If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants   (news.cnet.com) divider line 189
    More: Obvious, NSA, United States, phone calls, FISA Amendments Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Legal liability, Internet Archive  
•       •       •

11319 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jun 2013 at 9:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-15 09:57:22 PM
9 votes:
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 09:52:24 PM
8 votes:
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 09:44:19 PM
8 votes:
I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.
2013-06-15 09:48:10 PM
7 votes:
In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance
2013-06-15 09:47:16 PM
7 votes:
Not to be all "But Bush" but didn't we know this already?
2013-06-15 10:37:30 PM
6 votes:
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 09:59:03 PM
6 votes:

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 09:50:08 PM
6 votes:
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 09:50:23 PM
5 votes:

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 09:45:34 PM
5 votes:
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 11:28:29 PM
4 votes:
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 10:11:00 PM
4 votes:

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 10:01:50 PM
4 votes:
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 09:58:40 PM
4 votes:
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 09:57:44 PM
4 votes:
And zeros of people will be prosecuted for this.
2013-06-15 09:48:08 PM
4 votes:
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 09:48:06 PM
4 votes:
Duh.
It's the NSA.  They've been doing that for decades.
2013-06-15 09:47:21 PM
4 votes:
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 09:46:37 PM
4 votes:
img.photobucket.com
2013-06-15 09:45:56 PM
4 votes:
img.photobucket.com
2013-06-16 12:09:10 AM
3 votes:

Asphyxium: I love how retarded Republicans are up in arms about the surveillance and yet seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that their good old boy George W. Bush was the one who made all this possible.


No. People that value liberty were against this all along. Don't pretend for a second that it's a partisan issue, the left failed to fix anything.
2013-06-15 11:40:57 PM
3 votes:

cptjeff: 'm not defending them. I'm saying that thanks to the structure of our system, no third party is ever going to be able to influence it significantly.


History shows you are wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

dl.dropboxusercontent.com
2013-06-15 10:51:51 PM
3 votes:

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 10:29:39 PM
3 votes:

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 10:13:18 PM
3 votes:
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 10:06:29 PM
3 votes:

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 10:06:10 PM
3 votes:
"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 10:04:58 PM
3 votes:
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 09:58:06 PM
3 votes:
img.fark.net
2013-06-15 09:55:49 PM
3 votes:

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 09:54:55 PM
3 votes:

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 09:52:33 PM
3 votes:
Barack Hussein Obama. Voted in not once but twice by the neoliberal fascist scumbags.
2013-06-15 09:51:54 PM
3 votes:

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Dumbass.


You sure are.
2013-06-15 09:48:11 PM
3 votes:
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.
2013-06-16 03:20:07 PM
2 votes:

Walter Paisley: the progressives will either leave the Democratic party or be less willing to compromise within it.


Rachel Maddow kind of nailed this during the last election cycle.

The only thing that will stop the Democrats from farking over their base is if we stop supporting them when they do it.

Rachel Maddow last night issued a very harsh and eloquent denunciation of Obama's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before a military commission at Guantanamo rather than a real court. At the end of her monologue, Maddow focused on the contrast between how the Republicans treat their base and how Democrats treat theirs, specifically emphasizing that the White House announced this decision on the same day it kicked off Obama's re-election bid. About that point, Rachel said this:

A Democratic President kicks his base in the teeth on something as fundamental as civil liberties - he puts the nail in the coffin of a civil liberties promise he made on his first full day in office - and he does it on the first day of his re-election effort. And Beltway reaction to that is. . . huh, good move. That's the difference between Republican politics and Democratic politics. The Republicans may not love their base, but they fear them and play to them. The Democratic Party institutional structures of D.C., and the Beltway press in particular, not only hate the Democratic base - they think it's good politics for Democratic politicians to kick that base publicly whenever possible.

Only the base itself will ever change that.
2013-06-16 08:32:26 AM
2 votes:

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




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

i.imgur.com
2013-06-16 03:38:03 AM
2 votes:

BullBearMS: Didn't stop the tea party from tossing incumbents on their ass.


And the Partyists who got into office are finding they have zero support to win re-election, at least the ones who didn't play ball with the GOP masters.  Although I disagree with them on a lot of their stances, I thought the pseudo-third party was a good thing for the political health of this country.  It shook things up.  What the Tea Party learned (and it was a good lesson for everyone) is that if you don't play by the party rules you are OUT.

I'm convinced that both the DNC and GOP are so fundamentally broke that neither can be repaired from within.  Scrap them both and start over.
2013-06-16 01:43:13 AM
2 votes:

whidbey: Honestly, if we had thrown every ounce of our support to the Democratic Party, telling the Republicans to fark off and holding Obama et al to a high standard of transparency, this country would be sailing along a lot farther than it is now.


We should demand Obama live up to his promises!

whidbey: It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.


But don't you dare criticize him when he farks up!


dl.dropboxusercontent.com
m00
2013-06-16 12:41:09 AM
2 votes:

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


I thought about this.

I think after he was elected, but before he took office. He had the "presidential handoff thing" with Bush. It went something like this:

Obama: Hey Bush, I have some questions. Even though we are from different political parties, I believe in mutual respect and want to hear your thoughts.
Bush: Shoot, pardner
Obama: What was the toughest thing you ever had to do?
Bush: Do? Presidents don't do anything. I just sat around and did some busy-work policy. Nothing that really matters.
Obama: With all due respect Mr. Bush, but I'm going to clean up Washington. Starting with Gitmo, Patriot Act...
Bush: Hold on son. I had the same conversation with Clinton when I took office. I didn't want nation building. I wanted smaller government. I thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea. But you do what you're told to do.
Obama: Oh, come on. You're telling me your hands were tied on this?
Bush: I'm going to give you a file here. It will take you awhile to digest. Hell, when I read this file I thought Ol Slick Willy was putting one over on me. But let me tell you a bit about history. In the 1950s, we made contact with aliens. That's right, little green men. They came from a small cluster of stars -- about 1000 -- that's on the edge of the milky way. It's there due to dark matter or some such. Well, after the first contact, they started to infiltrate us. They weren't peaceful. But hell we deserve it for what we did to the Indians. Nixon, bless his heart, sat down with the Soviets and hammered out a deal, that we would be partners in this war.
Obama: You're kidding me.
Bush: Sadly, I'm not. Now the whole Watergate thing was Nixon trying to keep a lid on this. Could you imagine if people knew? There would be panic on the streets. Riots. Chaos. End of civilization. Hell, the US Presidency had sovereignty until under Carter when certain people with a lot of power decided it was best not to let citizens pick their leaders. So Reagan was the first president picked by the group. He had the charisma to pull it off. He was chosen because as an actor, well... he'd be able to keep everything on the "down low" as my daughters say. Really sell the whole debt thing.
Obama: Aliens? Really?
Bush: That's right. It hasn't been all bad. In the 1990s we were able to reverse engineer some of their technology. That's what Moore's law is -- the more technology we can reverse engineer, the more we're able to. Anyway, we had to tell Gore about this so he would stop contesting the election, and that's why he grew a beard and went off the deep end there for a bit.
Obama: So, we're in a galactic war with Aliens... and the President is a puppet... what about Iraq, the Patriot Act... axis of evil...
Bush: Well, the Iraq thing is tricky. The aliens, well they'd been here before. The prophet Mohammed was an attempt at taking over the world through religion. See, these little buggers have some sort of mind control. But they can't use it on public figures because it completely changes their personality. One of the side affects of even being in the vicinity of a MCH  -- mind controlled human that is -- you'll learn the jargon soon enough -- is it turns people homosexual. Part of the reason I wanted to keep the sodomy laws on the books is it was a good way to sniff out activity. I have no problem with gay marriage, but it's easier to monitor mind control incidents by tracking pride rallies. If homosexuality was perceived as normal, then we'd be lost if the aliens ever moved out of their San Francisco stronghold.
Obama: You were talking about Iraq...
Bush: Oh, I was getting ahead of myself there. You see, Saddam was convinced by the aliens that he was the next prophet. See they couldn't mind control him, because his personality would change. Saddam was letting them build a massive Mind Control generator in Iraq that could be used to enslave all of us. Out there in the desert. Due to the earth's magnetic currents, building the thing in the middle east would have amplified the signal... covered the whole world. That's what we were there for. The whole nuke thing was the best we could come up with. But they've been doing this for years. You think the Soviets really wanted to invade Afghanistan? Carter, the dummy, tried to block the war for humanitarian reasons. That's why Americans don't get to vote for their president any more. Diebold made that a lot easier for us to hide.
Obama: And... the Patriot Act...?
Bush: Funny thing about these aliens is that they don't talk like you and me. They use telepathic communication. Because it's all electromagnetic based, that's what the boys in A51 say, the aliens can tap into cell phones, internet, whatever... and pretend to talk to people. So see this phone here? Lets say Dick Cheney calls me up. I can't tell if it's Dick Cheney or an alien foolin' the system. Now with enough data crunching, we can tell. Also figure out where they are transmitting from. We're working on a way to monitor all communication devices and dump the data on a server somewhere. Then go through it and figure out which calls have been spoofed. It's called PRISM. You'll be briefed on it later.
Obama: This is insane! A war with aliens! Mind control! I have to tell someone!
Bush: Oh, I wouldn't be doing that. No, sir. The group wouldn't like it very much. There would be consequences. That message would never get out. You think the Secret Service is here to protect us? No, they're here to keep things running smoothly.
Obama: I see. This is mind-blowing. So who runs things?
Bush: Well, it's those Bliderberg guys. They have a lot going on, but running this country is one of them. It's not all bad.
Obama: A puppet, you're telling me I'm a puppet and I can't do anything about it.
Bush: Oh, it ain't all bad. You can play a lot of golf, give fancy speeches. Hell, the election won't even matter. If you say the right things, they'll give you a second term. I've never read so many books as I did being president. You signed up to serve your country right? Well, this is the service it needs.
Obama: Okay. Okay. This will be okay.
Bush: One more thing. Watch out for that Ron Paul fellow. With think the aliens got to him. As I said, the mind control leaves some strange footprints on a man's personality.
Obama: Who else has been compromised?
Bush: Well, Denis Kucinich. Denis Rodman. The whole Kim family over in North Korea. Most suicide bombers, but you don't know that till later. The psych boys have a profile worked up if you're interested, but we got agencies to deal with that.
Obama: I need some time... to think about this...
Bush: Sure, sure. Take your time. It's not easy. In the beginning of my term, I thought I would be a bit subversive. You know, let a few hints slide here and there. I hate being under someone's thumb. But boy, then they stated writing my speeches to make me sound like a moron. So it's easier just to do what they say. They'll put the words on the teleprompter. Just read them and smile.
Obama: Thanks, George. I think I can do this.
Bush: Sure you can. They wouldn't have picked you if you couldn't. And hell, ol' Hillary already knows about this. If you don't think you're ready, arrangements can be made. But they want her in 2016 for some reason. I think they're going to crash the housing and banking sector as a distraction to hide the massive cost of this war. But don't tell anyone you heard that from me, that's a bit above my pay grade.
Obama: I'll be in touch. Take care George.
Bush: See ya! Read that file, let me know if you have any questions. Also, if you get in any trouble just call up the Koch brothers. Good people.
PKY
2013-06-16 12:04:54 AM
2 votes:
It's nothing sadder than people who voted democrat trying to defend their party and Obama accomplishing nothing progressive, but instead staying the course after Bush or even expanding surveillance, secret courts, letting the three-letter agencies running wild, hunting whistle-blowers, ignoring habeas corpus, foreign policy etc. Everything change was about. Will go down in history as eight years of world's biggest nothing.
2013-06-15 11:56:02 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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

Well, it has happened before.

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

That really what you want to accomplish?

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

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

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


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

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

So why isn't there a "third party" making a play for a big city? If they could make that much of a difference, why aren't they trying where it could count?
2013-06-15 11:53:26 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


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

Everyone has something to hide.
2013-06-15 11:52:20 PM
2 votes:
We're living n J. Edgar Hoover's wet dream.
2013-06-15 11:51:31 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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

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


people only think they have nothing to hide. just go back to the days of McCarthy and what he used against folks who thought they had nothing to hide.
2013-06-15 11:51:24 PM
2 votes:
Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell:

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

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

Obama's big lie: We're not listening to your phone calls.
2013-06-15 11:51:04 PM
2 votes:
I don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative, if you think this is ok you should be shot in the farking head.
2013-06-15 11:45:05 PM
2 votes:

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

And, for the bootlickers mentioned by Nabb1, it starts with the Patriot Act. Obama isn't innocent, but please remember the administration and party that was in power that started it all.
Personally, I prefer to remember the candidate who promised to end it, and extended and deepened it instead. Besides that, the USA PATRIOT Act passed the House 357 to 66, and passed the Senate by 98 to 1. Truly bipartisan bullshiat, despite your need to blame Bush.

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

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

Hepting v. AT&T

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

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

Source: about 1.5 seconds on Wiki; you could do your own search if you wanted to.
2013-06-15 11:29:36 PM
2 votes:
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 11:22:57 PM
2 votes:
2013-06-15 11:17:23 PM
2 votes:

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 11:11:09 PM
2 votes:

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 10:55:47 PM
2 votes:
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 10:54:07 PM
2 votes:
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 10:42:26 PM
2 votes:

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 10:28:45 PM
2 votes:
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 10:27:45 PM
2 votes:
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 10:27:22 PM
2 votes:
Well, I guess there's nothing left for anyone to do except play their saxophone.

criticalmassesmedia.com
2013-06-15 10:20:21 PM
2 votes:

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 10:19:07 PM
2 votes:
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 10:11:26 PM
2 votes:

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 10:11:12 PM
2 votes:

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 10:10:09 PM
2 votes:
2013-06-15 10:08:52 PM
2 votes:

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 10:06:04 PM
2 votes:

OgreMagi: sucking Obama's peener


The obsession continues...
2013-06-15 10:04:56 PM
2 votes:

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 10:04:52 PM
2 votes:

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 10:03:27 PM
2 votes:

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 10:02:52 PM
2 votes:

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 10:01:06 PM
2 votes:

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 09:52:49 PM
2 votes:
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 09:49:38 PM
2 votes:

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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers
2013-06-15 09:45:22 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-06-16 06:22:50 PM
1 votes:

mainstreet62: WhoopAssWayne: Barack Hussein Obama. Voted in not once but twice by the neoliberal fascist scumbags.

Obama merely got caught with the hot potato while you Republican cocksuckers were busy writing the Patriot Act and accusing him of not being an American, Benghazi, IRS, etc.


Obama extended the Patriot act, so don't pretend that he is just a poor victim in all this.  This is his hot potato now.  He owns it and it has gotten worse.

YOU assholes perpetuated the downward spiral in political discourse.

Funny.  Go tell that to Harry Reid who accused Mitt of not paying taxes for 10 years and never provided proof.

This issue transcends partisan politics. You should be angry at both parties. If you had integrity, you'd vote out R's and D's that went along with this violation of the 4th amendment.

Has a court ruled that it violated the 4th amendment or are you just making stuff up again?

But as you pointed out, you're a partisan hack. Fark you.

Well, well, well, look who is "perpetuating the downward spiral in political discourse".
2013-06-16 05:13:35 PM
1 votes:
Never trust the government.

They are the same assholes that bailed out Wall Street.

It's time for a broom. Sweep the trash out. All of it.
2013-06-16 05:13:08 PM
1 votes:

Halli: SunsetLament: udhq: I'm willing to have a serious discussion about the level of government surveillance that is appropriate, but unfortunately that's not what's happening here.  The people who have become suddenly outraged about government surveillance in the last 2 weeks aren't interested in having this adult discussion, to them, this is just another stick to beat the other side with.

Case in point, after two weeks of media drive poutrage, I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that any surveillance programs have expanded in size or scope under Obama.

You mean other than the NSA's own powerpoint slide that shows the expansion of the program since 2007?

Weird how the Guardian and the Post backtracked completely on that claim.


How do you backtrack completely off of "publishing a document"?  Are they claiming now that it wasn't authored by the NSA?  (HINT: No, they aren't)  Are they claiming that the document was changed or altered in some fashion?  (HINT: No, they aren't)  They photocopied an NSA internal-document and published it on the internet and you're blaming them for quoting what's on the face of the document?  LOL

The stupid thing about this is that both you and I know that the expansion of the program is exactly as outlined on that slide in the powerpoint, but you have to pretend it's not true because it makes the Dear Leader look like donkey shiat ... and no good upstanding liberal can accept the Dear Leader looking like donkey shiat.
2013-06-16 10:49:21 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

That is a pretty questionable edit.
2013-06-16 09:26:21 AM
1 votes:

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

Seeing a lot of that, are you?

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

[i.imgur.com image 403x397]

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


well, good thing that we didn't elect Hannity as President.
2013-06-16 06:12:32 AM
1 votes:
We live in a covert police state.  Hope it doesn't become overt in your lifetime.
2013-06-16 06:05:17 AM
1 votes:

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


If you accept a culture wherein "growing up" is tacitly acknowledged as arriving at an age when you accept that 90% of everything is an utter, unfixable, dangerous crock of shiat, the you are promoting a culture that is about as useless as titties on a fish and equates wisdom with accepting the girth of the dick up your ass that is the price of living in it.  And that culture sucks rhino assflap.  And accepting it is the problem.
2013-06-16 05:59:04 AM
1 votes:

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

huh?

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


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

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

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

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

And if you're dumb enough to believe in McDonald's cheeseburgers, then you deserve what you get.
2013-06-16 05:07:11 AM
1 votes:

cptjeff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013-06-16 04:38:18 AM
1 votes:

PDid: That being said I'm all for NSA reform. I also want these private spook firms to keep their money out of govt something Greenwald disagrees with.


I just heard in an interview on the CBC that 10s of billions of dollars of the NSA's annual budget (50 to 70%) goes to private contractors like Booz Allan et al.

How could Greenwald disagree with keeping their influence minimized?

What I keep coming back to is the potential for abuse of this power.

What if America's enemies bribe their way to accessing it?

This time the leak went to a noted lefty journo by a guy concerned about what was going on.

Next time it might be info garnered by a less civic minded private contractor and sold to an AQ type group or corporate/foreign spy or a politician digging for dirt on an opponent.

If this hasn't happened already.
2013-06-16 04:29:46 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

Obama promised to end this.

He lied.

It's indefensible.


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

I voted 3rd party in the 08, 10, and 12 cycles because of the shenanigans of the Schrub administration, I wasnt gonna vote dem but as a true conservative the GOP had went too far to the dark side for me to follow.
2013-06-16 04:15:36 AM
1 votes:
2013-06-16 04:15:00 AM
1 votes:

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

that he took Snowden at his word about everything


... he also directly quoted the NSA's own document ("direct server access").  The guy deserves a Pulitzer.  Snowden should be Time's Man of the Year; it's a no brainer.
2013-06-16 04:03:30 AM
1 votes:

OgreMagi: BullBearMS: OgreMagi: BullBearMS: Didn't stop the tea party from tossing incumbents on their ass.

And the Partyists who got into office are finding they have zero support to win re-election, at least the ones who didn't play ball with the GOP masters.  Although I disagree with them on a lot of their stances, I thought the pseudo-third party was a good thing for the political health of this country.  It shook things up.  What the Tea Party learned (and it was a good lesson for everyone) is that if you don't play by the party rules you are OUT.

I'm convinced that both the DNC and GOP are so fundamentally broke that neither can be repaired from within.  Scrap them both and start over.

The DNC and the GOP are wholly owned by the same wealthy donor friends.

They like to go on and on about how they oppose what the other is doing, but when we're talking about something their wealthy masters want the leadership of both parties get bipartisan damn quick.

I figured that out a long time ago.  I thought more people would figure that out when the Credit Card Reform Act was passed (or whatever it's official name was).  It was supposed to fix the most outrageous abuses be the credit card companies.  By the time it passed, it had become the "Credit Card Profit Protection Act".  Instead of stopping the abuses, it made it nearly impossible for massive credit card debt to be discharged via bankruptcy.


The recent one I remember is right after it became public knowledge that the banks were using fraudulent documents in all 50 states to take people's homes away from them.

Suddenly, without any sort of debate, the Senate unanimously passed a bill that would absolve them of liability for this.
2013-06-16 03:50:58 AM
1 votes:

OgreMagi: BullBearMS: Didn't stop the tea party from tossing incumbents on their ass.

And the Partyists who got into office are finding they have zero support to win re-election, at least the ones who didn't play ball with the GOP masters.  Although I disagree with them on a lot of their stances, I thought the pseudo-third party was a good thing for the political health of this country.  It shook things up.  What the Tea Party learned (and it was a good lesson for everyone) is that if you don't play by the party rules you are OUT.

I'm convinced that both the DNC and GOP are so fundamentally broke that neither can be repaired from within.  Scrap them both and start over.


The DNC and the GOP are wholly owned by the same wealthy donor friends.

They like to go on and on about how they oppose what the other is doing, but when we're talking about something their wealthy masters want the leadership of both parties get bipartisan damn quick.
2013-06-16 03:41:20 AM
1 votes:
This cnet story is bogus. Greenwald has walked back his original direct access storyline but the horse is out of the barn. It's all justa bunch of link bait at this point.
2013-06-16 02:53:31 AM
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

Obama promised to end this.

He lied.

It's indefensible.
2013-06-16 02:47:46 AM
1 votes:
First greenwald and now cnet, progressives are lapping up garbage reporting.
2013-06-16 02:25:57 AM
1 votes:
There's really only one solution for this.  Every single communication, even something as innocuous as inviting your Mom over for coffee, needs to include encryption as an attachment.  Your Mom can still read the plain text, but you should include the encryption block.  Note: do not commit the n00b error of actually encrypting your plaintext, because that will provide a cryptographic nonce making it easier for TPTB to break your keys.

Instead, I suggest generating a pseudorandom stream equivalent in length to your plaintext, and encrypt it with a random public key acquired through searching Bing.

Implementation of this in a Chrome plugin to attach a crypto block to every single Hotmail or Gmail message you send is left as an exercise for the reader.

The benefit: by attaching encryption to every single message, you attract the attention of the crypto search keywords (after all, who else but a terrorist would use encryption?)  This leads to resource starvation, and provides cover for you when you do eventually send a cryptoblock to a friend using their actual public key, with different plaintext, i.e., the real message.
2013-06-16 02:23:31 AM
1 votes:

whidbey: Yes, but part of progressing as a society is the acknowledgement that none of these rights are absolute, and are allowed interpretation through judicial review.


Has the recent review been enough or do we keep reviewing until we get the answer you want?
2013-06-16 02:18:21 AM
1 votes:
This government now consists of bad IOUs, distributed by a private bank, and whoever has the most of them.  Period.  Nothing more.
2013-06-16 02:13:13 AM
1 votes:

whidbey: R.A.Danny: whidbey: It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

Who gets to define "Progressive"?

You know as well as I do it means becoming less conservative as a society, having a strong social safety net, better education, public health, and yes, it also includes respecting basic rights and entitlements.


Like the First Amendment?
The Second?
The Third?
The Fourth? ...
Well we can at least count on The Third surviving.
2013-06-16 01:58:04 AM
1 votes:
whidbey
apathy and cynicism

You can't blame people. People will never change. Systems, however, CAN be changed.

thrown every ounce of our support to the Democratic Party, telling the Republicans to fark off

You mean like in the 111th Congress?

and holding Obama et al to a high standard of transparency

How? You've already foresworn all leverage by guaranteeing you'll vote for him. Why should he listen to you? Because he's a nice guy and he owes you one?

It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

Are you sure you're not actually a Leninist?

Again, I have asked you repeatedly what your solution is to the current system, and I know damn well you don't have one.

Any proposal for a strategy which doesn't include winning elections sails right past your eyes.
2013-06-16 01:47:26 AM
1 votes:

red5ish: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/nsa-phone-calls-warrant_n_34 4 8299.html

Huffington Post footage. Not sure whether or not c net's got it right. Their headline may be misleading.


Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of the CNET article too. Take a look at this from CSPAN, the part of the video relevant to TFA is about 46 minutes in

The quote in question from Mueller here is "We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone." Notice that he did not say  "they could listen to the phone call," he said "get the specific information." Also, TFA does not mention this, but that entire discussion was about metadata (it was explicitly stated as such several times) which isn't the same thing as "listening to telephone calls" and The Supreme Court did rule that it isn't covered by the Fourth Amendment.

Now, it really would not surprise me one bit if the NSA has indeed been doing what CNET is alleging here, but after looking over what actually took place within the discussion, I'm thinking that TFA was a bit misleading, some clarification is sorely needed. Making hyperbolic claims is the last thing we need in times like this.
2013-06-16 01:20:14 AM
1 votes:
whidbey
the only way we are going to change is through the system

The system itself is what needs changing! How do you change a broken system from within that broken system?
Let me guess- "shut up and vote for Democrats"?  Or is "say whatever you want, as long as you vote for Democrats" also allowed?
2013-06-16 01:08:53 AM
1 votes:
cptjeff
Health Care Reform. Not as good as it could or should have been, but a really big farking deal nonetheless.

Possibly better than what existed before, but all of the liberals' yapping about how progressives needed to get on board because it would be a stepping stone to single-payer or some other kind of UHC (or even government option) turned out to be nothing but excuses to get them to shut up long enough for the media to assume the healthcare was solved forever.

Seriously, you guys need to start recognizing that you are the only faction that likes ACA.

Bank Reform. See above.

lol

Stopped a Recession from deepening and started a slow recovery, despite massive opposition.

Used massive government debt to momentarily avert further disaster, until that gets worked through in which

Saved the US Auto Industry.

oh thank god, because car culture is so awesome.
Those factories and workers should have been put to work making wind turbines and trains instead of perpetuating the old, dead economy. But "keep things exactly the same" has been Obama's real slogan since day 1.

Dismantled the Minerals Management Service.

Okay, that's one.

Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Great, now more people can participate in our imperial adventures.

Signed Hate Crimes legislation for crimes targeting LGBT victims.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Got the VAWA re-authorization passed over significant Republican opposition.


Blatant pandering

Dramatically revamped US Foreign Policy to work in a much smarter way.

Babble

Ended the Iraq War

Obama wanted to keep some troops but the Iraqi government wouldn't give them legal immunity.
Oh, and the Iraqi Civil War is still going strong, with bombings routinely killing dozens of people. But, yeah, it's over or whatever. Granted, that was the inevitable result of the invasion, which was mostly Bush's doing, with the explicit approval of the Democrats who voted to give him that option in 2002, even while we were screaming at them that it would be a disaster.

In the process of ending the Afghanistan War.

like how the sun is in the process of burning out?

Changed US armed engagement strategy from the use of conventional forces to lower impact targeted strikes and special forces missions.

yay for assassinations of noncombatants and American citizens without anything resembling due process. Double-tapping a 16 year old from Colorado, classy!

Tried to close Gitmo.

Not sure I'd even call his effort half-hearted. Sixteenth-hearted at best.

Ended torture and released the Bush torture memos.

Refused to investigate and prosecute. Continues torturing Gitmo hunger strikers with tube force-feeding.

Negotiated and passed a new SALT Treaty.
New GI Bill


well thank goodness

Raised taxes on the wealthy while maintaining lower middle class rates
Increased fuel economy standards and allowed states to raise standards above the Federal level
CO2 ruled to be a pollutant.
Stricter labor and environmental enforcement within existing free trade agreements.


Usually these lists are more specific.


BullBearMS
Didn't stop the tea party from tossing incumbents on their ass.

And all they had helping them was millions of dollars in backing from a bunch of oligarchs to fund a slick astroturf campaign promoted by a major cable network. Bootstrappy.
2013-06-16 12:48:33 AM
1 votes:

Bucky Katt: Popcorn Johnny: Bush was throwing puppies into a wood chipper so I'm going to keep throwing puppies into a wood chipper.

This is how Democrats really think.

1/10.  Even for you that's weak.


The fact that you think I'm trolling just shows how blinded your side is.
2013-06-16 12:43:58 AM
1 votes:

Vectron: The MSM is complicit in all this. Everyone needs to kill their television.
Remember Howard Dean's Yell? How it was played over and over again all that weekend?
Why? He was anti-war.


I'm firmly convinced that "unelectable" is nothing more than a code phrase meaning "we don't own them".

The corporate owned media certainly does spend a whole lot of time telling us who is "unelectable" and that if we don't vote for one of the two "electable" choices they give us, we're just "wasting our vote".

It cuts down on the number of people they have to buy off.
2013-06-16 12:41:38 AM
1 votes:

Rwa2play:

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

Upset?  Yeah, but what makes anybody think that the President could've said "End it." and it would've?

Oh, come on...   I know we haven't had any in quite a while, but that's what LEADERSHIP is....   It might go like this:

"General Alexander, as Director of the NSA, you are hereby ordered to cease and desist ANY activity pursuant to intelligence operations which violate the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.  Do this immediately."

"Yes, sir."


...  Two weeks later:

"General Alexander, I note that the NSA is still carrying on extra-constitutional spying on U.S. citizens."

"Only when absolutely necessary, Mr. President."

"Sergeant, place General Alexander under arrest, and convene a courts martial to determine if his violations are serious enough to warrant execution."

"General Alexander, your weapon please, and please come with me..."

"Hello, Secretary of Defense?   This is the President.  I need you to recommend a new NSA Director -- one who will follow the Constitution, according to the oath.   Yes, right away."


The above might have to be repeated several times. The NSA director reports to the Sec Def, who reports to the President. It's not like convincing Congress to pass legislation, it is a case of military orders passed down from the Commander in Chief.

2013-06-16 12:37:28 AM
1 votes:
Bush was throwing puppies into a wood chipper so I'm going to keep throwing puppies into a wood chipper.

This is how Democrats really think.
2013-06-16 12:36:21 AM
1 votes:

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


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

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

We're really at a historic point when you bring up the subject of revolution though. You gotta admit that no matter what side of the subject you are on.


Well, it's closer to likely than it has been before; which is still not very likely. Too many things still have to happen. And if there is, it would probably be the Teahadists and the militias stringing up the barbed wire and daring everyone else to cross their line (and we'd all say "No, you're fine where you are" and go about our business). But realistically speaking, before a revolution can succeed, the revolutionaries have to be at least 95% assured that not only can they take on the military (a favorite wet dream of gun-nuts everywhere) but that the military will not shoot back. And unless or until that day comes, no revolution can ever succeed.

That's why the rebels in Libya had to ask for help from France before they could finally take Qaddafi down; and why Assad had to turn to sarin gas but is still in control of his government. The rebels can fight the army on their own terms; but so long as the guys with the big guns are obeying orders, the rebels can't win UNLESS someone with bigger guns helps out. Or unless the army turns around and shoots the leaders behind the lines, as Mubarak found out.

America isn't nearly to that point yet. Our "rebels" aren't nearly as organized or unified; and even if they were, they can't fight the US Marines on their own terms. So any revolution has to depend on the Marines shooting the other way and that's not nearly close to being possible yet. You don't shoot the guy who writes your check.
2013-06-16 12:30:01 AM
1 votes:
The MSM is complicit in all this. Everyone needs to kill their television.
Remember Howard Dean's Yell? How it was played over and over again all that weekend?
Why? He was anti-war.
2013-06-16 12:28:55 AM
1 votes:

Vectron: WizardofToast: 2016 elections won't matter on who wins. If Obama vowed to stop the surveillance crap Bush did only to continue it, what's going to make any of the candidates on either side throw away the forbidden fruit?

Hillary is worse than Obama. Romney WOULD have been worse than Obama. We will get no chance at all to vote for anyone that reflects our concerns.


Don't you love how Bill called Obama a coward for not rolling into Syria?

Granny_Panties: his was a Republican act. Own up to it. Obama was just doing what his masters told him to do. The only thing Obama did here was spinelessly went along for the ride.


Horse shiat.

Obama's been working to expand warrantless spying all along.

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects' vehicles to track their every move.

along with

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans' e-mail stored in the cloud.

along with

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

along with

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order

and

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country, according to a Treasury Department document seen by Reuters.

also

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications - including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct "peer to peer" messaging like Skype - to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy.


Don't even try to pretend he opposes this. Lying politician was lying.
2013-06-16 12:28:32 AM
1 votes:

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

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

Neither did the FISA rewrite in 2008.

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

They couldn't even be bothered to do that.



It was the rewrite in 2007, the Protect America Act of 2007, that added "communications that begin or end in a foreign country may be wiretapped by the U.S. government without supervision by the FISA Court" meaning that since 2007 if half the phone conversation is in a foreign country it could be wiretapped w/o a warrant assuming they had probably cause that either of the two parties, regardless country of citizenship status, was a member of a foreign power or terrorist organization.

The only thing "safe" is communication within the Unites States.
2013-06-16 12:24:22 AM
1 votes:

PKY: Obama accomplishing nothing progressive,


Just a few things liberals ought to be happy with:

Health Care Reform. Not as good as it could or should have been, but a really big farking deal nonetheless.
Bank Reform. See above.
Stopped a Recession from deepening and started a slow recovery, despite massive opposition.
Saved the US Auto Industry.
Dismantled the Minerals Management Service.
Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Signed Hate Crimes legislation for crimes targeting LGBT victims.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Got the VAWA re-authorization passed over significant Republican opposition.
Dramatically revamped US Foreign Policy to work in a much smarter way.
Ended the Iraq War
In the process of ending the Afghanistan War.
Changed US armed engagement strategy from the use of conventional forces to lower impact targeted strikes and special forces missions.
Tried to close Gitmo.
Ended torture and released the Bush torture memos.
Negotiated and passed a new SALT Treaty.
New GI Bill
Raised taxes on the wealthy while maintaining lower middle class rates
Increased fuel economy standards and allowed states to raise standards above the Federal level
CO2 ruled to be a pollutant.
Stricter labor and environmental enforcement within existing free trade agreements.


I'll start caring about what the "both sides are bad so vote third party" people have to say when they stop being stupid. Deal?
2013-06-16 12:19:48 AM
1 votes:
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - T-Jef
2013-06-16 12:19:14 AM
1 votes:

WizardofToast: 2016 elections won't matter on who wins. If Obama vowed to stop the surveillance crap Bush did only to continue it, what's going to make any of the candidates on either side throw away the forbidden fruit?


Nothing, if we keep on voting for the same two parties into office.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

Stop listening to the assholes who tell you we have to keep on electing them.
2013-06-16 12:15:48 AM
1 votes:
"This idea that no court will review, no Congress will know, and we're gonna trust the President and the Vice-President of the United States that they're doin' the right thing, don't count me in on that."

Joe Biden, 2006
2013-06-16 12:15:07 AM
1 votes:

Asphyxium: I love how retarded Republicans are up in arms about the surveillance and yet seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that their good old boy George W. Bush was the one who made all this possible.


You sound young.  It's been going on a lot longer than that.
2013-06-16 12:13:45 AM
1 votes:

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


Again, this is not a partisan issue.
Partisans are like racists when they forgo what is right for what is popular and the mistaken feeling of what is self gratifying with what is in truth counterproductive.
2013-06-16 12:10:46 AM
1 votes:

Asphyxium: I love how retarded Republicans are up in arms about the surveillance and yet seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that their good old boy George W. Bush was the one who made all this possible.


I love how people can't seem to stop pointing fingers at everyone but themselves.

We're all responsible for this. We enabled it, and until we take responsibility we will have no power to stop it.
2013-06-16 12:08:47 AM
1 votes:

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

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


wrong.

Not "vote third party". Vote pirate party. Get this shiat over with, by voting in people that understand these issues. even green party won't understand the tiniest significance of these issues any better than the democrats and republicans that are either willingly or unintentionally ignorant.

Technology is our society and has been for a millenia. If you don't make sure people understand technology properly you end up with abuses like we're dealing with.
2013-06-16 12:05:07 AM
1 votes:

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


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


Not quite. Before a revolution can be successful, the government has to be unable to pay the military.
2013-06-16 12:04:57 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


Where do you live?  Here in Colorado, there's third party candidates all they way down to local.  Not that they get many votes, for the most part.  The two party system is turtles all the way down.
2013-06-16 12:03:16 AM
1 votes:

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


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

Neither did the FISA rewrite in 2008.

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

They couldn't even be bothered to do that.
2013-06-16 12:02:19 AM
1 votes:

Hermione_Granger: Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell:

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

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

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

Obama's big lie: Change.


I fixed it it for accuracy. This was in place long before Obama got there. The only thing he did was going along with it.
2013-06-16 12:01:46 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everyone has something to hide.


I don't have much to hide, but I've got a lot most people would rather not see...
2013-06-16 12:01:26 AM
1 votes:

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


Even worse, anyone accusing the government of doing it was labeled "paranoid" and more recently a capitalist shill.
I don't consider myself particularly conservative, but I have been accused of being so because for some reason the left thinks that Obama can do no wrong.
DON'T TRUST YOUR GOVERNMENT!
2013-06-16 12:00:24 AM
1 votes:
Repeal the Patriot Act and any law that okays this sort of thing. And, while we're at it, fire a whole bunch of people over this.
2013-06-15 11:57:42 PM
1 votes:
The thing that dumbfounds me the most about this "leak" is the fact that you idiots didn't know this was happening since 2001.

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

God damn people are stupid. fark.
2013-06-15 11:53:21 PM
1 votes:

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

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


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

We've been had.
2013-06-15 11:52:06 PM
1 votes:
Anyway, moving away from "both sides are bad;"

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

Hrm.

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

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

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

How is this program possibly Constitutional?
2013-06-15 11:50:42 PM
1 votes:
If it's OK for the NSA, what's to stop the IRS, CIA, FBI ?
2013-06-15 11:46:08 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-06-15 11:43:26 PM
1 votes:
So I take it that Obama was fibbing when he said that they only review the pertinent conversations after an event happens ? Sort of like closing the barn door.......
2013-06-15 11:41:38 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


Neo-conservatives don't even pretend to be for small government.
2013-06-15 11:41:02 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Ron, you ARE a batshiat crazy racist.
2013-06-15 11:38:46 PM
1 votes:
cptjeff:  As a simple practical matter, if you want to change the system, you have to work through that two party structure, and that means changing one or both of the parties from within. And achieving that is actually realistic.

Again, how?  They lie.  Obama was quite convincing per-election.  He is getting no repercussions from what he said in relation to the PATRIOT act before the elections, and the 180 turn he is spouting now.  So how do you vote from withing a corrupt party?  How do we hold Obama accountable?  If we can't, how do we hold the next guy accountable?  Third party candidates don't have a chance because most people think like you. "I've always been a ?(D|R) so all other options are null" is part of the problem.   If they say whatever we want to hear, then do whatever they want with no repercussions, how can we reform either one, seriously?  You can say it's realistic, but how?
2013-06-15 11:36:57 PM
1 votes:
Always relevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They don't care about you at all... at all... AT ALL.
2013-06-15 11:36:33 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Exactly. The Republicans have proven themselves to be every bit as Big Government as Dems. Actually, more so.
2013-06-15 11:35:18 PM
1 votes:
Can or does the NSA listen to phones without warrants? I don't know. But if you are concluding that from this video exchange you are retarded.
2013-06-15 11:34:57 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


Pretty much. Oh, and to heap scorn and abuse on anyone who dares to suggest the problem is much more complex than BSABSVT and will take a lot more than outrage and neckbeards to change.
2013-06-15 11:33:16 PM
1 votes:
Before you GOP shills start spiking the football over this, ask yourself who actually pushed for the apparatus in the first place, the sort of cloth he is cut from and the two most recent republicans to run for the POTUS.

John McCain and Romney would have been doing this as well.  The issue is not republican or democrat, but big government.  You're all welcome
2013-06-15 11:29:54 PM
1 votes:
NavajoCode Talkers of WW II didn't worry about anyone listening to them !
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/navajocodetalk.htm
2013-06-15 11:26:02 PM
1 votes:

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 11:21:37 PM
1 votes:

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 11:18:00 PM
1 votes:

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 11:17:38 PM
1 votes:

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 11:15:18 PM
1 votes:

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 11:14:44 PM
1 votes:

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 11:14:16 PM
1 votes:

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 11:13:37 PM
1 votes:
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 11:11:45 PM
1 votes:
I honestly don't understand how/why anyone is surprised at this....
2013-06-15 11:09:01 PM
1 votes:

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 11:05:45 PM
1 votes:

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 11:02:01 PM
1 votes:

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 11:00:09 PM
1 votes:

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 10:59:34 PM
1 votes:

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 10:59:00 PM
1 votes:

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 10:56:43 PM
1 votes:

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 10:55:45 PM
1 votes:

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 10:54:13 PM
1 votes:

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 10:53:40 PM
1 votes:

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 10:53:35 PM
1 votes:
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 10:51:55 PM
1 votes:
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 10:48:33 PM
1 votes:

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 10:46:49 PM
1 votes:

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 10:46:29 PM
1 votes:

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 10:46:28 PM
1 votes:
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 10:45:34 PM
1 votes:
I already gave my permission to listen, anybody else???
2013-06-15 10:40:13 PM
1 votes:

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 10:39:33 PM
1 votes:

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 10:38:42 PM
1 votes:

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 10:25:23 PM
1 votes:
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 10:24:52 PM
1 votes:

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 10:23:57 PM
1 votes:
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 10:21:05 PM
1 votes:
www.paranormalpeopleonline.com i.imgur.com
2013-06-15 10:19:51 PM
1 votes:

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 10:16:58 PM
1 votes:

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 10:16:37 PM
1 votes:

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 10:16:18 PM
1 votes:
Here's the exchange the article is based on:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4456141
2013-06-15 10:14:57 PM
1 votes:

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


Talking someplace private
2013-06-15 10:14:00 PM
1 votes:

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 10:08:43 PM
1 votes:

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 10:08:21 PM
1 votes:

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 10:02:18 PM
1 votes:

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 10:01:26 PM
1 votes:

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 09:55:23 PM
1 votes:
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 09:53:14 PM
1 votes:
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 09:51:55 PM
1 votes:

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 09:50:05 PM
1 votes:

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 09:49:35 PM
1 votes:
2013-06-15 09:49:24 PM
1 votes:

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 09:48:31 PM
1 votes:

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 09:47:04 PM
1 votes:
Are there any ways to communicate that aren't monitored?
2013-06-15 09:45:40 PM
1 votes:
"Nobody's listening to your phone calls."
2013-06-15 09:44:13 PM
1 votes:
"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.
 
Displayed 189 of 189 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report