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)   Anti-NSA rally attracts thousands to march in Washington, who now have all been identified by the FBI and are now under investigation by the IRS   (usatoday.com) divider line 118
    More: Obvious, No NSA, IRS, FBI, mass surveillance, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Union Station, Justin Amash, Government Accountability Project  
•       •       •

5506 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Oct 2013 at 8:10 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-27 08:17:41 AM
I don't know what's more evil, the NSA or the USA Today website.
 
2013-10-27 08:18:51 AM
In other news. Tinfoil says jump 400% in DC on Saturday.
 
2013-10-27 08:21:31 AM
OMGWTFBBQLOL

/I blame PMS
 
2013-10-27 08:30:40 AM
media.tumblr.com
 
2013-10-27 08:32:44 AM
Isn't this the big govt control the libs have been fighting for?
 
2013-10-27 08:33:26 AM
www.frugal-cafe.com
 
2013-10-27 08:35:18 AM
How can you know that america is a totalitarian police state?

It's simple. Just ask any one of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dissidents. They'll carp and whine and slander public officials and open discussions about overthrowing the state with *complete strangers* whilst congregating in the capital city.

/not a joke, sad to say
 
2013-10-27 08:39:48 AM
That's one way to round up the low hanging fruit.  Basically just place a basket under them and they fall into it themselves.

/odds are the NSA won't take these folks seriously
 
2013-10-27 08:40:35 AM

Phil Moskowitz: I don't know what's more evil, the NSA or the USA Today website.


That's the problem. I am now so angry that it will be 20 minutes before I have anything intelligent to say about anything.
 
2013-10-27 08:41:41 AM
I, for one, celebrate the good work being done by our new NSA overlords.
 
2013-10-27 08:45:10 AM

lack of warmth: That's one way to round up the low hanging fruit.  Basically just place a basket under them and they fall into it themselves.

/odds are the NSA won't take these folks seriously


Are you saying the NSA should collect information on these people?
 
2013-10-27 08:46:50 AM
Maybe having CAIR on your team isn't helping things..
 
2013-10-27 08:47:09 AM

letrole: How can you know that america is a totalitarian police state?

It's simple. Just ask any one of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dissidents. They'll carp and whine and slander public officials and open discussions about overthrowing the state with *complete strangers* whilst congregating in the capital city.

/not a joke, sad to say


Not sad at all.  They can do this because we are not Soviet Russia and that's a good thing.  But there is plenty of room for reasonable dissent.
 
2013-10-27 08:49:58 AM
If only the forefathers had thought to empower some institution to save us from this tyranny.
 
2013-10-27 08:51:24 AM
Hey, you hope 'n Changy-types, you do know that 'change' can be for the worst, don't you?
 
2013-10-27 08:55:46 AM
 

dfenstrate: Hey, you hope 'n Changy-types, you do know that 'change' can be for the worst, don't you?


Merkel had been tapped since '02... Obama is implicit, but its not like this is anything new.
So really, nothing on this front 'changed' at all... which is certainly a disappointment.
But keep farking that chicken.
 
2013-10-27 08:58:38 AM

ThrillaManilla: dfenstrate: Hey, you hope 'n Changy-types, you do know that 'change' can be for the worst, don't you?

Merkel had been tapped since '02... Obama is implicit, but its not like this is anything new.
So really, nothing on this front 'changed' at all... which is certainly a disappointment.
But keep farking that chicken.


Obama's wiretaps are legal.
 
2013-10-27 09:01:41 AM
Now if only this sort of animosity could be generated against the real data slurpers like google and facebook.  Good god do people have their priorities in a mess when it comes to this shiat.
 
2013-10-27 09:01:48 AM

Sargun: ThrillaManilla: dfenstrate: Hey, you hope 'n Changy-types, you do know that 'change' can be for the worst, don't you?

Merkel had been tapped since '02... Obama is implicit, but its not like this is anything new.
So really, nothing on this front 'changed' at all... which is certainly a disappointment.
But keep farking that chicken.

Obama's wiretaps are legal.


That explains why he's worked so hard to shut down every court case challenging it.

Even the ones from when Bush did it.

Because it's legal.
 
2013-10-27 09:02:55 AM

Sargun: ThrillaManilla: dfenstrate: Hey, you hope 'n Changy-types, you do know that 'change' can be for the worst, don't you?

Merkel had been tapped since '02... Obama is implicit, but its not like this is anything new.
So really, nothing on this front 'changed' at all... which is certainly a disappointment.
But keep farking that chicken.

Obama's wiretaps are legal.


a wiretap without a warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment. I don't care how they bend the rules.
 
2013-10-27 09:03:46 AM

BumpInTheNight: Now if only this sort of animosity could be generated against the real data slurpers like google and facebook.  Good god do people have their priorities in a mess when it comes to this shiat.


How do you opt out of NSA spying?

Not being a Google or Facebook customer is easy.
 
2013-10-27 09:05:02 AM

ThrillaManilla: Merkel had been tapped since '02... Obama is implicit, but its not like this is anything new.
So really, nothing on this front 'changed' at all... which is certainly a disappointment.


What's there to be disappointed about?  Voters are still put off by the notion that Democrats may still be "soft on terrorism" despite Obama's successes.  After 8 years of Bush, this is the price the American people have to pay to get more Democrats elected.
 
2013-10-27 09:07:05 AM
 
2013-10-27 09:10:35 AM

Phil Moskowitz: I don't know what's more evil, the NSA or the USA Today website.


USA Today laid me off, so they get my vote.
 
2013-10-27 09:10:36 AM

BullBearMS: BumpInTheNight: Now if only this sort of animosity could be generated against the real data slurpers like google and facebook.  Good god do people have their priorities in a mess when it comes to this shiat.

How do you opt out of NSA spying?

Not being a Google or Facebook customer is easy.


Whether you're a customer or not has a relatively small impact on how much google, facebook or linkedin has on you and unlike a government institution they are in it for the profit which means if they can make a quick buck selling that picture your friend tagged you in from the 90s doing something stupid to your insurance company to deny a claim, they'll take it.  For instance.
 
2013-10-27 09:12:43 AM
 
2013-10-27 09:14:46 AM

BullBearMS: God_Almighty_Himself: What's there to be disappointed about?

The Obama administration for the first time responded to a Spygate lawsuit, telling a federal judge the wholesale vacuuming up of all phone-call metadata in the United States is in the "public interest," does not breach the constitutional rights of Americans and cannot be challenged in a court of law.


I think I'll trust the judgement of a constitutional law scholar over a vocal minority of partisan malcontents.
 
2013-10-27 09:14:47 AM

Mighty_Joe: [www.frugal-cafe.com image 500x419]


It's cute how you think all this started on January 20 2009.
 
2013-10-27 09:17:11 AM
Now, now!
 
2013-10-27 09:17:44 AM

BullBearMS: This is so legal that Obama is desperate to keep any court from hearing the case.


Wanting to save a few million dollars on a unnecessary/futile court case.  Truly history's greatest monster.
 
2013-10-27 09:23:40 AM

God_Almighty_Himself: BullBearMS: God_Almighty_Himself: What's there to be disappointed about?

The Obama administration for the first time responded to a Spygate lawsuit, telling a federal judge the wholesale vacuuming up of all phone-call metadata in the United States is in the "public interest," does not breach the constitutional rights of Americans and cannot be challenged in a court of law.

I think I'll trust the judgement of a constitutional law scholar over a vocal minority of partisan malcontents.


Let's look at the positions Obama used to take when he was pretending to be a Constitutional Scholar who intended to restore the rule of law.

When the House of Representatives recently considered an amendment that would have dismantled the NSA's bulk phone records collection program, the White House swiftly condemned the measure. But only five years ago, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. was part of a group of legislators that supported substantial changes to NSA surveillance programs. Here are some of the proposals the president co-sponsored as a senator.

As a senator, Obama wanted to limit bulk records collection.

As a senator, Obama wanted to require government analysts to get court approval before accessing incidentally collected American data.

As a senator, Obama wanted the executive branch to report to Congress how many American communications had been swept up during surveillance.

As a senator, Obama wanted to restrict the use of gag orders related to surveillance court orders.

As a senator, Obama wanted to give the accused a chance to challenge government surveillance.

As a senator, Obama wanted the attorney general to submit a public report giving aggregate data about how many people had been targeted for searches.

It's really a shame he was just lying about all that.
 
2013-10-27 09:25:47 AM

Phil Moskowitz: I don't know what's more evil, the NSA or the USA Today website.


Well at least their website doesn't track you...oh wait.
 
2013-10-27 09:29:29 AM

Kit Fister: Sargun: ThrillaManilla: dfenstrate: Hey, you hope 'n Changy-types, you do know that 'change' can be for the worst, don't you?

Merkel had been tapped since '02... Obama is implicit, but its not like this is anything new.
So really, nothing on this front 'changed' at all... which is certainly a disappointment.
But keep farking that chicken.

Obama's wiretaps are legal.

a wiretap without a warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment. I don't care how they bend the rules.


I thought they were eavesdropping on Merkel from the US embassy in Germany - so probably illegal under German law but not unconstitutional from a US point of view.
 
2013-10-27 09:30:07 AM

BullBearMS: Let's look at the positions Obama used to take when he was pretending to be a Constitutional Scholar who intended to restore the rule of law.


That was back when it was safe for him to take a principled stand on such things.  As a presidential candidate, Obama couldn't afford to run the risk of appearing soft on terrorism to the uninformed electorate.  Unfortunately, thanks to the Tea Party still spreading its misinformation, Democrats have to maintain this posture until Republicans are marginalized.
 
2013-10-27 09:34:04 AM
lh3.ggpht.com

We get it...
 
2013-10-27 09:34:14 AM

Sargun: ThrillaManilla: dfenstrate: Hey, you hope 'n Changy-types, you do know that 'change' can be for the worst, don't you?

Merkel had been tapped since '02... Obama is implicit, but its not like this is anything new.
So really, nothing on this front 'changed' at all... which is certainly a disappointment.
But keep farking that chicken.

Obama's wiretaps are legal.


Well they shouldn't be
 
2013-10-27 09:34:18 AM

God_Almighty_Himself: BullBearMS: This is so legal that Obama is desperate to keep any court from hearing the case.

Wanting to save a few million dollars on a unnecessary/futile court case.  Truly history's greatest monster.


Sure, because when the EFF sued Bush for his spying it was important for Obama to leap into action to save Bush from being held accountable.

Because isn't the most important thing to keep that Bush spying going against legal challenges of any type?

late Friday afternoon, the Obama DOJ filed the government's response to EFF's lawsuit (.pdf), the first of its kind to seek damages against government officials under FISA, the Wiretap Act and other statutes, arising out of Bush's NSA program. But the Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim of breathtaking scope - never before advanced even by the Bush administration - that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications.

In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and - even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal - you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.
 
2013-10-27 09:40:00 AM

God_Almighty_Himself: hat was back when it was safe for him to take a principled stand on such things.


No. That was back when he lied to America about what he would do as President.

Something he continued to do on the Presidential campaign trail.
"This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."

Unfortunately, "Constitutional Scholar Guy who intends to restore the Rule of Law" was just one big lie.
 
2013-10-27 09:46:56 AM

BullBearMS: Unfortunately, "Constitutional Scholar Guy who intends to restore the Rule of Law" was just one big lie.


But this IS the law, so I can't see any rational reason to claim that the administration is breaking the law.  Not to accuse you specifically, but I have to wonder if these sudden turns of outrage against the law are (still) motivated by the President's persistent melanin surplus.
 
2013-10-27 09:49:55 AM

BullBearMS: BumpInTheNight: Now if only this sort of animosity could be generated against the real data slurpers like google and facebook.  Good god do people have their priorities in a mess when it comes to this shiat.

How do you opt out of NSA spying?

Not being a Google or Facebook customer is easy.


Yes, don't do any business online, and communicate with friends by courier; the burden of confidentiality is on you, citizen.

Came for the Dennis Raeder Respect Authoritae types, leaving *satisfied*.
 
2013-10-27 09:50:41 AM

AliceBToklasLives: letrole: How can you know that america is a totalitarian police state?

It's simple. Just ask any one of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dissidents. They'll carp and whine and slander public officials and open discussions about overthrowing the state with *complete strangers* whilst congregating in the capital city.

/not a joke, sad to say

Not sad at all.  They can do this because we are not Soviet Russia and that's a good thing.  But there is plenty of room for reasonable dissent.


Exactly.

And it also brings up another point:  Everyone can tell when they are in an actual police state, but by then it's too late, because it's a police state. You have to do something *BEFORE* things get that far.

That's why protests like this are great.  Not only do they serve as a canary in a coal mine, to let you know that things haven't devolved that far yet, but they also help prevent it from happening, if you can get enough people torqued about the surveillance state.
 
2013-10-27 09:53:31 AM

Kit Fister: a wiretap without a warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment.


They get warrants. Sure, every request for a warrant is approved without question, but they get warrants. It's a great illustration of how and why the Constitution does barely anything to protect anyone.
 
2013-10-27 09:54:28 AM

God_Almighty_Himself: BullBearMS: Unfortunately, "Constitutional Scholar Guy who intends to restore the Rule of Law" was just one big lie.

But this IS the law, so I can't see any rational reason to claim that the administration is breaking the law.  Not to accuse you specifically, but I have to wonder if these sudden turns of outrage against the law are (still) motivated by the President's persistent melanin surplus.


Just because something is a law doesn't mean that it's legal.

Any law that violates the highest law of the land, the US Constitution, is illegal, and yes, technically, if the government enforces a law that violates the Constitution, it is breaking the law.

And I like the perverse appeal to racism here.  Do you think the people who where pissed off about this sort of thing during the Bush administration were motivated by racism?  Why not?
 
2013-10-27 09:56:08 AM

dittybopper: Do you think the people who where pissed off about this sort of thing during the Bush administration were motivated by racism?


Do you think these are the same people?
 
2013-10-27 09:56:15 AM

God_Almighty_Himself: BullBearMS: Unfortunately, "Constitutional Scholar Guy who intends to restore the Rule of Law" was just one big lie.

But this IS the law, so I can't see any rational reason to claim that the administration is breaking the law.  Not to accuse you specifically, but I have to wonder if these sudden turns of outrage against the law are (still) motivated by the President's persistent melanin surplus.


First, if it's legal, then why does Obama work so hard to prevent any court from ruing on it's legality?

Second, if it's legal, why did Obama's head of the NSA explicitly say spying on Americans instead of foreign nationals was not legal so many times publicly?

For instance, in this Congressional hearing.
 
2013-10-27 09:57:25 AM
www.upl.co
 
2013-10-27 09:57:32 AM

letrole: How can you know that america is a totalitarian police state?

It's simple. Just ask any one of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dissidents. They'll carp and whine and slander public officials and open discussions about overthrowing the state with *complete strangers* whilst congregating in the capital city.

/not a joke, sad to say


...and they couldn't be bothered to do it back when it was first discovered...in the middle of Bush's last term...
 
2013-10-27 09:58:37 AM

thurstonxhowell: Kit Fister: a wiretap without a warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

They get warrants. Sure, every request for a warrant is approved without question, but they get warrants. It's a great illustration of how and why the Constitution does barely anything to protect anyone.


They sought, and got, a "general warrant" to collect and store all the metadata for all US cell phone calls, e-mails, etc.

General warrants are explicitly unconstitional:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
2013-10-27 09:58:46 AM

Brew78: Maybe having CAIR on your team isn't helping things..


'Cuz remember, it's okay when we do it to dirty Mooslems.
 
2013-10-27 09:59:15 AM

dittybopper: And I like the perverse appeal to racism here. Do you think the people who where pissed off about this sort of thing during the Bush administration were motivated by racism? Why not?


That truly is teabagger level logic on his part.

After all, nobody ever objected to Bush spying.

/Because White!
 
Displayed 50 of 118 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