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.

(Fox News)   "Son, I am disappoint"   (foxnews.com) divider line 149
    More: Obvious, Edward Snowden, Eric Bolling, sons  
•       •       •

16356 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2013 at 8:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-18 10:15:00 AM  

neversubmit: responsible members of the press in America."


lolwhut?
 
2013-06-18 10:15:10 AM  
If these revelations turn out to be as historically important as I think they are, one day we, or maybe our grandchildren, might see a monument to Assange, Manning, and Snowden on the National Mall.
 
2013-06-18 10:19:32 AM  

vudukungfu: neversubmit: responsible members of the press in America."

lolwhut?


It's funny cause it's sad... LOL
 
2013-06-18 10:19:39 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: So instead of taking on my points you will just try to discredit me and ignore them?

Yeah, taking one out of your playbook


Sorry where did I do this? Please quote me and I will apologize.

You seem now no longer interested in talking about points and instead want to just argue.

Here answer me this:

What "whistle blowing" allegations did Snowden actually make of something illegal that the government was doing?
 
2013-06-18 10:20:26 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: If these revelations turn out to be as historically important as I think they are, one day we, or maybe our grandchildren, might see a monument to Assange, Manning, and Snowden on the National Mall.


What "revelations" exactly?
 
2013-06-18 10:20:52 AM  
25/107
 
2013-06-18 10:21:04 AM  
Christ there's a lot of stupid in is thread.
 
2013-06-18 10:22:43 AM  
Let me start by saying it's almost certain I've missed some of the reports on this so I doubt I have the most current information, but I think we might be obscuring the point with the whole "hi lied/he didn't" debate.

I hate to quibble over semantics, but this might be one of those cases where the message is getting lost in the telling. So, Snowden says they don't need a warrant to access and listen to calls, and the argument that saying so is a lie is based on needing a warrant. That's all well and good, but if the call is recorded (even if, as I recently read, it's only recorded so that if meta-data interpretation indicates something suspicious they can go get a warrant to actually listen to the call) then it's accessible. Sure, maybe they're supposed to get a warrant, but that doesn't mean someone with access to the system can't simply pull up a file and press play. They can't do it legally, but, presumably, they can still do it and personally I'm not satisfied that sufficient oversight exists to keep this from happening. I doubt anyone bothered engineering a system that would require entering a FISA docket number for verification in order to "unlock" a recorded call, so while there may be a legal restriction (not getting into the whole FISA rubber stamp debate), that doesn't mean there's any kind of preventative system for keeping people with access to the recorded calls (archives? database?) to listening to any that they choose.

So, Snowden saying they can do it isn't necessarily a lie. Saying they can't illegally do it would be a lie.
 
2013-06-18 10:23:02 AM  

digistil: Christ there's a lot of stupid in is thread.


THIS
 
2013-06-18 10:26:33 AM  

Corvus: What "whistle blowing" allegations did Snowden actually make of something illegal that the government was doing?


It's more that he was pointing out that it's possible and the issue we all should have is that it is legal

But whatever, you keep on NSAing you NSA NSA
 
2013-06-18 10:26:35 AM  
There seems to me a lot of talk about if Snowden is right or wrong but very little discussion of what he actually said.

It seems to me all what people are arguing about are their already preconceived notions of if they like the government or not and are justifying Snowdens actions entirely on that instead of what he actually did or said.

To me it's obvious because it seems that most people you talk to says what he said was very important but don't actually know what he actually said.
 
2013-06-18 10:27:22 AM  

Corvus: scarmig: Corvus: IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus:
Yes. it has. He said they didn't need a warrant, that was a lie.


Which is irrelevant when you can rubber-stamp the warrants, they can't be known, they can't be questioned, and the President defends them.

But that does still make him a liar even if they did rubber stamp them. He still lied.

How often do other warrants get rejected in similar matters? How often do these warrants get changed to limit what they access so that they are accepted?

You are an expert in this subject so please inform us.


1.  Not often enough.
2.  Not often enough.
3.  Politicians lie, yet flaghumpers continue to trust them.
 
2013-06-18 10:28:15 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: What "whistle blowing" allegations did Snowden actually make of something illegal that the government was doing?

It's more that he was pointing out that it's possible and the issue we all should have is that it is legal

But whatever, you keep on NSAing you NSA NSA


So then you admit then he wasn't a whistle blower then because it was all legal.

You think anyone who disagrees with the government is then justified to leak secret information?

I actually don't like what the NSA does but like I said before that's something you are getting confused in this conversation.
 
2013-06-18 10:31:12 AM  

Corvus: I actually don't like what the NSA does but like I said before that's something you are getting confused in this conversation.


Like I said, I hope you are getting paid well because you are pretty good at it
 
2013-06-18 10:31:15 AM  

Oldiron_79: Sadly these days Russia is less of a Police state than the US these days.


It's hilarious that you think that.
 
2013-06-18 10:32:00 AM  

Corvus: So then you admit then he wasn't a whistle blower then because it was all legal.


The NSA broke the law even under the ridiculously vast and intrusive Patriot Act.

Just hold your water, it will come out.
 
2013-06-18 10:32:50 AM  

Corvus: IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: What "whistle blowing" allegations did Snowden actually make of something illegal that the government was doing?

It's more that he was pointing out that it's possible and the issue we all should have is that it is legal

But whatever, you keep on NSAing you NSA NSA

So then you admit then he wasn't a whistle blower then because it was all legal.

You think anyone who disagrees with the government is then justified to leak secret information?

I actually don't like what the NSA does but like I said before that's something you are getting confused in this conversation.


massive collection of domestic voice, email, text content is NOT LEGAL. No matter how much you want to keep saying it doesn't make it true. And your views on LEGAL are secret interpretations of secret court rulings that have no oversight at all.

They have the CONTENT that they can go back and review. That means all of your communications are sitting on their servers to be accessed at anytime. Snowden said just yesterday this:

1) Define in as much detail as you can what "direct access" means.
2) Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?
2) NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans' communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of "warranted" intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a "real" warrant like a Police department would have to, the "warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.
Glenn Greenwald follow up: When you say "someone at NSA still has the content of your communications" - what do you mean? Do you mean they have a record of it, or the actual content?
Both. If I target for example an email address, for example under FAA 702, and that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything. And it gets saved for a very long time - and can be extended further with waivers rather than warrants.
 
2013-06-18 10:33:34 AM  

scarmig: The Muthaship: It's cute that so many people think the story is about Snowden.

That's just what the administration is hoping for.

Yes, this should be cause for an American Spring, but we're all just going to roll over and whine for more lube.


img4.imageshack.us

So, is there an "Opt Out" form I can fill out? Because my monthly conversations with Mom about recipes, politics and family gossip ain't nobody's bidness but our own. Or does the 4th Amendment not apply anymore because it talks about "old media?"
 
2013-06-18 10:34:56 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: But whatever, you keep on NSAing you NSA NSA


It seems in your world there is only people who blindly follow the government or people who should disobey the law whenever they disagree with the government.

To me that's a real scary way of thinking.

Is it ok for people to break laws when they disagree with government in ways you don't? or only if they agree with you?
 
2013-06-18 10:35:56 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Oldiron_79: Sadly these days Russia is less of a Police state than the US these days.

It's hilarious that you think that.


People have completely detached from reality recently. I mean, moreso.
 
2013-06-18 10:35:59 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: I actually don't like what the NSA does but like I said before that's something you are getting confused in this conversation.

Like I said, I hope you are getting paid well because you are pretty good at it


So once again you don't actually want to deal with the points I am making and instead want to discredit me to ignore them?
 
2013-06-18 10:36:44 AM  

The Muthaship: Corvus: So then you admit then he wasn't a whistle blower then because it was all legal.

The NSA broke the law even under the ridiculously vast and intrusive Patriot Act.

Just hold your water, it will come out.


What law did they break? What evidence is there? Or is this a baseless allegation?
 
2013-06-18 10:37:27 AM  

Corvus: What law did they break? What evidence is there? Or is this a baseless allegation?


Just wait.
 
2013-06-18 10:38:32 AM  

Corvus: So once again you don't actually want to deal with the points I am making and instead want to discredit me to ignore them?


Nope, I'm not in the mood to argue with idiots today

Thanks for the offer though!
 
2013-06-18 10:39:10 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: You are a pedophile. - That's not a lie right because for all I know you could be, right?

Well I've thought about going to the teaching profession


As a teacher, I'm just wondering.....  Got any naked pics of your mom?

Wanna buy some?


/old joke,
//couldn't bring myself to convert it to daughter
 
Bf+
2013-06-18 10:43:26 AM  
Well, it's FoxNews, so I'm sure
dayofthejedi.com
 
2013-06-18 10:45:49 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: So once again you don't actually want to deal with the points I am making and instead want to discredit me to ignore them?

Nope, I'm not in the mood to argue with idiots today

Thanks for the offer though!


More insult. Interesting that you can't hold you own against an "idiot". Once again going to name calling so that you can ignore my points and putting your fingers in your ears because you don't want your beliefs challenged.
 
2013-06-18 10:46:30 AM  

geek_mars: Let me start by saying it's almost certain I've missed some of the reports on this so I doubt I have the most current information, but I think we might be obscuring the point with the whole "hi lied/he didn't" debate.

I hate to quibble over semantics, but this might be one of those cases where the message is getting lost in the telling. So, Snowden says they don't need a warrant to access and listen to calls, and the argument that saying so is a lie is based on needing a warrant. That's all well and good, but if the call is recorded (even if, as I recently read, it's only recorded so that if meta-data interpretation indicates something suspicious they can go get a warrant to actually listen to the call) then it's accessible. Sure, maybe they're supposed to get a warrant, but that doesn't mean someone with access to the system can't simply pull up a file and press play. They can't do it legally, but, presumably, they can still do it and personally I'm not satisfied that sufficient oversight exists to keep this from happening. I doubt anyone bothered engineering a system that would require entering a FISA docket number for verification in order to "unlock" a recorded call, so while there may be a legal restriction (not getting into the whole FISA rubber stamp debate), that doesn't mean there's any kind of preventative system for keeping people with access to the recorded calls (archives? database?) to listening to any that they choose.

So, Snowden saying they can do it isn't necessarily a lie. Saying they can't illegally do it would be a lie.


Ex-security types have said publicly that every NSA employee with the kind of access Snowden claims he had also have keystroke programs on their computers to monitor exactly what they do, where they go online, and how long they're there. It's why the head of the NSA says he knows what Snowden ran off with, and why there's a record of what he did. If you're working with the NSA and you decide to listen in on your ex-girlfriend's phone messages, you probably aren't working there very long.
 
2013-06-18 10:46:45 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Freakin Rican: how many leaked NSA greenlights can we have today?

Let's ask an NSA agent since they monitor this shiat 24/7


Can confirm, I have Farked inside a SCIF before.  Hours and hours...
 
2013-06-18 10:47:23 AM  

kindms: They have the CONTENT that they can go back and review with a warrant.


Just cleaning that up a little bit.
 
2013-06-18 10:48:10 AM  

ZipSplat: IdBeCrazyIf: Freakin Rican: how many leaked NSA greenlights can we have today?

Let's ask an NSA agent since they monitor this shiat 24/7

Can confirm, I have Farked inside a SCIF before.  Hours and hours...


How the hell did you do that? Or are you being sarcastic?
 
2013-06-18 10:49:18 AM  

Corvus: washington-babylon: Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? If you are so sure of your statement that Snowden specifically said he didn't need a warrant to listen to a call, then perhaps you can provide the requisite citation? All Snowden has done is provide further information about the process, which he didn't go into explicit detail on initially. Are you going to claim he lied because he didn't specifically outline everything, thereby creating a "Lie of omission" which is only a pseudo-lie if it is not clarified in more detail later?

I linked above to what he said. Yes he said it in a way that was obviously misleading. Why do you think all the new reports (which I linked to above) say that he said it they could listen in without a warrant? They even asked him that point blank where he once again was misleading. He could of said "no" but he didn't.

If they need warrants (and according to you, he was not trying to imply they didn't) then what is the actual "whistle blowing" here?

How is he a "whistle blower" if his allegations are something that the government has already said they were doing?


You may have noticed that the articles themselves only quote snowden as saying that they have access to metadata. The closest that they ever come to quoting him saying that they have access to unwarranted information is where he says that they collect "incidental" intelligence. This is a widely known fact, so he wasn't lying. As for the legality of the situation, and hence the question of what he is blowing the whistle on: the legality has NOT been determined yet in a court of law.

What he has blown the whistle on is a massive 4th amendment violation, no matter what "special legality" the patriot act grants the NSA's activity. The question boils down to this: "Is the Patriot Act a greater legal statute than the U.S. Constitution? " The answer is quite simple "No. The U.S. Constitution is the first and Supreme Law of the nation, from which all other laws derive authority and legal power."

Why this is so hard to understand is beyond me. To continue your blatant disregard for the facts of the case as a whole is to continue to attempt to obfuscate the real issue: Our government has overstepped its bounds of authority, and actions must be taken to rectify this egregious misuse of power.
I sincerely hope that your special brand of ignorance is a sham, and that this was a clever (and quite successful) troll attempt. Because if it is not, then you are the kind of person whose ideologies  destroy nations.
 
2013-06-18 11:01:05 AM  
Son, you gave up a $120k/year job, a home in Hawaii, and a lithe, 28-year-old pole dancing girlfriend to "expose" a program that we've all expected was going on and about which the majority of Americans (who just finished Instagramming a picture of their lunch, Foursquaring their location, Tweeting about a health condition, and coughing up  a bunch of demographics information to get a $0.25 burrito coupon) don't give a shiat about...we're all disappoint.
 
2013-06-18 11:37:31 AM  

Bendal: geek_mars: Let me start by saying it's almost certain I've missed some of the reports on this so I doubt I have the most current information, but I think we might be obscuring the point with the whole "hi lied/he didn't" debate.

I hate to quibble over semantics, but this might be one of those cases where the message is getting lost in the telling. So, Snowden says they don't need a warrant to access and listen to calls, and the argument that saying so is a lie is based on needing a warrant. That's all well and good, but if the call is recorded (even if, as I recently read, it's only recorded so that if meta-data interpretation indicates something suspicious they can go get a warrant to actually listen to the call) then it's accessible. Sure, maybe they're supposed to get a warrant, but that doesn't mean someone with access to the system can't simply pull up a file and press play. They can't do it legally, but, presumably, they can still do it and personally I'm not satisfied that sufficient oversight exists to keep this from happening. I doubt anyone bothered engineering a system that would require entering a FISA docket number for verification in order to "unlock" a recorded call, so while there may be a legal restriction (not getting into the whole FISA rubber stamp debate), that doesn't mean there's any kind of preventative system for keeping people with access to the recorded calls (archives? database?) to listening to any that they choose.

So, Snowden saying they can do it isn't necessarily a lie. Saying they can't illegally do it would be a lie.

Ex-security types have said publicly that every NSA employee with the kind of access Snowden claims he had also have keystroke programs on their computers to monitor exactly what they do, where they go online, and how long they're there. It's why the head of the NSA says he knows what Snowden ran off with, and why there's a record of what he did. If you're working with the NSA and you decide to listen in on your ex- ...


That's the most reassuring thing I've heard about NSA policies and practices since this story first broke. Thanx for the info.
 
2013-06-18 11:38:11 AM  

Corvus: ZipSplat: IdBeCrazyIf: Freakin Rican: how many leaked NSA greenlights can we have today?

Let's ask an NSA agent since they monitor this shiat 24/7

Can confirm, I have Farked inside a SCIF before.  Hours and hours...

How the hell did you do that? Or are you being sarcastic?


NIPR
 
2013-06-18 11:43:39 AM  

Corvus: Sorry but either:

A) He made "whistle blower" allegations that the NSA was listening into conversation without a warrant, that turned out to be a lie and he walked those remarks back

or

B) He leaked secret information to tell us the details of a system that we already where aware that the government was involved in or had the legality to do and is not a "whistle blower"

Sorry saying "OMG the government can listen into phone calls (or internet) with a warrant" is not "whistle blowing" -

You might not like how it's done or whatever but that doesn't make it illegal.


Telling people the Government is doing this is not a secret but providing the actual data is.   That Paris Hilton is having sex is not a surprise.  Providing the video of it, is another story.
 
2013-06-18 11:55:37 AM  
Father? I thought that was his mother.
 
2013-06-18 12:03:52 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: If these revelations turn out to be as historically important as I think they are, one day we, or maybe our grandchildren, might see a monument to Assange, Manning, and Snowden on the National Mall.


Don't hold your breath.

The government probably is abusing its access to our personal information, and the so-called Patriot Act should be repealed (or at least seriously reformed with much more public oversight and transparency), but these idealistic, naive hacktivists and technogeeks are deluding themselves if they think they're going to be the agents of the changes they seek. Like it or not, most people just don't care that much about the bullshiat Assange and Manning and Snowden have revealed. I give them credit for trying, but leaking more than 700,000 classified documents to expose one war crime, or telling us about an electronic surveillance program we already knew was in place, doesn't seem to have anyone worked up, except for the civil libertarians at the extremes of boths sides of the partisan divide.

Instead of arguing about the personal lives and motivations of these guys, I wish more of us could focus on figuring out what actions we could take to change the system in place, because it really does need to be reformed or replaced. Maybe it needs to start with voting out all of the politicians who play the fear card to keep getting re-elected so they can support police state national security policies.

\In the immortal words of the Firesign Theater, "exit left to Funway."
 
2013-06-18 12:07:59 PM  

Corvus: Sorry but either:

A) He made "whistle blower" allegations that the NSA was listening into conversation without a warrant, that turned out to be a lie and he walked those remarks back

or

B) He leaked secret information to tell us the details of a system that we already where aware that the government was involved in or had the legality to do and is not a "whistle blower"

Sorry saying "OMG the government can listen into phone calls (or internet) with a warrant" is not "whistle blowing" -

You might not like how it's done or whatever but that doesn't make it illegal.


You do realize that they have the power to get a warrant retroactively, right? The Feinstein-Specter bill making its way through congress is proposing to extend the period for peacetime retroactive warrants from 72 hours to seven days.

1) Flag a conversation.
2) Get a warrant for aforementioned conversation.
3) Profit?
 
2013-06-18 12:08:25 PM  

geek_mars: Let me start by saying it's almost certain I've missed some of the reports on this so I doubt I have the most current information, but I think we might be obscuring the point with the whole "hi lied/he didn't" debate.

I hate to quibble over semantics, but this might be one of those cases where the message is getting lost in the telling. So, Snowden says they don't need a warrant to access and listen to calls, and the argument that saying so is a lie is based on needing a warrant. That's all well and good, but if the call is recorded (even if, as I recently read, it's only recorded so that if meta-data interpretation indicates something suspicious they can go get a warrant to actually listen to the call) then it's accessible. Sure, maybe they're supposed to get a warrant, but that doesn't mean someone with access to the system can't simply pull up a file and press play. They can't do it legally, but, presumably, they can still do it and personally I'm not satisfied that sufficient oversight exists to keep this from happening. I doubt anyone bothered engineering a system that would require entering a FISA docket number for verification in order to "unlock" a recorded call, so while there may be a legal restriction (not getting into the whole FISA rubber stamp debate), that doesn't mean there's any kind of preventative system for keeping people with access to the recorded calls (archives? database?) to listening to any that they choose.

So, Snowden saying they can do it isn't necessarily a lie. Saying they can't illegally do it would be a lie.


I can clarify your misunderstanding pretty succinctly:
There is no evidence that the government is recording everyone's calls.  What you're thinking of is the metadata that the NSA got from Verizon.  They only got metadata (call logs).  The reason this is legal is because in the 70's it was decided that metadata is the property of the service provider, not the customer.  I'm sure there's some hairsplitting there as to whether or not that still might constitute eavesdropping, but they aren't actually retaining your conversation.

PRISM is, according to the more recent reporting, not actually a collection program.  It's essentially an automated pipeline for FISA requests to get information from domestic tech companies regarding foreign users of those services (Gmail, Facebook, etc.)  Snowden worked at Kunia for 3 months as a contract network administrator - he was not a collector and given the way compartmentalization works I highly doubt he had much access to actual collection efforts.  It appears he managed to swipe a PPT presentation that explains nothing about PRISM except that it is a method of gathering information from tech companies.  With no further context, Snowden assumed that meant the NSA had "direct access" via complicity or forced entry into tech companies' information systems, and Glenn Greenwald ran with that interpretation.  All based on the PPT slides that offer no evidence to that end.
 
2013-06-18 12:22:51 PM  
I'm going to start ignoring this story for the next month or so. Every time I read something it contradicts what I'd read before. I'd previously read that calls were being recorded and stored in case they were needed later, and just now I read that they're not being recorded. At this point, I'm more confused than outraged.
 
2013-06-18 12:35:38 PM  

geek_mars: I'm going to start ignoring this story for the next month or so. Every time I read something it contradicts what I'd read before. I'd previously read that calls were being recorded and stored in case they were needed later, and just now I read that they're not being recorded. At this point, I'm more confused than outraged.


That is probably wise.  There is a lot of conspiracy theory mixed in with actual information.  For whatever reason a lot of the media outlets have had no problem intermixing speculation with information.

The best article I've read so far is this one by Kurt Eichenwald.
 
2013-06-18 12:37:42 PM  
I am reading what you type even as we speak
 
2013-06-18 12:43:00 PM  
The NSA misinformation team is hard at work I see. Good to see them fighting for freedomtm by attacking the truth.
 
2013-06-18 12:52:42 PM  

geek_mars: I'm going to start ignoring this story for the next month or so. Every time I read something it contradicts what I'd read before. I'd previously read that calls were being recorded and stored in case they were needed later, and just now I read that they're not being recorded. At this point, I'm more confused than outraged.


If people are confused, they win.  The truth is there is many issues being conflated

1) Echelon (monitoring for key words)
2) foreign communication wiretaps
3) domestic calls falsely called foreign communication wiretaps
4) metadata
5) FISA rubber stamp warrants (wiretaps/archived shiat)
6) shiat NSA does that is not even follow their own guidelines

Look at the their facility in Utah and ask yourself what they need that for:
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/51b1c97ceab8ea6f67000000-30 00 -1969/ap769405642647.jpg
 
2013-06-18 12:53:26 PM  

evilbryan: The NSA misinformation team is hard at work I see. Good to see them fighting for freedomtm by attacking the truth.


They don't even need to convince anyone of anything.  Just put out enough stuff to confuse people.
 
2013-06-18 01:41:52 PM  

mrshowrules: Look at the their facility in Utah and ask yourself what they need that for:


This is the worst NSA conspiracy theory of them all.  "I don't know what this is for, and I know very little about it in general, so it's probably the worst thing I can think of."

I can think of a lot of reasons for the Utah data center that aren't "storing a copy of everyone's every move".  The non-paranoid guess is that it is most likely simply for archiving and cloud/elastic computing needs of the NSA.  In the past we've stored our shiatloads of intelligence data in boxes in the basement of the building.  What about our digital data?  We need a giant-ass data center to preserve it, and keep it available.  There are a lot of rumors going around about how much storage capacity will be there, but there is no source at the end of those rumors - we simply don't know.

It's just more bullshiat hysteria.
 
2013-06-18 03:51:22 PM  

ZipSplat: I can think of a lot of reasons for the Utah data center that aren't "storing a copy of everyone's every move".


You could maybe fit a facebook in there
 
2013-06-18 06:14:25 PM  

Corvus: Once again going to name calling so that you can ignore my points and putting your fingers in your ears because you don't want your beliefs challenged.


lol.  You are biatching about name calling, but earlier you were calling someone a pedophile.

You haven't made any actual points, other than "he lied!" which you've screamed about 100 times.  The vast majority of the posts in this thread are yours, and you still haven't added any content.

/I, also, have added no content, since everyone here already knew you were a useless loon.
 
Displayed 49 of 149 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report