Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

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

11345 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jun 2013 at 9:41 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest

 
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 10:00:41 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.


I live with my mom

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 11:29:26 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.