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.

(Daily Kos)   It's okay that the NSA spies on us since there is a Democrat in the office. We know we can always trust them to do the right thing   (dailykos.com) divider line 137
    More: Unlikely, Democrat Party, NSA, due process clause, collective action, Louis Brandeis, public inquiry, Freudian slip, spy  
•       •       •

1803 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jul 2013 at 9:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-14 11:22:14 AM  

AtlanticCoast63: Honestly not trolling, but saw this:

Since that day(Sept 11, 2001- AC63), over 300,000 Americans have died from guns.

Now, we have lost - according to the Department of Defense - a bit over 6000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines since that day in the GWOT.  This guy is actually saying that here in the states, FIFTY TIMES that have been killed by guns?  Citation needed, please.

/ONE unnecessary death by guns is too many



Automobiles have killed close to that, I call BS.
 
2013-07-14 11:22:49 AM  

ginandbacon: Did  Subbyand I read the same article?


Subby saw "Kos" and "NSA" and filled in the rest from his imagination.
 
2013-07-14 11:26:31 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Automobiles have killed close to that, I call BS.


On the "killed by guns" figure? It's pretty close to the actual figure when you count the total number of deaths where a firearm is involved. Now a lot of people like to distinguish between suicide, homicide, accident, etc and there are grounds for doing that but in terms of death by firearm regardless of motive, the 300K figure is pretty spot on.
 
2013-07-14 11:27:22 AM  
Actually the poll I read said Democrats feel about the same way as they did about it when Bush was in office (actually a little more negative) however Republicans now have totally shifted and now think it's bad because a Democrat is office while it's happening.
 
2013-07-14 11:30:16 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: StoPPeRmobile: Automobiles have killed close to that, I call BS.

On the "killed by guns" figure? It's pretty close to the actual figure when you count the total number of deaths where a firearm is involved. Now a lot of people like to distinguish between suicide, homicide, accident, etc and there are grounds for doing that but in terms of death by firearm regardless of motive, the 300K figure is pretty spot on.




I wonder how many suicides are lumped into the automobile fatality rate. I wonder if we will ever find out. People sure love their cars.
 
2013-07-14 11:31:30 AM  

Corvus: Actually the poll I read said Democrats feel about the same way as they did about it when Bush was in office (actually a little more negative) however Republicans now have totally shifted and now think it's bad because a Democrat is office while it's happening.


Just in casual discussion with friends, that's been my impression as well. The Libertarians and Democrats have largely been against domestic spying regardless of the administration. Where I start getting the defensiveness is when spying under Obama is equated to spying under Bush. That's where my Republican friends start bringing up terrorism and national security.
 
2013-07-14 11:32:15 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: StoPPeRmobile: Automobiles have killed close to that, I call BS.

On the "killed by guns" figure? It's pretty close to the actual figure when you count the total number of deaths where a firearm is involved. Now a lot of people like to distinguish between suicide, homicide, accident, etc and there are grounds for doing that but in terms of death by firearm regardless of motive, the 300K figure is pretty spot on.


Not sure why suicides don't count. Many of those suicides would have probably not happened if it wasn't so easy for the victim to kill them selves by using a gun. They are the number 1 cause of suicides for a reason. Because they are easy and quick for people to use.
 
2013-07-14 11:34:50 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Corvus: Actually the poll I read said Democrats feel about the same way as they did about it when Bush was in office (actually a little more negative) however Republicans now have totally shifted and now think it's bad because a Democrat is office while it's happening.

Just in casual discussion with friends, that's been my impression as well. The Libertarians and Democrats have largely been against domestic spying regardless of the administration. Where I start getting the defensiveness is when spying under Obama is equated to spying under Bush. That's where my Republican friends start bringing up terrorism and national security.


Or they do that "Well now I can see it's wrong."  Just like deficit spending they only notice is wrong with a Democrat in office. It's just partisan bullshiat.

Ask them then if they want laws like the patriot act repealed? It shows to me their hypocrisy that they will all attack Obama for it but seem to actually not to care if the actual law was to change.
 
2013-07-14 11:36:26 AM  

FlashHarry: the NSA has been spying on us since the NSA came into existence. if you think otherwise, you're deluded.


Actually, that's not necessarily true.  Here's why:  Prior to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it's true that yes, the NSA did target some Americans, but they were limited technologically:  No one had cell phones or computers, and opening the mail was not something the NSA did (they are a signals intelligence organization).

Basically, they *COULD* listen to your phone calls, *IF* they went through some major exchange.  They just didn't have the resources to suck up all phone calls.  If you used a CB or a ham radio, there is a chance you might have been listened to (hell, I did that as part of my training as a Morse interceptor), but in all likelyhood there wouldn't have been any record of it because it just wouldn't have been of interest, and remember that storage technology back then was in it's relative infancy.

Then, revelations about certain groups and individuals being targeted for monitoring during the 1960s led to hearings in Congress, and eventually to FISA.   FISA is one of the few really, really unalloyed good things Congress has ever done:  It limited the legal ability of the NSA to monitor "United States Persons".  And it was taken seriously:  In the 1980's, when I was actually monitoring communications as a ditty bopper in the Army, and whose work product when straight to the NSA, it was impressed upon us in no uncertain terms that monitoring "United States Persons" was very bad ju-ju, and that we could potentially go to jail for it if there wasn't a valid warrant from the FISA court.

That all changed after 9/11.  For the worse.

The law is essentially unchanged, but technology made it much, much harder to know if particular communications were from "United States Persons".  Back in the old days, you pretty much knew:  Every phone other than payphones had a person responsible for paying the bill at a location, and the phone company knew who they were, and unless you had an unlisted number, it was a matter of public record anyway.

By the time 9/11 rolls around, you've got anonymous pre-paid cellphones, and anonymous e-mail accounts.   Now, you can't necessarily tell if a particular phone number is associated with a "United States Person".  You can't tell whether phlegm­bal­l­[nospam-﹫-backwards]puti­kca­h*c­om belongs to Joe Snuffy, or Hous bin Pharteen.

Back during the original "Warrantless Wiretapping" kerfluffle, I was able to surmise that they had changed the assumption about anonymous communications originating or ending in the United States, with at least one end of the communication outside the US.

I actually don't have a problem with that.  You can make a "border exception" analogy for those sorts of communications, and if they apply for the FISA warrant once it becomes known a "United States Person" is involved, then the law works as it should.

The problem is that it has gone farther.  They are actually collecting the metadata for *ALL* communications, including those of "United States Persons", and storing it.  While they *CLAIM* that they can only access the data when they get a FISA warrant, we really have no way to independently verify if that is indeed true or not, because you need a top secret security clearance in order to have access to that knowledge, and anyone who has that clearance and reports on violations of that policy will be charged criminally for disclosing classified information, and they *WILL* be prosecuted, as Edward Snowden would be if they could get their hands on him.

Why should we care about the metadata?  Because it's enough to build up such an accurate profile of you that it's farking *SCARY*.  Even when you aren't actively talking on your cellphone, it's periodically reporting your location, and that metadata is being stored.  They know where you were, who you talked to, for how long, and where the other person was.  The only thing they *DON'T* know is *WHAT* you talked about, but that can often be inferred by just looking at the data.

If you carry a cellphone with you habitually, and I have access to just the metadata without actually listening to your calls, I'll know where you work, what and who you like to do when you're not at work, along with all your relatives, friends, business associates, etc.  I can tell when you paid your bills.  I can tell when you get in trouble with the law.  In some instances, I could tell when you take a dump*.

It's literally having a tracking device on you all your waking moments, reporting your location to the government.  It doesn't matter if it's a phone you pre-paid with cash for, either.  If it's on, it's reporting your location, and unless you're homeless, the address where you live is going to be obvious within the first couple days of you owning that phone.

This is one of the reasons why I won't own a cell phone, or carry one except in very limited circumstances.  I use radios instead.   I get better coverage than any cell phone company can possibly provide, and until I transmit, there is no way to know my location, and even when I *DO* transmit, you need very specialized equipment within range in more than one location at the time I transmit:  It's not stored like the metadata for cell phones are.

I find it hilariously ironic that while older technology like radio is more vulnerable to casual eavesdropping, it's much more difficult for the government to monitor on a systematic basis.


*Sound far fetched?  If you carry your cellphone with you to, say an outdoor concert or a county fair or the like, the location reported by the cellphone is likely accurate enough for me to tell when you went over to the area where the porta-potties are, and to differentiate that from you walking around the fair or your normal location at the concert, event, etc.
 
2013-07-14 11:37:07 AM  

propasaurus: ginandbacon: Did  Subbyand I read the same article?

Subby saw "Kos" and "NSA" and filled in the rest from his imagination.


Apparently. Sheesh.
 
2013-07-14 11:40:13 AM  

AnonAmbientLight: Mercia. Home of the scared.


Yeah, well, those Northumbrians could be real assholes.
 
2013-07-14 11:40:40 AM  

Corvus: Monkeyhouse Zendo: StoPPeRmobile: Automobiles have killed close to that, I call BS.

On the "killed by guns" figure? It's pretty close to the actual figure when you count the total number of deaths where a firearm is involved. Now a lot of people like to distinguish between suicide, homicide, accident, etc and there are grounds for doing that but in terms of death by firearm regardless of motive, the 300K figure is pretty spot on.

Not sure why suicides don't count. Many of those suicides would have probably not happened if it wasn't so easy for the victim to kill them selves by using a gun. They are the number 1 cause of suicides for a reason. Because they are easy and quick for people to use.




Yep, no one offed themselves before the semiautomatic hangun was invented.

Besides, they can just ram their car ito something and their family gets the insurance. Problem solved!
 
2013-07-14 11:40:51 AM  

Corvus: Not sure why suicides don't count. Many of those suicides would have probably not happened if it wasn't so easy for the victim to kill them selves by using a gun. They are the number 1 cause of suicides for a reason. Because they are easy and quick for people to use.


I wasn't saying they shouldn't be counted, just that I've noticed that people who don't like numbers like 300000/decade or 31000/year want to start trimming that figure by exempting some deaths based on motive. It's undeniable the suicide by firearm is the most effective and final of methods.

Anyway, no need to turn this into a gun thread. I'm sure we can all find something to argue about with respect to the NSA and domestic spying.
 
2013-07-14 11:42:58 AM  

Rhino_man: mark12A: OK, I keep hearing about this "Benghazi" guy.  Who is he?  Secretary of the Interior or something?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That gets me EVERY SINGLE TIME!!!!! It's just so farking funny how Obama just left Americans to die at the hands of the Islamist horde and didn't lift a finger to even try to save them. Cracks me up EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

As for the KOS article, the author never really formed a case for his viewpoint. Just stated outright what he *thought* was right. Well, he's wrong. Next?

[gkrouse.files.wordpress.com image 850x452]


Out of idle curiosity, I Googled the first on the list, January 22nd 2002: US Consulate at Kolkata, 5 killed:

Heavily-armed gunmen have attacked the US Government's information centre near the American consulate in Calcutta, killing five policemen.
...
Four of the dead officers were killed on the spot. They were all from the Calcutta police or a private security agency, Group Four.

BBC News
 
2013-07-14 11:48:19 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Corvus: Not sure why suicides don't count. Many of those suicides would have probably not happened if it wasn't so easy for the victim to kill them selves by using a gun. They are the number 1 cause of suicides for a reason. Because they are easy and quick for people to use.

I wasn't saying they shouldn't be counted, just that I've noticed that people who don't like numbers like 300000/decade or 31000/year want to start trimming that figure by exempting some deaths based on motive. It's undeniable the suicide by firearm is the most effective and final of methods.

Anyway, no need to turn this into a gun thread. I'm sure we can all find something to argue about with respect to the NSA and domestic spying.




It's hard to toss aside all the crap you were told as a child. Commies are evil. They put up walls. They spy on their populace.

So how many people are suiciding themselves on our nation's highways, harming children?
 
2013-07-14 11:49:32 AM  

dittybopper: Why should we care about the metadata?  Because it's enough to build up such an accurate profile of you that it's farking *SCARY*.


This is something I always found interesting. Simple analysis of just the metadata of a person's purchasing habits is sufficient to build a personal profile so accurate that you have to be careful when using it for targeted advertisement. The targeted ads are so so accurate that it freaks out the individual being marketed to.

Most people live and move in very predictable tracks. Given information like a phones gps records, given a day and time you can predict their physical location within a few hundred yards with about 90% accuracy. People mostly work in the same place. They mostly engage in social activities in the same places at roughly the same times. They have favorite restaurants and movie theaters and go to them on a relatively predictable schedule.
 
2013-07-14 11:57:05 AM  

Corvus: Not sure why suicides don't count. Many of those suicides would have probably not happened if it wasn't so easy for the victim to kill them selves by using a gun. They are the number 1 cause of suicides for a reason. Because they are easy and quick for people to use.


In the United States.

Other countries with similar, or even higher, suicide rates have far fewer guns per capita and similar or higher suicide rates.

In terms of the number of guns per capita among industrialized nations, the US is undoubtedly number 1 (I shouldn't even have to provide a source for that).

Meanwhile, South Korea, Japan, Belgium, Finland, Poland, Taiwan, France, Austria, and the Czech Republic all have higher suicide rates.

A perfect example of how guns really don't matter is the US and the UK, which have nearly *IDENTICAL* suicide rates:  The US rate is 12 per 100,000.  The UK rate is 11.8 per 100,000.

All guns are strictly controlled in the UK, and handguns are completely banned.

In the US, about 61% of suicides are by firearm.  In the UK, it's only 3.5%.  The overwhelming majority of suicides in the UK were by hanging (55%)

So, if they have essentially an identical suicide rate (differing by less than 2%), yet their rate of firearms suicide is only 6% that of the US because of strict laws, what makes you think that suicides in the US would go down if we further restricted firearm access?
 
2013-07-14 11:58:50 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: dittybopper: Why should we care about the metadata?  Because it's enough to build up such an accurate profile of you that it's farking *SCARY*.

This is something I always found interesting. Simple analysis of just the metadata of a person's purchasing habits is sufficient to build a personal profile so accurate that you have to be careful when using it for targeted advertisement. The targeted ads are so so accurate that it freaks out the individual being marketed to.

Most people live and move in very predictable tracks. Given information like a phones gps records, given a day and time you can predict their physical location within a few hundred yards with about 90% accuracy. People mostly work in the same place. They mostly engage in social activities in the same places at roughly the same times. They have favorite restaurants and movie theaters and go to them on a relatively predictable schedule.



C'mon dude, people suck at math.

rchsbowman.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-14 11:59:42 AM  

ghare: /At least KOS is factually accurate, as opposed to just making shiat up.


This article may have been a lot of things, but "factually accurate" it ain't.
 
2013-07-14 12:04:54 PM  

Pichu0102: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: It's OK that subby lies to us since there is a Democrat in the office. We know we can always trust him to fundamentally not understand polysyllabic words presented to him in article format.

You know who else lied? Benghazi.


I rented a house to Ben Ghazi one time and he painted it like spongbob sqaurepants. farking asshole
 
2013-07-14 12:05:29 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: It's hard to toss aside all the crap you were told as a child. Commies are evil. They put up walls. They spy on their populace.


They did put up walls to keep people from *LEAVING*, and they did spy on their populace.

They machine-gunned people who tried to leave.

People built friggin' hot air balloons from scratch in order to leave the Warsaw Pact nations.  They risked being shot, or blown up by land mines, or being found and imprisoned for nothing more than wanting to be elsewhere.

Individuals living under those regimes may or may not have been evil themselves, but a whole system that had such a callous indifference to life that they would kill people who just wanted to *LEAVE* is, pretty much by definition, evil.
 
2013-07-14 12:10:54 PM  

ghare: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Daily Kos is still a thing?

FOX news is still a thing? Newsmax is still a thing?


/At least KOS is factually accurate, as opposed to just making shiat up.


If Newsmax will stop telling lies about Democrats, maybe Daily Kos will stop telling the truth about Republicans.
 
2013-07-14 12:11:25 PM  

dittybopper: StoPPeRmobile: It's hard to toss aside all the crap you were told as a child. Commies are evil. They put up walls. They spy on their populace.

They did put up walls to keep people from *LEAVING*, and they did spy on their populace.

They machine-gunned people who tried to leave.

People built friggin' hot air balloons from scratch in order to leave the Warsaw Pact nations.  They risked being shot, or blown up by land mines, or being found and imprisoned for nothing more than wanting to be elsewhere.

Individuals living under those regimes may or may not have been evil themselves, but a whole system that had such a callous indifference to life that they would kill people who just wanted to *LEAVE* is, pretty much by definition, evil.


I always loved that bit of film of the East German Guard, walking along, guarding the Berlin Wall and--HEY, GOTTA GO!  Tosses his rifle aside and makes a run for it.  Yeah, when even the guys with guns are making a run for it, you've got a shiatty regime.
 
2013-07-14 12:13:45 PM  

dittybopper: Corvus: Not sure why suicides don't count. Many of those suicides would have probably not happened if it wasn't so easy for the victim to kill them selves by using a gun. They are the number 1 cause of suicides for a reason. Because they are easy and quick for people to use.

In the United States.

Other countries with similar, or even higher, suicide rates have far fewer guns per capita and similar or higher suicide rates.



That's becuase they don't have God.
 
2013-07-14 12:19:40 PM  
As one of the libby lie-beral libtards here, I say fark that noise. I say this with full understanding that I am commenting in a troll thread.
 
2013-07-14 12:30:30 PM  

dittybopper: Actually, that's not necessarily true.  Here's why:  Prior to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it's true that yes, the NSA did target some Americans, but they were limited technologically:  No one had cell phones or computers, and opening the mail was not something the NSA did (they are a signals intelligence organization).


This is technically correct (the best kind of correct), but as I noted upthread, the FBI and the CIA were opening a shiat-ton of Americans' mail in addition to collecting and storing metadata in the form of address information from the exterior of envelopes and packages. It doesn't matter to most people which three initials are attached - the point is, most of us prefer that no government spook read our mail.
 
2013-07-14 12:31:42 PM  

theorellior: As one of the libby lie-beral libtards here, I say fark that noise. I say this with full understanding that I am commenting in a troll meta-surveiled thread.



FTFY
 
2013-07-14 12:50:45 PM  
As I've said for years.

There are three types of liberals

There's your 'typical' liberal, 'fanatic' liberal, and 'elitist' liberal. The precise definition of what a 'typical' liberal is varies and ends up with a No True Scotsman if you try to define it clearly but generally they espouse things like equal rights and government regulation to create systems that they believe are more fair and they can be distinguished from the 'fanatic' liberal because they still actually care about right and wrong. The fanatic doesn't care about right and wrong, the ends justify the means if you can get away with it, and every form of corruption is perfectly acceptable if it promotes the end the fanatic wants to see happen. The elitist liberal is the person who sees the whole thing as nothing more than a means to an end for themselves and their own ego. They either believe themselves to be "better" than everyone else or just see something they can exploit. You will recognize them as being rich, powerful, and extremely influential people who pay lip service to 'typical liberal' ideas, but don't live that way themselves. They're concerned about the 'environment' from their private limos and mansions, but you don't seriously think they should worry about their carbon footprint do you? They're important so the rules don't apply to them.

In so far as the NSA goes? The typical liberals hate things like that, the fanatic liberals claim to hate things like that but only really get angry if they think the 'wrong' people have it, and the elitists have no problem with the NSA because it might help keep the peons in line.

Elect more 'typical' liberals and this problem will solve itself.
 
2013-07-14 12:54:56 PM  
The NSA is going to do what the NSA wants regardless of who is in office.  They were given a directive and they are following through with that directive.  If you do not like what that directive means, then get rid of the NSA.

Is anyone really surprised by the fact that an information gathering agency is gathering information?  If you are, then you are naive and should just restrict yourself to clucking with the grannies in their knitting circle.  It's like people who love to eat steak and are surprised to find out that cows are being butchered.

Is information gathering bad?  No, the world has been doing it since there was information to be gathered.

How the information is being gathered is the issue.  If they were just scrapping the internet, well then, don't put crap on the internet.  For example, this post I know is being gathered and stored someplace.  Additionally, I am sure that they already have a link between my handle and my real identity - Verbal Kint.  If they are truly breaking the law, then the some other agency should file charges and chuck them in prison.  Is that going to happen?  Nope.

Why fuss, when the fussing isn't going to create true action?
 
2013-07-14 12:56:45 PM  

randomjsa: As I've said for years.

There are three types of liberals

There's your 'typical' liberal, 'fanatic' liberal, and 'elitist' liberal. The precise definition of what a 'typical' liberal is varies and ends up with a No True Scotsman if you try to define it clearly but generally they espouse things like equal rights and government regulation to create systems that they believe are more fair and they can be distinguished from the 'fanatic' liberal because they still actually care about right and wrong. The fanatic doesn't care about right and wrong, the ends justify the means if you can get away with it, and every form of corruption is perfectly acceptable if it promotes the end the fanatic wants to see happen. The elitist liberal is the person who sees the whole thing as nothing more than a means to an end for themselves and their own ego. They either believe themselves to be "better" than everyone else or just see something they can exploit. You will recognize them as being rich, powerful, and extremely influential people who pay lip service to 'typical liberal' ideas, but don't live that way themselves. They're concerned about the 'environment' from their private limos and mansions, but you don't seriously think they should worry about their carbon footprint do you? They're important so the rules don't apply to them.

In so far as the NSA goes? The typical liberals hate things like that, the fanatic liberals claim to hate things like that but only really get angry if they think the 'wrong' people have it, and the elitists have no problem with the NSA because it might help keep the peons in line.

Elect more 'typical' liberals and this problem will solve itself.




Wrong!

There are two types of people. Those that label and everyone else.
 
2013-07-14 12:58:46 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: It's OK that subby lies to us since there is a Democrat in the office. We know we can always trust him to fundamentally not understand polysyllabic words presented to him in article format.


In fairness, that article read like a freshman English major's attempt to sound educated. It was borderline incomprehensible.

/Protip, folks: Big words does not make you smart. Confusing the hell out of your readers? Less so.
 
2013-07-14 12:59:12 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: I wonder how many suicides are lumped into the automobile fatality rate. I wonder if we will ever find out. People sure love their cars.


If the statistics are too different to be relevant as a comparison why did you bring it up?
 
2013-07-14 01:07:46 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: randomjsa: As I've said for years.

There are three types of liberals

There's your 'typical' liberal, 'fanatic' liberal, and 'elitist' liberal. The precise definition of what a 'typical' liberal is varies and ends up with a No True Scotsman if you try to define it clearly but generally they espouse things like equal rights and government regulation to create systems that they believe are more fair and they can be distinguished from the 'fanatic' liberal because they still actually care about right and wrong. The fanatic doesn't care about right and wrong, the ends justify the means if you can get away with it, and every form of corruption is perfectly acceptable if it promotes the end the fanatic wants to see happen. The elitist liberal is the person who sees the whole thing as nothing more than a means to an end for themselves and their own ego. They either believe themselves to be "better" than everyone else or just see something they can exploit. You will recognize them as being rich, powerful, and extremely influential people who pay lip service to 'typical liberal' ideas, but don't live that way themselves. They're concerned about the 'environment' from their private limos and mansions, but you don't seriously think they should worry about their carbon footprint do you? They're important so the rules don't apply to them.

In so far as the NSA goes? The typical liberals hate things like that, the fanatic liberals claim to hate things like that but only really get angry if they think the 'wrong' people have it, and the elitists have no problem with the NSA because it might help keep the peons in line.

Elect more 'typical' liberals and this problem will solve itself.

Wrong!

There are two types of people. Those that label and everyone else.


Pff, there are 10 kinds of people.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

/Shrug
 
2013-07-14 01:16:58 PM  

skozlaw: StoPPeRmobile: I wonder how many suicides are lumped into the automobile fatality rate. I wonder if we will ever find out. People sure love their cars.

If the statistics are too different to be relevant as a comparison why did you bring it up?




Actually, I don't think they are different.

rchsbowman.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-14 01:23:18 PM  

randomjsa: [MEGO]


1) How about a few examples of "fanatic liberals" and "elitist liberals", or are these just strawmen?

2) Maybe liberals would stop thinking themselves better than conservatives, if conservatives would stop demonstrating, time and again, that they are knuckleheads.
 
2013-07-14 02:10:18 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Wrong!

There are two types of people. Those that label and everyone else.


Incorrect.  There are 10 kinds of people:  Those who know binary, and those who don't.
 
2013-07-14 02:13:06 PM  
The only difference between republicans and democrats in this regard is that the democrats will very likely abuse the power, and republicans will definitely abuse it, and will do so to cheat on elections.
 
2013-07-14 02:35:47 PM  

dittybopper: StoPPeRmobile: Wrong!

There are two types of people. Those that label and everyone else.

Incorrect.  There are 10 kinds of people:  Those who know binary, and those who don't.



Was that a matrix glitch?
 
2013-07-14 02:50:56 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: dittybopper: StoPPeRmobile: Wrong!

There are two types of people. Those that label and everyone else.

Incorrect.  There are 10 kinds of people:  Those who know binary, and those who don't.


Was that a matrix glitch?


Your Majesty is like a dose of the clap.  Before you arrive is pleasure, and after a pain in the dong.

/One of Shaw's.
 
2013-07-14 03:04:26 PM  

dittybopper: StoPPeRmobile: dittybopper: StoPPeRmobile: Wrong!

There are two types of people. Those that label and everyone else.

Incorrect.  There are 10 kinds of people:  Those who know binary, and those who don't.


Was that a matrix glitch?

Your Majesty is like a dose of the clap.  Before you arrive is pleasure, and after a pain in the dong.

/One of Shaw's.




You bastards!
 
2013-07-14 03:15:12 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-14 03:54:01 PM  

randomjsa: As I've said for years.

There are three types of liberals

There's your 'typical' liberal, 'fanatic' liberal, and 'elitist' liberal. The precise definition of what a 'typical' liberal is varies and ends up with a No True Scotsman if you try to define it clearly but generally they espouse things like equal rights and government regulation to create systems that they believe are more fair and they can be distinguished from the 'fanatic' liberal because they still actually care about right and wrong. The fanatic doesn't care about right and wrong, the ends justify the means if you can get away with it, and every form of corruption is perfectly acceptable if it promotes the end the fanatic wants to see happen. The elitist liberal is the person who sees the whole thing as nothing more than a means to an end for themselves and their own ego. They either believe themselves to be "better" than everyone else or just see something they can exploit. You will recognize them as being rich, powerful, and extremely influential people who pay lip service to 'typical liberal' ideas, but don't live that way themselves. They're concerned about the 'environment' from their private limos and mansions, but you don't seriously think they should worry about their carbon footprint do you? They're important so the rules don't apply to them.

In so far as the NSA goes? The typical liberals hate things like that, the fanatic liberals claim to hate things like that but only really get angry if they think the 'wrong' people have it, and the elitists have no problem with the NSA because it might help keep the peons in line.

Elect more 'typical' liberals and this problem will solve itself.


What's funny is that you believe you've stumbled upon the true essence of liberalism, when you have in fact defined the majority vs. fringe of any political affiliation.  You could take the above paragraph, substitute "Conservative" for "Liberal", and it would read just as true (with the exception of the Carbon Footprint mention.).

In other words, I don't believe for a second you've said that for years.  Probably stole it from someone much more bright than you.
 
2013-07-14 03:59:54 PM  

LeoffDaGrate: In other words, I don't believe for a second you've said that for years. Probably stole it from someone much more bright than you.


You talk much more better than I.
 
2013-07-14 04:19:39 PM  

ThePastafarian: Pff, there are 10 kinds of people.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.


There are three kinds of people - those who are good with numbers, and those who aren't.
 
2013-07-14 04:23:10 PM  

ginandbacon: Did  Subbyand I read the same article?


...Subby's a freeptard who hopes people will see "Daily Kos" and not click the link.
 
2013-07-14 04:24:20 PM  

LarryDan43: Projection. Because the average Republican had no problem with what Bush was doing regarding spying, they now don't think the average Democrat has a problem with what Obama is doing.


Because the average smart person understands this has been going on since the history of forever, the average dumb person assumes this means they approve of it and want it to continue unchecked.
 
2013-07-14 04:30:05 PM  

OrangeSnapper: The 30K / year for a decade gun deaths number is correct.  This includes about 11K homicides, and 19K suicides annually.  Car crashes are higher, but only marginally, at 34K per year in the US.


The most important distinction for me: Nearly all car deaths are accidental. Nearly all gun deaths are intentional.
 
2013-07-14 04:33:44 PM  

Gyrfalcon: LarryDan43: Projection. Because the average Republican had no problem with what Bush was doing regarding spying, they now don't think the average Democrat has a problem with what Obama is doing.

Because the average smart person understands this has been going on since the history of forever, the average dumb person assumes this means they approve of it and want it to continue unchecked.



Yeah but now they have us fighting their wars for them. They used to do that themselves.
 
2013-07-14 04:35:57 PM  

IlGreven: OrangeSnapper: The 30K / year for a decade gun deaths number is correct.  This includes about 11K homicides, and 19K suicides annually.  Car crashes are higher, but only marginally, at 34K per year in the US.

The most important distinction for me: Nearly all car deaths are accidental. Nearly all gun deaths are intentional.


Lol.

One we get cameras inside the cars, for our safety, the truth will come out.

Want to off yourself and ensure your loved ones get paid?
 
2013-07-14 05:25:46 PM  
Right wingers always portray liberals as thinking and acting exactly like they do, except on the opposite team.  They'll even ignore reality to do so.  This headline is a perfect example.

/When right wingers say "liberals want to do _____ to conservatives", _____ is what they want to do to liberals.
 
Displayed 50 of 137 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report