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.

(USA Today)   NRA and ACLU join together in suit against NSA   (usatoday.com) divider line 90
    More: Hero, NRA, NSA, ACLU, gun registry, joint, telephone tapping, Jameel Jaffer, Jim Sensenbrenner  
•       •       •

7468 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Sep 2013 at 4:34 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-05 12:34:41 AM
Why not? Aren't they both trying to stop threats against our liberties both foreign and domestic?
 
2013-09-05 12:44:51 AM
I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?
 
2013-09-05 02:09:04 AM

Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?


Believe it or not, the NRA and ACLU have a working relationship when it comes to court battles.  There is significant overlap between the 2nd and 4th Amendment, as well as privacy and HIPAA concerns, that leads to the ACLU and NRA jumping on board each others ships when it comes to certain gun legislation.
 
2013-09-05 02:48:44 AM

Fark It: Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?

Believe it or not, the NRA and ACLU have a working relationship when it comes to court battles.  There is significant overlap between the 2nd and 4th Amendment, as well as privacy and HIPAA concerns, that leads to the ACLU and NRA jumping on board each others ships when it comes to certain gun legislation.


This.
2nd Amendment rights are civil rights, same as the rest. Both organizations actively work to uphold civil rights.
Yes, the NRA is awful for having a ludicrous right-wing bias (in many cases endorsing R candidates with virtually identical gun rights stances as their D opponents), supporting right wing initiatives that have nothing to do with gun control (such as anti abortion efforts), and giving Nugent's stupid ass another pulpit to spew his idiocy from.
By the same token, the ACLU is known for having a very pronounced left wing political bias as well.
That being said, the NRA the only organization with power to affect the legislative process in the interest of preserving 2nd Amendment rights, which is the one aspect of the Bill of Rights that the ACLU is usually reluctant to fight for.
Ultimately, the ACLU and the NRA are counterparts in the same effort. I'm a card-carrying member of both.
The Second Amendment Foundation (which I'm also a member of) wins court battles, but that only goes so far when new anti-civil rights efforts take place every day, and the NRA together with the ACLU actively fight these infringements becoming possible in the first place.
 
2013-09-05 04:36:45 AM
I don't see the NRA's dog in this fight, but the more the merrier.
 
2013-09-05 04:43:16 AM

Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?


I guess you'd be surprised to know that the ACLU has also defended the KKK before (right to assemble).

They've even used black lawyers on at least one occasion to do so.

The KKK may be a despicable hate group that at times has been guilty of murder but under the First Amendment they have certain rights.
 
2013-09-05 04:44:24 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-05 04:47:11 AM
If you re-arrange the letters you can create one group: ANAL CRU

/got nothing
 
2013-09-05 04:51:02 AM

Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?


Believe it or not, the ACLU has even defended that oxy-eating turd, too.

https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-asks-court-protect- co nfidentiality-rush-limbaughs-medical-records

Even assholes have rights.
 
2013-09-05 04:56:31 AM
Good. Could be a step toward sanity in this country. In other words, fark yeah!
 
2013-09-05 05:03:52 AM
5$ on  WBC joining the NSA
 
2013-09-05 05:06:26 AM
I'm a card carrying member of both the NRA and the ACLU.  Liberty!  Rights!  Beer!

/ I mostly just like to start stupid conversations.
// I'm not a smart man.
 
2013-09-05 05:07:47 AM
survivingtheworld.net
 
2013-09-05 05:15:23 AM
Meanwhile, the NSA is in negotiations with Phillip Morris.
 
2013-09-05 05:18:00 AM
Maybe it's just the cider talking, but I wonder why nobody has brought the Third into play.

Yeah, the Third Amendment, the one everyone forgets about. The state has no right to demand - on pain of whatever may or may not have happened to the CEO of Qwest - that the state's routers be quarted in civilian datacenters without the consent of said civilians. Civilian owners of datacenters are free to co-operate with the government, and I'll even accept that the government has the right to do whatever it wants without the consent of the civilians to the bits of wire exiting the civilian-owned datacenter, but the government doesn't have a right to demand such co-operation.

A very drunk version of me might even suggest that CALEA is an infringement of the Third, but the drunken strict constructionist in me reminds me that the "LEA"s in CALEA are still technically civilians, and not soldiers, so that's going to get laughed out of the courts. NSA, on the other hand, is an arm of DoD, and a service provider that really wanted to play hardball (and which was willing to get shut down for non-cooperation regardless of the outcome of the court case) just might have a legal angle on this.

tl;dr: if I had a billion dollars or owned a startup that was threatened by this sort of thing and was already willing to shut down the company as a matter of principle (difficulty factor: that first bit about "if I had a billion dollars"), hiring some lawyers to mount a third-amendment challenge would be lulzy.
 
2013-09-05 05:19:20 AM
I wonder how long before some "anonymous tip" gets the leaders of both organizations arrested on suspicion of searching for child porn or aiding turrists?
 
2013-09-05 05:25:53 AM

cc_rider: Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?
Believe it or not, the ACLU has even defended that oxy-eating turd, too.
https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-asks-court-protect- co nfidentiality-rush-limbaughs-medical-records
Even assholes have rights.


"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
-H. L. Mencken
 
2013-09-05 05:28:41 AM

VeggieDelight: I wonder how long before some "anonymous tip" gets the leaders of both organizations arrested on suspicion of searching for child porn or aiding turrists?


How long has it been up until now?  Multiply that by two and then punch yourself in the dick.
 
2013-09-05 05:35:31 AM

Krumet: cc_rider: Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?
Believe it or not, the ACLU has even defended that oxy-eating turd, too.
https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-asks-court-protect- co nfidentiality-rush-limbaughs-medical-records
Even assholes have rights.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
-H. L. Mencken


Snowden is a traitor.
 
2013-09-05 05:39:11 AM

thamike: VeggieDelight: I wonder how long before some "anonymous tip" gets the leaders of both organizations arrested on suspicion of searching for child porn or aiding turrists?

How long has it been up until now?  Multiply that by two and then punch yourself in the dick.


Ooh! So insightful!
 
2013-09-05 05:39:51 AM

Badafuco: If you re-arrange the letters you can create one group: ANAL CRU

/got nothing


Worst. Wines. Ever.
 
2013-09-05 06:06:35 AM

Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?


maybe Saddam rose from the grave?

/interestingly odd bedfellows
//waits and sees
 
2013-09-05 06:38:30 AM

cc_rider: Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?

Believe it or not, the ACLU has even defended that oxy-eating turd, too.

https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-asks-court-protect- co nfidentiality-rush-limbaughs-medical-records

Even assholes have rights.


Guess you're in luck then.
 
2013-09-05 06:39:03 AM

No Time To Explain: Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?

maybe Saddam rose from the grave?

/interestingly odd bedfellows
//waits and sees


That's what they said about Burt Reynolds when he did Lilith Fair.
 
2013-09-05 06:40:42 AM

Fark It: Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?

Believe it or not, the NRA and ACLU have a working relationship when it comes to court battles.  There is significant overlap between the 2nd and 4th Amendment, as well as privacy and HIPAA concerns, that leads to the ACLU and NRA jumping on board each others ships when it comes to certain gun legislation.


You also have to realize that the Government has thrown out the Patriot Act's explicit requirement that the business records they seize be relevant to a terrorism investigation.

Given the fact that they are already ignoring the law, there is noting to prevent them from seizing the records of all gun sellers and creating a searchable database.

Exactly the sort of thing guaranteed to get the NRA interested in the fight.
 
2013-09-05 06:45:22 AM
FTFA:

Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin filed supporting briefs. Sensenbrenner is a co-author of the 2001 Patriot Act, which the NSA has cited as the basis of the surveillance.  "The defendants attempt to justify their practice of collecting the records of every telephone call made to or from the United States, including purely domestic calls, by claiming that Congress intended to authorize precisely such a program," Sensenbrenner's brief argues. "But Congress intended no such thing."

I read this as:

"I wrote the bill, but it's not REALLY what I intended to write."

Oh really?  That's how it works.  So next time I don't want to pay a client, I can go to court and say, "Well I sign a contract for these rates, but that's not REALLY what I intended to pay them."
 
2013-09-05 06:59:06 AM

Badafuco: If you re-arrange the letters you can create one group: ANAL CRU

/got nothing

if you rearrange all of them you get: US ANAL NARC
 
2013-09-05 06:59:29 AM

Nofun: "I wrote the bill, but it's not REALLY what I intended to write."


Um... No.

The legal term, "relevance", has a real meaning.

Records seized under the Patriot Act must be relevant to a terrorism investigation.

What the Obama administration is doing instead is ignoring the law and seizing everybody's records.
 
2013-09-05 07:06:44 AM
BullBearMS: ...Given the fact that they are already ignoring the law,...

Nope, they're paying attention to a lousy law.
 
2013-09-05 07:14:53 AM

KeatingFive: BullBearMS: ...Given the fact that they are already ignoring the law,...

Nope, they're paying attention to a lousy law.


Even if used as written it is a lousy law.

However, the law does not allow you to seize business records that are not relevant to a terrorism investigation.

That is exactly what Obama is doing , though.

That's why Senators Wyden and Udall have been warning us for years of what Obama was doing.

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.

Under Obama's secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, he just ignores the legal meaning of the word "relevant".
 
2013-09-05 07:26:33 AM

Nofun: FTFA:

Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin filed supporting briefs. Sensenbrenner is a co-author of the 2001 Patriot Act, which the NSA has cited as the basis of the surveillance.  "The defendants attempt to justify their practice of collecting the records of every telephone call made to or from the United States, including purely domestic calls, by claiming that Congress intended to authorize precisely such a program," Sensenbrenner's brief argues. "But Congress intended no such thing."

I read this as:

"I wrote the bill, but it's not REALLY what I intended to write."

Oh really?  That's how it works.  So next time I don't want to pay a client, I can go to court and say, "Well I sign a contract for these rates, but that's not REALLY what I intended to pay them."


Depends on the ambiguity of the wording on the contract. Or the bill.
 
2013-09-05 07:34:24 AM
Good for them, great use of the hero tag.

/Canadian
//this stuff sends shivers down my spine
 
2013-09-05 07:38:50 AM
"The defendants attempt to justify their practice of collecting the records of every telephone call made to or from the United States, including purely domestic calls, by claiming that Congress intended to authorize precisely such a program," Sensenbrenner's brief argues. "But Congress intended no such thing."

Then, I don't know, how about you change the law to remove any and all ambiguity, and make it perfectly farking clear what you intend!
 
2013-09-05 07:44:09 AM

No Time To Explain: Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?

maybe Saddam rose from the grave?

/interestingly odd bedfellows
//waits and sees


It's not all that interesting or odd.  The NRA and ACLU have worked together before.

The only thing that has traditionally prevented that isn't the NRA, but the institutional belief in the ACLU  was that the Second Amendment didn't protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Even today, they are very uncomfortable with the idea of people having a substantive right to own guns.

What they tend to work with the NRA on, though, is privacy matters, and they've done it before.  For odd bedfellows, they should be comfortable with each other by now on stuff like this.
 
2013-09-05 07:49:15 AM

RobSeace: "The defendants attempt to justify their practice of collecting the records of every telephone call made to or from the United States, including purely domestic calls, by claiming that Congress intended to authorize precisely such a program," Sensenbrenner's brief argues. "But Congress intended no such thing."

Then, I don't know, how about you change the law to remove any and all ambiguity, and make it perfectly farking clear what you intend!


Again, the problem isn't that the word "relevant" does not have a legal definition.

However, you'll be happy to know that the guy in TFA and others on the House Judiciary committee have made it clear that section 215 of the Patriot Act will not be authorized again the next time it expires.
 
2013-09-05 07:55:00 AM
davidtlamb.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-05 07:55:42 AM

sendtodave: Snowden is a traitor.


I hope he stays free for a long time.
 
2013-09-05 07:59:22 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I don't see the NRA's dog in this fight, but the more the merrier.


The NRA is the only group that the NRA thinks should know where all the guns are.
 
2013-09-05 08:01:14 AM

dittybopper: No Time To Explain: Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?

maybe Saddam rose from the grave?

/interestingly odd bedfellows
//waits and sees

It's not all that interesting or odd.  The NRA and ACLU have worked together before.

The only thing that has traditionally prevented that isn't the NRA, but the institutional belief in the ACLU  was that the Second Amendment didn't protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Even today, they are very uncomfortable with the idea of people having a substantive right to own guns.

What they tend to work with the NRA on, though, is privacy matters, and they've done it before.  For odd bedfellows, they should be comfortable with each other by now on stuff like this.


It's moot anyway - the ACLU never works to restrict or constrict ANY right, so any gun owner who is hostile to them is being led.
Different people need to do different work - if everybody tried to do the same job, the employment lines would be really long
 
2013-09-05 08:04:58 AM

NutWrench: sendtodave: Snowden is a traitor.

I hope he stays free for a long time.


Same here.
 
2013-09-05 08:10:57 AM

sendtodave: Krumet: cc_rider: Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?
Believe it or not, the ACLU has even defended that oxy-eating turd, too.
https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-asks-court-protect- co nfidentiality-rush-limbaughs-medical-records
Even assholes have rights.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
-H. L. Mencken

Snowden is a traitor.


I'd send a dollar to his defense fund.
 
2013-09-05 08:15:29 AM

GORDON: I'd send a dollar to his defense fund.


NSA heard that. You gonna get taped.
 
2013-09-05 08:25:16 AM

Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?


The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Seriously though, it's about farking time these two were on the same side since they, supposedly, share a common goal
 
2013-09-05 08:27:10 AM

sendtodave: Snowden is a traitor.


Did he break laws, sure yes he did.

But sometimes one must work outside the law to shame it's existence or inadequacy.
 
2013-09-05 08:28:38 AM

MREbomber: That being said, the NRA the only organization with power to affect the legislative process in the interest of preserving 2nd Amendment rights, which is the one aspect of the Bill of Rights that the ACLU is usually reluctant to fight for.


What's the point in focussing its limited resource there when there is a powerful, vociferous and wealthy organisation whose entire focus is that issue.  The NRA will deal with them, so they concentrate their resources on what the NRA doesn't care to make an effort about i.e. any civil rights that don't relate to guns.  The NRA wouldn't fight slavery so long as they got to keep their guns.


Nofun: "I wrote the bill, but it's not REALLY what I intended to write."

Oh really? That's how it works. So next time I don't want to pay a client, I can go to court and say, "Well I sign a contract for these rates, but that's not REALLY what I intended to pay them."


In proper countries any public statements made by the writer(s) of a Bill should be taken into account when interpreting it.  This has been true for about 500 years.   Google "mischief rule", "purposive approach" and "extrinsic material".

Purposivism can and does occur in America, as much as you're all obsessed with strict literalism.

In summary, you're wrong.
 
2013-09-05 08:30:00 AM
Lawyers with guns.
 
2013-09-05 08:30:23 AM

dv-ous: AverageAmericanGuy: I don't see the NRA's dog in this fight, but the more the merrier.

The NRA is the only group that the NRA thinks should know where all the guns are.


The NRA doesn't want to know where the guns are, other than "everywhere".
 
2013-09-05 08:33:41 AM

BullBearMS: Nofun: "I wrote the bill, but it's not REALLY what I intended to write."

Um... No.

The legal term, "relevance", has a real meaning.

Records seized under the Patriot Act must be relevant to a terrorism investigation.

What the Obama administration is doing instead is ignoring the law and seizing everybody's records.


My point is that the law would appear to be too ambiguously written in this sense, and the guy who helped write it would appear to be trying to shift the blame to an agency taking advantage of the law.  I'm glad he's on the right side of the debate, having his support is very helpful for this cause, but it seems more like a way to save face than genuine outrage.
 
2013-09-05 08:35:33 AM

dittybopper: dv-ous: AverageAmericanGuy: I don't see the NRA's dog in this fight, but the more the merrier.

The NRA is the only group that the NRA thinks should know where all the guns are.

The NRA doesn't want to know where the guns are, other than "everywhere".


img689.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-05 08:37:19 AM

AngryDragon: dittybopper: dv-ous: AverageAmericanGuy: I don't see the NRA's dog in this fight, but the more the merrier.

The NRA is the only group that the NRA thinks should know where all the guns are.

The NRA doesn't want to know where the guns are, other than "everywhere".

[img689.imageshack.us image 379x214]


Ditto.
 
2013-09-05 08:41:11 AM

Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?


When is he not?
 
2013-09-05 08:41:39 AM

MREbomber: Fark It: Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?

Believe it or not, the NRA and ACLU have a working relationship when it comes to court battles.  There is significant overlap between the 2nd and 4th Amendment, as well as privacy and HIPAA concerns, that leads to the ACLU and NRA jumping on board each others ships when it comes to certain gun legislation.

This.
2nd Amendment rights are civil rights, same as the rest. Both organizations actively work to uphold civil rights.
Yes, the NRA is awful for having a ludicrous right-wing bias (in many cases endorsing R candidates with virtually identical gun rights stances as their D opponents), supporting right wing initiatives that have nothing to do with gun control (such as anti abortion efforts), and giving Nugent's stupid ass another pulpit to spew his idiocy from.
By the same token, the ACLU is known for having a very pronounced left wing political bias as well.
That being said, the NRA the only organization with power to affect the legislative process in the interest of preserving 2nd Amendment rights, which is the one aspect of the Bill of Rights that the ACLU is usually reluctant to fight for.
Ultimately, the ACLU and the NRA are counterparts in the same effort. I'm a card-carrying member of both.
The Second Amendment Foundation (which I'm also a member of) wins court battles, but that only goes so far when new anti-civil rights efforts take place every day, and the NRA together with the ACLU actively fight these infringements becoming possible in the first place.


When the ACLU states publicly that the Second Amendment guarantees individual rights, I will support them financially. I've told them so many times but they continue to beg me for money.
 
2013-09-05 08:41:44 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: sendtodave: Snowden is a traitor.

Did he break laws, sure yes he did.

But sometimes one must work outside the law to shame it's existence or inadequacy.


That's the joke.
 
2013-09-05 08:43:18 AM
dl.dropboxusercontent.com

/Would be nice if there was one giant group that supported all rights.
/Its tragic that much of the ACLU and NRA base don't realise they're fighting for the same ideal.
/Gun owners aren't a monolithic block anymore than ACLU supporters are.
 
2013-09-05 08:49:34 AM

BullBearMS: Fark It: Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?

Believe it or not, the NRA and ACLU have a working relationship when it comes to court battles.  There is significant overlap between the 2nd and 4th Amendment, as well as privacy and HIPAA concerns, that leads to the ACLU and NRA jumping on board each others ships when it comes to certain gun legislation.

You also have to realize that the Government has thrown out the Patriot Act's explicit requirement that the business records they seize be relevant to a terrorism investigation.

Given the fact that they are already ignoring the law, there is noting to prevent them from seizing the records of all gun sellers and creating a searchable database.

Exactly the sort of thing guaranteed to get the NRA interested in the fight.


IIRC previous privacy lawsuits over secret spying got tossed due to standing - the people bringing suit couldn't prove they'd been harmed - because secret program is secret - so they were found to have no standing to bring the action. It seems this is similar - is there any evidence that the gov. is creating such a list? Just because they have the ability to do something illegal, doesn't mean they are actually
doing it (meaning specifically the alleged gun registry ).
 
2013-09-05 08:52:19 AM

KrispyKritter: Lawyers with guns.


Now just add money and methinks we've got the makings of a good song.
 
2013-09-05 08:57:30 AM
MREbomber: Fark It: Brontes: I, uh, wow.  Has the Middle East frozen over?  Is Limbaugh flying?

Believe it or not, the NRA and ACLU have a working relationship when it comes to court battles.  There is significant overlap between the 2nd and 4th Amendment, as well as privacy and HIPAA concerns, that leads to the ACLU and NRA jumping on board each others ships when it comes to certain gun legislation.

This.
2nd Amendment rights are civil rights, same as the rest. Both organizations actively work to uphold civil rights.
Yes, the NRA is awful for having a ludicrous right-wing bias (in many cases endorsing R candidates with virtually identical gun rights stances as their D opponents), supporting right wing initiatives that have nothing to do with gun control (such as anti abortion efforts), and giving Nugent's stupid ass another pulpit to spew his idiocy from.
By the same token, the ACLU is known for having a very pronounced left wing political bias as well.
That being said, the NRA the only organization with power Money to affect the legislative process in the interest of preserving 2nd Amendment rights, which is the one aspect of the Bill of Rights that the ACLU is usually reluctant to fight for.
Ultimately, the ACLU and the NRA are counterparts in the same effort. I'm a card-carrying member of both.
The Second Amendment Foundation (which I'm also a member of) wins court battles, but that only goes so far when new anti-civil rights efforts take place every day, and the NRA together with the ACLU actively fight these infringements becoming possible in the first place.

better more truthier -  because after all, at a certain point, isn't that what money is all about?  Power?
Not quibbling with alliances either.  Struggles make odd bedfellows.  The IRA and the Nazi party is one that comes to mind.
 
2013-09-05 09:11:23 AM

Nofun: My point is that the law would appear to be too ambiguously written in this sense, and the guy who helped write it would appear to be trying to shift the blame to an agency taking advantage of the law.


I understand your point.

My point is that you are simply incorrect.

The Obama administration is interpreting this law in a way that ignores the actual text of the law.

The law as written is bad enough since it drops the legal standard from probable cause down to mere relevance.

However, the Obama administration can't even stick within the much lower relevance standard.
 
2013-09-05 09:16:29 AM
About damned time.

/fark the NSA
 
2013-09-05 09:31:31 AM

Persnickety: KrispyKritter: Lawyers with guns.

Now just add money and methinks we've got the makings of a good song.


To bring this full circle, read the bottom line:

img31.imageshack.us

/Strip ciphers FTW.
 
2013-09-05 09:37:07 AM
Looked up the salaries of the CEOs of both. Guess which one, at $841,000 is paid more than the other $0 (although other affiliates do kick in $320K).?
 
2013-09-05 09:57:30 AM

BitwiseShift: Looked up the salaries of the CEOs of both. Guess which one, at $841,000 is paid more than the other $0 (although other affiliates do kick in $320K).?


And this is significant how?
 
2013-09-05 10:01:43 AM
At the risk of being "that guy", in 2001, I was strongly against the Patriot Act for this exact reason. Guess I'm saying...

wait for it...

I TOLD YOU SO
 
2013-09-05 10:11:17 AM

Krumet: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
-H. L. Mencken


I had never heard that one before. Love it.
 
2013-09-05 10:25:05 AM
As a card-carrying member of both, I find it funny how similar they are in their fund-raising efforts.

They're coming for our guns, give us money!
They're coming for our abortions, give us money!

Always with the dramatic mailings, too.  And the membership renewals.
 
2013-09-05 10:34:33 AM

jso2897: It's moot anyway - the ACLU never works to restrict or constrict ANY right, so any gun owner who is hostile to them is being led.
Different people need to do different work - if everybody tried to do the same job, the employment lines would be really long


No, but they will choose not to fight for rights they don't agree with - specifically individual gun ownership.
 
2013-09-05 10:38:03 AM

Girl Sailor: At the risk of being "that guy", in 2001, I was strongly against the Patriot Act for this exact reason. Guess I'm saying...

wait for it...

I TOLD YOU SO


Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're the ONLY person in the whole country who had any reservations about that law. Good call. If only the rest of us had your foresight....
 
2013-09-05 10:39:13 AM
Everyone involved in the suit is now on the no-fly list and over 1,000 other watch lists...For them, the hills really do have eyes now.
 
2013-09-05 10:40:05 AM
NRACULA?

LUCA RAN

LUNA CAR

LUNAR AC

AL U NARC
 
2013-09-05 10:41:19 AM

mod3072: Girl Sailor: At the risk of being "that guy", in 2001, I was strongly against the Patriot Act for this exact reason. Guess I'm saying...

wait for it...

I TOLD YOU SO

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're the ONLY person in the whole country who had any reservations about that law. Good call. If only the rest of us had your foresight....


Yet here we are talking about the fallout from it. I was also against the Iraq war if it counts. So poop on you.
 
2013-09-05 11:31:56 AM
When you are doing shiat bad enough to create strange bedfellows to oppose you maybe the problem is with YOU.
 
2013-09-05 11:41:01 AM

Oldiron_79: When you are doing shiat bad enough to create strange bedfellows to oppose you maybe the problem is with YOU.


If you haven't pissed anyone off you aren't trying.
 
2013-09-05 11:42:26 AM
the NRA is awful for having a ludicrous right-wing bias
the ACLU is known for having a very pronounced left wing political bias


Humm, I wonder if he knows his bias is showing as well?
 
2013-09-05 11:52:31 AM

R.A.Danny: Oldiron_79: When you are doing shiat bad enough to create strange bedfellows to oppose you maybe the problem is with YOU.

If you haven't pissed anyone off you aren't trying.


So you support the actions of the Reichssicherheitsdienst, er um I mean NSA?
 
2013-09-05 11:54:07 AM

Nofun: FTFA:

Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin filed supporting briefs. Sensenbrenner is a co-author of the 2001 Patriot Act, which the NSA has cited as the basis of the surveillance.  "The defendants attempt to justify their practice of collecting the records of every telephone call made to or from the United States, including purely domestic calls, by claiming that Congress intended to authorize precisely such a program," Sensenbrenner's brief argues. "But Congress intended no such thing."

I read this as:

"I wrote the bill, but it's not REALLY what I intended to write."

Oh really?  That's how it works.  So next time I don't want to pay a client, I can go to court and say, "Well I sign a contract for these rates, but that's not REALLY what I intended to pay them."


Why don't you actually read the entire portion of the Patriot Act that Sensenbrenner is referring to. It outright says that the government cannot spy on its own citizens domestically.
Just because the last and the current administrations have badly perverted the law and greatly overstepped its authority doesn't mean that Sensenbrenner didn't know what he wrote.

Do you give Obama and the Dems the same criticism with Obamacare when he keeps delaying and rewriting the law through executive order?
 
2013-09-05 11:54:49 AM

Oldiron_79: R.A.Danny: Oldiron_79: When you are doing shiat bad enough to create strange bedfellows to oppose you maybe the problem is with YOU.

If you haven't pissed anyone off you aren't trying.

So you support the actions of the Reichssicherheitsdienst, er um I mean NSA?


Why would anything I have said cause you to make that assumption? You can piss people off by doing bad things, and you can piss people off by doing good things. If you aren't pissing anyone off you aren't doing anything though.
 
2013-09-05 11:55:49 AM
It's actually sad that the NRA has to jump in on this given that it means the ACLU continues to support all of our civil liberties except the 2nd amendment. Glad that they're working together, just sad that they have to do so.
 
2013-09-05 12:13:48 PM
First read that as. NHRA and ACLU join together in suit against NSA
Still trying to figure that out.
 
2013-09-05 12:19:27 PM
This is a real tragedy because the NSA is the only government agency that really listens to the people.
 
2013-09-05 12:29:25 PM

Oldiron_79: R.A.Danny: Oldiron_79: When you are doing shiat bad enough to create strange bedfellows to oppose you maybe the problem is with YOU.

If you haven't pissed anyone off you aren't trying.

So you support the actions of the Reichssicherheitsdienst, er um I mean NSA?


Interestingly enough, there were a multitude of SIGINT/eavesdropping organizations in Nazi Germany, with lots of duplication of effort and stepping on of toes.  Apparently, Hitler liked it that way.
 
2013-09-05 12:31:49 PM
I have a mental clip of giant letters forming some kind of super-alpha Voltron. Keep adding letters to beat down the NSA.
 
2013-09-05 12:57:02 PM
Here you go:

img2u.info
We'll need this for the upcoming legal battle. Enjoy!
 
2013-09-05 01:11:23 PM

dittybopper: Oldiron_79: R.A.Danny: Oldiron_79: When you are doing shiat bad enough to create strange bedfellows to oppose you maybe the problem is with YOU.

If you haven't pissed anyone off you aren't trying.

So you support the actions of the Reichssicherheitsdienst, er um I mean NSA?

Interestingly enough, there were a multitude of SIGINT/eavesdropping organizations in Nazi Germany, with lots of duplication of effort and stepping on of toes.  Apparently, Hitler liked it that way.


When you're running a totalitarian state, I'd imagine it pays to have multiple groups spying on each other. Wouldn't want one organization getting all the dirt without having dirt on them as well. Plus, you know, paranoia.
 
2013-09-05 01:14:40 PM

Molavian: As a card-carrying member of both, I find it funny how similar they are in their fund-raising efforts.

They're coming for our guns, give us money!
They're coming for our abortions, give us money!

Always with the dramatic mailings, too.  And the membership renewals.


To be fair State legislatures all over the country really are "coming for your abortions"
 
2013-09-05 01:18:21 PM
I am firmly convinced that Congress, a large majority of whom are lawyers, write vague laws for the purpose of supporting some lawyer full time employment program.
Then again, even the simplest laws get reinterpreted.
"Thou shall not kill"
"What if I'm defending my life or my families?"
"When, then you can kill."
"What if my country goes to war?"
"When, then you can kill."
What if a person commits a heinous crime?"
"When, then you can kill."
etc.
 
2013-09-05 01:45:36 PM

Girl Sailor: mod3072: Girl Sailor: At the risk of being "that guy", in 2001, I was strongly against the Patriot Act for this exact reason. Guess I'm saying...

wait for it...

I TOLD YOU SO

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're the ONLY person in the whole country who had any reservations about that law. Good call. If only the rest of us had your foresight....

Yet here we are talking about the fallout from it. I was also against the Iraq war if it counts. So poop on you.


I'm not really into the poop thing, but I do have a few other ideas....
 
2013-09-05 03:24:21 PM

simplicimus: I am firmly convinced that Congress, a large majority of whom are lawyers, write vague laws for the purpose of supporting some lawyer full time employment program.
Then again, even the simplest laws get reinterpreted.
"Thou shall not kill"
"What if I'm defending my life or my families?"
"When, then you can kill."
"What if my country goes to war?"
"When, then you can kill."
What if a person commits a heinous crime?"
"When, then you can kill."
etc.


Not a Christian, but I always thought that that was "thou shalt not murder", where everything you just suggested wraps around into killing, but not murdering.
 
2013-09-05 04:04:47 PM
 
2013-09-05 04:13:28 PM

simplicimus: I am firmly convinced that Congress, a large majority of whom are lawyers, write vague laws for the purpose of supporting some lawyer full time employment program.
Then again, even the simplest laws get reinterpreted.
"Thou shall not kill"
"What if I'm defending my life or my families?"
"When, then you can kill."
"What if my country goes to war?"
"When, then you can kill."
What if a person commits a heinous crime?"
"When, then you can kill."
etc.


I always heard the the the 'kill' part of that commandment has been mistranslated for eons.
It should say 'murder' not 'kill'.
 
2013-09-05 05:12:32 PM

VeggieDelight: thamike: VeggieDelight: I wonder how long before some "anonymous tip" gets the leaders of both organizations arrested on suspicion of searching for child porn or aiding turrists?

How long has it been up until now?  Multiply that by two and then punch yourself in the dick.

Ooh! So insightful!


You haven't written anything that warrants more than ridicule.  Such is life.
 
Displayed 90 of 90 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report