let alone kept confidential, and you did not make it public; you returned it to your corporate masters. Now that sounds like bootlicking to ME; perhaps you have a different definition of that type of activity.

I was a consultant for the Health Department, and the database of all the state citizens with AIDS was left on a conference table, unencrypted, on a disk, neatly labeled, with nobody in the room.  I picked it up and delivered it to the chief of security, who almost crapped himself.  This was supposedly their "most secure" data.   Right.
 
2013-06-16 02:01:57 AM

Fenrisulfr: FARK libs


Ha ha.
 
2013-06-16 02:03:25 AM

whidbey: It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.


Who gets to define "Progressive"?
 
2013-06-16 02:05:16 AM

R.A.Danny: Who gets to define "Progressive"?


Me.  Or you.  Or him.  Or that broad on TeeVee.  The whole definition as method fandango crawled up the ass of meaningless semiotics a long time ago.
 
2013-06-16 02:06:09 AM

Fenrisulfr: Corn_Fed:  So...whom WOULD you trust for a truthful account of our right to know what happens to OUR data? Given that the NSA, which is stealing it illegally, won't tell us directly.

Sorry if I am late to the thread, but had to put my 2 cents on this - In answer to this, I would have to say the Honorable Mrs. Bachman - Why you may ask? - It is because it will really expose all the misogynists in the liberal (ahem) Democratic party.

The way she is demeaned and "Put in her place" by FARK libs is astounding. If you compare the public record of what she has said vs the public record of the Honorable Mrs Nancy "We will know what is in it AFTER it is PASSED" Pelosi - I will let you draw your own conclusions.....

Regardless of whether it is Michelle Bachman, or Sarah Palin - FARK libs (and the MASTERS -Yes I mean it that way-  they are speaking for) dismiss, vilify,  demean any conservative female who is in the political arena.

 Af ...



I'd be ALL in favor of that too, but definitely not for the reasons you cited.
 
2013-06-16 02:08:28 AM
I personally blame the libby lib, rethuglican, dumocrat, Bolshevik, neocon corporate whores.  AFAICT, you can't fix gullible.
 
2013-06-16 02:10:29 AM

R.A.Danny: whidbey: It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

Who gets to define "Progressive"?


You know as well as I do it means becoming less conservative as a society, having a strong social safety net, better education, public health, and yes, it also includes respecting basic rights and entitlements.
 
2013-06-16 02:11:35 AM

BullBearMS: Smackledorfer: If you thought Obama would, or think Elizabeth Warren or, RON PAUL, or whoever would...You're a farking idiot.

True.

Whoever might have convinced us that a lying politician like Obama might end this?

I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."

Oh yea. He did.


And?

You are once again playing the foolish and dishonest game of comparing a real candidate to an imaginary one.  You accuse everyone who ever supports Obama of being a shill, further accuse them of never criticizing him (even when they are criticizing them in the very thread in which you make the accusation), and then you somehow feel compelled to point out things to them that they already know like it is some kind of zinger.  You are a broken and inaccurate record.  What you may not realize is that by ranting about everything he does as the worst thing ever, you aren't helping and you simply come off as a loon and a conspiracy nut.  In this thread, which I haven't read the full thread I admit, you are the stopped clock that happens to be right.
 
2013-06-16 02:13:13 AM

whidbey: R.A.Danny: whidbey: It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

Who gets to define "Progressive"?

You know as well as I do it means becoming less conservative as a society, having a strong social safety net, better education, public health, and yes, it also includes respecting basic rights and entitlements.


Like the First Amendment?
The Second?
The Third?
The Fourth? ...
Well we can at least count on The Third surviving.
 
2013-06-16 02:18:21 AM
This government now consists of bad IOUs, distributed by a private bank, and whoever has the most of them.  Period.  Nothing more.
 
2013-06-16 02:19:05 AM

RanDomino: whidbey
apathy and cynicism

You can't blame people. People will never change. Systems, however, CAN be changed.


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

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

thrown every ounce of our support to the Democratic Party, telling the Republicans to fark off

You mean like in the 111th Congress?


ANY Congress. 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.

and holding Obama et al to a high standard of transparency

How? You've already foresworn all leverage by guaranteeing you'll vote for him. Why should he listen to you? Because he's a nice guy and he owes you one?


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.

It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

Are you sure you're not actually a Leninist?


Surrealist non-sequitur much? I'm a moderate liberal.

Again, I have asked you repeatedly what your solution is to the current system, and I know damn well you don't have one.

Any proposal for a strategy which doesn't include winning elections sails right past your eyes.


Well I hate to break it to you, but we are a representative democracy, and elections are very important.

How about instead of wasting time pointing fingers, people come up with an effective grass-roots campaign/election reform strategy? Too weird for you, huh?
 
2013-06-16 02:22:11 AM

R.A.Danny: whidbey: R.A.Danny: whidbey: It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

Who gets to define "Progressive"?

You know as well as I do it means becoming less conservative as a society, having a strong social safety net, better education, public health, and yes, it also includes respecting basic rights and entitlements.

Like the First Amendment?
The Second?
The Third?
The Fourth? ...
Well we can at least count on The Third surviving.


Yes, but part of progressing as a society is the acknowledgement that none of these rights are absolute, and are allowed interpretation through judicial review.
 
2013-06-16 02:23:31 AM

whidbey: Yes, but part of progressing as a society is the acknowledgement that none of these rights are absolute, and are allowed interpretation through judicial review.


Has the recent review been enough or do we keep reviewing until we get the answer you want?
 
2013-06-16 02:25:57 AM
There's really only one solution for this.  Every single communication, even something as innocuous as inviting your Mom over for coffee, needs to include encryption as an attachment.  Your Mom can still read the plain text, but you should include the encryption block.  Note: do not commit the n00b error of actually encrypting your plaintext, because that will provide a cryptographic nonce making it easier for TPTB to break your keys.

Instead, I suggest generating a pseudorandom stream equivalent in length to your plaintext, and encrypt it with a random public key acquired through searching Bing.

Implementation of this in a Chrome plugin to attach a crypto block to every single Hotmail or Gmail message you send is left as an exercise for the reader.

The benefit: by attaching encryption to every single message, you attract the attention of the crypto search keywords (after all, who else but a terrorist would use encryption?)  This leads to resource starvation, and provides cover for you when you do eventually send a cryptoblock to a friend using their actual public key, with different plaintext, i.e., the real message.
 
2013-06-16 02:28:28 AM

R.A.Danny: whidbey: Yes, but part of progressing as a society is the acknowledgement that none of these rights are absolute, and are allowed interpretation through judicial review.

Has the recent review been enough or do we keep reviewing until we get the answer you want?


Obviously PATRIOT needs to be overturned as un-Constitutional, the NSA needs to be put on a short leash, and, along with the ACLU, I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling that gun rights are individual versus collective.

Not the first time we've had to urge the powers that be to recognize present-day needs.
 
2013-06-16 02:31:46 AM
Did I go back in time? Bush started this whole mess. I am not happy that Obama is keeping it alive.
 
2013-06-16 02:32:18 AM
Obama is wiretapping so vote republican.
 
2013-06-16 02:36:15 AM

PDid: Obama is wiretapping so vote republican.


I don't have any idea who to vote for... Bush authorized it, Obama abused it... seems like most of the congress and senate is a-ok with just mauling the fourth amendment. I mean, who the fark am I supposed to believe in politics when nobody actually does what they say they'll do?
 
2013-06-16 02:37:08 AM
Insert the DNC apologists saying "Its not fascism when WE do it" here.
 
2013-06-16 02:41:16 AM

DeathByGeekSquad: I am strongly against the method by which the politician chose to bring this 'information' to light.  He asked targeted questioning with the intent of trapping the individual under question to respond in a way which enabled their own specific paraphrasing of events.  Until the actual transcript of the classified briefing is released, this is all based on the commentary of a politician, who was 'startled'.

There are many ways to interpret that information, and if someone makes a presentation behind close doors that you personally don't agree with, releasing the information in this fashion gives YOU the ultimate control over how that information is perceived UNTIL such a time as the other parties decide to speak openly about it.  If they have already concluded that they cannot be more open without creating issues, that effectively gives ONE person the power to manipulate the situations perspective in any manner they wish.

Would you put it past a politician to manipulate a situation for personal gain?  I personally wouldn't.


You're strongly against him asking the director of the FBI "Is it classified?" Then, upon being told that the information is not classified, talking about it?

Seriously, read the farking article if you're going to feel so strongly.
 
2013-06-16 02:42:12 AM

firefly212: PDid: Obama is wiretapping so vote republican.

I don't have any idea who to vote for... Bush authorized it, Obama abused it... seems like most of the congress and senate is a-ok with just mauling the fourth amendment. I mean, who the fark am I supposed to believe in politics when nobody actually does what they say they'll do?


The people you're voting for do what they're told by the people you don't have the opportunity to vote for, and if they get into the running, they're pretty much carrying their balls in an NSA secured briefcase.
 
2013-06-16 02:42:27 AM

firefly212: PDid: Obama is wiretapping so vote republican.

I don't have any idea who to vote for... Bush authorized it, Obama abused it... seems like most of the congress and senate is a-ok with just mauling the fourth amendment. I mean, who the fark am I supposed to believe in politics when nobody actually does what they say they'll do?


The fact is as long as this country and society is dominated by the Military Industrial Complex, voting really is going to accomplish so much. And yeah I'm going there.
 
2013-06-16 02:43:47 AM

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.
 
2013-06-16 02:47:34 AM
FTFA: "McConnell saidduring a separate congressional appearance around the same time that he believed the president had the constitutional authority, no matter what the law actually says, to order domestic spying without warrants. "

If only there were a constitutional amendment that addressed this...
 
2013-06-16 02:47:46 AM
First greenwald and now cnet, progressives are lapping up garbage reporting.
 
2013-06-16 02:53:31 AM

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.
 
2013-06-16 02:54:37 AM

Zeppelininthesky: Did I go back in time? Bush started this whole mess. I am not happy that Obama is keeping it alive.


If you haven't noticed, the country developed a very polar "with us or against us" mentality ever since people questioned the WMD issue of Iraq. If you're not one thing, you're obviously the other. If you don't support Obama's ideas, you supported Bush's ideas. If you don't support Bush ideas, you supported Obama's ideas.  The middle ground got crushed. In truth, BOTH presidents are wrong for doing this but our social perspectives of politics got farked up to at least recognize the problem and do something about it instead of just crossing your fingers that the next President, Republican or Democrat, will do it right this thime.
 
2013-06-16 02:54:58 AM

PDid: First greenwald and now cnet, progressives are lapping up garbage reporting.


What specifically is garbage about Greenwald's reporting? (Granted, this CNET article is, as it stands. Link)
 
2013-06-16 03:11:43 AM

R.A.Danny: whidbey: R.A.Danny: whidbey: It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

Who gets to define "Progressive"?

You know as well as I do it means becoming less conservative as a society, having a strong social safety net, better education, public health, and yes, it also includes respecting basic rights and entitlements.

Like the First Amendment?
The Second?
The Third?
The Fourth? ...
Well we can at least count on The Third surviving.


Is this where you dishonestly conflate any liberal/progressive views with what an elected Democrat does? I guess that is fine as long as you, a non-democrat, then say your own views are an approximate average of what the Republican party elects do.

But I'm willing to be you don't do that, and probably in fact would not only deny that your values are that of the other party, but also take some imaginary high road in which you only truly support a perfect, and imaginary, politician.

If I'm wrong on that, fair enough.  But I do tire of all the people who talk politics and compare their imaginary candidate to everyone else's real one.  Then, surprise surprise, the imaginary one looks better!

Imagine if we played that game with other policies. My view on energy could be one in which everything was cheap and clean. My view on war could be one in which intervention only occurred where it has to, in hindsight, and all other actions are an overreach. Taxation could be an unrealistic view in which we somehow simultaneously take blood from a stone, don't come up with too little revenue, and magically balance the books.  You see where that is going.  And all I have to do in order to stay on that high horse is live in denial, throw my vote away on a write-in (like another poster in this thread, who purports to have written in Elizabeth Warren for president).  It is tiresome and dishonest to see people play that game, and ludicrous when they throw away votes in that manner while sitting at home biatching about it on the internet and talking of ITG 2nd amendment solutions.
 
2013-06-16 03:15:24 AM

Smackledorfer: If I'm wrong on that, fair enough.


You're way the hell off, but do go on patting yourself on the back.
 
2013-06-16 03:15:30 AM

ipsofacto: What specifically is garbage about Greenwald's reporting


that he took Snowden at his word about everything
 
2013-06-16 03:24:29 AM
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.
 
2013-06-16 03:25:36 AM

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?
 
2013-06-16 03:26:34 AM
THEIR word...
 
2013-06-16 03:27:57 AM

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.
 
2013-06-16 03:29:20 AM

R.A.Danny: Smackledorfer: If I'm wrong on that, fair enough.

You're way the hell off, but do go on patting yourself on the back.


Not only did I not pat myself on the back, but I specifically said I could be wrong. It is kind of telling that this is your response to my post though.  You know, instead of actually taking an opinion on something other than "time for a second amendment solution" and "everyone should be revolting but for fat and mcdonalds" wargarble.  Nothing says 'I respect freedom and law*' like 'I'm going to shoot, or threaten to shoot, people until the democracy does what I want'. I mean hey, it is certainly an option for certain things, but you can't go calling for open revolt every time the voters don't all agree with you. I suppose it conveniently let's you insinuate that everyone else, by way of not revolting (and which political leader have you picked up your gun and marched on, btw?) absolutely loves and supports the particular issue you call for revolt over.

*yes, I said law.  Without laws you don't have 4th amendment freedoms to begin with. We can pretend all day long that rights granted by the constitution are fundamental, inherent, god-given, or whatever trite phrase we want, but ultimately it is only society deciding as a group to agree to a code that gives them any power. You don't even have property rights without a society agreeing on what can be owned, what the owner is entitled to, and what the owner currently owns at present.
 
2013-06-16 03:29:48 AM

R.A.Danny: Smackledorfer: If I'm wrong on that, fair enough.

You're way the hell off, but do go on patting yourself on the back.


Hey now! Obama never promised he was a Constitutional scholar who would bring back the rule of law!

You're just imagining that.

Obama always promised to continue the glorious Bush legacy!

dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-06-16 03:31:01 AM
Laws are for the people who are compelled to live under them, not the people who draft them or install semantic loopholes in them.
 
2013-06-16 03:32:55 AM

bunner: Whoever "took Snowdon at his word" has done a better job than the last 5, so far.


Considering he didn't even check into his schooling to see if that was accurate, he did a far worse job

BullBearMS: Hey now! Obama never promised he was a Constitutional scholar who would bring back the rule of law!


Can you actually post an idea or are you so utterly without being that all you can do is mock other people to try to feel good about yourself?
 
2013-06-16 03:36:16 AM

WhyteRaven74: Can you actually post an idea or are you so utterly without being that all you can do is mock other people to try to feel good about yourself?


I'm just wondering what context ever did to him that he refuses to use it.
 
2013-06-16 03:36:39 AM

WhyteRaven74: Considering he didn't even check into his schooling to see if that was accurate, he did a far worse job


Considering that all this dime store magazine rack, spy v. spy bullsh*t crawls up the ass of semantics a week after it's exposed, I'd say "inconsequential" is the operative word, either way.
 
2013-06-16 03:38:03 AM

BullBearMS: Didn't stop the tea party from tossing incumbents on their ass.


And the Partyists who got into office are finding they have zero support to win re-election, at least the ones who didn't play ball with the GOP masters.  Although I disagree with them on a lot of their stances, I thought the pseudo-third party was a good thing for the political health of this country.  It shook things up.  What the Tea Party learned (and it was a good lesson for everyone) is that if you don't play by the party rules you are OUT.

I'm convinced that both the DNC and GOP are so fundamentally broke that neither can be repaired from within.  Scrap them both and start over.
 
2013-06-16 03:41:20 AM
This cnet story is bogus. Greenwald has walked back his original direct access storyline but the horse is out of the barn. It's all justa bunch of link bait at this point.
 
2013-06-16 03:44:08 AM
We get it! He's black!
 
2013-06-16 03:44:28 AM

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

that he took Snowden at his word about everything


Everything. That's specific. How about the court order? Is that garbage too?
 
2013-06-16 03:46:48 AM

ipsofacto: Everything. That's specific.


well let's see, he took Snowden at his word about his pay, his education and who knows what else that hasn't come to light yet.
 
2013-06-16 03:48:08 AM

sendtodave: A Dark Evil Omen: GeneralJim: LordJiro: There hasn't been a progressive in office for decades. Democrats are center-right authoritarians, while Republicans are extreme-right authoritarians. Just because Fox says every Democrat is the most liberal lib EVAR doesn't make it true.
If Democrats are "center-right" and Republicans are "far-right," then who has made this country about half socialist? The problem is, YOU are a bit to the left of Che Guevara, so EVERYBODY looks like a rightist -- to you.

"Half socialist." In a country with 7% union penetration and mass privatization in every sector of government. You're beyond ridiculous.

Hey, everybody, let's get into a partisan slap fight, and ignore that we are being farked!  That always works so well.

If you can't win, you may as well be entertained.


Standard misdirection.  When the peasants are pissed at you, get them arguing with each other.  Problem solved.

This NSA shiat has actually united more on the two sides than any other situation I can remember in the recent past.  So expect something to come up that will cause a split.
 
2013-06-16 03:48:08 AM

BullBearMS: whidbey: Honestly, if we had thrown every ounce of our support to the Democratic Party, telling the Republicans to fark off and holding Obama et al to a high standard of transparency, this country would be sailing along a lot farther than it is now.

We should demand Obama live up to his promises!

whidbey: It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

But don't you dare criticize him when he farks up!


[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 450x600]


Hey, where did you get Whidbeys 6th grade picture? His mom told me I was one of the few to have a copy.
 
2013-06-16 03:49:39 AM

OgreMagi: What the Tea Party learned (and it was a good lesson for everyone) is that if you don't play by the party rules you are OUT.


Play by the party rules? sure. Follow lockstep? Not really.  They still aren't following lockstep in the Republican Party, and Democrats are even more free to move around within the party when it comes to individual issues.

The real problem here is that regardless of parties you still have hundreds of elected officials, all of whom need campaign funds to get and stay elected, all of whom have to make backdoor deals to get signatures on their bills, etc.  Then you figure in the 300 million individual minds they are trying to represent, and they will always look, to any one individual, bad. Even in the best-case scenario I can imagine regarding the behavior of elected officials, we would still have an internet full of people furious with their actions.  All compromises of "vote for my bill and I'll vote for yours" will always be seen as the elected stabbing the voters in the back to some extent. I don't think deleting the parties and starting over would change much of anything. You might see a short-term surge in voter turnout, but that is about it.

Mind you, I'm not saying Obama's views on the NSA are a compromise, nor am I denying that it flies in the face of his campaign rhetoric.
 
2013-06-16 03:50:02 AM

WhyteRaven74: ipsofacto: Everything. That's specific.

well let's see, he took Snowden at his word about his pay, his education and who knows what else that hasn't come to light yet.


How about the court order? Is that garbage too?
 
2013-06-16 03:50:58 AM

OgreMagi: BullBearMS: Didn't stop the tea party from tossing incumbents on their ass.

And the Partyists who got into office are finding they have zero support to win re-election, at least the ones who didn't play ball with the GOP masters.  Although I disagree with them on a lot of their stances, I thought the pseudo-third party was a good thing for the political health of this country.  It shook things up.  What the Tea Party learned (and it was a good lesson for everyone) is that if you don't play by the party rules you are OUT.

I'm convinced that both the DNC and GOP are so fundamentally broke that neither can be repaired from within.  Scrap them both and start over.


The DNC and the GOP are wholly owned by the same wealthy donor friends.

They like to go on and on about how they oppose what the other is doing, but when we're talking about something their wealthy masters want the leadership of both parties get bipartisan damn quick.
 
2013-06-16 03:55:52 AM

ipsofacto: How about the court order? Is that garbage too?


Who knows, also The Guardian has never said Snowden was the one who provided the court order.
 
2013-06-16 03:58:48 AM

BullBearMS: OgreMagi: BullBearMS: Didn't stop the tea party from tossing incumbents on their ass.

And the Partyists who got into office are finding they have zero support to win re-election, at least the ones who didn't play ball with the GOP masters.  Although I disagree with them on a lot of their stances, I thought the pseudo-third party was a good thing for the political health of this country.  It shook things up.  What the Tea Party learned (and it was a good lesson for everyone) is that if you don't play by the party rules you are OUT.

I'm convinced that both the DNC and GOP are so fundamentally broke that neither can be repaired from within.  Scrap them both and start over.

The DNC and the GOP are wholly owned by the same wealthy donor friends.

They like to go on and on about how they oppose what the other is doing, but when we're talking about something their wealthy masters want the leadership of both parties get bipartisan damn quick.


I figured that out a long time ago.  I thought more people would figure that out when the Credit Card Reform Act was passed (or whatever it's official name was).  It was supposed to fix the most outrageous abuses be the credit card companies.  By the time it passed, it had become the "Credit Card Profit Protection Act".  Instead of stopping the abuses, it made it nearly impossible for massive credit card debt to be discharged via bankruptcy.
 
2013-06-16 03:59:15 AM

WhyteRaven74: ipsofacto: How about the court order? Is that garbage too?

Who knows, also The Guardian has never said Snowden was the one who provided the court order.


Aside from saying he was the source of the leaked information, you mean?
 
2013-06-16 03:59:33 AM
That being said I'm all for NSA reform. I also want these private spook firms to keep their money out of govt something Greenwald disagrees with.
 
2013-06-16 03:59:46 AM

OgreMagi:

cptjeff: OgreMagi: Look at how things were done under Bush. Compare them to how things are now being done under Obama. Do you see a difference? No, you don't.

Yes, I do. I see quite a few differences. Not as many as I'd like to see on this issue, but if you can't see quite a few very major differences between Bush and Obama, then I'm glad you're choosing to remove yourself from even the tiny levels of influence you might have had.

There is no difference where it matters.

We still have the government spying without probably cause.
We're still getting involved in foreign wars that are none of our farking business.
The rich still don't get prosecuted for raping financial institutions for immense profits.
Corporations still control our political process.

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

I was just watching a news report while I assembled an office chair, and retired NSA agent interviews were being discussed.  They said that the retired NSA agents were startled by all the stuff they were doing now -- that is, they couldn't do all that stuff when Bush was President.  Apparently Obama is not "just as bad as Bush," but worse.  How exciting.
 
2013-06-16 04:00:06 AM

WhyteRaven74: ipsofacto: How about the court order? Is that garbage too?

Who knows, also The Guardian has never said Snowden was the one who provided the court order.


Has the authenticity of the order been denied? Snowden may very well not have been the source for it, but we were talking about Greenwald's reporting..
 
2013-06-16 04:03:30 AM

OgreMagi: BullBearMS: OgreMagi: BullBearMS: Didn't stop the tea party from tossing incumbents on their ass.

And the Partyists who got into office are finding they have zero support to win re-election, at least the ones who didn't play ball with the GOP masters.  Although I disagree with them on a lot of their stances, I thought the pseudo-third party was a good thing for the political health of this country.  It shook things up.  What the Tea Party learned (and it was a good lesson for everyone) is that if you don't play by the party rules you are OUT.

I'm convinced that both the DNC and GOP are so fundamentally broke that neither can be repaired from within.  Scrap them both and start over.

The DNC and the GOP are wholly owned by the same wealthy donor friends.

They like to go on and on about how they oppose what the other is doing, but when we're talking about something their wealthy masters want the leadership of both parties get bipartisan damn quick.

I figured that out a long time ago.  I thought more people would figure that out when the Credit Card Reform Act was passed (or whatever it's official name was).  It was supposed to fix the most outrageous abuses be the credit card companies.  By the time it passed, it had become the "Credit Card Profit Protection Act".  Instead of stopping the abuses, it made it nearly impossible for massive credit card debt to be discharged via bankruptcy.


The recent one I remember is right after it became public knowledge that the banks were using fraudulent documents in all 50 states to take people's homes away from them.

Suddenly, without any sort of debate, the Senate unanimously passed a bill that would absolve them of liability for this.
 
2013-06-16 04:06:26 AM

BullBearMS: Suddenly, without any sort of debate, the Senate unanimously passed a bill that would absolve them of liability for this.


Almost sounds like collusion and racketeering.  But, I mean, he banks don't WANT all those homes.  Not that actual wealth of property.  They just want the no good bastards who took out those mortgages they offered them and couldn't pay to mail the bank notes that  the Fed just sends them on demand, anyway.  Wealth.  pfft.  That's for suckers.
 
2013-06-16 04:06:39 AM

BullBearMS: OgreMagi: BullBearMS: OgreMagi: BullBearMS: Didn't stop the tea party from tossing incumbents on their ass.

And the Partyists who got into office are finding they have zero support to win re-election, at least the ones who didn't play ball with the GOP masters.  Although I disagree with them on a lot of their stances, I thought the pseudo-third party was a good thing for the political health of this country.  It shook things up.  What the Tea Party learned (and it was a good lesson for everyone) is that if you don't play by the party rules you are OUT.

I'm convinced that both the DNC and GOP are so fundamentally broke that neither can be repaired from within.  Scrap them both and start over.

The DNC and the GOP are wholly owned by the same wealthy donor friends.

They like to go on and on about how they oppose what the other is doing, but when we're talking about something their wealthy masters want the leadership of both parties get bipartisan damn quick.

I figured that out a long time ago.  I thought more people would figure that out when the Credit Card Reform Act was passed (or whatever it's official name was).  It was supposed to fix the most outrageous abuses be the credit card companies.  By the time it passed, it had become the "Credit Card Profit Protection Act".  Instead of stopping the abuses, it made it nearly impossible for massive credit card debt to be discharged via bankruptcy.

The recent one I remember is right after it became public knowledge that the banks were using fraudulent documents in all 50 states to take people's homes away from them.

Suddenly, without any sort of debate, the Senate unanimously passed a bill that would absolve them of liability for this.


Funny how they can't get together to help people suffering, but the moment some rich bastard's money gets threatened, they are a model of cooperation.

Tree, rope, politician.  Some assembly required.
 
2013-06-16 04:07:11 AM

GeneralJim: They said that the retired NSA agents were startled by all the stuff they were doing now -- that is, they couldn't do all that stuff when Bush was President.


Before 9/11 they couldn't spy on Americans without a warrant no matter who was President.

After 9/11 they could.

As a matter of fact, at one point much of the Justice Department under Bush threatened to resign en mass if they didn't change something that was going on. Exactly what they were doing never leaked out, but the threat to resign as a group sure did.
 
2013-06-16 04:09:22 AM
From this
thefightforfreedomchronicles.files.wordpress.comupload.wikimedia.org
To this
 
2013-06-16 04:09:37 AM

GeneralJim: OgreMagi: cptjeff: OgreMagi: Look at how things were done under Bush. Compare them to how things are now being done under Obama. Do you see a difference? No, you don't.

Yes, I do. I see quite a few differences. Not as many as I'd like to see on this issue, but if you can't see quite a few very major differences between Bush and Obama, then I'm glad you're choosing to remove yourself from even the tiny levels of influence you might have had.

There is no difference where it matters.

We still have the government spying without probably cause.
We're still getting involved in foreign wars that are none of our farking business.
The rich still don't get prosecuted for raping financial institutions for immense profits.
Corporations still control our political process.

I could go on, but I doubt you actually care because you are happily part of the problem.
I was just watching a news report while I assembled an office chair, and retired NSA agent interviews were being discussed.  They said that the retired NSA agents were startled by all the stuff they were doing now -- that is, they couldn't do all that stuff when Bush was President.  Apparently Obama is not "just as bad as Bush," but worse.  How exciting.


Technology is constantly improving.  That's why is was a bad idea to not worry about the NSA gathering all that data because "it's not technologically possible."   Maybe not today, but tomorrow they will figure out how to do it and we became complacent and won't notice until it's too late.
 
2013-06-16 04:10:28 AM

OgreMagi: Funny how they can't get together to help people suffering, but the moment some rich bastard's money gets threatened, they are a model of cooperation.


That or if they need to make America more nearly fascist, as with the NDAA's implementation of indefinite detention for Americans without a trial.
 
2013-06-16 04:12:08 AM

BullBearMS: Before 9/11 they couldn't spy on Americans without a warrant no matter who was President.

After 9/11 they could.


Causative pivot points are handy when you're selling an agenda.

t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-16 04:15:00 AM

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.
 
2013-06-16 04:15:36 AM
 
2013-06-16 04:17:23 AM

PDid: This cnet story is bogus. Greenwald has walked back his original direct access storyline but the horse is out of the barn. It's all justa bunch of link bait at this point.


You mean his "original direct access" storyline direct quote of the NSA's own document?
 
2013-06-16 04:20:10 AM

BullBearMS: GeneralJim: They said that the retired NSA agents were startled by all the stuff they were doing now -- that is, they couldn't do all that stuff when Bush was President.

Before 9/11 they couldn't spy on Americans without a warrant no matter who was President.

After 9/11 they could.

As a matter of fact, at one point much of the Justice Department under Bush threatened to resign en mass if they didn't change something that was going on. Exactly what they were doing never leaked out, but the threat to resign as a group sure did.


I was in the Justice Department under Bush and I assure this is fiction.
 
2013-06-16 04:21:59 AM

BullBearMS: bunner: BullBearMS: Before 9/11 they couldn't spy on Americans without a warrant no matter who was President.

After 9/11 they could.

Causative pivot points are handy when you're selling an agenda.

[t0.gstatic.com image 246x205]

Here. Found a citation.

Bush agreed to unspecified changes to the program


Well, then what on earth are we worried about?
 
2013-06-16 04:23:50 AM

SunsetLament: I assure this is fiction.


Then how did this fiction find purchase in history?
 
2013-06-16 04:25:13 AM

bunner: BullBearMS: bunner: BullBearMS: Before 9/11 they couldn't spy on Americans without a warrant no matter who was President.

After 9/11 they could.

Causative pivot points are handy when you're selling an agenda.

[t0.gstatic.com image 246x205]

Here. Found a citation.

Bush agreed to unspecified changes to the program

Well, then what on earth are we worried about?


What in the hell was going on that people willing to ignore torture threatened to resign en masse over???
 
2013-06-16 04:26:19 AM
(Thread TLDR) You're all wrong!
 
2013-06-16 04:29:05 AM

bunner: SunsetLament: I assure this is fiction.

Then how did this fiction find purchase in history?


One guy (Comey) exaggerated a story (his threatening to resign turned into "a large mass of people considering resigning") and it was the story the media wanted to hear.  It's the same way all kinds of bullshiat political stories find purchase in history.

80% of the country who knows who Sarah Palin is thinks she said "I can see Russia from my house" and thinks that Bush used the word "strategery".
 
2013-06-16 04:29:46 AM

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.
 
2013-06-16 04:32:04 AM

MaliFinn: (Thread TLDR) You're all wrong!


Whoa, thanks!  I feel better now.  Please visit the cashier to have your posture of unimpeachable rectitude re-inflated!  :  )
 
2013-06-16 04:32:29 AM

Gyrfalcon:

GeneralJim: Gyrfalcon: Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.

Well, so much for having a rational discussion on the topic.

Hey, don't let his insensitive comment deter you -- lick away.


[theraf69.files.wordpress.com image 400x400]

Your boots are facing the wrong way.

I bow to your superior knowledge of NAZI minutiae.  Groß Danke.
 
2013-06-16 04:35:46 AM

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.
 
2013-06-16 04:36:01 AM
I'll bet there are a couple of "trusted analysts" with a few million bucks in a Cayman Islands bank account from the CEO conversations they sold into the corporate spook world.

Also, the Gubmint could save themselves a lot of headaches if they just went back to claiming that the NSA does not exist.

/There is No Such Agency.
 
2013-06-16 04:38:18 AM

PDid: That being said I'm all for NSA reform. I also want these private spook firms to keep their money out of govt something Greenwald disagrees with.


I just heard in an interview on the CBC that 10s of billions of dollars of the NSA's annual budget (50 to 70%) goes to private contractors like Booz Allan et al.

How could Greenwald disagree with keeping their influence minimized?

What I keep coming back to is the potential for abuse of this power.

What if America's enemies bribe their way to accessing it?

This time the leak went to a noted lefty journo by a guy concerned about what was going on.

Next time it might be info garnered by a less civic minded private contractor and sold to an AQ type group or corporate/foreign spy or a politician digging for dirt on an opponent.

If this hasn't happened already.
 
2013-06-16 04:38:43 AM

Oldiron_79: 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 supported Jill Stein quite publicly in the last election.
 
2013-06-16 04:41:08 AM

BullBearMS: Oldiron_79: 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 supported Jill Stein quite publicly in the last election.


I plan on pissing through the endless web pages of hype and pretending, for a couple of nanoseconds, that who wins matters at all.
 
2013-06-16 04:42:31 AM

Wrencher: I'll bet there are a couple of "trusted analysts" with a few million bucks in a Cayman Islands bank account from the CEO conversations they sold into the corporate spook world.

Also, the Gubmint could save themselves a lot of headaches if they just went back to claiming that the NSA does not exist.

/There is No Such Agency.


Spying on Americans has become one of the favorite new ways to get rich if you're a private contractor.

PBS would be happy to fill you in, if you want to know more.
 
2013-06-16 04:44:16 AM

djkutch:

GeneralJim: 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.

Personally, I prefer to remember the candidate who promised to end it, and extended and deepened it instead. Besides that, the USA PATRIOT Act passed the House 357 to 66, and passed the Senate by 98 to 1. Truly bipartisan bullshiat, despite your need to blame Bush.

So, you admit it was mistake, pre-Obama?


Admit? Hell, I PROCLAIMED it. Yes, I have been vehemently against it since I heard of it.  It is unconstitutional, and a slap in the face to everything good in America.  At ANY time since then, the correct action would have been to repeal it.  If there is something that is questionable in terms of taking away rights, and it has bi-partisan support, run, don't walk away from it.
 
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.