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.

(WTOP) NewsFlash Federal judge rules that the NSA can spy on you all it wants, because shut up and watch Duck Dynasty, that's why   (wtop.com) divider line 552
    More: NewsFlash, NSA, federal judges, phone surveillance  
•       •       •

14827 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2013 at 12:59 PM (16 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

552 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-27 01:00:39 PM
Saw that one coming.
 
2013-12-27 01:01:27 PM
Conservative valuations. OM MAGOODNESS 9/11 MADE UP ORGANIZATION OF TERRORISTS MUST DO THE SAFETY KEEPING HOMELANDING SECURITY!
 
2013-12-27 01:01:49 PM
That was quick
 
2013-12-27 01:02:08 PM
Ceiling NSA is listening to you masturbate
 
2013-12-27 01:02:27 PM
Yeah, pretty much.
 
2013-12-27 01:02:31 PM
Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.
 
2013-12-27 01:02:42 PM

mudpants: Saw that one coming.


So did the NSA. They saw you seeing it coming.
 
2013-12-27 01:02:45 PM
the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred. "

What a nimrod. All they had to do was answer the farking phone on 9/11 when the FBI was calling.
But, there were other plans.
 
2013-12-27 01:02:50 PM

mudpants: Saw that one coming.


It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?
 
2013-12-27 01:02:54 PM
Whelp, fair is fair...
 
2013-12-27 01:03:08 PM

meow said the dog: Conservative valuations. OM MAGOODNESS 9/11 MADE UP ORGANIZATION OF TERRORISTS MUST DO THE SAFETY KEEPING HOMELANDING SECURITY!


No Laughter OL on this one .. that is for the certainty.
 
2013-12-27 01:03:08 PM
Boy, that escalated quickly.
 
2013-12-27 01:03:32 PM
I blame the mews...
blogs.westword.com
 
2013-12-27 01:03:43 PM

JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.


Oops, almost forgot,

Thanks Obama!
 
2013-12-27 01:04:08 PM
Take it to SCOTUS.
 
2013-12-27 01:04:22 PM
Of course a judge will do that.  The NSA has pictures of the judge with that goat back in '86
 
2013-12-27 01:04:32 PM
I'm okay with this.
 
2013-12-27 01:04:36 PM
Disappointing, but not surprising.
 
2013-12-27 01:04:49 PM
Oh, a Clinton appointee...

"Born in Glen Cove, New York, Pauley received an A.B. from Duke University in 1974 and a J.D. from Duke University School of Law in 1977. He was a law clerk, Office of the Nassau County Attorney, New York from 1977 to 1978. He was a Deputy county attorney of Nassau County Attorney' Office, New York in 1978. He was in private practice in New York City from 1978 to 1998. He was an Assistant counsel, New York State Assembly Minority Leader, New York from 1984 to 1998.
Pauley is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Pauley was nominated by President Bill Clinton on May 21, 1998, to a seat vacated by Peter K. Leisure. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 21, 1998, and received his commission on October 22, 1998.
Among his notable decisions was that involving Ben-ami Kadish, a U.S. national who pleaded guilty to passing classified information to Israel."
 
2013-12-27 01:04:51 PM
static.fjcdn.com
 
2013-12-27 01:04:52 PM
Is someone still shiatting their pants over 9/11?
 
2013-12-27 01:04:52 PM

make me some tea: Take it to SCOTUS.


LAUGHTER OL hard to figure out how this one will do the occurrence!
 
2013-12-27 01:05:18 PM
Just remember kiddies, you are supposed be so STUPID that this judge makes sense.
That is why they tell you this zhit.
They KNOW the audience.
 
2013-12-27 01:05:29 PM
Sure but if I start a blog called "What is U.S. District Judge William Pauley doing?" and follow him around and live tweet his day, I'll get arrested.
 
2013-12-27 01:05:38 PM
A couple weeks ago a different federal judge said the opposite.
 
2013-12-27 01:06:14 PM
I'm shocked that one corrupt branch of our government sided with another corrupt branch of our government.
 
2013-12-27 01:06:19 PM
TFA:   Pauley said the fact that the ACLU would never have learned about an order authorizing collection of telephony metadata related to its telephone numbers but for Snowden's disclosures added "another level of absurdity in this case."
"It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets -- including the means and methods of intelligence gathering -- could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief," he wrote
.

The government might have been doing something illegal, but because it was illegal for Snowden to reveal that fact, , no one can take action to investigate the possible illegality of the government's actions?  Bullshiat.
 
2013-12-27 01:06:27 PM

calbert: [static.fjcdn.com image 400x312]


I care.
 
2013-12-27 01:06:46 PM
www.infowars.com
 
2013-12-27 01:06:52 PM

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?


People did, it was considered unpatriotic then.
 
2013-12-27 01:06:54 PM

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?


"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." ―Padmé Amidala
 
2013-12-27 01:07:06 PM

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?


plenty of people did, you were called a traitor and a terrorist sympathizer for bringing it up though.
 
2013-12-27 01:07:09 PM
He ruled the bulk collection of metadata is lawful.
 
2013-12-27 01:07:15 PM

Ball Sack Obama: Oh, a Clinton appointee...

"Born in Glen Cove, New York, Pauley received an A.B. from Duke University in 1974 and a J.D. from Duke University School of Law in 1977. He was a law clerk, Office of the Nassau County Attorney, New York from 1977 to 1978. He was a Deputy county attorney of Nassau County Attorney' Office, New York in 1978. He was in private practice in New York City from 1978 to 1998. He was an Assistant counsel, New York State Assembly Minority Leader, New York from 1984 to 1998.
Pauley is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Pauley was nominated by President Bill Clinton on May 21, 1998, to a seat vacated by Peter K. Leisure. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 21, 1998, and received his commission on October 22, 1998.
Among his notable decisions was that involving Ben-ami Kadish, a U.S. national who pleaded guilty to passing classified information to Israel."


Kindly assplain "decision" when the perp pled out?
 
2013-12-27 01:07:16 PM
I miss the days when my first thought when seeing "NSA" was "No Strings Attached."
 
2013-12-27 01:07:45 PM
Who cares about the NSA and its spying activities.  The real news here is that the author of the article shares my not-common-at-all last name.

LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press
 
2013-12-27 01:07:58 PM

calbert: [static.fjcdn.com image 400x312]


People who have the appreciation for budgetary problems and also for the constitution of the United States of the Americas.

And the sexy lover of me Murder.
 
2013-12-27 01:08:04 PM

blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

"That argument has no traction here. Because without all the data points, the government cannot be certain it connected the pertinent ones," he said.



Why does this judge hate America?
 
2013-12-27 01:08:28 PM

calbert: [static.fjcdn.com image 400x312]


People who aren't bed wetting fascists giving the government controls that Hitler couldn't have dreamed of.  But this is a fascist country now so it's to be expected that idiots will embrace it
 
2013-12-27 01:08:38 PM
This is a good thing.  The sooner there is a circuit split the sooner this issue goes to the Supreme Court.

/Thank God for Edward Snowden.
 
2013-12-27 01:08:48 PM
good job with the newsflash, fark.

Now the NSA knows we're talking about them.
 
2013-12-27 01:08:57 PM
So, the government can freely watch you...

wont even be spying anymore eventually they will do random warrantless contraband house searches on the American people...
 
2013-12-27 01:09:21 PM

master_dman: I'm shocked that one corrupt branch of our government sided with another corrupt branch of our government.


Who ya gonna call?
 
2013-12-27 01:09:30 PM
My mistake, I thought a judge would know there is a fourth amendment to the constitution.
 
2013-12-27 01:09:34 PM
If this goes before the SCOTUS, would it imperil the whole Patriot Act?
 
2013-12-27 01:09:41 PM

blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]


LAUGHTER OL that is not what was said by he.
 
2013-12-27 01:09:59 PM

ToastTheRabbit: So, the government can freely watch you...

wont even be spying anymore eventually they will do random warrantless contraband house searches on the American people...


As god intended.
 
2013-12-27 01:10:11 PM

snocone: master_dman: I'm shocked that one corrupt branch of our government sided with another corrupt branch of our government.

Who ya gonna call?


We could always call the third corrupt branch of our government.  Maybe they can help.
 
2013-12-27 01:10:33 PM
Sure will be fun when we can submit Freedom of Information Act to get the audio records of politicians phone calls.

/Until the NSA produces audio proof of a senator's sorted relationship with an underage boy, this will continue.
//One Senator made out to be the pedophile he is, and the NSA will be forced by congress to stop surveillance.
 
2013-12-27 01:10:37 PM
"It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets -- including the means and methods of intelligence gathering -- could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief," he wrote.
Uh, this argument can be used against any and all whistleblowing. And this asshole sits on the federal judiciary (appointed by Clinton).
 
2013-12-27 01:10:40 PM

cgraves67: If this goes before the SCOTUS, would it imperil the whole Patriot Act?


Oh please, please, make it so.
 
2013-12-27 01:10:44 PM
So this judge basically decided the ends justify the means. What a farking maroon.
 
2013-12-27 01:10:50 PM
That's why I try to insert "Fark Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul" into every phone conversation and online post.

/just for the fun of it
//hi NSA
///Fark Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul
 
2013-12-27 01:11:05 PM

JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.


Yep.  And I remember when the president was responsible for stuff from time to time.
 
2013-12-27 01:11:15 PM
U.S. District Judge William Pauley said in a written opinion that the program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaida's terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications.

Bullshiat.

Farking bullshiat.
 
2013-12-27 01:11:16 PM
Duck Dynasty is dead, now what?
 
2013-12-27 01:11:27 PM

cgraves67: If this goes before the SCOTUS, would it imperil the whole Patriot Act?


Not with the current fear-mongering conservative majority bench.
 
2013-12-27 01:11:35 PM
Or, in other words, fark your right to privacy, and fark your right not to have non warrant wire tapping done to your phone. What's next? Warrentless searches of my car? My home? Arrests without probable cause? Jail terms without due process and legal representation?

/welcome to the new world, where the terrorists have won, and we not only bend over to suck their dicks, but we give up our rights as well
 
2013-12-27 01:11:39 PM
Can you hear me now? I hear everything.
 
2013-12-27 01:11:47 PM

SDRR: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

"That argument has no traction here. Because without all the data points, the government cannot be certain it connected the pertinent ones," he said.


Why does this judge hate America?


He gets paid to, most likely.
 
2013-12-27 01:11:51 PM

violentsalvation: A couple weeks ago a different federal judge said the opposite.


So the questions are:
- How quickly can we get this to SCOTUS, now that there's conflicting case law?
- Is there any chance that five members of SCOTUS will be sane on this issue?
 
2013-12-27 01:12:07 PM
I was all prepped to make fun of America...and then thought "hey. That's not funny in the slightest. What happened to democracy, freedom of the press and association and the right to privacy". My apologies to American farkers for my sh*tty first attitude. I don't think what's happened is good in the slightest. My country is going through a similar situation were Adolf Harper thinks it's ok that everyone's business is the gov't and we have very very little input on how we want our country to run. Looks like it's a North American thing. How did we let ourselves get here, and is it possible to wrestle our rights back?
 
2013-12-27 01:13:25 PM

make me some tea: Take it to SCOTUS.


The fascist majority will gladly uphold the government's iron grip on us, just like it felates corporations.
 
2013-12-27 01:13:28 PM

cgraves67: If this goes before the SCOTUS, would it imperil the whole Patriot Act?


Not if you're even remotely familiar with the current court. Spoiler Alert: Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are douchenozzles.
 
2013-12-27 01:13:41 PM
Good to see at least on Judge understands what's going on.
 
2013-12-27 01:13:45 PM
Allah, bomb, jihad, Muhammad, pressure cooker backpack.  Hi NSA! Do you watch me touch myself when I'm on skype with a number of girls from the Niagara Falls area?
 
2013-12-27 01:14:03 PM
I don't care what side of the political fence you sit on, we ALL need to make this an issue in 2014 because the ONLY way this will stop is if we elect Congresscritters that will reign in the NSA.
 
2013-12-27 01:14:11 PM
He added that such a program, if unchecked, "imperils the civil liberties of every citizen"

But go right ahead.
 
2013-12-27 01:14:26 PM

blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]


While I disagree with the NSA program in its entirety, this historical quote has, and always has been, absolute crap.  Every law is a giving up of freedom and liberty for security.  It's the basis of any and all civilized society, in definition and in practice.
 
2013-12-27 01:14:42 PM

blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]


You know how Franklin was the one who was the first to originate that quote?

/except he wasn't
//but keep repeating it often enough and it'll become fact
 
2013-12-27 01:14:43 PM

genner: Duck Dynasty is dead, now what?


Honey Boo Boo reruns?
 
2013-12-27 01:14:50 PM

quizzical: TFA:   Pauley said the fact that the ACLU would never have learned about an order authorizing collection of telephony metadata related to its telephone numbers but for Snowden's disclosures added "another level of absurdity in this case."
"It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets -- including the means and methods of intelligence gathering -- could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief," he wrote.

The government might have been doing something illegal, but because it was illegal for Snowden to reveal that fact, , no one can take action to investigate the possible illegality of the government's actions?  Bullshiat.


Summary of judgment: This is a super neato system that gives the government enormous abilities to collect and monitor everything and you can always trust the government and the government would never abuse this so that means it doesn't violate the 4th Amendment because shut up.
 
2013-12-27 01:15:31 PM

indarwinsshadow: I was all prepped to make fun of America...and then thought "hey. That's not funny in the slightest. What happened to democracy, freedom of the press and association and the right to privacy". My apologies to American farkers for my sh*tty first attitude. I don't think what's happened is good in the slightest. My country is going through a similar situation were Adolf Harper thinks it's ok that everyone's business is the gov't and we have very very little input on how we want our country to run. Looks like it's a North American thing. How did we let ourselves get here, and is it possible to wrestle our rights back?


not really, with all other countries doing the same things to their people.... we'd be on our own.
 
2013-12-27 01:15:38 PM

indarwinsshadow: I was all prepped to make fun of America...and then thought "hey. That's not funny in the slightest. What happened to democracy, freedom of the press and association and the right to privacy". My apologies to American farkers for my sh*tty first attitude. I don't think what's happened is good in the slightest. My country is going through a similar situation were Adolf Harper thinks it's ok that everyone's business is the gov't and we have very very little input on how we want our country to run. Looks like it's a North American thing. How did we let ourselves get here, and is it possible to wrestle our rights back?


Wrestling?
Not so much.
Ya'll speak French up there, eh?

There is a history, in France, of citizenry reassuming the distribution of wealth.
 
2013-12-27 01:16:45 PM

ToastTheRabbit: indarwinsshadow: I was all prepped to make fun of America...and then thought "hey. That's not funny in the slightest. What happened to democracy, freedom of the press and association and the right to privacy". My apologies to American farkers for my sh*tty first attitude. I don't think what's happened is good in the slightest. My country is going through a similar situation were Adolf Harper thinks it's ok that everyone's business is the gov't and we have very very little input on how we want our country to run. Looks like it's a North American thing. How did we let ourselves get here, and is it possible to wrestle our rights back?

not really, with all other countries doing the same things to their people.... we'd be on our own.


And that would be because corporations laugh at your silly nationalism and leverage it for PROFIT.
 
2013-12-27 01:16:56 PM
Well, the terrorists hate us for our freedom, right? So if we give it all up, problem solved.
 
2013-12-27 01:17:04 PM
Yeah, but who watches the watchers?
 
2013-12-27 01:17:07 PM

slayer199: I don't care what side of the political fence you sit on, we ALL need to make this an issue in 2014 because the ONLY way this will stop is if we elect Congresscritters that will reign in the NSA.


But but but we have to save Phil first!
 
2013-12-27 01:17:09 PM
Oh hey, lets rule as absolutely narrowly as possible and dodge EVERY SINGLE LEGAL QUESTION regarding the issue at hand, while doing absolutely nothing and twisting basic logic. Difficulty: saying that clearly congress can handle this as it's not like it's a fourth amendment question or anything.

See, everything is okay because 9/11!

/facepalm
//it's not like this judge has been biased all the way through or anything.
 
2013-12-27 01:17:09 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Or, in other words, fark your right to privacy, and fark your right not to have non warrant wire tapping done to your phone. What's next? Warrentless searches of my car? My home? Arrests without probable cause? Jail terms without due process and legal representation?

/welcome to the new world, where the terrorists have won, and we not only bend over to suck their dicks, but we give up our rights as well


Everything you're complaining about they always could do to you. You're living in some sort of dreamworld if you think otherwise.
 
2013-12-27 01:17:35 PM

quizzical: TFA:   Pauley said the fact that the ACLU would never have learned about an order authorizing collection of telephony metadata related to its telephone numbers but for Snowden's disclosures added "another level of absurdity in this case."
"It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets -- including the means and methods of intelligence gathering -- could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief," he wrote.

The government might have been doing something illegal, but because it was illegal for Snowden to reveal that fact, , no one can take action to investigate the possible illegality of the government's actions?  Bullshiat.


Kinda like that show cheaters "i never meant for you to find out baby!"
 
2013-12-27 01:17:40 PM

vudukungfu: Yeah, but who watches the watchers?


You can follow them on Twitter
 
2013-12-27 01:17:48 PM

JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.


So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?
 
2013-12-27 01:18:02 PM

firemanbuck: genner: Duck Dynasty is dead, now what?

Honey Boo Boo reruns?


When The Pope starts looking good for SNL, I quit.
 
2013-12-27 01:18:17 PM
It's just a few harmless GL-G20's. No big deal.
www.digiturkburada.com
 
2013-12-27 01:18:21 PM

snocone: indarwinsshadow: I was all prepped to make fun of America...and then thought "hey. That's not funny in the slightest. What happened to democracy, freedom of the press and association and the right to privacy". My apologies to American farkers for my sh*tty first attitude. I don't think what's happened is good in the slightest. My country is going through a similar situation were Adolf Harper thinks it's ok that everyone's business is the gov't and we have very very little input on how we want our country to run. Looks like it's a North American thing. How did we let ourselves get here, and is it possible to wrestle our rights back?

Wrestling?
Not so much.
Ya'll speak French up there, eh?

There is a history, in France, of citizenry reassuming the distribution of wealth.


The French really learned how to get a head in life, Lots of heads, even.
 
2013-12-27 01:18:48 PM
Judges do not consider the letter of the law or the constitution, only their own politics. No piece of parchment is going to protect us from the ruling class doing whatever gets them off.
 
2013-12-27 01:19:05 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?


HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP
 
2013-12-27 01:19:24 PM
Wow.  That's got to be the derpiest legal decision I've ever read.
 
2013-12-27 01:19:33 PM

meow said the dog: Conservative valuations. OM MAGOODNESS 9/11 MADE UP ORGANIZATION OF TERRORISTS MUST DO THE SAFETY KEEPING HOMELANDING SECURITY!


No real conservative thinks that way... that is a Progressive attitude. this is total .... I want my farking country back!
 
2013-12-27 01:19:48 PM

browntimmy: Well, the terrorists hate us for our freedom, right? So if we give it all up, problem solved.


I don't recall the "terrorists" saying that.
I do recall our "elected officials" saying that, eh?
 
2013-12-27 01:19:54 PM
From reading TFA it appears that the judge used the legal rationale of "It's useful to the government, therefore it's legal".
 
2013-12-27 01:20:03 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?


Why not both.jpeg
 
2013-12-27 01:20:06 PM

snocone: master_dman: I'm shocked that one corrupt branch of our government sided with another corrupt branch of our government.

Who ya gonna call?


Why, the Ghostbusters, of course.

And then the NSA can listen in.
 
2013-12-27 01:20:14 PM
Not only will you get over it, you will learn to love Big Brother.
 
2013-12-27 01:20:14 PM
No wonder Putin says he wishes he could control the state apparatus the way the US Government does.  No bully boy tactics required, half the (shiatscared) nation simply insists it's the right thing to do to defend freedom.  Change "Patriotism" to "Fascism" in no more than 5 moves without touching the Constitution once.
 
2013-12-27 01:20:33 PM

siphra: meow said the dog: Conservative valuations. OM MAGOODNESS 9/11 MADE UP ORGANIZATION OF TERRORISTS MUST DO THE SAFETY KEEPING HOMELANDING SECURITY!

No real conservative thinks that way... that is a Progressive attitude. this is total .... I want my farking country back!


All your bases are belong to us.
Move along.
 
2013-12-27 01:21:23 PM

Sim Tree: snocone: master_dman: I'm shocked that one corrupt branch of our government sided with another corrupt branch of our government.

Who ya gonna call?

Why, the Ghostbusters, of course.

And then the NSA can listen in.


I'm wanting the StaPuft guy for President.
 
2013-12-27 01:22:46 PM

indarwinsshadow: I was all prepped to make fun of America...and then thought "hey. That's not funny in the slightest. What happened to democracy, freedom of the press and association and the right to privacy". My apologies to American farkers for my sh*tty first attitude. I don't think what's happened is good in the slightest. My country is going through a similar situation were Adolf Harper thinks it's ok that everyone's business is the gov't and we have very very little input on how we want our country to run. Looks like it's a North American thing. How did we let ourselves get here, and is it possible to wrestle our rights back?


Rights?

Your rights are to be rendered to the reeducation camp set up by Master Gates.
 
2013-12-27 01:22:56 PM

blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]


What imaginary liberty are you giving up?

Jesus christ you people are stupid. Get a grip on reality.
 
2013-12-27 01:23:03 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?


You know.
Don't you?
 
2013-12-27 01:23:40 PM

neversubmit: Not only will you get over it, you will learn to love Big Brother.


I don't care if duck dynasty is done for I'm still not watching that show.
 
2013-12-27 01:23:41 PM

Prophet of Loss: Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?

"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." ―Padmé Amidala


So our country will meet it's end at the hands of a whiny jerkass? Who the hell would ever give Ted Cruz that much power???
 
2013-12-27 01:24:01 PM
FTA:  "In ruling, the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred. "

Two comments...

1 - Why are we always fighting the last battle?

2 - The FBI and other organizations had everything they needed to connect the dots without communications metadata. A big farking red flag came from one of the flight schools who called to mention a student who was only interested in hand flying, not take off or landing - you know, two of the more critical phases of flight and that are generally considered to be important parts of a successful flight.

The collection of the communication metadata is useless if it is not analysed properly. The trouble is that the likelihood of that is low but the probability of abuse is high.
 
2013-12-27 01:24:07 PM
I see that he copypasta'd from the Bush administration playbook.

pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-12-27 01:24:23 PM

snocone: browntimmy: Well, the terrorists hate us for our freedom, right? So if we give it all up, problem solved.

I don't recall the "terrorists" saying that.
I do recall our "elected officials" saying that, eh?


And you'll note who is implementing this solution, right?
 
2013-12-27 01:24:42 PM

justtray: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

What imaginary liberty are you giving up?

Jesus christ you people are stupid. Get a grip on reality.


Not to mention that Franklin's "quote" isn't actually one of his quotes, but someone else made it up later.
 
2013-12-27 01:25:13 PM
America is a fascism.
 
2013-12-27 01:25:20 PM

whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP



Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.
 
2013-12-27 01:25:36 PM
I think wat bothers me MOST is the fact that this "broad" surveillance really seems like the LEAST efficient way to accomplishing their goals.

If you have far more data than you could ever hope to sniff through.... why continue collecting shiat you will never be capable of vetting?

I am not a political guy... I have my booze, tv, steam account and enough money <just> to pay bills and rent... Typical compliant happy citizen... but even I say WTF?

Wouldnt a government need this type of collection if they were trying to spot signs of revolution in their people?
 
2013-12-27 01:25:44 PM
Art?

Life?

I don't know, but I do know Congress and The Presidency were "Reality TV" before reality TV was cool.
 
2013-12-27 01:25:47 PM

Starshines: This is a good thing.  The sooner there is a circuit split the sooner this issue goes to the Supreme Court.

/Thank God for Edward Snowden.


And the sooner we have SCOTUS rule the Fourth Amendment no longer exists.
 
2013-12-27 01:25:53 PM

whidbey: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?

HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP


Excellent retort.
 
2013-12-27 01:26:07 PM
Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap? Guess not.
 
2013-12-27 01:26:17 PM

genner: neversubmit: Not only will you get over it, you will learn to love Big Brother.

I don't care if duck dynasty is done for I'm still not watching that show.


But do we actually know it's "done for?" They just cleaned up over Christmas despite the bad publicity.
 
2013-12-27 01:26:38 PM
Does this mean I can call the NSA up and find out who keeps calling me and hanging up?
 
2013-12-27 01:26:53 PM

whidbey: justtray: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

What imaginary liberty are you giving up?

Jesus christ you people are stupid. Get a grip on reality.

Not to mention that Franklin's "quote" isn't actually one of his quotes, but someone else made it up later.


Really?  I figured that one was accurate.  Then again, "You can't tell a book by its cover," JK Rowling....about Phil Robertson.
 
2013-12-27 01:27:07 PM

quizzical: TFA:   Pauley said the fact that the ACLU would never have learned about an order authorizing collection of telephony metadata related to its telephone numbers but for Snowden's disclosures added "another level of absurdity in this case."
"It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets -- including the means and methods of intelligence gathering -- could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief," he wrote.

The government might have been doing something illegal, but because it was illegal for Snowden to reveal that fact, , no one can take action to investigate the possible illegality of the government's actions?  Bullshiat.


Geese and ganders.
 
2013-12-27 01:27:08 PM

GORDON: whidbey: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?

HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Excellent retort.


It's exactly what was called for. I hope you're not offended,
 
2013-12-27 01:27:12 PM

ariseatex: I miss the days when my first thought when seeing "NSA" was "No Strings Attached."


I know what you mean.

/Hoping for some NSA action this weekend
 
2013-12-27 01:27:53 PM

xenophon10k: snocone: browntimmy: Well, the terrorists hate us for our freedom, right? So if we give it all up, problem solved.

I don't recall the "terrorists" saying that.
I do recall our "elected officials" saying that, eh?

And you'll note who is implementing this solution, right?


As I recall, the "terrorists" actually said they and The American Citizens have the same enemy.
 
2013-12-27 01:28:19 PM
David Simon made the point earlier this year that this has been done for years on a much smaller scale and that it has always been OK'd by the courts. What we're talking about here is the metadata. Who called whom and for how long. This isn't about the contents of the communications.

Basically, the idea is that the metadata can not be considered private because it's something that you are sharing with a third party, the telephone companies. How this previously came up was with things like drug investigations. So, say the police knew that some drug dealer guy was using his cell phone in some specific area. They would get all the metadata that bounced off the closest cell tower in some given time. That included the metadata of you and me and any other law abiding citizens who happened to be in the area. It was ruled that it was OK for the police to collect the metadata in these situations.

So, that was just expanded to the entire nation, given the scope of the threat of possible terror attacks.

I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm just saying what I think is.
 
2013-12-27 01:28:36 PM

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?

Russ Feingold Patriot Act

Speech. Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.
I may not have agreed with Feingold  on everything but he at least tried to do  the job of a Senator and represent the interests of the American people
 
2013-12-27 01:28:37 PM
It will go to SCOTUS and get squashed. There is no way, no way that you can say that tracking everyones phone records is "a national defense" Its a violation of our rights to privacy, and that is it. Agreeing with this stupid ass ruling is like saying that "some guy in a brown house was a terrorist, so we have to search all brown houses without warrants" Because derp.

/What the hell has happened in this country that we have become so pussified that we are willing to give up our individual rights? It's been proven that the government will time and time again take away your "rights" when it suits their political end. Look at WW2, the japanese americans were thrown in jail for just being japanese. They had 0 rights, just "right this way!: Into the internment camps. Look at black civil rights, slavery, look at womans suffrage. I have news for you...you don't have "god given rights" you have rights given by the government, and if they can take them away at will, they aren't rights, they are "privileges". Your home is no longer your castle, they can make you sell it to serve the greater good "eminent domain" they have "border checkpoints" where they unlawfully make you state if you are a citizen or not, there are cities that do "stop and frisk" with no other reason that they can be "suspect" of you, whatever that means. I guess it means if you are black or hispanic. Its a sad day in America when a FEDERAL judge says that the right to privacy is outweighed by "the war on terror".

/gets a drink.
 
2013-12-27 01:29:03 PM

snocone: Sim Tree: snocone: master_dman: I'm shocked that one corrupt branch of our government sided with another corrupt branch of our government.

Who ya gonna call?

Why, the Ghostbusters, of course.

And then the NSA can listen in.

I'm wanting the StaPuft guy for President.


If Christie wins, you'll get your wish.
 
2013-12-27 01:29:29 PM

Literally Addicted: snocone: Sim Tree: snocone: master_dman: I'm shocked that one corrupt branch of our government sided with another corrupt branch of our government.

Who ya gonna call?

Why, the Ghostbusters, of course.

And then the NSA can listen in.

I'm wanting the StaPuft guy for President.

If Christie wins, you'll get your wish.


Fat Chance
 
2013-12-27 01:29:43 PM

whidbey: GORDON: whidbey: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?

HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Excellent retort.

It's exactly what was called for. I hope you're not offended,


To be offended, you would have to have worth to me.  Your use of a played out sarcastic inference that the argument of another person is below the ability to communicate tells me that you aren't worth caring about because you have nothing of value to add to the conversation beyond snide insults.

Good day.
 
2013-12-27 01:29:53 PM

Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP


Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.



Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.
 
2013-12-27 01:31:05 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: It will go to SCOTUS and get squashed. There is no way, no way that you can say that tracking everyones phone records is "a national defense" Its a violation of our rights to privacy, and that is it. Agreeing with this stupid ass ruling is like saying that "some guy in a brown house was a terrorist, so we have to search all brown houses without warrants" Because derp.

/What the hell has happened in this country that we have become so pussified that we are willing to give up our individual rights? It's been proven that the government will time and time again take away your "rights" when it suits their political end. Look at WW2, the japanese americans were thrown in jail for just being japanese. They had 0 rights, just "right this way!: Into the internment camps. Look at black civil rights, slavery, look at womans suffrage. I have news for you...you don't have "god given rights" you have rights given by the government, and if they can take them away at will, they aren't rights, they are "privileges". Your home is no longer your castle, they can make you sell it to serve the greater good "eminent domain" they have "border checkpoints" where they unlawfully make you state if you are a citizen or not, there are cities that do "stop and frisk" with no other reason that they can be "suspect" of you, whatever that means. I guess it means if you are black or hispanic. Its a sad day in America when a FEDERAL judge says that the right to privacy is outweighed by "the war on terror".

/gets a drink.


EASY!
A entire generation of fools outsourced the security.
Guess what..
 
2013-12-27 01:31:22 PM

oh_please: Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap? Guess not.


Look, if you want to get Obamacare passed and keep it, you can't let a few things like your other campaign promises get in the way.  Even if you had a complicit Congress for 2 years of your term, and since then have managed all manner of programs against the Republican grain.

He hasn't even condemned the NSA's use of these programs.

My liberal mother believes that it is because once you are president you learn that you don't have the control you thought you'd have.  In other words, presidents can't affect policy on some big things.  Unless they are Republican, then everything is their fault.
 
2013-12-27 01:31:30 PM

I_C_Weener: whidbey: justtray: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

What imaginary liberty are you giving up?

Jesus christ you people are stupid. Get a grip on reality.

Not to mention that Franklin's "quote" isn't actually one of his quotes, but someone else made it up later.

Really?  I figured that one was accurate.  Then again, "You can't tell a book by its cover," JK Rowling....about Phil Robertson.


Wikiquote says "This expression seems to have mutated over time" and apparently he did say most of it in a "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor" so perhaps I am mis-speaking a bit.
 
2013-12-27 01:31:54 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Or, in other words, fark your right to privacy, and fark your right not to have non warrant wire tapping done to your phone. What's next? Warrentless searches of my car? My home? Arrests without probable cause? Jail terms without due process and legal representation?

/welcome to the new world, where the terrorists have won, and we not only bend over to suck their dicks, but we give up our rights as well


No overreaction here, lemme tell ya.
 
2013-12-27 01:32:31 PM

GORDON: whidbey: GORDON: whidbey: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?

HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Excellent retort.

It's exactly what was called for. I hope you're not offended,

To be offended, you would have to have worth to me.  Your use of a played out sarcastic inference that the argument of another person is below the ability to communicate tells me that you aren't worth caring about because you have nothing of value to add to the conversation beyond snide insults.

Good day.


OK, fine. Agree with the derper. I don't care. Just pointing out what you're defending.
 
2013-12-27 01:32:43 PM
The judge said the phone collection program only works because it collects everything.

So guilty until proven innocent?
 
2013-12-27 01:33:16 PM
I thought there are secret courts to decide these issues.
 
2013-12-27 01:33:32 PM

Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.


It is the same record, played over and over, actually.
Different faces and names. Even different colors for your amusement.
Makes no difference.
Wonder why?
 
2013-12-27 01:33:32 PM

blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]


i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-27 01:33:33 PM

whidbey: GORDON: whidbey: GORDON: whidbey: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?

HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Excellent retort.

It's exactly what was called for. I hope you're not offended,

To be offended, you would have to have worth to me.  Your use of a played out sarcastic inference that the argument of another person is below the ability to communicate tells me that you aren't worth caring about because you have nothing of value to add to the conversation beyond snide insults.

Good day.

OK, fine. Agree with the derper. I don't care. Just pointing out what you're defending.


I said good day.
 
2013-12-27 01:34:02 PM

Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP


Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


When the problems derived from President Bush's agenda stop happening, I will stop assigning blame to his administration.

Just because a new CEO is in charge of the factory, doesn't mean that the machines (which were neglected to boost production for the last 20 quarters) magically reset themselves to brand new condition. Sometimes, crap takes time to fix.
 
2013-12-27 01:34:09 PM

whidbey: I_C_Weener: whidbey: justtray: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

What imaginary liberty are you giving up?

Jesus christ you people are stupid. Get a grip on reality.

Not to mention that Franklin's "quote" isn't actually one of his quotes, but someone else made it up later.

Really?  I figured that one was accurate.  Then again, "You can't tell a book by its cover," JK Rowling....about Phil Robertson.

Wikiquote says "This expression seems to have mutated over time" and apparently he did say most of it in a "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor" so perhaps I am mis-speaking a bit.


The closest anyone has put the quote to Franklin is in an anthology he edited and published but contained none of his own writings.
 
2013-12-27 01:34:44 PM
"Because without all the data points, the government cannot be certain it connected the pertinent ones," he said. "Here, there is no way for the government to know which particle of telephony metadata will lead to useful counterterrorism information. When that is the case, courts routinely authorize large-scale collections of information, even if most of it will not directly bear on the investigation."

---
For one that's *any* police investigation, not just terrorism.  There is always the risk that the police won't have all the data they need to connect all the dots.  Yet somehow the courts have still found that warrants are needed.

Secondly, the highlighted words are key here: The *Courts* authorize wide scale surveillance.  It is done under supervision of a neutral third party that is not tied to the investigation.  It is, to wit, the exact polar opposite of what the NSA is currently doing.
 
2013-12-27 01:34:54 PM
couldn't care less, the people get exactly what they deserve.
Had they deserved differently, they would have chosen that when they elect their rich masters.

the NSA has no ability, money or manpower to give a shiat about your stupid conversations
..billions of them
..every minute of every day

but if you want to start farking with the process
start using key words and phrases, start a fake terrorist website
that is, if you want to put yer money where yer mouth is
 
2013-12-27 01:35:06 PM
Collecting metadata raises no significant Fourth Amendment issues and is, as far as I know, completely lawful. Accessing the actual content of communications is a completely different thing, and should always require a warrant.
 
2013-12-27 01:35:07 PM
The terrorists didn't win. The lost to an entirely different group that took over the role of terrorism: the NSA. Absolutely they hate our freedom, because it gives us powe over them.

The answer isn't fighting this in courts of law, electing new officials, or anything of the sort. Because there will always be this slight if hand game where if we rule one "program" illegal, they'll just start up another one thst gets tangeled up in the legal system that we the have to fight.

No, the only way to get rid of this shiat is to purge religion from our government once and for all. You have tens of millions of people that already believe in some invisible sky god, and think that angels watch over them. The NSA is no different that the tenants of your modern religions. They've already been raised to accept this and encourage it. For most, this is just more of god's work. Because how can you convince someone that an anonymous brown person a world away isn't a threat when they already fear demons thst don't even exist?

Purge the bilnd faithful for the seeing skeptics, and our problems will be taken care of very quickly.
 
2013-12-27 01:35:25 PM

I_C_Weener: oh_please: Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap? Guess not.

Look, if you want to get Obamacare passed and keep it, you can't let a few things like your other campaign promises get in the way.  Even if you had a complicit Congress for 2 years of your term, and since then have managed all manner of programs against the Republican grain.

He hasn't even condemned the NSA's use of these programs.

My liberal mother believes that it is because once you are president you learn that you don't have the control you thought you'd have.  In other words, presidents can't affect policy on some big things.  Unless they are Republican, then everything is their fault.


I love hearing family secrets. Also, Republicans appear to have more control because they already fall lock-step into hardliner policy. Democrats often cave to hardliners because let's face it, the hardliners already have the upper hand in government.

But you probably don't believe that. You should have listened to your mother.
 
2013-12-27 01:36:12 PM
Gubment does what gubment wants. Big surprise.
 
2013-12-27 01:36:33 PM

GORDON: whidbey: GORDON: whidbey: GORDON: whidbey: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he I scircumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?

HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Excellent retort.

It's exactly what was called for. I hope you're not offended,

To be offended, you would have to have worth to me.  Your use of a played out sarcastic inference that the argument of another person is below the ability to communicate tells me that you aren't worth caring about because you have nothing of value to add to the conversation beyond snide insults.

Good day.

OK, fine. Agree with the derper. I don't care. Just pointing out what you're defending.

I said good day.


I said you come off agreeing with that dipshiat. Is that what you want?
 
2013-12-27 01:36:39 PM
This is an issue nobody seems to like, it's like red light cameras, but yet it keeps getting forced on us. This is one of those times where both party's leaders come together to fark over the entire citizenry. There's plenty of legitimately partisan issues out there but this ain't one of them.
 
2013-12-27 01:36:50 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP


Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.

When the problems derived from President Bush's agenda stop happening, I will stop assigning blame to his administration.

Just because a new CEO is in charge of the factory, doesn't mean that the machines (which were neglected to boost production for the last 20 quarters) magically reset themselves to brand new condition. Sometimes, crap takes time to fix.


Just who do you think is defending the government's case in court right now? John Ashcroft? You can live in denial all you want, I guess.
 
2013-12-27 01:37:01 PM

whidbey: I_C_Weener: whidbey: justtray: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

What imaginary liberty are you giving up?

Jesus christ you people are stupid. Get a grip on reality.

Not to mention that Franklin's "quote" isn't actually one of his quotes, but someone else made it up later.

Really?  I figured that one was accurate.  Then again, "You can't tell a book by its cover," JK Rowling....about Phil Robertson.

Wikiquote says "This expression seems to have mutated over time" and apparently he did say most of it in a "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor" so perhaps I am mis-speaking a bit.


I just assumed it was him from some speech.  It sounds like him.  He was good with sound bites before we recorded sound bites.
 
2013-12-27 01:37:25 PM

snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.

It is the same record, played over and over, actually.
Different faces and names. Even different colors for your amusement.
Makes no difference.
Wonder why?



Seriously - all the dumb, tribal, "my guy is better than your guy" crap just distracts everyone from the actual issues, and ensures that politicians aren't held accountable.
 
2013-12-27 01:38:32 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Or, in other words, fark your right to privacy, and fark your right not to have non warrant wire tapping done to your phone. What's next? Warrentless searches of my car? My home? Arrests without probable cause? Jail terms without due process and legal representation?

/welcome to the new world, where the terrorists have won, and we not only bend over to suck their dicks, but we give up our rights as well


All of that shiat already goes on, and has been going on. Judges also fail to throw cases out of court as often as they should, because too many of them appear to think like this guy in the article. One should also be aware that in the current American legal system, de facto, the presumption of innocence does not exist, unless you can afford the sort of legal team OJ had at his murder trial. These are some of the ways that we've become the people with the highest rate of incarceration in the history of the world.
 
2013-12-27 01:38:39 PM

whidbey: You should have listened to your mother.


Hey, I still put my name on my underwear.
 
2013-12-27 01:38:59 PM
Meanwhile another judge ruled that the warrants granted to get the records are likely not constitutional. That case is actually a lot more interesting than this case.
 
2013-12-27 01:39:04 PM

Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.

It is the same record, played over and over, actually.
Different faces and names. Even different colors for your amusement.
Makes no difference.
Wonder why?


Seriously - all the dumb, tribal, "my guy is better than your guy" crap just distracts everyone from the actual issues, and ensures that politicians aren't held accountable.


Divide and Conquer

so simple
 
2013-12-27 01:39:46 PM

Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.

It is the same record, played over and over, actually.
Different faces and names. Even different colors for your amusement.
Makes no difference.
Wonder why?


Seriously - all the dumb, tribal, "my guy is better than your guy" crap just distracts everyone from the actual issues, and ensures that politicians aren't held accountable.


Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.
 
2013-12-27 01:40:09 PM
Is that judge trolling us all?
 
2013-12-27 01:40:37 PM

Nabb1: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP


Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.

When the problems derived from President Bush's agenda stop happening, I will stop assigning blame to his administration.

Just because a new CEO is in charge of the factory, doesn't mean that the machines (which were neglected to boost production for the last 20 quarters) magically reset themselves to brand new condition. Sometimes, crap takes time to fix.

Just who do you think is defending the government's case in court right now? John Ashcroft? You can live in denial all you want, I guess.


Actually, you're completely right. The failure of the Obama administration to oppose these actions is completely undefendable. He should be tried as an accomplice to domestic sedition along with President Bush.
 
2013-12-27 01:41:26 PM

WhyteRaven74: Meanwhile another judge ruled that the warrants granted to get the records are likely not constitutional. That case is actually a lot more interesting than this case.


But of course, subby doesn't want us to talk about that. This ruling is just too convenient for the Obama hating contingency.
 
2013-12-27 01:41:33 PM

whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.

It is the same record, played over and over, actually.
Different faces and names. Even different colors for your amusement.
Makes no difference.
Wonder why?


Seriously - all the dumb, tribal, "my guy is better than your guy" crap just distracts everyone from the actual issues, and ensures that politicians aren't held accountable.

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.


Japanese have a proverb: "Fix the problem, not the blame."

Actually, I have no idea if that is their proverb or not.  But Sean Connery did say it in "Rising Sun" and he was an honorary ninja from his days as 007.
 
2013-12-27 01:43:12 PM

I_C_Weener: Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

Japanese have a proverb: "Fix the problem, not the blame."

Actually, I have no idea if that is their proverb or not.  But Sean Connery did say it in "Rising Sun" and he was an honorary ninja from his days as 007.


We're well aware of the problem. But you can't even admit to yourself why we're in this mess. It has to be Obama's fault.
 
2013-12-27 01:43:54 PM
Face it, the American people WANT to be spied on. The only way to fix that is to make the US a pariah state. Stop buying things from us. Stop visiting. The people with the real power here (the people with money) will make things improve.
 
2013-12-27 01:44:10 PM

whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.


That makes some sort of sense?
Somewhere there is this little bell chiming, "two wrongs just prove the idiot", or fool me shame for once, or,,,
 
2013-12-27 01:44:23 PM
Isn't this federal agency supposed to be answerable to someone kinda higher up, like maybe in the executive branch?
 
2013-12-27 01:44:27 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: "It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets -- including the means and methods of intelligence gathering -- could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief," he wrote.Uh, this argument can be used against any and all whistleblowing. And this asshole sits on the federal judiciary (appointed by Clinton).


Pauley is a tool and further proof that Duke sucks!
 
2013-12-27 01:45:06 PM

snocone: whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

That makes some sort of sense?
Somewhere there is this little bell chiming, "two wrongs just prove the idiot", or fool me shame for once, or,,,


Or "Bush actually got us into this mess and that's why we're doing this shiat."

The one combination you just won't consider.
 
2013-12-27 01:45:35 PM
This news makes my balls itch.
 
2013-12-27 01:45:39 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Nabb1: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP


Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.

When the problems derived from President Bush's agenda stop happening, I will stop assigning blame to his administration.

Just because a new CEO is in charge of the factory, doesn't mean that the machines (which were neglected to boost production for the last 20 quarters) magically reset themselves to brand new condition. Sometimes, crap takes time to fix.

Just who do you think is defending the government's case in court right now? John Ashcroft? You can live in denial all you want, I guess.

Actually, you're completely right. The failure of the Obama administration to oppose these actions is completely undefendable. He should be tried as an accomplice to domestic sedition along with President Bush.


Can we first do the War Crimes?
Please.
 
2013-12-27 01:45:51 PM
it would be interesting to know just how many american lives the NSA is saving everyday with this unfettered access.

we do know for a fact that all this data leads to dead innocent civilians, thousands of miles away, who are no threat to the US, except as examples of how callous and unfair the US administration and corporate war machine is to foreigners.

so inasmuch as the data stream appears to be an abject failure (if accuracy is any measure) when it comes to targeting enemies, how effective can it possibly be at stopping terrorism here? big secret, apparently.
 
2013-12-27 01:46:25 PM

whidbey: snocone: whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

That makes some sort of sense?
Somewhere there is this little bell chiming, "two wrongs just prove the idiot", or fool me shame for once, or,,,

Or "Bush actually got us into this mess and that's why we're doing this shiat."

The one combination you just won't consider.


And bush hasn't been in office for almost five years. Five years.

Five years.
 
2013-12-27 01:46:30 PM

browntimmy: Well, the terrorists hate us for our freedom, right? So if we give it all up, problem solved.



I know a guy who was in the US Special forces in Afghanistan. Sometimes he had to shoot the Taliban and other affiliated Afghanis who were doing bad stuff, other times he sat and talked with them trying to negotiate peace.

I one time said that, among other reasons, they hated us for our freedom and he pretty much tore me a new asshole. Apparently, they have a lot of reasons to hate us, but enjoying our personal freedoms in the comfort of our affluent first world nation on the other side of the world isn't one of them. A long history of us killing folks throughout the Arab world, destabilizing/toppling their governments we don't like and generally being arrogant pricks who care only about what resources we can buy no matter what the cost in human lives and misery will be - and not even our own principles - is what really pisses them off. If we hadn't mucked about with their country and their neighbors as well they wouldn't be inclined to give a fark about us at all.

I did get him to agree that the freedoms that define the values of our culture do play some small part in why "they" hate us, but he is certain that it's a small part and indirect. Basically, in that we could never just stand idly by while they slaughter their own people with impugnity and turn women in to essentially livestock... Our values and freedoms make it inevitable for our cultures to clash in some way over things like that. But if we kept to ourselves and didn't muddle about in the affairs of pretty much every majority Islamic country apparently they really wouldn't give two shiats about us enjoying our freedoms back at home. Our freedoms were basically a slightly amusing curiousity to them and that's about it.
 
2013-12-27 01:46:59 PM

whidbey: snocone: whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

That makes some sort of sense?
Somewhere there is this little bell chiming, "two wrongs just prove the idiot", or fool me shame for once, or,,,

Or "Bush actually got us into this mess and that's why we're doing this shiat."

The one combination you just won't consider.


Small minds, short memories.
This goes way back, far past the last two stooges in Presidential Drag.
 
2013-12-27 01:47:04 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: It will go to SCOTUS and get squashed. There is no way, no way that you can say that tracking everyones phone records is "a national defense" Its a violation of our rights to privacy, and that is it. Agreeing with this stupid ass ruling is like saying that "some guy in a brown house was a terrorist, so we have to search all brown houses without warrants" Because derp.

/What the hell has happened in this country that we have become so pussified that we are willing to give up our individual rights? It's been proven that the government will time and time again take away your "rights" when it suits their political end. Look at WW2, the japanese americans were thrown in jail for just being japanese. They had 0 rights, just "right this way!: Into the internment camps. Look at black civil rights, slavery, look at womans suffrage. I have news for you...you don't have "god given rights" you have rights given by the government, and if they can take them away at will, they aren't rights, they are "privileges". Your home is no longer your castle, they can make you sell it to serve the greater good "eminent domain" they have "border checkpoints" where they unlawfully make you state if you are a citizen or not, there are cities that do "stop and frisk" with no other reason that they can be "suspect" of you, whatever that means. I guess it means if you are black or hispanic. Its a sad day in America when a FEDERAL judge says that the right to privacy is outweighed by "the war on terror".

/gets a drink.


Devil's advocate: If there are automated systems to store the data and no person actually accesses any individual's specific data without a warrant or reasonable suspicion or whatever the standard is, are your rights really violated? I'm sure there's precedent on this. I honestly don't know what the answer is. Complicating the matter is the question of who owns the data. Does it belong to the citizen, the communications provider, both? Does one of these parties have the right to share it without the other's consent?
 
2013-12-27 01:47:14 PM

WhyteRaven74: Meanwhile another judge ruled that the warrants granted to get the records are likely not constitutional. That case is actually a lot more interesting than this case.


you remind me of someone I knew back in michigan. Went by the name Expy
 
2013-12-27 01:47:24 PM

indarwinsshadow: I was all prepped to make fun of America...and then thought "hey. That's not funny in the slightest. What happened to democracy, freedom of the press and association and the right to privacy". My apologies to American farkers for my sh*tty first attitude. I don't think what's happened is good in the slightest. My country is going through a similar situation were Adolf Harper thinks it's ok that everyone's business is the gov't and we have very very little input on how we want our country to run. Looks like it's a North American thing. How did we let ourselves get here, and is it possible to wrestle our rights back?


Kill the internet, get into the streets.
 
2013-12-27 01:48:09 PM

duffblue: whidbey: snocone: whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

That makes some sort of sense?
Somewhere there is this little bell chiming, "two wrongs just prove the idiot", or fool me shame for once, or,,,

Or "Bush actually got us into this mess and that's why we're doing this shiat."

The one combination you just won't consider.

And bush hasn't been in office for almost five years. Five years.

Five years.


Try 50 years, ya peabrains.
Sorry, 'bout that.

Get On and Stay On Target.
 
2013-12-27 01:48:35 PM

I_C_Weener: whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.

It is the same record, played over and over, actually.
Different faces and names. Even different colors for your amusement.
Makes no difference.
Wonder why?


Seriously - all the dumb, tribal, "my guy is better than your guy" crap just distracts everyone from the actual issues, and ensures that politicians aren't held accountable.

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

Japanese have a proverb: "Fix the problem, not the blame."

Actually, I have no idea if that is their proverb or not.  But Sean Connery did say it in "Rising Sun" and he was an honorary ninja from his days as 007.


Actually that was kind of funny. Sorry I gave you both barrels. Thought you were someone else.

This disconnect does irritate me though, obviously.
 
2013-12-27 01:48:50 PM

whidbey: I_C_Weener: Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

Japanese have a proverb: "Fix the problem, not the blame."

Actually, I have no idea if that is their proverb or not.  But Sean Connery did say it in "Rising Sun" and he was an honorary ninja from his days as 007.

We're well aware of the problem. But you can't even admit to yourself why we're in this mess. It has to be Obama's fault.


No.  Its Bush's, along with Congress.  Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

If bringing Bush back to President would solve it, I guess we could do that.  Or, maybe, just maybe we can use the guy who got elected (partially) on the promise that he'd reverse this trend.  But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.
 
2013-12-27 01:48:54 PM

DreamSnipers: My mistake, I thought a judge would know there is a fourth amendment to the constitution.


Telephone metadata has not been considered to be under Fourth Amendment protection since 1979's Smith v. Maryland.
 
2013-12-27 01:49:13 PM

fluffy2097: Sure will be fun when we can submit Freedom of Information Act to get the audio records of politicians phone calls.

/Until the NSA produces audio proof of a senator's sorted relationship with an underage boy, this will continue.
//One Senator made out to be the pedophile he is, and the NSA will be forced by congress to stop surveillance.


Or even worse, a sordid relationship.
 
2013-12-27 01:49:56 PM

duffblue: whidbey: snocone: whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

That makes some sort of sense?
Somewhere there is this little bell chiming, "two wrongs just prove the idiot", or fool me shame for once, or,,,

Or "Bush actually got us into this mess and that's why we're doing this shiat."

The one combination you just won't consider.

And bush hasn't been in office for almost five years. Five years.

Five years.


What does that have to do with the fact that Obama is still cleaning up his f*ckups?

You really can't put the history together, can you? Can't or won't?
 
2013-12-27 01:50:02 PM

whither_apophis: Sure but if I start a blog called "What is U.S. District Judge William Pauley doing?" and follow him around and live tweet his day, I'll get arrested.



That is correct, and if I make a video with my phone of you getting arrested I'll get arrested too.
 
2013-12-27 01:50:02 PM

lohphat: cgraves67: If this goes before the SCOTUS, would it imperil the whole Patriot Act?

Not with the current fear-mongering conservative majority bench.


You are a farking moron and a tool if you think this NSA snooping is a partisan liberal/conservative thing. I could just as easily claim it to be the fault of big-government liberals (and be equally moronic in my claim).
 
2013-12-27 01:50:37 PM
What if I were to tell you that: The Chump o the 4Years(Mr. President) is just a play actor for your distraction?
 
2013-12-27 01:51:10 PM

I_C_Weener: Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.


of white people
 
2013-12-27 01:51:24 PM

stabby13: fluffy2097: Sure will be fun when we can submit Freedom of Information Act to get the audio records of politicians phone calls.

/Until the NSA produces audio proof of a senator's sorted relationship with an underage boy, this will continue.
//One Senator made out to be the pedophile he is, and the NSA will be forced by congress to stop surveillance.

Or even worse, a sordid relationship.


Or worse yet, we may see more of Anthony Wiener's txt messages
 
2013-12-27 01:52:01 PM

whidbey: I_C_Weener: whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.

It is the same record, played over and over, actually.
Different faces and names. Even different colors for your amusement.
Makes no difference.
Wonder why?


Seriously - all the dumb, tribal, "my guy is better than your guy" crap just distracts everyone from the actual issues, and ensures that politicians aren't held accountable.

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

Japanese have a proverb: "Fix the problem, not the blame."

Actually, I have no idea if that is their proverb or not.  But Sean Connery did say it in "Rising Sun" and he was an honorary ninja from his days as 007.

Actually that was kind of funny. Sorry I gave you both barrels. Thought you were someone else.

This disconnect does irritate me though, obviously.


Uh...ignore my follow up comment.  Clearly I was wrong and I apologize unreservedly.  I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.
 
2013-12-27 01:52:16 PM
The terrorists have won
 
2013-12-27 01:52:21 PM

I_C_Weener: whidbey: I_C_Weener: Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

Japanese have a proverb: "Fix the problem, not the blame."

Actually, I have no idea if that is their proverb or not.  But Sean Connery did say it in "Rising Sun" and he was an honorary ninja from his days as 007.

We're well aware of the problem. But you can't even admit to yourself why we're in this mess. It has to be Obama's fault.

No.  Its Bush's, along with Congress.  Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

If bringing Bush back to President would solve it, I guess we could do that.  Or, maybe, just maybe we can use the guy who got elected (partially) on the promise that he'd reverse this trend.  But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.


I wonder if he would.

In this ultrapartisan age no one can be seen agreeing with the enemy.
 
2013-12-27 01:52:41 PM

I_C_Weener: But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.


From what I can tell, he's not happy about it, but we are in a position where it's become necessary.

To me, that means that we now have real enemies because of the policies of the past 10 years.

I think it sucks that we're still doing the war machine, but Obama is not a dictator, and he's also not one to just stop the car on a dime. We're stuck with this shiat because of what the hardliners wanted.
 
2013-12-27 01:54:07 PM

I_C_Weener: Uh...ignore my follow up comment.  Clearly I was wrong and I apologize unreservedly.  I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.


You can take the lawyer out of the trailerpark, but....
 
2013-12-27 01:55:12 PM

whidbey: I_C_Weener: But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.

From what I can tell, he's not happy about it, but we are in a position where it's become necessary.

To me, that means that we now have real enemies because of the policies of the past 10 years.

I think it sucks that we're still doing the war machine, but Obama is not a dictator, and he's also not one to just stop the car on a dime. We're stuck with this shiat because of what the hardliners wanted.


So, that sounds like you endorse the government surveillance.  Regardless of if we needed it then, or now, for some measure of protection, it is wrong.
 
2013-12-27 01:55:59 PM

whidbey: From what I can tell, he's not happy about it, but we are in a position where it's become necessary.

To me, that means that we now have real enemies because of the policies of the past 10 years.


turnip truckian like typing detected.
 
2013-12-27 01:56:14 PM
whidbey
We're well aware of the problem. But you can't even admit to yourself why we're in this mess. It has to be Obama's fault.

It's the spectral voice of Bush whispering in Obama's ear, telling him to say how awesome this is and to do nothing to curtail it.
 
2013-12-27 01:57:00 PM

Popular Opinion: it would be interesting to know just how many american lives the NSA is saving everyday with this unfettered access.

we do know for a fact that all this data leads to dead innocent civilians, thousands of miles away, who are no threat to the US, except as examples of how callous and unfair the US administration and corporate war machine is to foreigners.


As if most Americans think about or care how their government acts on their behalf(as long as it happens to other people and far away)
 
2013-12-27 01:57:52 PM

whidbey: I_C_Weener: Uh...ignore my follow up comment.  Clearly I was wrong and I apologize unreservedly.  I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

You can take the lawyer out of the trailerpark, but....


I love that quote from Archie in Fish Called Wanda.
 
2013-12-27 01:57:59 PM

whidbey: duffblue: whidbey: snocone: whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

That makes some sort of sense?
Somewhere there is this little bell chiming, "two wrongs just prove the idiot", or fool me shame for once, or,,,

Or "Bush actually got us into this mess and that's why we're doing this shiat."

The one combination you just won't consider.

And bush hasn't been in office for almost five years. Five years.

Five years.

What does that have to do with the fact that Obama is still cleaning up his f*ckups?

You really can't put the history together, can you? Can't or won't?


Is that why the Obama Administration is vigorously defending these policies in court? Come on. We can all blame Bush for putting is on this road, but Obama is keeping us on it.
 
2013-12-27 01:58:17 PM

I_C_Weener: whidbey: I_C_Weener: But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.

From what I can tell, he's not happy about it, but we are in a position where it's become necessary.

To me, that means that we now have real enemies because of the policies of the past 10 years.

I think it sucks that we're still doing the war machine, but Obama is not a dictator, and he's also not one to just stop the car on a dime. We're stuck with this shiat because of what the hardliners wanted.

So, that sounds like you endorse the government surveillance.  Regardless of if we needed it then, or now, for some measure of protection, it is wrong.


No, I think it's total bullshiat that we're stepping it up., it is wrong, but I also understand why it's happening.

Obama has done some very laudable things in his Presidency, but I really don't expect him to play some trump card that shuts down the operations, especially given the history of the past 10 years.

He's just driving the car.
 
2013-12-27 01:58:17 PM
It has been a given since the inception of serious SIGINT in the `50's.  Attempts to misuse? Can you say RMN? (though he worked the IRS much harder)  Church Committee in the mid `70's pretty much laid out what the NSA had been doing - intercepting millions of telegrams via Western Union - with `plausible deniability' on the parts of the Western Union Execs, i.e., `we didn't know' (even though the `collection' was performed weekly by a NSA courier and a low level WU dweeb).  And, of course, MaBell (all your landlines are belong to us-and friends)..     https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent - csi/vol43no3/pdf/v43i3a04p.pdf    And it wasn't just `metadata'.

If one wishes to worry about an actual impact on one's own life owing to `big data', concern should be focused on private collection entities.  Interesting hearing, recently on just this before the Senate Commerce Committee:   http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/229200

The Chairman, Senator Rockefeller, tried to `sum up' the testimony:

"Since before 9/11 I've been on the Intelligence Committee and. every day, I wake up to 7 newspapers with nothing but NSA headlines.  And, I'm here to tell you, as one of the authors of FISA the Patriot Act and all the rest of it, that the NSA is so secure in its protection of privacy as compared to this group that we are talking to, these data brokers, it's not even close.  This affects, as was pointed out, anybody, everybody.  Who knows?  NSA knows,  They are only likely to interact at a .000001 percent of people that they conclude need further observation.  This is everybody, anybody, but more than that divided into race, economic activities, education, and there's something -  I can't prove it is wrong - but there's something lethal about it..."

Sure, NSA could be `shrunk' - The Gov. could then rely on the private brokers who are busy cataloging every individual's digital tailings and, for whom, FISA is fiddlesticks.
We're all available to be `dry gulched' into some correlative inevitability or other, and will probably ride right into it smiling - done in by predictive analytics rather than a 45.70.
 
2013-12-27 01:59:50 PM

BMulligan: Collecting metadata raises no significant Fourth Amendment issues and is, as far as I know, completely lawful. Accessing the actual content of communications is a completely different thing, and should always require a warrant.


BINGO.

How far are we? Roughly 150 posts and you're the first person to accurately understand the situation.

This isn't even a partisan issue. There's idiots on both sides of the aisle that are literally too stupid to comprehend this. I just wish they were less vocal about their technological retardation.

You get favorited now.
 
2013-12-27 02:00:05 PM
Looks like the honorable So-and-so got a midnight visit from a few men in dark suits.
 
2013-12-27 02:00:30 PM

Nabb1: whidbey: duffblue: whidbey: snocone: whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

That makes some sort of sense?
Somewhere there is this little bell chiming, "two wrongs just prove the idiot", or fool me shame for once, or,,,

Or "Bush actually got us into this mess and that's why we're doing this shiat."

The one combination you just won't consider.

And bush hasn't been in office for almost five years. Five years.

Five years.

What does that have to do with the fact that Obama is still cleaning up his f*ckups?

You really can't put the history together, can you? Can't or won't?

Is that why the Obama Administration is vigorously defending these policies in court? Come on. We can all blame Bush for putting is on this road, but Obama is keeping us on it.


At this point, it's their job to do so, and the fact it's happening tells me that we have real reason to do it, based on the past 10 years.

Come on dude, this really isn't rocket science. You could, you know, agree with me JUST a bit.
 
2013-12-27 02:03:04 PM

I_C_Weener: whidbey: I_C_Weener: Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

Japanese have a proverb: "Fix the problem, not the blame."

Actually, I have no idea if that is their proverb or not.  But Sean Connery did say it in "Rising Sun" and he was an honorary ninja from his days as 007.

We're well aware of the problem. But you can't even admit to yourself why we're in this mess. It has to be Obama's fault.

No.  Its Bush's, along with Congress.  Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

If bringing Bush back to President would solve it, I guess we could do that.  Or, maybe, just maybe we can use the guy who got elected (partially) on the promise that he'd reverse this trend.  But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.


I have not one word of defense of Obama for the NSA bullshiat.
 
2013-12-27 02:03:11 PM

RanDomino: whidbey
We're well aware of the problem. But you can't even admit to yourself why we're in this mess. It has to be Obama's fault.

It's the spectral voice of Bush whispering in Obama's ear, telling him to say how awesome this is and to do nothing to curtail it.


Or it's far more likely that he knows something we don't. But that would go against your "either/or" posting philosophy.
 
2013-12-27 02:03:36 PM

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: duffblue: whidbey: snocone: whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

That makes some sort of sense?
Somewhere there is this little bell chiming, "two wrongs just prove the idiot", or fool me shame for once, or,,,

Or "Bush actually got us into this mess and that's why we're doing this shiat."

The one combination you just won't consider.

And bush hasn't been in office for almost five years. Five years.

Five years.

What does that have to do with the fact that Obama is still cleaning up his f*ckups?

You really can't put the history together, can you? Can't or won't?

Is that why the Obama Administration is vigorously defending these policies in court? Come on. We can all blame Bush for putting is on this road, but Obama is keeping us on it.

At this point, it's their job to do so, and the fact it's happening tells me that we have real reason to do it, based on the past 10 years.

Come on dude, this really isn't rocket science. You could, you know, agree with me JUST a bit.


Remember when the government sterilized people?  Good times.  Clearly there was a need because they were doing it.

Tataulogowned!
 
2013-12-27 02:03:57 PM

whidbey: I_C_Weener: whidbey: I_C_Weener: But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.

From what I can tell, he's not happy about it, but we are in a position where it's become necessary.

To me, that means that we now have real enemies because of the policies of the past 10 years.

I think it sucks that we're still doing the war machine, but Obama is not a dictator, and he's also not one to just stop the car on a dime. We're stuck with this shiat because of what the hardliners wanted.

So, that sounds like you endorse the government surveillance.  Regardless of if we needed it then, or now, for some measure of protection, it is wrong.

No, I think it's total bullshiat that we're stepping it up., it is wrong, but I also understand why it's happening.

Obama has done some very laudable things in his Presidency, but I really don't expect him to play some trump card that shuts down the operations, especially given the history of the past 10 years.

He's just driving the car.


You would have a point if he had the car on cruise control instead of flooring the gas pedal.
 
2013-12-27 02:04:24 PM

Claude Ballse: The terrorists didn't win. The lost to an entirely different group that took over the role of terrorism: the NSA. Absolutely they hate our freedom, because it gives us powe over them.

The answer isn't fighting this in courts of law, electing new officials, or anything of the sort. Because there will always be this slight if hand game where if we rule one "program" illegal, they'll just start up another one thst gets tangeled up in the legal system that we the have to fight.

No, the only way to get rid of this shiat is to purge religion from our government once and for all. You have tens of millions of people that already believe in some invisible sky god, and think that angels watch over them. The NSA is no different that the tenants of your modern religions. They've already been raised to accept this and encourage it. For most, this is just more of god's work. Because how can you convince someone that an anonymous brown person a world away isn't a threat when they already fear demons thst don't even exist?

Purge the bilnd faithful for the seeing skeptics, and our problems will be taken care of very quickly.


img.fark.net
 
2013-12-27 02:06:07 PM
Because so many Farkers whinged about 9/11 and lack of security at that time.

That is why.
 
2013-12-27 02:09:51 PM

QueenMamaBee: That's why I try to insert "Fark Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul" into every phone conversation and online post.

/just for the fun of it
//hi NSA
///Fark Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul



So what are you going to do when Rand Paul tears this decision a new arse.

- Rand Paul
 
2013-12-27 02:10:12 PM
I have decided that Whidbey is correct, and I'm sure he will agree with me here.  The President knows more than we do, and therefore, he is more able to decide what is right and wrong than we peons.  Ergo, not only is Obama correct for doing what he's doing, but so was Bush.
 
2013-12-27 02:11:23 PM
IF THEY CAN DO ALL OF THIS SPYING WHY CAN'T THEY STOP RACHEL FROM CARDHOLDER SERVICES FROM CALLING ME EVERY DAY?  I AM ON THE GDAMN DO NOT CALL LIST MOTHERFARKERS.

Yes i heard Rachel was reigned in.  Still getting calls from those phone numbers though.
 
2013-12-27 02:11:53 PM

FarkedOver: Allah, bomb, jihad, Muhammad, pressure cooker backpack.  Hi NSA! Do you watch me touch myself when I'm on skype with a number of girls from the Niagara Falls area?

You just think that they are girls.
 
2013-12-27 02:12:35 PM
A federal judge on Friday found that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of millions of Americans' telephone records is legal and a valuable part of the nation's arsenal to counter the threat of terrorism and "only works because it collects everything."

Look you f*cking moron. You should not base your decisions on whether will work or not if you rule against it. It is CLEARLY unconstitutional. That is what you are supposed to be ruling on. You cannot seize everyone in the country's phone records, texts, emails, skype videos, chat logs, facebook messages, etc. just because because that's the only way you can make sure you also get the terrorist's info. That kind of logic is beyond stupid. You are basically saying "We can't find a terrorist so basically all of you are now considered terrorists. Guilty until proven innocent and were gonna look thru all your stuff. That's cool right?" No. No, it's not cool. That's like saying "Someone in this country is a terrorist who wants to kill us, so we are just gonna kill you all. That's the only way we can be sure we kill the terrorist. The program won't work unless we do that."

F*ck it. I'm getting drunk.

/always good advice
 
2013-12-27 02:13:34 PM

snocone: the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred. "

What a nimrod. All they had to do was answer the farking phone on 9/11 when the FBI was calling.
But, there were other plans.


Ugh, what a stupid argument.  Can we stop pretending that everything is permissible if it might, somehow, possibly help catch a terrorist?

FFS, 9/11 was 12 years ago.  Move on.

/not sure if you were going truther with the "other plans" bit
//but goddamn, I hate the fact that 9/11 is being used to justify an American police state
 
2013-12-27 02:14:24 PM

I_C_Weener: I have decided that Whidbey is correct, and I'm sure he will agree with me here.  The President knows more than we do, and therefore, he is more able to decide what is right and wrong than we peons.  Ergo, not only is Obama correct for doing what he's doing, but so was Bush.


Let me help you out, since the premise of your argument is wrong.

Did you see these posts? They're a page, maybe two back, respectively.

Collecting metadata raises no significant Fourth Amendment issues and is, as far as I know, completely lawful. Accessing the actual content of communications is a completely different thing, and should always require a warrant.

Telephone metadata has not been considered to be under Fourth Amendment protection since 1979's Smith v. Maryland.


Now that we've concluded that metadata collection is in no way illegal or a violation of any rights, we can close this thread and all the ignorant people whining about it will change their opinion and admit they were wrong?

LOL, ya right. Keep on derping guys. You guys are all so anti-establishment and cool with your fantasies and conspiracies. You're so busy assigning blame you don't even realize you don't even have an argument.
 
2013-12-27 02:15:34 PM

Ball Sack Obama: Oh, a Clinton appointee...

"Born in Glen Cove, New York, Pauley received an A.B. from Duke University in 1974 and a J.D. from Duke University School of Law in 1977. He was a law clerk, Office of the Nassau County Attorney, New York from 1977 to 1978. He was a Deputy county attorney of Nassau County Attorney' Office, New York in 1978. He was in private practice in New York City from 1978 to 1998. He was an Assistant counsel, New York State Assembly Minority Leader, New York from 1984 to 1998.
Pauley is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Pauley was nominated by President Bill Clinton on May 21, 1998, to a seat vacated by Peter K. Leisure. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 21, 1998, and received his commission on October 22, 1998.
Among his notable decisions was that involving Ben-ami Kadish, a U.S. national who pleaded guilty to passing classified information to Israel."


Duke sucks...
 
2013-12-27 02:15:38 PM

I_C_Weener: I have decided that Whidbey is correct, and I'm sure he will agree with me here.  The President knows more than we do, and therefore, he is more able to decide what is right and wrong than we peons.  Ergo, not only is Obama correct for doing what he's doing, but so was Bush.


Dude, you're just not going to get it, even when it's spelled out for you over and over, are you?

That's OK. I'd still buy you TF again if you needed it.
 
2013-12-27 02:15:56 PM

whidbey: Republicans appear to have more control because they already fall lock-step into hardliner policy. Democrats often cave to hardliners because let's face it, the hardliners already have the upper hand in government.


Really? REALLY???

This is why Obama has reneged on all his promises to repeal the Patriot Act, shut down Gitmo, etc., it's because of those meanies? He got up in front of everyone and said, "Sorry, fark all of you, I agree with it now."  Dude, get a grip.
 
2013-12-27 02:16:09 PM

Walker: Look you f*cking moron.


The irony. While I'm not defending the judge's justification, you are objectively wrong on all accounts. Please update your opinions accordingly.
 
2013-12-27 02:16:20 PM

whidbey: I_C_Weener: whidbey: I_C_Weener: But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.

From what I can tell, he's not happy about it, but we are in a position where it's become necessary.

To me, that means that we now have real enemies because of the policies of the past 10 years.

I think it sucks that we're still doing the war machine, but Obama is not a dictator, and he's also not one to just stop the car on a dime. We're stuck with this shiat because of what the hardliners wanted.

So, that sounds like you endorse the government surveillance.  Regardless of if we needed it then, or now, for some measure of protection, it is wrong.

No, I think it's total bullshiat that we're stepping it up., it is wrong, but I also understand why it's happening.

Obama has done some very laudable things in his Presidency, but I really don't expect him to play some trump card that shuts down the operations, especially given the history of the past 10 years.

He's just driving the car.


I have to agree with some other posters that this isn't really a fair assesement. You probably don't remember my posts from other threads lately, but I can assure you I'm no Obama "hater", if anything I usually reserve my antipathy for the right side of the political spectrum these days. I'm pro-ACA and generally view Obama as a fairly boring establishment figure whose greatest fault is not being aggressively revolutionary enough for my tastes, generally speaking. I find myself defending Obama a lot just because of how batshiat, bugfarking insane our political right has gotten, and their criticisms are almost never rooted in anything which could be mistaken for reality.

That said - Obama could, and should, be doing more to curb the surveillance state we're building ourselves into. He's given a few speeches with a few platitudes for us, but he seems to be more than satisfied to let these programs just continue chugging along as they wish. He's the chief executive... if he really wanted to he could probably address many concerns through executive orders tomorrow, and vastly narrow the scope of our surveillance state's operations.

He seems to be either afraid or unwilling to rock the boat too much. At this point though, with the damage our political leadership has done to us over the last several decades we NEED some boat rocking. It's long overdue, and entirely appropriate IMHO.
 
2013-12-27 02:16:52 PM
So the fourth amendment is to electronics as the second amendment is to weapons which are not blunderbusses?
 
2013-12-27 02:19:08 PM

justtray: I_C_Weener: I have decided that Whidbey is correct, and I'm sure he will agree with me here.  The President knows more than we do, and therefore, he is more able to decide what is right and wrong than we peons.  Ergo, not only is Obama correct for doing what he's doing, but so was Bush.

Let me help you out, since the premise of your argument is wrong.

Did you see these posts? They're a page, maybe two back, respectively.

Collecting metadata raises no significant Fourth Amendment issues and is, as far as I know, completely lawful. Accessing the actual content of communications is a completely different thing, and should always require a warrant.

Telephone metadata has not been considered to be under Fourth Amendment protection since 1979's Smith v. Maryland.

Now that we've concluded that metadata collection is in no way illegal or a violation of any rights, we can close this thread and all the ignorant people whining about it will change their opinion and admit they were wrong?

LOL, ya right. Keep on derping guys. You guys are all so anti-establishment and cool with your fantasies and conspiracies. You're so busy assigning blame you don't even realize you don't even have an argument.


The really amusing thing is that they ALL voted for Bush. Probably twice.

Of course, you take a drink if they claim they tried to get Badnarik into office in 2004. :)
 
2013-12-27 02:19:20 PM

Walker: Look you f*cking moron


It's "moran". Get a brain and go USA
 
2013-12-27 02:19:46 PM
I want to see the Judges phone records. Its only fair.
 
2013-12-27 02:20:08 PM

oh_please: whidbey: Republicans appear to have more control because they already fall lock-step into hardliner policy. Democrats often cave to hardliners because let's face it, the hardliners already have the upper hand in government.

Really? REALLY???

This is why Obama has reneged on all his promises to repeal the Patriot Act, shut down Gitmo, etc., it's because of those meanies? He got up in front of everyone and said, "Sorry, fark all of you, I agree with it now."  Dude, get a grip.


Dude, stop parroting right-wing talking points. Start over and we might have a discussion. Your call.
 
2013-12-27 02:20:29 PM

oh_please: whidbey: Republicans appear to have more control because they already fall lock-step into hardliner policy. Democrats often cave to hardliners because let's face it, the hardliners already have the upper hand in government.

Really? REALLY???

This is why Obama has reneged on all his promises to repeal the Patriot Act, shut down Gitmo, etc., it's because of those meanies? He got up in front of everyone and said, "Sorry, fark all of you, I agree with it now."  Dude, get a grip.


When, specifically, did Obama promise to repeal the patriot act when he was running for president?

Spoiler - He didn't.

So why do you feel the need to lie about it?

Here's as close as it gets from what I can find.
 
2013-12-27 02:20:56 PM

justtray: I_C_Weener: I have decided that Whidbey is correct, and I'm sure he will agree with me here.  The President knows more than we do, and therefore, he is more able to decide what is right and wrong than we peons.  Ergo, not only is Obama correct for doing what he's doing, but so was Bush.

Let me help you out, since the premise of your argument is wrong.

Did you see these posts? They're a page, maybe two back, respectively.

Collecting metadata raises no significant Fourth Amendment issues and is, as far as I know, completely lawful. Accessing the actual content of communications is a completely different thing, and should always require a warrant.

Telephone metadata has not been considered to be under Fourth Amendment protection since 1979's Smith v. Maryland.

Now that we've concluded that metadata collection is in no way illegal or a violation of any rights, we can close this thread and all the ignorant people whining about it will change their opinion and admit they were wrong?

LOL, ya right. Keep on derping guys. You guys are all so anti-establishment and cool with your fantasies and conspiracies. You're so busy assigning blame you don't even realize you don't even have an argument.


www.1800politics.com

Get a load of this guy.
 
2013-12-27 02:22:03 PM

I_C_Weener: I have decided that Whidbey is correct, and I'm sure he will agree with me here.  The President knows more than we do, and therefore, he is more able to decide what is right and wrong than we peons.  Ergo, not only is Obama correct for doing what he's doing, but so was Bush.


The Office of the President is a cherry-picked elite from either party who owes so many favours to those within government who helped him get elected that he dare not rock the boat.  The true top level dudes are NEVER going to let a guy through primaries unless they're 100% sure he'll "play ball" and not rock the boat.

He plays a role, like the fictional James Bond, but all he does is read the scripts.  He takes orders from the producers and director and "studio execs".
 
2013-12-27 02:22:34 PM

whidbey: I_C_Weener: I have decided that Whidbey is correct, and I'm sure he will agree with me here.  The President knows more than we do, and therefore, he is more able to decide what is right and wrong than we peons.  Ergo, not only is Obama correct for doing what he's doing, but so was Bush.

Dude, you're just not going to get it, even when it's spelled out for you over and over, are you?

That's OK. I'd still buy you TF again if you needed it.

i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-27 02:22:36 PM

Voiceofreason01: Popular Opinion: it would be interesting to know just how many american lives the NSA is saving everyday with this unfettered access.

we do know for a fact that all this data leads to dead innocent civilians, thousands of miles away, who are no threat to the US, except as examples of how callous and unfair the US administration and corporate war machine is to foreigners.

As if most Americans think about or care how their government acts on their behalf(as long as it happens to other people and far away)


we don't?!?

dammit
 
2013-12-27 02:22:44 PM
whidbey
Or it's far more likely that he knows something we don't.

When evidence fails, there's always magical thinking to the rescue.
 
2013-12-27 02:22:48 PM
Ahh the ends justify the means.

So by this logic, the US govt can kidnap and torture anyone at anytime, violate any law because it *might* stop terrorism.
 
2013-12-27 02:23:38 PM

justtray: I_C_Weener: I have decided that Whidbey is correct, and I'm sure he will agree with me here.  The President knows more than we do, and therefore, he is more able to decide what is right and wrong than we peons.  Ergo, not only is Obama correct for doing what he's doing, but so was Bush.

Let me help you out, since the premise of your argument is wrong.

Did you see these posts? They're a page, maybe two back, respectively.

Collecting metadata raises no significant Fourth Amendment issues and is, as far as I know, completely lawful. Accessing the actual content of communications is a completely different thing, and should always require a warrant.

Telephone metadata has not been considered to be under Fourth Amendment protection since 1979's Smith v. Maryland.

Now that we've concluded that metadata collection is in no way illegal or a violation of any rights, we can close this thread and all the ignorant people whining about it will change their opinion and admit they were wrong?

LOL, ya right. Keep on derping guys. You guys are all so anti-establishment and cool with your fantasies and conspiracies. You're so busy assigning blame you don't even realize you don't even have an argument.


Good thing precedent is law. Oh wait, it's not law, not even close. Until Congress actually changes the law the old law is still in effect and judges are free to ignore or follow precedent.

Random chance isn't probably cause, 100% collection is also not probable cause. Unless a government agent has evidence that a particular individual committed a crime or is going to commit a crime they don't have probable cause. Searching of any kind without reason is by definition unreasonable
 
2013-12-27 02:23:52 PM
As usual I help factually destroy the derpers on this topic, they ignore it, refuse to change their incorrect opinions, and life goes on, ignorantly.

See you next thread, morons. Don't drink your tap water, you'll get poisoned by your government, or something.
 
2013-12-27 02:23:55 PM

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?


They did and they were shouted down as tinfoil nutters. In fact that happened until Snowden's revelations. Even after Room 641A aka the NSA Room at one of AT&T's facilities became public knowledge people were still labled as nutter for suggesting the government was spying on the American public en masse.


slayer199: I don't care what side of the political fence you sit on, we ALL need to make this an issue in 2014 because the ONLY way this will stop is if we elect Congresscritters that will reign in the NSA.


Americans already voted for change. It didn't work, they just got more of the same.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-27 02:24:24 PM

oh_please: Really? REALLY???

This is why Obama has reneged on all his promises to repeal the Patriot Act, shut down Gitmo, etc., it's because of those meanies? He got up in front of everyone and said, "Sorry, fark all of you, I agree with it now." Dude, get a grip.


You'll have to excuse the Obama apologists like Whidbey.  They're so blinded by their hatred of the GOP, they can't even see the flawed leadership of the Democratic party.

The Democrats had control the House, Senate and Presidency for the first 2 years of Obama's tenure....enough to pass the ACA but not enough to reign in the Patriot Act?  Riggghhhhtt.  The most transparent administration ever!!!

I hate both parties, but when Democrats are elected I expect them to embrace civil liberties...and that has not really been true with Obama.  He's been defending the NSA, not excoriating them as I'd expect a Democrat to do.

I'll restate what I said earlier.  It doesn't matter WHAT side of the fence you're on politically, We The People need to reign in the power of the government in 2014.  That means electing people that WILL vote to reign in the Fed, NOT excuse them.
 
2013-12-27 02:24:53 PM

JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.


THE GOP is in favor of big government watching everything that you do.
HOW else can the government control your liberal activities?
 
2013-12-27 02:25:07 PM

I_C_Weener: I have decided that Whidbey is correct, and I'm sure he will agree with me here.  The President knows more than we do, and therefore, he is more able to decide what is right and wrong than we peons.  Ergo, not only is Obama correct for doing what he's doing, but so was Bush.


You do realize that Obama and Bush did completely different things, right? Another farker (can't remember who) summed it up perfectly some months ago with this handy summary of their respective surveillance policies:

Bush - warrantless wiretaps
Obama - warrantful non-wiretaps

Granted, Bush himself ended the warrantless wiretapping program while he was still in office, and I believe he did so before the lawsuits against it could really go anywhere.
 
2013-12-27 02:25:36 PM

mongbiohazard: He seems to be either afraid or unwilling to rock the boat too much. At this point though, with the damage our political leadership has done to us over the last several decades we NEED some boat rocking. It's long overdue, and entirely appropriate IMHO.


Boat-rockers will never win party support in the end.  Too risky for the actual power brokers.
 
2013-12-27 02:25:50 PM

mongbiohazard: have to agree with some other posters that this isn't really a fair assesement. You probably don't remember my posts from other threads lately, but I can assure you I'm no Obama "hater", if anything I usually reserve my antipathy for the right side of the political spectrum these days. I'm pro-ACA and generally view Obama as a fairly boring establishment figure whose greatest fault is not being aggressively revolutionary enough for my tastes, generally speaking. I find myself defending Obama a lot just because of how batshiat, bugfarking insane our political right has gotten, and their criticisms are almost never rooted in anything which could be mistaken for reality.


Fair enough. I can get behind this.

That said - Obama could, and should, be doing more to curb the surveillance state we're building ourselves into. He's given a few speeches with a few platitudes for us, but he seems to be more than satisfied to let these programs just continue chugging along as they wish. He's the chief executive... if he really wanted to he could probably address many concerns through executive orders tomorrow, and vastly narrow the scope of our surveillance state's operations.

The farked up thing is that if he did any of this, it would cause a major shiatstorm with the hardliners.

I believe Obama realized that he's only going to accomplish so much as President, and ending the War Machine wasn't going to be one of those accomplishments.

Chalk it up to inexperience in dealing with hardliners, knowledge we're not privvy to, whatever.

To me, it just reiterates that we have a much bigger problem in our government, and it's the hardliners who want this country to be an aggressive empire.
 
2013-12-27 02:25:59 PM

generallyso: Americans already voted for change. It didn't work, they just got more of the same.


You're preaching to the choir.  I've been voting 3rd party since '92 as I hate both parties.

Point I was making is that there are Democrats AND Republican candidates that can run on reigning in this unfettered surveillance state we now live in.
 
2013-12-27 02:27:19 PM

MrLint: Ahh the ends justify the means.

So by this logic, the US govt can kidnap and torture anyone at anytime, violate any law because it *might* stop terrorism.


i would say that is a fair interpretation, and i can say with some confidence that it has been this way for some time, and well before 9/11 and the war on terrorism.
 
2013-12-27 02:27:31 PM
FTFA:   The judge concluded that the program was legal and a valuable part of the nation's efforts to combat the threat of terrorism.

Pauley you shiatbag activist. You are supposed to interpret the law, that is all. If I wanted to hear your personal opinion about shiat you know nothing about, say for instance, mass surveillance, I would ask.
 
2013-12-27 02:27:34 PM
I recently heard a talk from Glen Greenwald on the NSA. It was from 2012, but it was pretty interesting.

While I don't agree with everything he said, his comments about how two Democratic senators who sit on the intelligence committee who tried to get basic information from the NSA on how many wiretaps and emails they had read was utterly shocking.

And the NSA's response was pure double-think.

The request was simply to have the number of wiretaps and emails read made available. Not any details, just the number, how many had been intercepted.

The NSA's response was that disclosing that information would be an invasion of the privacy of American citizens.

Yes. For real.
 
2013-12-27 02:28:03 PM

justtray: As usual I help factually destroy the derpers on this topic, they ignore it, refuse to change their incorrect opinions, and life goes on, ignorantly.

See you next thread, morons. Don't drink your tap water, you'll get poisoned by your government, or something.


i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-27 02:28:18 PM

RanDomino: whidbey
Or it's far more likely that he knows something we don't.

When evidence fails, there's always magical thinking to the rescue.


Actually the "evidence" suggests that Al Qaeda really are enemies now, thanks to Bush.

Keep ignoring that while you continue to post above and outside the ideology.
 
2013-12-27 02:30:45 PM

HeartBurnKid: snocone: the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred. "

What a nimrod. All they had to do was answer the farking phone on 9/11 when the FBI was calling.
But, there were other plans.

Ugh, what a stupid argument.  Can we stop pretending that everything is permissible if it might, somehow, possibly help catch a terrorist?

FFS, 9/11 was 12 years ago.  Move on.

/not sure if you were going truther with the "other plans" bit
//but goddamn, I hate the fact that 9/11 is being used to justify an American police state


No "truther", but since I live in Minneapolis, where the FBI agent that gave early warning lives/works, I am getting a kick out of,,,
 
2013-12-27 02:31:00 PM
The standard has been set. All major powers on the planet will be looking to eventually emulate the American model of intel gathering in order to compete on an even playing field. Not unlike nuclear weapons, drone strikes, or CNC virii, America tends to forget that just because they were the first ones to up the ante doesn't mean it will end with them having sole control over whatever new capability they have devised.

Proliferation, biatches.
 
2013-12-27 02:31:10 PM

generallyso: Americans already voted for change. It didn't work, they just got more of the same.


See. this is a totally bullshiat statement.
 
2013-12-27 02:31:33 PM

whidbey: RanDomino: whidbey
Or it's far more likely that he knows something we don't.

When evidence fails, there's always magical thinking to the rescue.

Actually the "evidence" suggests that Al Qaeda really are enemies now, thanks to Bush.

Keep ignoring that while you continue to post above and outside the ideology.


You are starting to sound a bit Truthy there.
 
2013-12-27 02:31:57 PM

slayer199: We The People need to reign in the power of the government in 2014.


derp
 
2013-12-27 02:32:31 PM

joonyer: FTFA:   The judge concluded that the program was legal and a valuable part of the nation's efforts to combat the threat of terrorism.

Pauley you shiatbag activist. You are supposed to interpret the law, that is all. If I wanted to hear your personal opinion about shiat you know nothing about, say for instance, mass surveillance, I would ask.


That is why I call, TROLL.
Nothing but opinion.
 
2013-12-27 02:33:33 PM
PLC, not CNC.
 
2013-12-27 02:33:47 PM

I_C_Weener: whidbey: RanDomino: whidbey
Or it's far more likely that he knows something we don't.

When evidence fails, there's always magical thinking to the rescue.

Actually the "evidence" suggests that Al Qaeda really are enemies now, thanks to Bush.

Keep ignoring that while you continue to post above and outside the ideology.

You are starting to sound a bit Truthy there.


Nope. Just telling it like it is. We hit the hornet's nest instead of opting for peaceful negotiation, and now it's escalated into something a lot worse.

Again, none of this is a stellar revelation. Thanks to Bush, Al Qaeda is a real international threat now.
 
2013-12-27 02:34:04 PM

quansem: The standard has been set. All major powers on the planet will be looking to eventually emulate the American model of intel gathering in order to compete on an even playing field. Not unlike nuclear weapons, drone strikes, or CNC virii, America tends to forget that just because they were the first ones to up the ante doesn't mean it will end with them having sole control over whatever new capability they have devised.

Proliferation, biatches.


Instead of dirt, this time you have to get your own internet.
 
2013-12-27 02:34:17 PM

whidbey: Actually the "evidence" suggests that Al Qaeda really are enemies now, thanks to Bush.

Keep ignoring that while you continue to post above and outside the ideology.


I'm not going to bother to defend Bush (because he's indefensible), but you're obviously blind to Obama's failures.  Obama dropped more drones in the Middle East in his first 4 years than Bush did in 8.  Those strikes killed more civilians and created more enemies.  So don't pretend that he hasn't contributed to the problem.
 
2013-12-27 02:37:01 PM

slayer199: whidbey: Actually the "evidence" suggests that Al Qaeda really are enemies now, thanks to Bush.

Keep ignoring that while you continue to post above and outside the ideology.

I'm not going to bother to defend Bush (because he's indefensible), but you're obviously blind to Obama's failures.  Obama dropped more drones in the Middle East in his first 4 years than Bush did in 8.  Those strikes killed more civilians and created more enemies.  So don't pretend that he hasn't contributed to the problem.


Ah you're just above all this, aren't you?
 
2013-12-27 02:37:22 PM
If people don't like it they can vote in new Congressional representatives (House & Senate) and get things changed, or vote for a different candidate for President.

But you won't do that.  You like your guy.  Your guy is fine.  It's everyone else that's wrong.
 
2013-12-27 02:39:11 PM

KaonSZ: If people don't like it they can vote in new Congressional representatives (House & Senate) and get things changed, or vote for a different candidate for President.

But you won't do that.  You like your guy.  Your guy is fine.  It's everyone else that's wrong.


Or that people really do buy into the US Empire concept, and have supported it for years.
 
2013-12-27 02:39:21 PM
You would think with everything the NSA was doing they could have stopped any of the mass shootings that have happened since 9/11.

/worthless government spying on citizens is worthless
 
2013-12-27 02:39:44 PM
Dang....might as well toss the Bill of Rights and US Constitution into this:
 
2013-12-27 02:39:48 PM

Headso: Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?

plenty of people did, you were called a traitor and a terrorist sympathizer for bringing it up though.

The Patriot Act had a renewal clause.  President Obama renewed it...Remember Obama, the first Muslim President who refuses to say "War on Terror?"  Yeah, that guy.  If 9/11 would've happened on his watch, he would of blamed a Youtube video.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/patriot-act-extension-signe d- obama-autopen_n_867851.html

Good try on "blaming Bush."  It never gets old.
 
2013-12-27 02:40:52 PM

N4LG4s: Dang....might as well toss the Bill of Rights and US Constitution into this:


www.awesomebackgrounds.com
 
2013-12-27 02:40:56 PM
whidbey derping to eleven
 
2013-12-27 02:41:08 PM
The real question is would the NSA - or other government organizations - even give a fark if this or that court said it is illegal?
 
2013-12-27 02:41:28 PM

slayer199: whidbey: derp

About what I'd expect from a leftist sheep such as yourself.  You so blindly defend Obama and the left on everything, I would bet you're on the DNC's payroll.  I suppose you won't be happy until the US resembles the Soviet Union under Stalin.  On your way comrade, nothing to see here.


Non-sequitur is non. Troll harder.

Besides, it was hardly a derp comment.  The point is there are people on both sides of the aisle that want to reign in the surveillance state.  We need to vote them in and vote out those that wish to retain the unfettered surveillance state.

Of course it was derpy. You have no alternatives. No 3rd party. Nothing. You'd do well to support the Democrats and condemn aggressive hardliner bullshiat like this.

But no, you'd rather divide the country and let the far right dominate it.
 
2013-12-27 02:41:35 PM

whidbey: I_C_Weener: whidbey: RanDomino: whidbey
Or it's far more likely that he knows something we don't.

When evidence fails, there's always magical thinking to the rescue.

Actually the "evidence" suggests that Al Qaeda really are enemies now, thanks to Bush.

Keep ignoring that while you continue to post above and outside the ideology.

You are starting to sound a bit Truthy there.

Nope. Just telling it like it is. We hit the hornet's nest instead of opting for peaceful negotiation, and now it's escalated into something a lot worse.

Again, none of this is a stellar revelation. Thanks to Bush, Al Qaeda is a real international threat now.


So, are you saying that in his first 9 months of office, Bush enraged Al Queada so much that they flew airplanes into our buildings?  Or surely you are referring to the embassy bombings that took place before he took office in Kenya.  Or maybe you refer to the USS Cole bombing.  Seeing as how these were in 3 different countries, I'd call that international.  Of course that only counts the attacks on American interests.  I'm pretty sure their agenda over the years has included many different countries and their interests...even before Bush ran for president.

C'mon man.
 
2013-12-27 02:43:15 PM

Claude Ballse: The terrorists didn't win. The lost to an entirely different group that took over the role of terrorism: the NSA. Absolutely they hate our freedom, because it gives us powe over them.

The answer isn't fighting this in courts of law, electing new officials, or anything of the sort. Because there will always be this slight if hand game where if we rule one "program" illegal, they'll just start up another one thst gets tangeled up in the legal system that we the have to fight.

No, the only way to get rid of this shiat is to purge religion from our government once and for all. You have tens of millions of people that already believe in some invisible sky god, and think that angels watch over them. The NSA is no different that the tenants of your modern religions. They've already been raised to accept this and encourage it. For most, this is just more of god's work. Because how can you convince someone that an anonymous brown person a world away isn't a threat when they already fear demons thst don't even exist?

Purge the bilnd faithful for the seeing skeptics, and our problems will be taken care of very quickly.


Wow - that's got to be one of the most ridiculous jumps in logic I have seen in a long time.   I'm very religious and so aremost of my friends and not one of us wants the NSA to have this kind of power.  If anything, religious people fear a secular government that would use this power to stamp out their religion altogether.  Probably shouldn't have said that - cause now that probably makes you a fan of the NSA.

Liberty is a Christian value believe it or not.
 
2013-12-27 02:43:26 PM

whidbey: Ah you're just above all this, aren't you?


I hate both parties and have voted 3rd party since '92.  I'm not necessarily above it, but I'm not blind to the failings of either party...unlike yourself.

There are a few farkers here that are ardent leftists, that have been extremely critical of Obama on a number of civil liberties issues...whereas you do nothing to defend, defend, defend...and failing defense, blame Bush (buh-buh-buh BUSH!).  I don't agree with them on most issues, but at least I could respect them for maintaining the integrity of their ideology irrespective of party politics.  You sir, have none of that.
 
2013-12-27 02:43:34 PM

whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.

It is the same record, played over and over, actually.
Different faces and names. Even different colors for your amusement.
Makes no difference.
Wonder why?


Seriously - all the dumb, tribal, "my guy is better than your guy" crap just distracts everyone from the actual issues, and ensures that politicians aren't held accountable.

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.



I don't ignore that at all. I consider Bush to be WAY worse than Obama, and in fact, I can't stand the "both sides are bad" false equivalence BS.   With that said, Obama came into office promising to change a lot of the horrible policies / practices from the Bush administration.  Unfortunately, he has not lived up to those promises in a number of ways - his justice department has basically ignored widespread criminal fraud in the banking sector, and his foreign policy - while much, much better than Bush's foreign policy - is still being carried out in a manner that tramples on civil liberties.  From the extensive snooping on Americans and foreigners, to extrajudicial execution via drone strikes, to his failure to close Gitmo, he has continued a lot of bad policies that started with Bush.  I voted for Obama, but just because I voted for him doesn't mean I support everything he does.  In many ways he has been far too conservative.

Now, to Obama's credit, unlike Bush he hasn't invaded a country based on false pretenses and outright lies.  So that's good.
 
2013-12-27 02:44:42 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-27 02:45:33 PM

snocone: quansem: The standard has been set. All major powers on the planet will be looking to eventually emulate the American model of intel gathering in order to compete on an even playing field. Not unlike nuclear weapons, drone strikes, or CNC virii, America tends to forget that just because they were the first ones to up the ante doesn't mean it will end with them having sole control over whatever new capability they have devised.

Proliferation, biatches.

Instead of dirt, this time you have to get your own internet.


Brazil and Germany agree, much to the chagrin of some American tech giants. The problem is that the Chinese (and others) are extremely successful at copying an existing model and improving on it. Maybe not the first or second prototype, but they will get there. P.L.A. Unit 61398 might be an indicator.

/Speaking of dirt, it looks like Chinese dirt has all the rare earths in it. Interesting times..
 
2013-12-27 02:45:36 PM
Politically Partisan Judges are Best Judges!
 
2013-12-27 02:45:44 PM
First, I am Canadian, so one one level..pfft. But, Mr. Franklin's homily aside, I think that the only way to protect your constitution is to understand that those in power are going to ignore it now and then. It would behoove to always watch just how much of it is being undermined, but the sad fact is that there are too many things in play today that simply beggared the imagination when the document was born.
I also note with a bit of sadness that this kind of debate often raises less ire than some of the movie star things or some other subjects that lack permanence or weight. It's the way we humans are, I guess.
Good luck, neighbbour.
 
2013-12-27 02:46:08 PM

I_C_Weener: whidbey: I_C_Weener: whidbey: RanDomino: whidbey
Or it's far more likely that he knows something we don't.

When evidence fails, there's always magical thinking to the rescue.

Actually the "evidence" suggests that Al Qaeda really are enemies now, thanks to Bush.

Keep ignoring that while you continue to post above and outside the ideology.

You are starting to sound a bit Truthy there.

Nope. Just telling it like it is. We hit the hornet's nest instead of opting for peaceful negotiation, and now it's escalated into something a lot worse.

Again, none of this is a stellar revelation. Thanks to Bush, Al Qaeda is a real international threat now.

So, are you saying that in his first 9 months of office, Bush enraged Al Queada so much that they flew airplanes into our buildings?  Or surely you are referring to the embassy bombings that took place before he took office in Kenya.  Or maybe you refer to the USS Cole bombing.  Seeing as how these were in 3 different countries, I'd call that international.  Of course that only counts the attacks on American interests.  I'm pretty sure their agenda over the years has included many different countries and their interests...even before Bush ran for president.

C'mon man.


9/11 could have been handled way differently. Instead, it turned into an embarrassing dick-waving failure that cost this country trillions of dollars, dead soldiers, dead Afghanis and Iraqis, and set this country even lower in the eyes of the world.

You just can't admit that, can you? You can't take a look and understand why we are in the shiat we're in now.

To you, Obama is just another dude like Bush. He HAS to be.
 
2013-12-27 02:46:29 PM
Government saying the government can do what it wants. That's why we have checks & balances.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

/in English, this means: "Does the ending of Watchmen need a giant squid?"
 
2013-12-27 02:46:47 PM
Gotta love the libs here bashing House Republicans for trying not to stop this when it is being carried out by the Democratic administration.

Besides they did try to defund it with the Amash amendment. Which was defeated. Dems voted to defund it 111-83 and Repubs voted 134-93 against it.

Face it, the parties are pretty split on this, and this is a case where your simplistic "Republicans bad, Democrats good" arguments don't work.

Slutter McGee
 
2013-12-27 02:47:39 PM

jakomo002: The Office of the President is a cherry-picked elite from either party who owes so many favours to those within government who helped him get elected that he dare not rock the boat.  The true top level dudes are NEVER going to let a guy through primaries unless they're 100% sure he'll "play ball" and not rock the boat.

He plays a role, like the fictional James Bond, but all he does is read the scripts.  He takes orders from the producers and director and "studio execs".


It would almost be comforting if the world worked this way, if there were some one or some cabal truly "in charge." But it doesn't. There's not. That's just fantasy. All the world's powers are just regular-ass people who end up in extraordinary places. Whether by parentage, money, dumb luck, or skill, however they got there, they're still just humans.
 
2013-12-27 02:49:07 PM

Serious Black: Starshines: This is a good thing.  The sooner there is a circuit split the sooner this issue goes to the Supreme Court.

/Thank God for Edward Snowden.

And the sooner we have SCOTUS rule the Fourth Amendment no longer exists.


Hey, at least it would be out in the open.  And maybe they'd even do the right thing.
 
2013-12-27 02:49:30 PM

Chummer45: Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.


I don't ignore that at all. I consider Bush to be WAY worse than Obama, and in fact, I can't stand the "both sides are bad" false equivalence BS.   With that said, Obama came into office promising to change a lot of the horrible policies / practices from the Bush administration.  Unfortunately, he has not lived up to those promises in a number of ways - his justice department has basically ignored widespread criminal fraud in the banking sector, and his foreign policy - while much, much better than Bush's foreign policy - is still being carried out in a manner that tramples on civil liberties.  From the extensive snooping on Americans and foreigners, to extrajudicial execution via drone strikes, to his failure to close Gitmo, he has continued a lot of bad policies that started with Bush.  I voted for Obama, but just because I voted for him doesn't mean I support everything he does.  In many ways he has been far too conservative.


Again, these are symptoms of a much bigger problem. The truth is that Obama has been a good President overall, given our current right-leaning political climate.

And you're also ascribing actions that Congress was supposed to take care of, like closing Gitmo.
 
2013-12-27 02:49:58 PM
libs be like: "it's bullshiat that the government wants to use 9/11 as a cover all but let's not reinvestigate it and instead take what the government said about 9/11 at face value cuz you're a conspiracy theorist if you want the truth!"
 
2013-12-27 02:50:12 PM

whidbey: 9/11 could have been handled way differently. Instead, it turned into an embarrassing dick-waving failure that cost this country trillions of dollars, dead soldiers, dead Afghanis and Iraqis, and set this country even lower in the eyes of the world.

You just can't admit that, can you? You can't take a look and understand why we are in the shiat we're in now.

To you, Obama is just another dude like Bush. He HAS to be.


I'm not the one pretending that Al Queada wasn't an international threat pre-9/11.  OF course, you yourself have faulted Bush for not stopping 9/11 when that memo "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" was given to Bush.  I suppose, if you had been in his shoes, you'd have taken the threat more seriously...especially given your understanding of Al Queada's lack of international ambitions.

I think anyone that automatically condemns Bush, or Obama, is acting without thought.  Someone who condemns one but not the other though, for the same or similar actions, is not just lacking thought, but may be incapable of it.
 
2013-12-27 02:51:30 PM
This will undoubtedly make is way top the SCOTUS in due time.
 
2013-12-27 02:51:52 PM

whidbey: I_C_Weener: whidbey: I_C_Weener: whidbey: RanDomino: whidbey
Or it's far more likely that he knows something we don't.

When evidence fails, there's always magical thinking to the rescue.

Actually the "evidence" suggests that Al Qaeda really are enemies now, thanks to Bush.

Keep ignoring that while you continue to post above and outside the ideology.

You are starting to sound a bit Truthy there.

Nope. Just telling it like it is. We hit the hornet's nest instead of opting for peaceful negotiation, and now it's escalated into something a lot worse.

Again, none of this is a stellar revelation. Thanks to Bush, Al Qaeda is a real international threat now.

So, are you saying that in his first 9 months of office, Bush enraged Al Queada so much that they flew airplanes into our buildings?  Or surely you are referring to the embassy bombings that took place before he took office in Kenya.  Or maybe you refer to the USS Cole bombing.  Seeing as how these were in 3 different countries, I'd call that international.  Of course that only counts the attacks on American interests.  I'm pretty sure their agenda over the years has included many different countries and their interests...even before Bush ran for president.

C'mon man.

9/11 could have been handled way differently. Instead, it turned into an embarrassing dick-waving failure that cost this country trillions of dollars, dead soldiers, dead Afghanis and Iraqis, and set this country even lower in the eyes of the world.

You just can't admit that, can you? You can't take a look and understand why we are in the shiat we're in now.

To you, Obama is just another dude like Bush. He HAS to be.



Look, obviously Obama is a HUGE improvement over the idiotic foreign policy of the Bush administration.  That said, there's plenty of legitimate criticism of Obama's foreign policy.  Just because Bush set the bar absurdely low doesn't mean we need to hold Obama to a lower standard.

Don't worry - I'm not defending the moronic right wing or the GOP.  My problem is that the GOP's role has been to pull the debate so far to the right that a lot of people tend to view any democratic president as "liberal," even if their actual policies are disturbingly conservative.
 
2013-12-27 02:51:59 PM

ToastTheRabbit: I think wat bothers me MOST is the fact that this "broad" surveillance really seems like the LEAST efficient way to accomplishing their goals.

If you have far more data than you could ever hope to sniff through.... why continue collecting shiat you will never be capable of vetting?

I am not a political guy... I have my booze, tv, steam account and enough money <just> to pay bills and rent... Typical compliant happy citizen... but even I say WTF?

Wouldnt a government need this type of collection if they were trying to spot signs of revolution in their people?


DING DING DING DING!

I can't help but think there's a team of shrinks who are watching and waiting to hit the PANIC button.

"Sire, the peasants are revolting."
"You're right. They stink on ice. PULL!"
 
2013-12-27 02:52:15 PM

slayer199: whidbey: Ah you're just above all this, aren't you?

I hate both parties and have voted 3rd party since '92.  I'm not necessarily above it, but I'm not blind to the failings of either party...unlike yourself.

There are a few farkers here that are ardent leftists, that have been extremely critical of Obama on a number of civil liberties issues...whereas you do nothing to defend, defend, defend...and failing defense, blame Bush (buh-buh-buh BUSH!).  I don't agree with them on most issues, but at least I could respect them for maintaining the integrity of their ideology irrespective of party politics.  You sir, have none of that.


Dude, if you can't see that Bush got us where we're at, then you're as good as someone fervently supporting his failed political administration.

And what's more, you totally ignore the many many accomplishments of the past 5 years. I don't care to agree with you. You have more in common with the social conservatives.
 
2013-12-27 02:52:36 PM

Prophet of Loss: Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?

"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." ―Padmé Amidala


i257.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-27 02:53:04 PM

Starshines: And maybe they'd even do the right thing.


AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*gasp*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
2013-12-27 02:53:29 PM

whidbey: Chummer45: Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.


I don't ignore that at all. I consider Bush to be WAY worse than Obama, and in fact, I can't stand the "both sides are bad" false equivalence BS.   With that said, Obama came into office promising to change a lot of the horrible policies / practices from the Bush administration.  Unfortunately, he has not lived up to those promises in a number of ways - his justice department has basically ignored widespread criminal fraud in the banking sector, and his foreign policy - while much, much better than Bush's foreign policy - is still being carried out in a manner that tramples on civil liberties.  From the extensive snooping on Americans and foreigners, to extrajudicial execution via drone strikes, to his failure to close Gitmo, he has continued a lot of bad policies that started with Bush.  I voted for Obama, but just because I voted for him doesn't mean I support everything he does.  In many ways he has been far too conservative.

Again, these are symptoms of a much bigger problem. The truth is that Obama has been a good President overall, given our current right-leaning political climate.

And you're also ascribing actions that Congress was supposed to take care of, like closing Gitmo.



I agree with you.  But you can't pretend that Obama has nothing to do with this stuff.  Foreign policy is an area where the President has a LOT of discretion.
 
2013-12-27 02:54:25 PM

whidbey: Of course it was derpy. You have no alternatives. No 3rd party. Nothing. You'd do well to support the Democrats and condemn aggressive hardliner bullshiat like this.

But no, you'd rather divide the country and let the far right dominate it.


Aggressive hardliner bullshiat?  The de facto leader of the Democratic party President Obama stated:  "And I think it's important to note that in all the reviews of this program that have been done, in fact, there have not been actual instances where it's been alleged that the NSA in some ways acted inappropriately in the use of this data. But what is also clear is from the public debate, people are concerned about the prospect, the possibility of abuse. And I think that's what the judge in the district court suggested. And although his opinion obviously differs from rulings on the FISA Court, we're taking those into account. "

Which we know is a lie.  The NSA has shared intel with the DEA which has nothing to do with terrorism.

or

"This program, by the way, is fully overseen not just by Congress but by the FISA Court, a court specially put together to evaluate classified programs to make sure that the executive branch, or government generally, is not abusing them and that they're - it's being out consistent with the Constitution and rule of law. "

And we know FISA is nothing but a rubber stamp.

"The question we're going to have to ask is can we accomplish the same goals that this program is intended to accomplish in ways that give the public more confidence that in fact the NSA is doing what it's supposed to be doing. I have confidence in the fact that the NSA is not engaging in domestic surveillance or snooping around, but I also recognize that as technologies change and people can start running algorithms and programs that map out all the information that we're downloading on a daily basis into our telephones and our computers that we may have to refine this further to give people more confidence. And I'm going to be working very hard on doing that."

How about border control checkpoints well inside the border which have been expanded under Obama.

Who's the hardliner here?

So your position is there's only one alternative to the far right and that's the left.  Yeah, that's logical  It's that type of myopia that has left us with the crappy choices we have now.

No, I won't vote Democratic or Republican...I'll continue to vote 3rd party because I'll vote for what I believe is right as neither party gives a damn about the Constitution.

In the meantime, you can continue to blindly defend the Democratic party as being little better than the GOP on civil liberties.
 
2013-12-27 02:54:34 PM

Chummer45: Look, obviously Obama is a HUGE improvement over the idiotic foreign policy of the Bush administration.  That said, there's plenty of legitimate criticism of Obama's foreign policy.  Just because Bush set the bar absurdely low doesn't mean we need to hold Obama to a lower standard.

Don't worry - I'm not defending the moronic right wing or the GOP.  My problem is that the GOP's role has been to pull the debate so far to the right that a lot of people tend to view any democratic president as "liberal," even if their actual policies are disturbingly conservative.


I think this ruling is bullshiat. I do not believe the NSA should have this kind of power.

But again, I understand why we are at this juncture.

And honestly, we the people need to speak out against it. But so far, the loudest voices are the derpers who probably voted for those Bush-era policies.
 
2013-12-27 02:55:00 PM

blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]


You're gonna have to explain how we're "losing liberty" when someone watches us do it but doesn't tell the cops...

Total number of convictions made against U.S. Citizens based on information provided by the NSA: 0.  It is illegal to use such information in a law enforcement setting.
 
2013-12-27 02:56:37 PM
If you have nothing to hide then why do you care?
 
2013-12-27 02:56:39 PM
If the NSA is really interested in how many times a month I order pizza or check my bank account balance, I don't really give a shiat.
 
2013-12-27 02:58:00 PM

slayer199: whidbey: Of course it was derpy. You have no alternatives. No 3rd party. Nothing. You'd do well to support the Democrats and condemn aggressive hardliner bullshiat like this.

But no, you'd rather divide the country and let the far right dominate it.

Aggressive hardliner bullshiat?  The de facto leader of the Democratic party President Obama stated:  "And I think it's important to note that in all the reviews of this program that have been done, in fact, there have not been actual instances where it's been alleged that the NSA in some ways acted inappropriately in the use of this data. But what is also clear is from the public debate, people are concerned about the prospect, the possibility of abuse. And I think that's what the judge in the district court suggested. And although his opinion obviously differs from rulings on the FISA Court, we're taking those into account. "

Which we know is a lie.  The NSA has shared intel with the DEA which has nothing to do with terrorism.

or

"This program, by the way, is fully overseen not just by Congress but by the FISA Court, a court specially put together to evaluate classified programs to make sure that the executive branch, or government generally, is not abusing them and that they're - it's being out consistent with the Constitution and rule of law. "

And we know FISA is nothing but a rubber stamp.


No we farking don't. It's due process. Deal with it.

Who's the hardliner here?

So your position is there's only one alternative to the far right and that's the left. Yeah, that's logical It's that type of myopia that has left us with the crappy choices we have now.


Obama isn't a "crappy choice." Again, you are totally ignoring 5 years of accomplishments. Get off your farking high horse.

And I believe I've given you enough bites for now.
 
2013-12-27 02:58:52 PM
img.fark.net
 
2013-12-27 02:59:00 PM

quansem: /Speaking of dirt, it looks like Chinese dirt has all the rare earths in it. Interesting times..


'Rare earths' is a misnomer nowadays; they're found all over the place but China undercut everyone else and drove them out of business or convinced them to move operations to China.
 
2013-12-27 02:59:25 PM

whidbey: slayer199: whidbey: Ah you're just above all this, aren't you?

I hate both parties and have voted 3rd party since '92.  I'm not necessarily above it, but I'm not blind to the failings of either party...unlike yourself.

There are a few farkers here that are ardent leftists, that have been extremely critical of Obama on a number of civil liberties issues...whereas you do nothing to defend, defend, defend...and failing defense, blame Bush (buh-buh-buh BUSH!).  I don't agree with them on most issues, but at least I could respect them for maintaining the integrity of their ideology irrespective of party politics.  You sir, have none of that.

Dude, if you can't see that Bush got us where we're at, then you're as good as someone fervently supporting his failed political administration.

And what's more, you totally ignore the many many accomplishments of the past 5 years. I don't care to agree with you. You have more in common with the social conservatives.


Every time I see you in a thread I add another "[insert subject here] can do no wrong" to your favorite list. Surprising it took this long to get a president up there.

As a politically left-leaning individual, I find that folks like you are a huge part of the political problem in this country.
 
2013-12-27 03:00:19 PM

Chummer45: I agree with you.  But you can't pretend that Obama has nothing to do with this stuff.  Foreign policy is an area where the President has a LOT of discretion.


Unless that President is also a hardliner, I don't think there is that kind of discretion anymore. Especially for someone like Obama who has been already considered someone who went on record criticizing Bush policy.

That's what's scary, and that's why our aggressive military actions are a symptom of a much bigger problem.
 
2013-12-27 03:01:38 PM

whidbey: slayer199: whidbey: Ah you're just above all this, aren't you?

I hate both parties and have voted 3rd party since '92.  I'm not necessarily above it, but I'm not blind to the failings of either party...unlike yourself.

There are a few farkers here that are ardent leftists, that have been extremely critical of Obama on a number of civil liberties issues...whereas you do nothing to defend, defend, defend...and failing defense, blame Bush (buh-buh-buh BUSH!).  I don't agree with them on most issues, but at least I could respect them for maintaining the integrity of their ideology irrespective of party politics.  You sir, have none of that.

Dude, if you can't see that Bush got us where we're at, then you're as good as someone fervently supporting his failed political administration.

And what's more, you totally ignore the many many accomplishments of the past 5 years. I don't care to agree with you. You have more in common with the social conservatives.


I'm not going to defend Bush as he was horrible.  Yes, he started it.  The Democrats swept Congress and the Presidency as a direct repudiation of Bush's policies.   Apparently, you like to conveniently ignore that the Democratic party had control of the House, Senate and Presidency and could have done something to reign in the power of the NSA, but passed the ACA instead.   Your Buh-buh-buh Bush is getting old and really can't be defended any longer.

What has Obama specifically done for gay marriage?  Marijuana?  The states and courts have been more active in dealing with that (in fact, prior to Colorado and Washington legalizing pot, the DEA had raided more medical marijuana facilities in 4 years under Obama than 8 years of Bush).  When Colorado and Washington legalized pot (basically telling the Fed FU), then Obama said he wouldn't interfere.
 
2013-12-27 03:02:26 PM

lecavalier: The real question is would the NSA - or other government organizations - even give a fark if this or that court said it is illegal?



No.
 
2013-12-27 03:02:44 PM

Perpetuous Procrastination: whidbey: slayer199: whidbey: Ah you're just above all this, aren't you?

I hate both parties and have voted 3rd party since '92.  I'm not necessarily above it, but I'm not blind to the failings of either party...unlike yourself.

There are a few farkers here that are ardent leftists, that have been extremely critical of Obama on a number of civil liberties issues...whereas you do nothing to defend, defend, defend...and failing defense, blame Bush (buh-buh-buh BUSH!).  I don't agree with them on most issues, but at least I could respect them for maintaining the integrity of their ideology irrespective of party politics.  You sir, have none of that.

Dude, if you can't see that Bush got us where we're at, then you're as good as someone fervently supporting his failed political administration.

And what's more, you totally ignore the many many accomplishments of the past 5 years. I don't care to agree with you. You have more in common with the social conservatives.

Every time I see you in a thread I add another "[insert subject here] can do no wrong" to your favorite list. Surprising it took this long to get a president up there.

As a politically left-leaning individual, I find that folks like you are a huge part of the political problem in this country.


That's nice, Skippy.

Meantime, you keep pretending the past 10 years didn't happen, and that the Obama administration hasn't accomplished anything positive.
 
2013-12-27 03:02:59 PM
"He added: "As the Sept. 11 attacks demonstrate, the cost of missing such a threat can be horrific." "

Yeah. Up till then, the warning signs were just too damn subtle.

cdn.historycommons.org media.heavy.com
 
2013-12-27 03:03:09 PM
Amazingly specious reasoning. I don't recall gun registries being collected after Columbine, after Sandy Hook. I don't recall there being any special software consultant registries after that plane flew into the IRS building in Texas. In fact, I seem to recall a doubling-down on gun rights and ownership, as well as a collective shrug that some AMERICAN nutbag flew a plane into the IRS building. I expect lawyers to resort to special pleading, but judges should be a lot smarter than that.
 
2013-12-27 03:03:52 PM

whidbey: No we farking don't. It's due process. Deal with it.


You call the FISA Court due process?  A secret court that approves 99% of the requests?

Right...  be on your way citizen.
 
2013-12-27 03:06:39 PM

whidbey: Perpetuous Procrastination: whidbey: slayer199: whidbey: Ah you're just above all this, aren't you?

I hate both parties and have voted 3rd party since '92.  I'm not necessarily above it, but I'm not blind to the failings of either party...unlike yourself.

There are a few farkers here that are ardent leftists, that have been extremely critical of Obama on a number of civil liberties issues...whereas you do nothing to defend, defend, defend...and failing defense, blame Bush (buh-buh-buh BUSH!).  I don't agree with them on most issues, but at least I could respect them for maintaining the integrity of their ideology irrespective of party politics.  You sir, have none of that.

Dude, if you can't see that Bush got us where we're at, then you're as good as someone fervently supporting his failed political administration.

And what's more, you totally ignore the many many accomplishments of the past 5 years. I don't care to agree with you. You have more in common with the social conservatives.

Every time I see you in a thread I add another "[insert subject here] can do no wrong" to your favorite list. Surprising it took this long to get a president up there.

As a politically left-leaning individual, I find that folks like you are a huge part of the political problem in this country.

That's nice, Skippy.

Meantime, you keep pretending the past 10 years didn't happen, and that the Obama administration hasn't accomplished anything positive.


You're pretty amazing at moving goal posts. What's your secret?
 
2013-12-27 03:07:15 PM

Perpetuous Procrastination: whidbey: slayer199: whidbey: Ah you're just above all this, aren't you?

I hate both parties and have voted 3rd party since '92.  I'm not necessarily above it, but I'm not blind to the failings of either party...unlike yourself.

There are a few farkers here that are ardent leftists, that have been extremely critical of Obama on a number of civil liberties issues...whereas you do nothing to defend, defend, defend...and failing defense, blame Bush (buh-buh-buh BUSH!).  I don't agree with them on most issues, but at least I could respect them for maintaining the integrity of their ideology irrespective of party politics.  You sir, have none of that.

Dude, if you can't see that Bush got us where we're at, then you're as good as someone fervently supporting his failed political administration.

And what's more, you totally ignore the many many accomplishments of the past 5 years. I don't care to agree with you. You have more in common with the social conservatives.

Every time I see you in a thread I add another "[insert subject here] can do no wrong" to your favorite list. Surprising it took this long to get a president up there.

As a politically left-leaning individual, I find that folks like you are a huge part of the political problem in this country.


I think that if we recognized the underlying psychological concepts of humanity we might be able to pull out of this hyperpartisan rut.

We are very partisan people to the point of extremism, and this isn't just in the government sphere. We tend to do the same in religion, business, private clubs, gangs, etc. The problem is is that there needs to be healthy partisanism, not polarizing.
 
2013-12-27 03:07:44 PM

slayer199: whidbey: slayer199: whidbey: Ah you're just above all this, aren't you?

I hate both parties and have voted 3rd party since '92.  I'm not necessarily above it, but I'm not blind to the failings of either party...unlike yourself.

There are a few farkers here that are ardent leftists, that have been extremely critical of Obama on a number of civil liberties issues...whereas you do nothing to defend, defend, defend...and failing defense, blame Bush (buh-buh-buh BUSH!).  I don't agree with them on most issues, but at least I could respect them for maintaining the integrity of their ideology irrespective of party politics.  You sir, have none of that.

Dude, if you can't see that Bush got us where we're at, then you're as good as someone fervently supporting his failed political administration.

And what's more, you totally ignore the many many accomplishments of the past 5 years. I don't care to agree with you. You have more in common with the social conservatives.

I'm not going to defend Bush as he was horrible.  Yes, he started it.  The Democrats swept Congress and the Presidency as a direct repudiation of Bush's policies.   Apparently, you like to conveniently ignore that the Democratic party had control of the House, Senate and Presidency and could have done something to reign in the power of the NSA, but passed the ACA instead.   Your Buh-buh-buh Bush is getting old and really can't be defended any longer.


As long as people keep ignoring the reason why we're in the farked up state we are, I'm going to keep reminding people (like you).

What has Obama specifically done for gay marriage?  Marijuana?  The states and courts have been more active in dealing with that (in fact, prior to Colorado and Washington legalizing pot, the DEA had raided more medical marijuana facilities in 4 years under Obama than 8 years of Bush).  When Colorado and Washington legalized pot (basically telling the Fed FU), then Obama said he wouldn't interfere.

Um, gay marriage is legal now, and whatever raids you're talking about more than likely had good reason.

Again, you really would be better off supporting this administration and getting off your high horse.

I can't help but think that you want a dictator who will wave a wand and fix everything immediately.
 
2013-12-27 03:08:18 PM

justtray: BMulligan: Collecting metadata raises no significant Fourth Amendment issues and is, as far as I know, completely lawful. Accessing the actual content of communications is a completely different thing, and should always require a warrant.

BINGO.

How far are we? Roughly 150 posts and you're the first person to accurately understand the situation.

This isn't even a partisan issue. There's idiots on both sides of the aisle that are literally too stupid to comprehend this. I just wish they were less vocal about their technological retardation.

You get favorited now.


And then there's this:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/interactive/2013/jun/12/what-i s- metadata-nsa-surveillance#meta=0000000

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/06/phew-it-was-just-metadata-not-t hi nk-again/
 
2013-12-27 03:08:27 PM
Instead of dying for your freedom, you can just turn over all your private shiat and be safe and sound while chaos is brewing all around you.You don't have to die for your freedom anymore.Everyone who died in WW2 were a bunch of farking idiots.
 
2013-12-27 03:08:52 PM

whidbey: Perpetuous Procrastination: whidbey: slayer199: whidbey: Ah you're just above all this, aren't you?

I hate both parties and have voted 3rd party since '92.  I'm not necessarily above it, but I'm not blind to the failings of either party...unlike yourself.

There are a few farkers here that are ardent leftists, that have been extremely critical of Obama on a number of civil liberties issues...whereas you do nothing to defend, defend, defend...and failing defense, blame Bush (buh-buh-buh BUSH!).  I don't agree with them on most issues, but at least I could respect them for maintaining the integrity of their ideology irrespective of party politics.  You sir, have none of that.

Dude, if you can't see that Bush got us where we're at, then you're as good as someone fervently supporting his failed political administration.

And what's more, you totally ignore the many many accomplishments of the past 5 years. I don't care to agree with you. You have more in common with the social conservatives.

Every time I see you in a thread I add another "[insert subject here] can do no wrong" to your favorite list. Surprising it took this long to get a president up there.

As a politically left-leaning individual, I find that folks like you are a huge part of the political problem in this country.

That's nice, Skippy.

Meantime, you keep pretending the past 10 years didn't happen, and that the Obama administration hasn't accomplished anything positive.


Ok, why don't you list all of his major accomplishments AND failures.  I bet we get a lot of one and none of the other (or spin on his failures so it blames Bush).
 
2013-12-27 03:08:52 PM

ToastTheRabbit: I think wat bothers me MOST is the fact that this "broad" surveillance really seems like the LEAST efficient way to accomplishing their goals.

If you have far more data than you could ever hope to sniff through.... why continue collecting shiat you will never be capable of vetting?

I am not a political guy... I have my booze, tv, steam account and enough money <just> to pay bills and rent... Typical compliant happy citizen... but even I say WTF?

Wouldnt a government need this type of collection if they were trying to spot signs of revolution in their people?



Yep. If this had anything to do with terrorism it would have been declared an abject failure after they were handed the Boston bombers on a silver platter and still failed to prevent the attack: it doesn't get any better than that and they still failed. If they can't succeed after having the perpetrators pointed out to them there is no possibility of succeeding under less ideal circumstances which renders the whole boondoggle an utter failure - unless their goal isn't addressing terrorism but perhaps the commission of economic espionage, blackmail, and eviscerating organized dissent.
 
2013-12-27 03:09:06 PM

TV's Vinnie: "He added: "As the Sept. 11 attacks demonstrate, the cost of missing such a threat can be horrific." "

Yeah. Up till then, the warning signs were just too damn subtle.

[cdn.historycommons.org image 250x211] [media.heavy.com image 640x372]


Are we really gonna have that conversation again? Sigh. I thought we moved on from that one.
 
2013-12-27 03:09:08 PM

jakomo002: Boat-rockers will never win party support in the end.  Too risky for the actual power brokers.



Yeah, I guess it could really hurt his chances for re-election.


whidbey: The farked up thing is that if he did any of this, it would cause a major shiatstorm with the hardliners.

I believe Obama realized that he's only going to accomplish so much as President, and ending the War Machine wasn't going to be one of those accomplishments.

Chalk it up to inexperience in dealing with hardliners, knowledge we're not privvy to, whatever.

To me, it just reiterates that we have a much bigger problem in our government, and it's the hardliners who want this country to be an aggressive empire.


So the hardliners would flip out... So what? Is it going to hurt his re-election chances? The hardliners are already flipping out every time he wakes up and doesn't resign. Who gives a fark what the unpersuadable think? By definition there's no point in worrying about their opinions, so we should all do what's right and flip the hardliners the bird as we do it.

The "knowledge we're not privy to" thing? Yeah.... That's the kind of thing I remember hearing a whole lot from the right side of the political fence back in the Bush years. That kind of reasoning is part of how other countries end up with dictators. You're better than that.
 
2013-12-27 03:09:51 PM

Perpetuous Procrastination: whidbey: Perpetuous Procrastination: whidbey: slayer199: whidbey: Ah you're just above all this, aren't you?

I hate both parties and have voted 3rd party since '92.  I'm not necessarily above it, but I'm not blind to the failings of either party...unlike yourself.

There are a few farkers here that are ardent leftists, that have been extremely critical of Obama on a number of civil liberties issues...whereas you do nothing to defend, defend, defend...and failing defense, blame Bush (buh-buh-buh BUSH!).  I don't agree with them on most issues, but at least I could respect them for maintaining the integrity of their ideology irrespective of party politics.  You sir, have none of that.

Dude, if you can't see that Bush got us where we're at, then you're as good as someone fervently supporting his failed political administration.

And what's more, you totally ignore the many many accomplishments of the past 5 years. I don't care to agree with you. You have more in common with the social conservatives.

Every time I see you in a thread I add another "[insert subject here] can do no wrong" to your favorite list. Surprising it took this long to get a president up there.

As a politically left-leaning individual, I find that folks like you are a huge part of the political problem in this country.

That's nice, Skippy.

Meantime, you keep pretending the past 10 years didn't happen, and that the Obama administration hasn't accomplished anything positive.

You're pretty amazing at moving goal posts. What's your secret?


I haven't "moved" anything. I replied as best as I could to your vague self-righteous post as I possibly could.

You basically ignore the past 10 years, and say that I'm the problem.

Good one.
 
2013-12-27 03:09:52 PM

fisker: Instead of dying for your freedom, you can just turn over all your private shiat and be safe and sound while chaos is brewing all around you.You don't have to die for your freedom anymore.Everyone who died in WW2 were a bunch of farking idiots.


Somebody is going to have to die.
Your politicians pick YOU!
 
2013-12-27 03:10:05 PM
Hardly surprising. I'm sure they'll bring out many more prominent appointees and officials who are in the pockets of those who want to sustain the status quo here.

I've been trying to think about what the endgame is in this entire situation, because unless the Supreme Court makes another legendarily awful decision on the basis of not really understanding the facts (like they did with Citizens vs United, which is one of the worst rulings they've ever made), chances are good the NSA is going to get reeled in by SCOTUS or eventual Congressional mandate to preserve the fourth amendment.

But if that happens, this activity isn't going to stop; it's just going to masquerade under a different name. What I see as being likely is that some benign government program that requires registration (Social Security, Selective Service, etc) will be used secondarily as an opt-in process for data collection. Once you've opted in, you can't easily opt out. If you are a conscientious objector, you're investigated and perhaps even harassed. Within a generation, signing away these rights becomes a common activity because, after all, it's the path of least resistance and so few of us have anything to hide.

That sort of thinking would have sounded paranoid and crazy to me a few years ago, but right now, it seems inevitable.
 
2013-12-27 03:11:10 PM

garron: Liberty is a Christian value believe it or not.



Holy shiat that's rich. You should bag that up and sell it, chief!
 
2013-12-27 03:11:34 PM

slayer199: Ok, why don't you list all of his major accomplishments AND failures.  I bet we get a lot of one and none of the other (or spin on his failures so it blames Bush).


Not your farking secretary, slayer, it's an easy Google, and it's a huge list.

You are disingenuous.
 
2013-12-27 03:13:15 PM

slayer199: whidbey: No we farking don't. It's due process. Deal with it.

You call the FISA Court due process?  A secret court that approves 99% of the requests?

Right...  be on your way citizen.


Haven't you heard?  The FISA court is all Bush's fault.  And Obama only uses it for the purest of causes.
 
2013-12-27 03:13:32 PM

lecavalier: The real question is would the NSA - or other government organizations - even give a fark if this or that court said it is illegal?


Only one care in the world, who holds out their MONEY.
 
2013-12-27 03:14:02 PM

whidbey: As long as people keep ignoring the reason why we're in the farked up state we are, I'm going to keep reminding people (like you).


And you conveniently ignore that while the Democrats had control of Congress they did nothing to reign in the Patriot Act.

What has Obama specifically done for gay marriage? Marijuana? The states and courts have been more active in dealing with that (in fact, prior to Colorado and Washington legalizing pot, the DEA had raided more medical marijuana facilities in 4 years under Obama than 8 years of Bush). When Colorado and Washington legalized pot (basically telling the Fed FU), then Obama said he wouldn't interfere.

Um, gay marriage is legal now, and whatever raids you're talking about more than likely had good reason.

Again, you really would be better off supporting this administration and getting off your high horse.

I can't help but think that you want a dictator who will wave a wand and fix everything immediately.


Obama had nothing to do with gay marriage.  Courts and the states did (18 states have legalized same-sex marriage).

And no, those medical marijuana clinics were operating under state law...and were raided by the Federales (DEA).

The Democrats HAD the power for the first 2 years of the Obama Presidency...and what did they do?  They passed the ACA.  They didn't repeal the Patriot Act.  They didn't legalize gay marriage at the federal level.  They expanded the power of the federal government...they didn't retract it.
 
2013-12-27 03:15:19 PM
So the judge says that 9/11 could have been prevented if NSA had the megadata collection abilities they now have.  What did he base this conclusion on?  Probably information presented to him by NSA which is classified so that no one else can see it and draw a different conclusion.  Sounds fair to me.
 
2013-12-27 03:15:31 PM

whidbey: Not your farking secretary, slayer, it's an easy Google, and it's a huge list.

You are disingenuous.


Hahahah.  Because you do nothing but defend Obama no matter what.  There's a huge list of failures but I'm sure you'd deflect, spin, or deny them anyway.
 
2013-12-27 03:15:41 PM

slayer199: Ok, why don't you list all of his major accomplishments AND failures.  I bet we get a lot of one and none of the other (or spin on his failures so it blames Bush).


No offense to whidbey(well, maybe a smidge ;), but only a goddamned idiot would have a conversation with you, slayer of reason and destroyer of logic.
 
2013-12-27 03:15:57 PM

mongbiohazard: To me, it just reiterates that we have a much bigger problem in our government, and it's the hardliners who want this country to be an aggressive empire.

So the hardliners would flip out... So what? Is it going to hurt his re-election chances? The hardliners are already flipping out every time he wakes up and doesn't resign. Who gives a fark what the unpersuadable think? By definition there's no point in worrying about their opinions, so we should all do what's right and flip the hardliners the bird as we do it.


Agreed. It sounds good in theory. But in practice....

The "knowledge we're not privy to" thing? Yeah.... That's the kind of thing I remember hearing a whole lot from the right side of the political fence back in the Bush years. That kind of reasoning is part of how other countries end up with dictators. You're better than that.

Except Bush used fake intelligence to get what he (Cheney) wanted. Are you really going to deny that because of the past 10 years that we're not in a lot more deep shiat because of these policies?
 
2013-12-27 03:16:07 PM

slayer199: whidbey: As long as people keep ignoring the reason why we're in the farked up state we are, I'm going to keep reminding people (like you).

And you conveniently ignore that while the Democrats had control of Congress they did nothing to reign in the Patriot Act.

What has Obama specifically done for gay marriage? Marijuana? The states and courts have been more active in dealing with that (in fact, prior to Colorado and Washington legalizing pot, the DEA had raided more medical marijuana facilities in 4 years under Obama than 8 years of Bush). When Colorado and Washington legalized pot (basically telling the Fed FU), then Obama said he wouldn't interfere.

Um, gay marriage is legal now, and whatever raids you're talking about more than likely had good reason.

Again, you really would be better off supporting this administration and getting off your high horse.

I can't help but think that you want a dictator who will wave a wand and fix everything immediately.

Obama had nothing to do with gay marriage.  Courts and the states did (18 states have legalized same-sex marriage).

And no, those medical marijuana clinics were operating under state law...and were raided by the Federales (DEA).

The Democrats HAD the power for the first 2 years of the Obama Presidency...and what did they do?  They passed the ACA.  They didn't repeal the Patriot Act.  They didn't legalize gay marriage at the federal level.  They expanded the power of the federal government...they didn't retract it.


Stop bringing reality into this thread. You might just displace his delusions. He would just be another drone after that.
 
2013-12-27 03:16:41 PM

runwiz: So the judge says that 9/11 could have been prevented if NSA had the megadata collection abilities they now have. What did he base this conclusion on? Probably information presented to him by NSA which is classified so that no one else can see it and draw a different conclusion. Sounds fair to me.


Completely ignoring that the intel was available prior to 9/11 to prevent it...but the CIA and FBI wouldn't play together.  The NSA had nothing to do with prevention.
 
2013-12-27 03:17:48 PM
JolobinSmokin


Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

You really should get your bush-derangement-syndrome treated.
1) Obama expanded the spying evil-bush did. You blame republicans.
2) Democrat controlled senate supports obama spy program. You blame republicans.
3) obama's Justice Department defends spy program in court. You blame republicans.
*** This department reports directly to president (obama - Democrat)
*** This department is led by:
>>>> Eric Holder (democrat)- obama appointee
>>>> James Michael Cole (democrat) recess appointment by obama
------- Remember the recess appointments you biatched about bush making? I know.. It's only wrong when R's do it.
4) The judge that sides with obama's legal team in supporting the spying is Judge William Pauley -- clinton (Democrat) appointee. You blame republicans.

Responsibility. Learn to take some.
 
2013-12-27 03:18:26 PM

slayer199: whidbey: Not your farking secretary, slayer, it's an easy Google, and it's a huge list.

You are disingenuous.

Hahahah.  Because you do nothing but defend Obama no matter what.  There's a huge list of failures but I'm sure you'd deflect, spin, or deny them anyway.


Actually, if you're going to continue to deny the accomplishments of the past 5 years, then we're done here.

Repeating the same trollish talking points doesn't advance you any.
 
2013-12-27 03:19:16 PM

joonyer: No offense to whidbey(well, maybe a smidge ;), but only a goddamned idiot would have a conversation with you, slayer of reason and destroyer of logic.


I'm not the illogical one in this thread, "Whidbey the Blind" is the one that can't do anything more than defend the Obama administration.
 
2013-12-27 03:20:44 PM

slayer199: whidbey: As long as people keep ignoring the reason why we're in the farked up state we are, I'm going to keep reminding people (like you).

And you conveniently ignore that while the Democrats had control of Congress they did nothing to reign in the Patriot Act.

What has Obama specifically done for gay marriage? Marijuana? The states and courts have been more active in dealing with that (in fact, prior to Colorado and Washington legalizing pot, the DEA had raided more medical marijuana facilities in 4 years under Obama than 8 years of Bush). When Colorado and Washington legalized pot (basically telling the Fed FU), then Obama said he wouldn't interfere.

Um, gay marriage is legal now, and whatever raids you're talking about more than likely had good reason.

Again, you really would be better off supporting this administration and getting off your high horse.

I can't help but think that you want a dictator who will wave a wand and fix everything immediately.

Obama had nothing to do with gay marriage.  Courts and the states did (18 states have legalized same-sex marriage).

And no, those medical marijuana clinics were operating under state law...and were raided by the Federales (DEA).

The Democrats HAD the power for the first 2 years of the Obama Presidency...and what did they do?  They passed the ACA.  They didn't repeal the Patriot Act.  They didn't legalize gay marriage at the federal level.  They expanded the power of the federal government...they didn't retract it.


Still talking shiat, I see.
 
2013-12-27 03:21:54 PM

cman: Stop bringing reality into this thread. You might just displace his delusions. He would just be another drone after that.


Remember that "fake liberal" crack I made at you yesterday?

Keep proving it.
 
2013-12-27 03:23:13 PM

mongbiohazard: browntimmy: Well, the terrorists hate us for our freedom, right? So if we give it all up, problem solved.


I know a guy who was in the US Special forces in Afghanistan. Sometimes he had to shoot the Taliban and other affiliated Afghanis who were doing bad stuff, other times he sat and talked with them trying to negotiate peace.

I one time said that, among other reasons, they hated us for our freedom and he pretty much tore me a new asshole. Apparently, they have a lot of reasons to hate us, but enjoying our personal freedoms in the comfort of our affluent first world nation on the other side of the world isn't one of them. A long history of us killing folks throughout the Arab world, destabilizing/toppling their governments we don't like and generally being arrogant pricks who care only about what resources we can buy no matter what the cost in human lives and misery will be - and not even our own principles - is what really pisses them off. If we hadn't mucked about with their country and their neighbors as well they wouldn't be inclined to give a fark about us at all.

I did get him to agree that the freedoms that define the values of our culture do play some small part in why "they" hate us, but he is certain that it's a small part and indirect. Basically, in that we could never just stand idly by while they slaughter their own people with impugnity and turn women in to essentially livestock... Our values and freedoms make it inevitable for our cultures to clash in some way over things like that. But if we kept to ourselves and didn't muddle about in the affairs of pretty much every majority Islamic country apparently they really wouldn't give two shiats about us enjoying our freedoms back at home. Our freedoms were basically a slightly amusing curiousity to them and that's about it.


I was joking about the "they hate us for our freedom" part. But a couple other people missed the joke too so I'll take the blame, I probably should have purposely misspelled it or something.
 
2013-12-27 03:24:08 PM

quizzical: TFA:   Pauley said the fact that the ACLU would never have learned about an order authorizing collection of telephony metadata related to its telephone numbers but for Snowden's disclosures added "another level of absurdity in this case."
"It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets -- including the means and methods of intelligence gathering -- could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief," he wrote.

The government might have been doing something illegal, but because it was illegal for Snowden to reveal that fact, , no one can take action to investigate the possible illegality of the government's actions?  Bullshiat.


I'm sick of hearing about how rulings would "encourage" this or that behavior.  What the *flying fark* does that have to do with your decision?  The ruling should be about constitutionality and legality and very the fark little else.

Wouldn't want to end the failed war on drugs or we'd encourage drug use.  Wouldn't want to let kids learn about safe sex or they'd become sluts.  Wouldn't want to rule on the legality of a country spying on its citizens because that would encourage people to blow more whistles...

Fark that noise.
 
2013-12-27 03:24:19 PM
oh_please [TotalFark]


Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap?

Yes, yes he did.
upl.co
 
2013-12-27 03:24:29 PM

JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.


One of many reasons I'm libertarian, not Republican.

Republican Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Democrats; 4) Reelection; 5) Legislate morality
Democrat Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Republicans; 4) Reelection; 5) Buy votes with government spending
 
2013-12-27 03:24:39 PM

whidbey: cman: Stop bringing reality into this thread. You might just displace his delusions. He would just be another drone after that.

Remember that "fake liberal" crack I made at you yesterday?

Keep proving it.


I have no idea why you call me that. I don't pretend to be a liberal.
 
2013-12-27 03:25:56 PM

cman: whidbey: cman: Stop bringing reality into this thread. You might just displace his delusions. He would just be another drone after that.

Remember that "fake liberal" crack I made at you yesterday?

Keep proving it.

I have no idea why you call me that. I don't pretend to be a liberal.


Yeah ya do. You could at least admit it once in a while.

Or be more true to what you do believe.
 
2013-12-27 03:27:03 PM

OnlyM3: oh_please [TotalFark]


Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap?

Yes, yes he did.


Dude, you don't even believe in climate change. How are we to take you on your word on Obama's "hypocrisy?"
 
2013-12-27 03:27:11 PM

JerseyTim: He ruled the bulk collection of metadata is lawful.


That word "metadata" hides more sins than ANYONE knows.
 
2013-12-27 03:27:31 PM
eurotrader [TotalFark]

I may not have agreed with Feingold on everything but he at least tried to do the job of a Senator and represent the interests of the American people

Not to be pedantic, but no. The job of a senator is to represent their state in the Federal government.
The job of representing the American people falls to the house.
 
2013-12-27 03:28:11 PM

fullyfarked: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

One of many reasons I'm libertarian, not Republican.

Republican Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Democrats; 4) Reelection; 5) Legislate morality
Democrat Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Republicans; 4) Reelection; 5) Buy votes with government spending


Both sides are bad.

I've never heard that before.
 
2013-12-27 03:29:18 PM

whidbey: Repeating the same trollish talking points doesn't advance you any.


That's always so rich of you.
 
2013-12-27 03:29:23 PM
We may as well have stayed British.
 
2013-12-27 03:29:30 PM

fullyfarked: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

One of many reasons I'm libertarian, not Republican.

Republican Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Democrats; 4) Reelection; 5) Legislate morality
Democrat Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Republicans; 4) Reelection; 5) Buy votes with government spending


And it should go without saying that until "libertarian" is a viable political alternative, you ARE voting Republican these next few elections.

Jesus I could go all day like this. Somebody else post.
 
2013-12-27 03:29:32 PM
Fark you judge.  9/11 does not overrule the Constitution, you illiterate piece of shiat.
 
2013-12-27 03:32:01 PM

whidbey: cman: whidbey: cman: Stop bringing reality into this thread. You might just displace his delusions. He would just be another drone after that.

Remember that "fake liberal" crack I made at you yesterday?

Keep proving it.

I have no idea why you call me that. I don't pretend to be a liberal.

Yeah ya do. You could at least admit it once in a while.

Or be more true to what you do believe.


What in the world are you talking about?
 
2013-12-27 03:33:24 PM

JolobinSmokin: fullyfarked: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

One of many reasons I'm libertarian, not Republican.

Republican Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Democrats; 4) Reelection; 5) Legislate morality
Democrat Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Republicans; 4) Reelection; 5) Buy votes with government spending

Both sides are bad.

I've never heard that before.


Well you'll here it from me.

I align myself with no party nor their ideologies. All are humans, and humans are untrustworthy, dangerous, and corruptible, thus, so are their governments.
 
2013-12-27 03:34:22 PM

whidbey: OnlyM3: oh_please [TotalFark]


Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap?

Yes, yes he did.

Dude, you don't even believe in climate change. How are we to take you on your word on Obama's "hypocrisy?"


I believe in climate change and I think Obama is an authoritarian and a pathological liar.
 
2013-12-27 03:34:34 PM

OnlyM3: oh_please [TotalFark]


Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap?
Yes, yes he did.
[upl.co image 660x513]


And yet...

Obama reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act, May 2011

THe king is dead, long live the king.
 
2013-12-27 03:34:50 PM

ReverendJynxed: We may as well have stayed British.


What makes you think they don't have their own flavor of this very same bullshiat?
 
2013-12-27 03:35:38 PM

Agent Smiths Laugh: JolobinSmokin: fullyfarked: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

One of many reasons I'm libertarian, not Republican.

Republican Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Democrats; 4) Reelection; 5) Legislate morality
Democrat Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Republicans; 4) Reelection; 5) Buy votes with government spending

Both sides are bad.

I've never heard that before.

Well you'll here hear it from me.

I align myself with no party nor their ideologies. All are humans, and humans are untrustworthy, dangerous, and corruptible, thus, so are their governments.


Corrected.
 
2013-12-27 03:35:44 PM
I can't help but think that something might just "happen" to that judge.  If you know what I mean.

/gun owners are always going to prevail
 
2013-12-27 03:36:52 PM

Nabb1: whidbey: OnlyM3: oh_please [TotalFark]


Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap?

Yes, yes he did.

Dude, you don't even believe in climate change. How are we to take you on your word on Obama's "hypocrisy?"

I believe in climate change and I think Obama is an authoritarian and a pathological liar.


Except you don't have any reason to believe either. Fox News type talking points aren't reasons, either.

Mad?
 
2013-12-27 03:39:04 PM

cman: whidbey: cman: whidbey: cman: Stop bringing reality into this thread. You might just displace his delusions. He would just be another drone after that.

Remember that "fake liberal" crack I made at you yesterday?

Keep proving it.

I have no idea why you call me that. I don't pretend to be a liberal.

Yeah ya do. You could at least admit it once in a while.

Or be more true to what you do believe.

What in the world are you talking about?


OK, I'll stop.
Sorry.
 
2013-12-27 03:40:18 PM
Somebody probably said this upstream, I didn't read the comments, but legal or illegal IF THEY CAN THEY WILL-this applies to everyone and everything, including spying. Now you know=what the court said don't mean squat
 
2013-12-27 03:40:52 PM

Agent Smiths Laugh: JolobinSmokin: fullyfarked: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

One of many reasons I'm libertarian, not Republican.

Republican Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Democrats; 4) Reelection; 5) Legislate morality
Democrat Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Republicans; 4) Reelection; 5) Buy votes with government spending

Both sides are bad.

I've never heard that before.

Well you'll here it from me.

I align myself with no party nor their ideologies. All are humans, and humans are untrustworthy, dangerous, and corruptible, thus, so are their governments.


so you are a fark independent? how cute
 
2013-12-27 03:41:56 PM

JerseyTim: DreamSnipers: My mistake, I thought a judge would know there is a fourth amendment to the constitution.

Telephone metadata has not been considered to be under Fourth Amendment protection since 1979's Smith v. Maryland.


Which was a horrible precedent to set.  Virtually everything about our lives now resides with some 3rd party - financial transactions, email, photo collections, cloud computing, membership in organizations, various location information, etc. - and thus is potentially vulnerable to collection given the argument of Smith vs. Maryland.

But given that, Smith vs Maryland involved collection of metadata on a single user who was already a suspect in a crime at a time when telephone metadata couldn't tell you nearly as much as it does now.  The situation now is vastly different in scope and the collection is against people for whom no suspicion of a crime exists.  That was the point hammered home in the first ruling - that Smith vs Maryland was to much of a stretch to justify the current shenanigans.
 
2013-12-27 03:42:42 PM
Since Al Qaeda hated us for our FreedomTM,, I guess we'll be friends from here on out.
 
2013-12-27 03:42:43 PM
never doubt the government's ability to act paranoid and emotional
 
2013-12-27 03:43:43 PM
This ain't your father's Oldsmobile.
 
2013-12-27 03:47:14 PM
Correct me if I am wrong(I trust Fark will),

But, didn't he just pretty much equate this with, being in public you really have no expectation of privacy?

What I mean, as if I really have to point this out, is that, because they collect all, and being that it's everyones, that it's public and not private?

Hmmmm, interesting.
 
2013-12-27 03:47:36 PM
Fan-farking-tastic job catching those bombers before they bombed the Boston Marathon, NSA!
 
2013-12-27 03:48:18 PM

blacksharpiemarker: [unrelated franklin quote0]


...Except having people see/hear you without you knowing isn't giving up liberty.

You want to prevent people from seeing you? Stop reflecting photons. Once they leave you, they aren't yours anymore.

/just trollin'
 
2013-12-27 03:49:38 PM

whidbey: I_C_Weener: But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.

From what I can tell, he's not happy about it, but we are in a position where it's become necessary.

To me, that means that we now have real enemies because of the policies of the past 10 70 years.


FTFY
Could probably make the argument to push that back even further
 
2013-12-27 03:50:51 PM

namatad: Agent Smiths Laugh: JolobinSmokin: fullyfarked: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

One of many reasons I'm libertarian, not Republican.

Republican Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Democrats; 4) Reelection; 5) Legislate morality
Democrat Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Republicans; 4) Reelection; 5) Buy votes with government spending

Both sides are bad.

I've never heard that before.

Well you'll here it from me.

I align myself with no party nor their ideologies. All are humans, and humans are untrustworthy, dangerous, and corruptible, thus, so are their governments.

so you are a fark independent? how cute


Nope. Not that either.

I am a misanthrope with a deep distrust and loathing for homo sapiens.

That doesn't leave much room for me to care about the arbitrary categories such primates like to assign to things.
 
2013-12-27 03:51:02 PM
saying again

NSA with all its data collection could get some forgiveness if they would use that info to do some obvious good once in a while

(like targeting overseas credit card thieves and internet scammers (as example)) - but what do i know)
 
2013-12-27 03:52:49 PM

N4LG4s: N4LG4s: Dang....might as well toss the Bill of Rights and US Constitution into this:

[www.awesomebackgrounds.com image 200x125]


Fark that.

Time to lock and load!

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-12-27 03:52:59 PM
Ok, I'm the most lefty leftist to ever left in America, but this court case is being way overblown. Yall act like this is something new, or at the very oldest was brought about by the Patriot Act.

This has been established jurisprudence since long before most Farkers were born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Phone call metadata is not subject to the Fourth Amendment. This is very old news. This current court case (and the one back in the 1970s) were NOT about call contents. There is nothing about wiretaps in this case. This is not about listening to your call contents.

Liberty did not die today. This isn't a big farking deal. Calm the fark down.
 
2013-12-27 03:53:33 PM
Prophet of Loss:


"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." ― Rand Paul
 
2013-12-27 03:54:28 PM
justtray
When, specifically, did Obama promise to repeal the patriot act when he was running for president?

Don't pretend you don't know how marketing works. When he said shiat like 'We will balance security against privacy,' progressives heard it as "I will repeal the Patriot Act".


slayer199
The Democrats had control the House, Senate and Presidency for the first 2 years of Obama's tenure....enough to pass the ACA but not enough to reign in the Patriot Act? Riggghhhhtt. The most transparent administration ever!!!

Technically it was only a few months when they had filibuster-proof control of the Senate, assuming that the 'nuclear option' (which was just used) is not allowed for whatever idiotic reason. I have never heard a compelling argument for why the Democrats failed to do anything important during this time yet we should still slob their knobs.


whidbey
Actually the "evidence" suggests that Al Qaeda really are enemies now, thanks to Bush.

Amazing. So now you are consciously adopting a bullshiat Bush-era GOP position and blaming it on Bush. On the other hand, this is basically what you guys have done with ACA, so I guess it's not inconsistent.

Also: No. "Al Qaeda" consists of Saudi mercenaries in Syria, desert bandits in the West African Sahel, and one faction of a civil war in Yemen. They are not, and never were, a serious threat to the people of the United States. Look, the fact that they aren't planting bombs along oil pipelines, which would be insanely easy and immediately burn the US economy to the ground, shows that they're not serious. I find it rather disgusting that you, of all people, are now trying to do the "BOOGA-BOOGA AL-QAEDA!" routine.

given our current right-leaning political climate.

This is a pretty good illustration of why the Democrats continue to fail and march to the right. People aren't voting for conservatives because the political climate is right-leaning. They're voting for conservatives because the Democrats are SPINELESS WORMS.

more than likely had good reason.

Of course. They must have, because if they didn't then that would make Obama look bad.


ReapTheChaos
If the NSA is really interested in how many times a month I order pizza or check my bank account balance, I don't really give a shiat.

Good luck in your quest to remain neutral on a moving train.
 
2013-12-27 03:57:31 PM
Does this mean we can point and laugh at everyone who misquoted the previous judge and went on tirades about how the NSA programs were 'definitely unconstitutional' instead of 'likely unconstitutional'?

After a nice week of not listening to the news, I was subject to extreme idiocy in an airport lounge.  Hearing a 'journalist' push that shiat was painful.
 
2013-12-27 03:59:09 PM

ReapTheChaos: If the NSA is really interested in how many times a month I order pizza or check my bank account balance, I don't really give a shiat.



= tool.
 
2013-12-27 04:00:00 PM

holeinthedonut: Somebody probably said this upstream, I didn't read the comments, but legal or illegal IF THEY CAN THEY WILL-this applies to everyone and everything, including spying. Now you know=what the court said don't mean squat


Objects in the rear view mirror are,,
 
2013-12-27 04:00:01 PM

fullyfarked: JerseyTim: He ruled the bulk collection of metadata is lawful.

That word "metadata" hides more sins than ANYONE knows.


Including a log of GPS coordinates on your phone, and therefore your person. A record of where and when nearly everyone was.
 
2013-12-27 04:00:30 PM

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: OnlyM3: oh_please [TotalFark]


Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap?

Yes, yes he did.

Dude, you don't even believe in climate change. How are we to take you on your word on Obama's "hypocrisy?"

I believe in climate change and I think Obama is an authoritarian and a pathological liar.

Except you don't have any reason to believe either. Fox News type talking points aren't reasons, either.

Mad?


I guess if I had sold out my principles regarding civil liberties to defend every continued abuse of the Fourth Amendment blindly because of jingoism and party fealty, yes, I would be mad.
 
2013-12-27 04:01:35 PM
When are the services being held? Oh and please tell me it's not a black tie affair... I don't have a nice suit.
 
2013-12-27 04:01:48 PM

RanDomino: justtray


IMHO, the train is not moving, cost of fuel and all.
Just the windows show movement.
 
2013-12-27 04:02:19 PM

Prophet of Loss: Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?

"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." ―


                                                                                       Rand Paul
 
2013-12-27 04:03:06 PM

Agent Smiths Laugh: ReverendJynxed: We may as well have stayed British.

What makes you think they don't have their own flavor of this very same bullshiat?


That's why I said it. We went through the motions of leaving for no reason.
 
2013-12-27 04:03:08 PM
So two judges in a row declared it doesn't rise to Orwellion.
 
2013-12-27 04:03:32 PM

italie: lecavalier: The real question is would the NSA - or other government organizations - even give a fark if this or that court said it is illegal?


No.


QFT
 
2013-12-27 04:04:43 PM
I really don't like to say things like this but... the tinfoil hat bridage was right (probably about more things than we care to imagine or want to believe).
 
2013-12-27 04:06:07 PM

RanDomino: whidbey
Actually the "evidence" suggests that Al Qaeda really are enemies now, thanks to Bush.

Amazing. So now you are consciously adopting a bullshiat Bush-era GOP position and blaming it on Bush. On the other hand, this is basically what you guys have done with ACA, so I guess it's not inconsistent.


ACA was a good first step towards regulating the industry. Yes, I know you're going to snark on that too, and that I'm just a corporate whore to you for saying that. I don't expect any less from you anymore.

Also: No. "Al Qaeda" consists of Saudi mercenaries in Syria, desert bandits in the West African Sahel, and one faction of a civil war in Yemen. They are not, and never were, a serious threat to the people of the United States. Look, the fact that they aren't planting bombs along oil pipelines, which would be insanely easy and immediately burn the US economy to the ground, shows that they're not serious. I find it rather disgusting that you, of all people, are now trying to do the "BOOGA-BOOGA AL-QAEDA!" routine.

It's actually more disgusting to me that you would downplay what they're doing just because they don't set fire to oil pipelines.

given our current right-leaning political climate.

This is a pretty good illustration of why the Democrats continue to fail and march to the right. People aren't voting for conservatives because the political climate is right-leaning. They're voting for conservatives because the Democrats are SPINELESS WORMS.


Because they behave like representatives that reflect their voting base rather than right -wing hardiners like the Republicans, I guess that means they're "spineless" to you. But I'm not going to remind you once again that it's public apathy that's the real problem, because you'll probably try to steer this back to the "corporate masters" bullshiat again.

more than likely had good reason.

Of course. They must have, because if they didn't then that would make Obama look bad.


I'm not going to Google it for you, and that's frankly a bullshiat statement. Keep in mind who you're actually agreeing with in this discussion, and I'll leave it at that. I should be amused, really.
 
2013-12-27 04:12:20 PM

prjindigo: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

You're gonna have to explain how we're "losing liberty" when someone watches us do it but doesn't tell the cops...

Total number of convictions made against U.S. Citizens based on information provided by the NSA: 0.  It is illegal to use such information in a law enforcement setting.


Well, you wouldn't really know how many convictions were made, because the policy and direction has been to "recreate" the investigative trail to hide the initial NSA provided tip.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/14/nsa-dea-irs-l ie -about-fact-that-americans-are-routinely-spied-on-by-our-government-ti me-for-a-special-prosecutor-2/
 When agents receive SOD information and rely on it to trigger investigations, they are directed to omit the SODs involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use "normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD." IRS agents receiving SOD data, which presumably can include information from the NSA, have been similarly instructed. They are instructed, in other words, to create a fake investigative file, and to lie. To lie, in particular, to defense lawyers and to judges, about the source of the evidence used in criminal prosecutions.
 
2013-12-27 04:14:31 PM

NorCalLos: Devil's advocate: If there are automated systems to store the data and no person actually accesses any individual's specific data without a warrant or reasonable suspicion or whatever the standard is, are your rights really violated?


Yes, they are. The gov't. doesn't get to steal my "papers" without a warrant.
 
2013-12-27 04:15:13 PM
i feel safer already...wait, there is a knock at the door.
 
2013-12-27 04:18:40 PM
I'd say we should mount a protest of thousands and thousands at NSA headquarters in Ft. Meade, MD, but they'd just capture all of our data from being at their location and put us on the no-fly list.
 
2013-12-27 04:20:28 PM

Ball Sack Obama: Oh, a Clinton appointee...

"Born in Glen Cove, New York, Pauley received an A.B. from Duke University in 1974 and a J.D. from Duke University School of Law in 1977. He was a law clerk, Office of the Nassau County Attorney, New York from 1977 to 1978. He was a Deputy county attorney of Nassau County Attorney' Office, New York in 1978. He was in private practice in New York City from 1978 to 1998. He was an Assistant counsel, New York State Assembly Minority Leader, New York from 1984 to 1998.
Pauley is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Pauley was nominated by President Bill Clinton on May 21, 1998, to a seat vacated by Peter K. Leisure. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 21, 1998, and received his commission on October 22, 1998.
Among his notable decisions was that involving Ben-ami Kadish, a U.S. national who pleaded guilty to passing classified information to Israel."


Figures
 
2013-12-27 04:20:46 PM
Do the people "arguing" with whidbey not realize that they're being trolled?
 
2013-12-27 04:21:34 PM
www.bbc.co.uk
hai guize watz goin on?
 
2013-12-27 04:22:44 PM

slayer199: The Democrats had control the House, Senate and Presidency for the first 2 years of Obama's tenure


This is simply not true. Even when everyone was present the Democrats had 58 members. There were two independents, Sanders and Lieberman, who did eventually vote yes on the ACA (in Lieberman's case only after major concessions) . For the vast majority of those two years not all Democratic senators were present. Kennedy was busy dying of cancer and after that he was busy being dead. Byrd was hospitalized for a large part of the session. The time where congress was in session and all 58 Democratic party members were present was just a handful of days.
 
2013-12-27 04:24:04 PM

Nobodyn0se: Ok, I'm the most lefty leftist to ever left in America, but this court case is being way overblown. Yall act like this is something new, or at the very oldest was brought about by the Patriot Act.

This has been established jurisprudence since long before most Farkers were born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Phone call metadata is not subject to the Fourth Amendment. This is very old news. This current court case (and the one back in the 1970s) were NOT about call contents. There is nothing about wiretaps in this case. This is not about listening to your call contents.

Liberty did not die today. This isn't a big farking deal. Calm the fark down.


THIS
and they were doing the same thing to snail mail since ... day 1 pretty much.


The thing that IS different, is that we now have the technology to create complete (or close to complete) social networks. We can finally find out who is farking whom, snorting what, and lying about pretty much everything else.

And who shot JFK and JR.
 
2013-12-27 04:25:59 PM
This decision reads like a job application for a higher appointment.  Skimming it,  I've yet to find any acknowledgement that the NSA's purported safeguards and controls have been routinely violated by their own admission or that NSA data is finding its way to local jurisdictions.  There's seems to be zero comprehension of the fact that if nothing else, Snowden's leaks displayed an obvious lack of control over how NSA's data is accessed, irrespective of the assurances given to the FISA court. He essentially accepts every government arguments and assurances at face value, facts be damned.
 
2013-12-27 04:26:10 PM
farking 12 years and we're still shiatting our pants ahout 911.  farking pussies all of you.
 
2013-12-27 04:29:54 PM

Biological Ali: Do the people "arguing" with whidbey not realize that they're being trolled?


I'm not trolling anyone.

What's more, I would think you would agree with some of what I'm saying, or at least see the point, if you don't.
 
2013-12-27 04:30:41 PM

Biological Ali: Do the people "arguing" with whidbey not realize that they're being trolled?


img638.imageshack.us
 
2013-12-27 04:34:50 PM
Balls still itch. We aren't getting anywhere.
 
2013-12-27 04:35:13 PM
I'm so glad my dad spent 4 years fighting Nazis for our freedom.
 
2013-12-27 04:35:35 PM

Perpetuous Procrastination: Biological Ali: Do the people "arguing" with whidbey not realize that they're being trolled?

[img638.imageshack.us image 361x600]


I answered your points too. The honorable thing to do is admit we disagree.
 
2013-12-27 04:36:30 PM
I think there is a pattern of thinking here that goes back to the FDR administration, resounded again in the mid-late 1960s, and has become more entrenched since Bush Sr.  Repeatedly there are an infusion of Ivory Tower elites into powerful positions in times of economic crisis or significant social change who think they have all of the solutions and that we the non-Ivy leaguers should shut up and do as our betters tell us.  It is not a partisan situation, both parties seem to fall into the same trap.  These folks seem to see us not as a means to an end or a population to represent, but one to be controlled and directed.  Unlike the regimes of the mid-20th century the technology exists to make that much more feasible, and under the guise of "terrorism" there are those seeking to have (official) permission to be able to evaluate and monitor our daily communications when they are caught doing so without permission.  As the situation in DC becomes more extreme and government moves into more facets of daily life, how else do they identify dissent and quash those who might pose a political threat?  Who among the proles might actually rally the masses and beat them in an election if things got serious enough?  And how do you find these people early to nip them in the bud before they can become a problem?
 
2013-12-27 04:37:23 PM
Agent Smiths Laugh

I am a misanthrope with a deep distrust and loathing for homo sapiens.
That doesn't leave much room for me to care about the arbitrary categories such primates like to assign to things
.

people don't get that. they want a team, they want a WIN!
in a political debate, they are willing to change facts to produce an outcome
one that in their mind means this particular leader shiats gold
none of these politicians are above suspicion
if it is wrong, that's because it is farking wrong
not a democrat/republican/independant wrong

In all my years on fark I have never favorited anyone
(you show up in GREEN!)
 
2013-12-27 04:38:35 PM

slayer199: The Democrats HAD the power for the first 2 years of the Obama Presidency.


You keep saying this, but there should be a huge asterix next to this statement. The only way they could have gotten whatever they wanted would have been to nuke the filibuster on day one. They failed to do that, so everything in the senate needs 60 votes. Thanks to the blue dogs, that was not possible.
 
2013-12-27 04:38:38 PM

Nabb1: whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: OnlyM3: oh_please [TotalFark]


Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap?

Yes, yes he did.

Dude, you don't even believe in climate change. How are we to take you on your word on Obama's "hypocrisy?"

I believe in climate change and I think Obama is an authoritarian and a pathological liar.

Except you don't have any reason to believe either. Fox News type talking points aren't reasons, either.

Mad?

I guess if I had sold out my principles regarding civil liberties to defend every continued abuse of the Fourth Amendment blindly because of jingoism and party fealty, yes, I would be mad.


Nice opinions. But neither are facts.
 
2013-12-27 04:39:26 PM

Deep Contact: I'm so glad my dad spent 4 years fighting Nazis for our freedom.


Now our troops are fighting for Nazi Freedoms.
 
2013-12-27 04:39:52 PM
"So sorry about this mess, but there are a few missing nukes out there and we need to find them before they find us. When we find the nukes, we'll spy on foreigners again, not Americans"

This is the only excuse I can accept.

One thing that is weird though is what the fark are they doing with this data? It hasn't stopped terrorists (yah, we'll never know), I haven't heard one single case of somebody getting busted for drugs, or murder, or child porn, so... What the fark is going on? Right now it's more bizarre than scary. Say, for example, I get arrested for calling my coke dealer. Isn't my lawyer going to get me off because the evidence came from an NSA wiretap?

Maybe we are just trying to keep a step ahead of the Chinese security services? It's just very strange, the whole thing. Something doesn't add up.
 
2013-12-27 04:40:46 PM

ToastTheRabbit: So, the government can freely watch you...

wont even be spying anymore eventually they will do random warrantless contraband house searches on the American people...


It seems that this judge is ruling that they can only feely watch you if they are watching everyone.

They can break the 4th Amendment, only if it's wide scale breaking.
 
2013-12-27 04:40:50 PM

Evil High Priest: slayer199: The Democrats HAD the power for the first 2 years of the Obama Presidency.

You keep saying this, but there should be a huge asterix next to this statement. The only way they could have gotten whatever they wanted would have been to nuke the filibuster on day one. They failed to do that, so everything in the senate needs 60 votes. Thanks to the blue dogs, that was not possible.


It's the single-most bullshiat talking point about the Democrats for sure. Again, it's one thing to dislike the Obama administration, but spreading outright disinformation to get a point across is pretty farking pathetic.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-12-27 04:42:42 PM

ariseatex: I miss the days when my first thought when seeing "NSA" was "No Strings Attached."


It's not a string. It's a rope. For you dissenting bastards who don't know their place.
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-27 04:43:13 PM

Evil High Priest: NorCalLos: Devil's advocate: If there are automated systems to store the data and no person actually accesses any individual's specific data without a warrant or reasonable suspicion or whatever the standard is, are your rights really violated?

Yes, they are. The gov't. doesn't get to steal my "papers" without a warrant.


Apparently, they do.
 
2013-12-27 04:49:40 PM
December 27, 2013

National Security Agency
9800 Savage Rd.
Fort Meade, MD 20755

Dear National Security Agency,

I recently learned about your spying program from arrogant people in the Guardian and the Washington Post. These articles stirred some strong emotions in me. Thank you for doing this to protect us from terrorists. Only through keeping a close eye on your own citizens are you able to stop terrorists. By my count, there has only been one successful terrorist attack on US soil since the Tragic Events of September 11th, 2000. That's a 10,000% reduction in terrorism. And, even that thing in Boston is allowable because it needed to remind us that terrorism is still a real threat.

Now, the paranoid people out there think you are taking away Fourth Amendment rights. To them, I say: "What does it matter if you have nothing to hide?" To prove I have nothing to hide and to aid the NSA in their spying program, I am giving you the passwords to my email and my social media accounts:

My AOL email password is Ronald88Reagan.
My MySpace password is Prodigy5ux.
My Friendster account is LAWLZbbq2.
And, you can access my LiveJournal with 4321Password.

In addition to these passwords, I have enclosed naked pictures of myself, including taint shots, to prove I have absolutely nothing to hide.

I feel it is important to explain some things you may have seen while "datamining" my information.

My use of the phrase "that is the bomb" is not a reference to an explosive device. It is popular vernacular for "I approve of the quality of that."
You may have also seen "I'd like to perform a terrorist attack on her!" This is not a reference to wanting to cause terror in anyone. It is just a particularly crude way of saying that a woman's appearance aroused powerful feelings of lust within me.
I may have also said, "Do you want to come over and smoke some marijuana?" This is not an invitation for cannabis use. Drugs are bad and illegal and wrong. I don't do them. Drugs could ruin one's ability to write meaningful letters. No, "smoke some marijuana" is code for "eat massive amounts of perfectly legal cheeseburgers." My wife doesn't like me eating a lot, so I have to use code when I want friends to come over to binge. I am very fat.
We use "having a safety meeting" to mean "smoke marijuana."
Now, you may have read an email about destroying an abortion clinic. That email was pretty straight forward, but we aborted that before the planning stages. We found out my buddy's daughter was teen pregnant and needed to visit the clinic. Woops. Either way, it would not be a terrorist attack because none of us are Muslim. We're Christians. The attack would be "God's Will."

I hope the above clears some things up and makes your job easier. If I can ever be of assistance, do not hesitate to contact me (you have my contact info). I'm currently unemployed, so if you need me to fill any jobs for you, please contact me about that as well. As you can see, I already have a strong understanding of how the NSA works. I look forward to hearing from you.

Openly Yours,
The First Four Black Sabbath Albums
 
2013-12-27 04:50:13 PM

Evil High Priest: NorCalLos: Devil's advocate: If there are automated systems to store the data and no person actually accesses any individual's specific data without a warrant or reasonable suspicion or whatever the standard is, are your rights really violated?

Yes, they are. The gov't. doesn't get to steal my "papers" without a warrant.


Except that these aren't your papers.  They may be papers about you, but that's a different thing.
 
2013-12-27 04:50:24 PM

Evil High Priest: slayer199: The Democrats HAD the power for the first 2 years of the Obama Presidency.

You keep saying this, but there should be a huge asterix next to this statement. The only way they could have gotten whatever they wanted would have been to nuke the filibuster on day one. They failed to do that, so everything in the senate needs 60 votes. Thanks to the blue dogs, that was not possible.


No asterisk necessary.  They had what they had and couldn't accomplish much other than Obamacare.  The blue dogs got slaughtered and Obama became tone-deaf.  Same thing will happen in 2014.

But go ahead and blame Bush again.  Enjoy the derp echo.
 
2013-12-27 04:53:13 PM

meow said the dog: Conservative valuations. OM MAGOODNESS 9/11 MADE UP ORGANIZATION OF TERRORISTS MUST DO THE SAFETY KEEPING HOMELANDING SECURITY!


Just FYI, the judge that approves of data collection is a Clinton appointee and the judge that said it was a violation is a GWB appointee.  Because socialism..
 
2013-12-27 04:54:56 PM

Thrag: slayer199: The Democrats had control the House, Senate and Presidency for the first 2 years of Obama's tenure

This is simply not true. Even when everyone was present the Democrats had 58 members. There were two independents, Sanders and Lieberman, who did eventually vote yes on the ACA (in Lieberman's case only after major concessions) . For the vast majority of those two years not all Democratic senators were present. Kennedy was busy dying of cancer and after that he was busy being dead. Byrd was hospitalized for a large part of the session. The time where congress was in session and all 58 Democratic party members were present was just a handful of days.



Last time I checked, 58 members was, indeed a majority, therefore giving them control of the senate.  Independents and those out with ailments not withstanding, Democrats were, in fact, in the majority during those years.

I will go one step further, however, and say that they controlled the house and senate a full 2 years before Bush was out of office, and as such controlled the purse strings for the majority of fiscal blunders that took place then.
 
2013-12-27 05:00:50 PM

TaskMan: Thrag: slayer199: The Democrats had control the House, Senate and Presidency for the first 2 years of Obama's tenure

This is simply not true. Even when everyone was present the Democrats had 58 members. There were two independents, Sanders and Lieberman, who did eventually vote yes on the ACA (in Lieberman's case only after major concessions) . For the vast majority of those two years not all Democratic senators were present. Kennedy was busy dying of cancer and after that he was busy being dead. Byrd was hospitalized for a large part of the session. The time where congress was in session and all 58 Democratic party members were present was just a handful of days.


Last time I checked, 58 members was, indeed a majority, therefore giving them control of the senate.  Independents and those out with ailments not withstanding, Democrats were, in fact, in the majority during those years.


Hello time traveler from the past! Let me fill you in on some current events. Since Obama entered office the Republican party has filibustered nearly everything, even their own legislation at times. Thus making the effective threshold for passing something in the senate 60 votes.
 
2013-12-27 05:02:10 PM

whidbey: Perpetuous Procrastination: Biological Ali: Do the people "arguing" with whidbey not realize that they're being trolled?

[img638.imageshack.us image 361x600]

I answered your points too. The honorable thing to do is admit we disagree.


You didn't answer anything. You went from "everything is Bush's fault and Obama can do no wrong" to "Well look at all of the good Obama has done."

You're a goal post moving mouth-breather who makes everyone with a pulse and a shred of common sense look bad.

I voted for Obama, I think Bush is a moron, and even I know better than to go full-derp with the "Obama is a gajillion times more awesome and positive for this country than Bush ever was because Bush is the devil and terrorists and stuff."

The really sad part is it's obvious you actually believe what you're saying. At least a pathetic trolling attempt wouldn't have made such a dent in hope that society wasn't as doomed as it now appears to be.
 
2013-12-27 05:08:06 PM
The Feds must be really scared shiat of us so they can keep their phony baloney jobs.
 
2013-12-27 05:08:19 PM

whidbey: mongbiohazard: To me, it just reiterates that we have a much bigger problem in our government, and it's the hardliners who want this country to be an aggressive empire.

So the hardliners would flip out... So what? Is it going to hurt his re-election chances? The hardliners are already flipping out every time he wakes up and doesn't resign. Who gives a fark what the unpersuadable think? By definition there's no point in worrying about their opinions, so we should all do what's right and flip the hardliners the bird as we do it.

Agreed. It sounds good in theory. But in practice....

The "knowledge we're not privy to" thing? Yeah.... That's the kind of thing I remember hearing a whole lot from the right side of the political fence back in the Bush years. That kind of reasoning is part of how other countries end up with dictators. You're better than that.

Except Bush used fake intelligence to get what he (Cheney) wanted. Are you really going to deny that because of the past 10 years that we're not in a lot more deep shiat because of these policies?



I will absolutely not deny it because in this context I couldn't give a shiat either way - I think it's entirely moot for these purposes. "Just trust them" is the mantra of the right-wing authoritarian using the "war on drugs" or the "war on terror" to justify unaccountable government actions. Were you satisfied with Bush using that justification? I wasn't, and I'd bet good money you weren't either. So just because the Obama admin is less odious don't give them a pass on it either. Remember - Obama won't be president forever, and the next guy's going to take the same ball and run with it.

I honestly am very, very surprised to hear that "knowledge we're not privy to" justification coming from you. I don't mean that in a pejoritive way, I mean I'm honestly surprised... I woudn't have expected it.

We have checks and balances, an elected government, the bill of rights, equal protection under the law and other great principles which are supposed to protect us citizens from our government. Once we accept "just trust them, they know stuff we don't" as a blanket justification we have effectively thrown all those protections right out the window. From that point on our government can just say "Oh, trust us, we know stuff you don't" as a justification for literally almost anything.

If we're not privy to the information that we're supposed to surrender civil liberties for then we're not able to know if there's really a reason or we're just being bullshiatted. Effective checks and balances are needed because in time a government will abuse any power it has at some point - it's just human nature (and government is a collection of us humans).
 
2013-12-27 05:09:06 PM

JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.


Considering one judge already considers it illegal, why not just start putting the violators in jail?
 
2013-12-27 05:09:10 PM

snocone: the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred. "

What a nimrod. All they had to do was answer the farking phone on 9/11 when the FBI was calling.
But, there were other plans.


Or read the very explicit dossier on them when the presidency was handed over to them. Remember, it was the SECOND attack on the towers by Al Qaeda.


http you toob clinton interview something or other.
 
2013-12-27 05:09:29 PM

great_tigers: If you have nothing to hide then why do you care?


You have something to hide.  If nothing else, you don't want jackbooted thugs inspecting your sock drawer for subversive literature or perversions do you?  Imagine if the rapeublicans were in power and decided that not having a bible was a subversive act.  Or merely owning a rubber was a death sentence.
 
2013-12-27 05:13:13 PM

mongbiohazard: whidbey: mongbiohazard: To me, it just reiterates that we have a much bigger problem in our government, and it's the hardliners who want this country to be an aggressive empire.

So the hardliners would flip out... So what? Is it going to hurt his re-election chances? The hardliners are already flipping out every time he wakes up and doesn't resign. Who gives a fark what the unpersuadable think? By definition there's no point in worrying about their opinions, so we should all do what's right and flip the hardliners the bird as we do it.

Agreed. It sounds good in theory. But in practice....

The "knowledge we're not privy to" thing? Yeah.... That's the kind of thing I remember hearing a whole lot from the right side of the political fence back in the Bush years. That kind of reasoning is part of how other countries end up with dictators. You're better than that.

Except Bush used fake intelligence to get what he (Cheney) wanted. Are you really going to deny that because of the past 10 years that we're not in a lot more deep shiat because of these policies?


I will absolutely not deny it because in this context I couldn't give a shiat either way - I think it's entirely moot for these purposes. "Just trust them" is the mantra of the right-wing authoritarian using the "war on drugs" or the "war on terror" to justify unaccountable government actions. Were you satisfied with Bush using that justification? I wasn't, and I'd bet good money you weren't either. So just because the Obama admin is less odious don't give them a pass on it either. Remember - Obama won't be president forever, and the next guy's going to take the same ball and run with it.

I honestly am very, very surprised to hear that "knowledge we're not privy to" justification coming from you. I don't mean that in a pejoritive way, I mean I'm honestly surprised... I woudn't have expected it.

We have checks and balances, an elected government, the bill of rights, equal protection under the law and other grea ...


Its OK when my side does it. Its wrong when the other side does it.
 
2013-12-27 05:13:41 PM

kerrigand: Correct me if I am wrong(I trust Fark will),

But, didn't he just pretty much equate this with, being in public you really have no expectation of privacy?

What I mean, as if I really have to point this out, is that, because they collect all, and being that it's everyones, that it's public and not private?

Hmmmm, interesting.


How nice and convenient for the judge to declare for 300 million of us what our "expectation of privacy" is.

I EXPECT to be able to call the battered women's shelter, abortion clinic, hydroponic garden supplier, local fortune teller or the local chapter of the NRA without some faceless government hack being able to know about it or draw conclusions from my activities. Anything else is not freedom nor liberty, whether the government takes action or not.
 
2013-12-27 05:19:23 PM

whidbey: U.S. District Judge William Pauley said in a written opinion that the program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaida's terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications.

Bullshiat.

Farking bullshiat.


Clinton judge.  Not surprised.
 
2013-12-27 05:20:10 PM

Perpetuous Procrastination: You're a goal post moving mouth-breather who makes everyone with a pulse and a shred of common sense look bad.


I moved no goalposts, and your personal attacks forfeit whatever argument you were making.

Next time you decide to engage me, if at all, come up with real arguments, k? I am not impressed with this facade. Just saying.
 
2013-12-27 05:24:13 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: "It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets -- including the means and methods of intelligence gathering -- could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief," he wrote.Uh, this argument can be used against any and all whistleblowing. And this asshole sits on the federal judiciary (appointed by Clinton).


Yeah, this argument kinda takes a swipe at Whistleblower protections and the Act's intent.  In many cases, a person may have to go outside the law to reveal lawbreaking by the government.

Judge is a mental jackass.  Or maybe the NSA has the papers on him and he been told to "act right".
 
2013-12-27 05:25:45 PM
through counterintelligence it should be p-possible to p-p-pinpoint p-p-p-potential troublemakers and neutralize them. neutralize them. very good.
 
2013-12-27 05:26:15 PM

mongbiohazard: Except Bush used fake intelligence to get what he (Cheney) wanted. Are you really going to deny that because of the past 10 years that we're not in a lot more deep shiat because of these policies?


I will absolutely not deny it because in this context I couldn't give a shiat either way - I think it's entirely moot for these purposes. "Just trust them" is the mantra of the right-wing authoritarian using the "war on drugs" or the "war on terror" to justify unaccountable government actions. Were you satisfied with Bush using that justification? I wasn't, and I'd bet good money you weren't either. So just because the Obama admin is less odious don't give them a pass on it either. Remember - Obama won't be president forever, and the next guy's going to take the same ball and run with it.

I honestly am very, very surprised to hear that "knowledge we're not privy to" justification coming from you. I don't mean that in a pejoritive way, I mean I'm honestly surprised... I woudn't have expected it.


It's really the only possibility, because I do not see any similarities between Bush and Obama. The logical conclusion is that Bush farked us, and we're paying for it now. And again, since this is lost on pretty much everyone I'm engaging in this thread, I DO NOT SUPPORT WHAT THE NSA IS DOING, but I understand why this administration might believe the increased security is necessary.

e have checks and balances, an elected government, the bill of rights, equal protection under the law and other great principles which are supposed to protect us citizens from our government. Once we accept "just trust them, they know stuff we don't" as a blanket justification we have effectively thrown all those protections right out the window. From that point on our government can just say "Oh, trust us, we know stuff you don't" as a justification for literally almost anything.


Didn't say that. I hope the Supreme Court overrules this judge, and agrees with the other case, that this is an overstepping of bounds. And what's more, wiretapping with a warrant or through FISA is DUE PROCESS. Maybe not the best, but again, it's disingenuous for Farkers here to keep saying what the US is doing is illegal.

This thread should have been over after BMulligan's post ^above^. Other Farkers you should have been engaging were NobobdyN0se and justray. Scan through their posts if you're not getting any enlightenment from me.

Otherwise, thanks for the most civil and thoughtful replies I've read today.
 
2013-12-27 05:26:40 PM

Perpetuous Procrastination: Biological Ali: Do the people "arguing" with whidbey not realize that they're being trolled?

[img638.imageshack.us image 361x600]


He's one of the oldest trolls on the site. Though he's unusual in that his shtick is basically that of a liberal caricature winding up conservative posters, rather than the other way around which is what most of the other trolls here go for.
 
2013-12-27 05:28:55 PM

TaskMan: Thrag: slayer199: The Democrats had control the House, Senate and Presidency for the first 2 years of Obama's tenure

This is simply not true. Even when everyone was present the Democrats had 58 members. There were two independents, Sanders and Lieberman, who did eventually vote yes on the ACA (in Lieberman's case only after major concessions) . For the vast majority of those two years not all Democratic senators were present. Kennedy was busy dying of cancer and after that he was busy being dead. Byrd was hospitalized for a large part of the session. The time where congress was in session and all 58 Democratic party members were present was just a handful of days.


Last time I checked, 58 members was, indeed a majority, therefore giving them control of the senate.  Independents and those out with ailments not withstanding, Democrats were, in fact, in the majority during those years.

I will go one step further, however, and say that they controlled the house and senate a full 2 years before Bush was out of office, and as such controlled the purse strings for the majority of fiscal blunders that took place then.


And I love how this bullshiat talking point keeps getting mileage even after it's been pointed out to you why it is wrong, and disingenuous to keep making it.
 
2013-12-27 05:29:56 PM
"He added: "As the Sept. 11 attacks demonstrate, the cost of missing such a threat can be horrific." "

yeah, sorry about that. I never took Western Civ and learned how there was this entire Bedouin Arabic type religion thingy. i did some badass kegstands, though. also got my nipple pierced. what did this judge do again?
 
2013-12-27 05:30:59 PM

Biological Ali: Perpetuous Procrastination: Biological Ali: Do the people "arguing" with whidbey not realize that they're being trolled?

[img638.imageshack.us image 361x600]

He's one of the oldest trolls on the site. Though he's unusual in that his shtick is basically that of a liberal caricature winding up conservative posters, rather than the other way around which is what most of the other trolls here go for.


I'm a moderate liberal, thanks. I stand by everything I've said here.

And for fark's sake, dude, I've got you favorited. What the fark did I do to piss you off and make you talk shiat like this? Honest question.
 
2013-12-27 05:32:01 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: "It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets -- including the means and methods of intelligence gathering -- could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief," he wrote.Uh, this argument can be used against any and all whistleblowing. And this asshole sits on the federal judiciary (appointed by Clinton).


Why is this so hard to understand? The reason why people don't like Snowden isn't because of his whistle blowing it's because he ran away. He didn't go to the American press, he went to the overseas press, he went to countries that's the opposite of what he's fighting against. And the public and political figures are using this as a way to fight each other. It takes the act of one idiot to start a war and he might have been the shot that began World War Three.

When I was in journalism college the one thing I was told to do was never runaway like scared children and face justice, Why?
Because then people you need to be on your side don't believe you are standing up for what you believe in.
If you get arrested because of your sources you always act courteous and offer the police your wrists with a smile.
 
2013-12-27 05:32:13 PM
fark that federal judge.
 
2013-12-27 05:33:01 PM
I suppose since Congress has refused to do their job and make laws, the Judicial and Executive branches have to take to the slack and make them.
 
2013-12-27 05:35:48 PM
whidbey
ACA was a good first step towards regulating the industry. Yes, I know you're going to snark on that too

Yes, because it's total bullshiat. If ACA was a step toward universal or single-payer then the Democrats should be and should have been saying that. They have not, other than shills like yourself, because there is no connection whatsoever between ACA and getting rid of the insurance corporations entirely. Except for when Democrats are talking to progressives, in which case there's a "???" in the middle of the plan.

It's actually more disgusting to me that you would downplay what they're doing just because they don't set fire to oil pipelines.

What they are doing: Terrible things. What they are not doing: Attacking the United States.

Because they behave like representatives that reflect their voting base

False

Keep in mind who you're actually agreeing with in this discussion

Is this like how everyone who's critical of Israeli occupation of the West Bank must be an anti-Semite, since some anti-Semites are also against it?

It's the single-most bullshiat talking point about the Democrats for sure. Again, it's one thing to dislike the Obama administration, but spreading outright disinformation to get a point across is pretty farking pathetic.

Don't make me yet again pull up the Wikipedia page on that Congress to point out the exact period in which the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority.
 
2013-12-27 05:37:40 PM
"Pauley said the mass collection of phone data "significantly increases the NSA's capability to detect the faintest patterns left behind by individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations. Armed with all the metadata, NSA can draw connections it might otherwise never be able to find." "
imageshack.us
(/trolling set to 11.)
 
2013-12-27 05:38:05 PM

MaliFinn: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

[i.imgur.com image 482x360]


What part of pneumonia starts with cold air?  Flat-earthers used to believe that bathing and cold air caused illness.  Now they only believe the earth is flat.  Glad we don't have to smell your posts.
 
2013-12-27 05:38:58 PM

whidbey: mongbiohazard: Except Bush used fake intelligence to get what he (Cheney) wanted. Are you really going to deny that because of the past 10 years that we're not in a lot more deep shiat because of these policies?


I will absolutely not deny it because in this context I couldn't give a shiat either way - I think it's entirely moot for these purposes. "Just trust them" is the mantra of the right-wing authoritarian using the "war on drugs" or the "war on terror" to justify unaccountable government actions. Were you satisfied with Bush using that justification? I wasn't, and I'd bet good money you weren't either. So just because the Obama admin is less odious don't give them a pass on it either. Remember - Obama won't be president forever, and the next guy's going to take the same ball and run with it.

I honestly am very, very surprised to hear that "knowledge we're not privy to" justification coming from you. I don't mean that in a pejoritive way, I mean I'm honestly surprised... I woudn't have expected it.

It's really the only possibility, because I do not see any similarities between Bush and Obama. The logical conclusion is that Bush farked us, and we're paying for it now. And again, since this is lost on pretty much everyone I'm engaging in this thread, I DO NOT SUPPORT WHAT THE NSA IS DOING, but I understand why this administration might believe the increased security is necessary.

e have checks and balances, an elected government, the bill of rights, equal protection under the law and other great principles which are supposed to protect us citizens from our government. Once we accept "just trust them, they know stuff we don't" as a blanket justification we have effectively thrown all those protections right out the window. From that point on our government can just say "Oh, trust us, we know stuff you don't" as a justification for literally almost anything.


Didn't say that. I hope the Supreme Court overrules this judge, and agrees with the other case, tha ...


i2.photobucket.com

So, to be clear, you don't support what the NSA is doing, but it's okay, because if Obama is doing it, it's because Bush made him, even though you have no facts to support that. That, folks, is how you troll.
 
2013-12-27 05:40:50 PM
Yeah cause I'm sure recording our grandparent's phone calls is going to be the death of terrorism...Americans are a bunch of retarded, trigger-happy fascist imbeciles.
 
2013-12-27 05:40:53 PM

Farker Soze: farking 12 years and we're still shiatting our pants ahout 911.  farking pussies all of you.


The guy is dead. President should pardon the rest of us suspects.
 
2013-12-27 05:42:06 PM
It's not illegal when we do it because we say it's not illegal and because government is to be trusted and any illegal activity revealed by Snowden was obtained illegally so go fark yourself?

Whatever nail you want to hang that on, I suppose.

To an extent there is a certain inevitability to all of this for me.

They can do this now because of the new tech out there. I get that.

They want to do this because they can. I get that too.

However just because one can do something does not necessarily mean one should.

What they are building is a ridiculously powerful tool that could, in the wrong hands, cause massive damage even leading to a totalitarian police state.

An earlier poster asked "Who watches the watchers?" and that's what I keep coming back to.

Whar oversight and accountability, whar?1!!?
 
2013-12-27 05:43:18 PM

whidbey: I'm a moderate liberal, thanks. I stand by everything I've said here.

And for fark's sake, dude, I've got you favorited. What the fark did I do to piss you off and make you talk shiat like this? Honest question.


I'm not pissed off. Quite the opposite - I'm quite amused at the number of bites (and, it would seem, genuine frustration) that you're getting out of these guys. It's a refreshing change of pace.
 
2013-12-27 05:45:45 PM
The NSA was founded November 4, 1952.
The Constitution was thrown away in their office November 4, 1952.
Now just how the Fark is this Obama's or Bush's or , Clinton's, or,
 
2013-12-27 05:46:24 PM

RanDomino: whidbey
ACA was a good first step towards regulating the industry. Yes, I know you're going to snark on that too

Yes, because it's total bullshiat. If ACA was a step toward universal or single-payer then the Democrats should be and should have been saying that. They have not, other than shills like yourself, because there is no connection whatsoever between ACA and getting rid of the insurance corporations entirely. Except for when Democrats are talking to progressives, in which case there's a "???" in the middle of the plan.


I'm sorry, but this statement is bullshiat, and calling me a "shill" only belies your total lack of an argument. There is plenty of evidence that ACA is insuring people and regulating the industry. You're going to have to do a LOT better than repeating the same crap.

It's actually more disgusting to me that you would downplay what they're doing just because they don't set fire to oil pipelines.

What they are doing: Terrible things. What they are not doing: Attacking the United States.


Actually, they've been active in this country. There are a host of news stories about foiled plots. More disingenuous bullshiat. And at the very least, you could admit that Al Qaeda is still an international problem.

Because they behave like representatives that reflect their voting base

False


You (deliberately?) miss the point again. I can't speak for your reps, but here in WA mine are a direct reflection of their voting base. Some are ultra-liberal, like Jim McDermott, and others, like Derek Kilmer, tend to lean towards big money. You're once again painting with a hilariously broad brush.

Keep in mind who you're actually agreeing with in this discussion

Is this like how everyone who's critical of Israeli occupation of the West Bank must be an anti-Semite, since some anti-Semites are also against it?


Personally I think that particular poster is a troll. Maybe you don't.

It's the single-most bullshiat talking point about the Democrats for sure. Again, it's one thing to dislike the Obama administration, but spreading outright disinformation to get a point across is pretty farking pathetic.

Don't make me yet again pull up the Wikipedia page on that Congress to point out the exact period in which the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority.


You already have, and I recall pointing out to you then why that argument is bullshiat. And yet you keep using it.
 
2013-12-27 05:46:51 PM

RanDomino: Don't make me yet again pull up the Wikipedia page on that Congress to point out the exact period in which the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority.


Oh, I want to see this.  Please do show a period where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate.

/difficulty: 60 actual Democrats, not just 60 counting independents that caucus with Democrats
 
2013-12-27 05:49:38 PM

Biological Ali: whidbey: I'm a moderate liberal, thanks. I stand by everything I've said here.

And for fark's sake, dude, I've got you favorited. What the fark did I do to piss you off and make you talk shiat like this? Honest question.

I'm not pissed off. Quite the opposite - I'm quite amused at the number of bites (and, it would seem, genuine frustration) that you're getting out of these guys. It's a refreshing change of pace.


Nice left-handed compliment there. Obviously I can't shake your impression of me, and I guess I shouldn't care as much.
 
2013-12-27 05:50:55 PM

HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: Don't make me yet again pull up the Wikipedia page on that Congress to point out the exact period in which the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority.

Oh, I want to see this.  Please do show a period where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate.

/difficulty: 60 actual Democrats, not just 60 counting independents that caucus with Democrats


Well, see, that doesn't count. The US Congress was solid Dem in 2009 and the Republican Monarchy was supposed to be overthrown.

*rolls eyes*
 
2013-12-27 05:52:41 PM

whidbey: Perpetuous Procrastination: You're a goal post moving mouth-breather who makes everyone with a pulse and a shred of common sense look bad.

I moved no goalposts, and your personal attacks forfeit whatever argument you were making.

Next time you decide to engage me, if at all, come up with real arguments, k? I am not impressed with this facade. Just saying.

You're a goal post moving mouth-breather

is pretty accurate.  Had this been discovered during the Bush administration, you'd be be calling it illegal and ask for arrests.  Just like the 'illegal wars'.  The executive branch is doing what it has always done and that's try to gain more power while holding on to what it is..

Obama asked for and got a Patriot Act extension and he's also intensified intelligence gathering and drone strikes while also drawing down deployed troops.  Since this is what he campaigned on, no one should be surprised..  (Oh, and there is no good/bad judgemnt being made about those acts, just observation.  Some people want to stay in Iraw and afghanistan, some want to leave.  Same with drone strikes and intelligence gathering).
 
2013-12-27 05:54:57 PM

tbeatty: whidbey: Perpetuous Procrastination: You're a goal post moving mouth-breather who makes everyone with a pulse and a shred of common sense look bad.

I moved no goalposts, and your personal attacks forfeit whatever argument you were making.

Next time you decide to engage me, if at all, come up with real arguments, k? I am not impressed with this facade. Just saying.

You're a goal post moving mouth-breatheris pretty accurate.  Had this been discovered during the Bush administration, you'd be be calling it illegal and ask for arrests.  Just like the 'illegal wars'.  The executive branch is doing what it has always done and that's try to gain more power while holding on to what it is..

Obama asked for and got a Patriot Act extension and he's also intensified intelligence gathering and drone strikes while also drawing down deployed troops.  Since this is what he campaigned on, no one should be surprised..  (Oh, and there is no good/bad judgemnt being made about those acts, just observation.  Some people want to stay in Iraw and afghanistan, some want to leave.  Same with drone strikes and intelligence gathering).


Maybe you two should have coffee sometime.
 
2013-12-27 05:57:51 PM

whidbey: Didn't say that. I hope the Supreme Court overrules this judge, and agrees with the other case, that this is an overstepping of bounds. And what's more, wiretapping with a warrant or through FISA is DUE PROCESS. Maybe not the best, but again, it's disingenuous for Farkers here to keep saying what the US is doing is illegal.

This thread should have been over after BMulligan's post ^above^. Other Farkers you should have been engaging were NobobdyN0se and justray. Scan through their posts if you're not getting any enlightenment from me.

Otherwise, thanks for the most civil and thoughtful replies I've read today.


"Just trust them, they know things we don't" is just me rephrasing "they have knowledge we aren't privy to". It means the same thing.

The FISA court's "oversight" of the NSA, I haven't said it was illegal - though, being that it's arguable whether the whole program is actually constitutional or not I don't usually give other folks a hard time if they assert that particular. Even assuming that it is legal.... it shouldn't be. I operate under the assumption that it's legal and that the law is wrong, and needs to be changed. Plenty of patently wrong things have been legal at one time or another and some still are.

Maybe I should have been engaging this debate with one of the other farkers you mentioned, sure. I didn't just because your post was the one that suprised me so much. Like I said, I really didn't expect the "knowledge we aren't privy to" thing from you, I've seen many posts of yours over the years of course. Honestly, that line of reasoning is a bad road to start going down, no matter how much we like or dislike a particular leader. I will not be content with that from any leader, no matter how much I like them. I'm a "trust but verify" kinda guy.

You're welcome for the civility. If you were a dittohead I might have been mean, because I have no respect for those who do not think their positions through and do not make any attempt to assimilate new knowledge. Like I said before, the unpersuadable can go get bent. You're not one of those though, so if you say something that I find totally unexpected then rational discussion is appropriate (and possible).
 
2013-12-27 06:01:34 PM

mongbiohazard: whidbey: Didn't say that. I hope the Supreme Court overrules this judge, and agrees with the other case, that this is an overstepping of bounds. And what's more, wiretapping with a warrant or through FISA is DUE PROCESS. Maybe not the best, but again, it's disingenuous for Farkers here to keep saying what the US is doing is illegal.

This thread should have been over after BMulligan's post ^above^. Other Farkers you should have been engaging were NobobdyN0se and justray. Scan through their posts if you're not getting any enlightenment from me.

Otherwise, thanks for the most civil and thoughtful replies I've read today.

"Just trust them, they know things we don't" is just me rephrasing "they have knowledge we aren't privy to". It means the same thing.

The FISA court's "oversight" of the NSA, I haven't said it was illegal - though, being that it's arguable whether the whole program is actually constitutional or not I don't usually give other folks a hard time if they assert that particular. Even assuming that it is legal.... it shouldn't be. I operate under the assumption that it's legal and that the law is wrong, and needs to be changed. Plenty of patently wrong things have been legal at one time or another and some still are.

Maybe I should have been engaging this debate with one of the other farkers you mentioned, sure. I didn't just because your post was the one that suprised me so much. Like I said, I really didn't expect the "knowledge we aren't privy to" thing from you, I've seen many posts of yours over the years of course. Honestly, that line of reasoning is a bad road to start going down, no matter how much we like or dislike a particular leader. I will not be content with that from any leader, no matter how much I like them. I'm a "trust but verify" kinda guy.

You're welcome for the civility. If you were a dittohead I might have been mean, because I have no respect for those who do not think their positions through and do not make any attempt to assimi ...


Thanks, man. And I could be totally wrong, I've been known to be. It's just how I see it. And what's more, there are posts in here that back up some of what I've been saying. that when it comes down to it, Obama isn't anything like Bush.
 
2013-12-27 06:03:24 PM

HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: Don't make me yet again pull up the Wikipedia page on that Congress to point out the exact period in which the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority.

Oh, I want to see this.  Please do show a period where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate.

/difficulty: 60 actual Democrats, not just 60 counting independents that caucus with Democrats


Play with numbers all you like, but in the summer of 2009 the Republicans counted for only 39 or 40 Senators depending on which part of that time you would like to discuss.  Afterwards (October 1?) they had 41 to 42 Senators.  Bernie Sanders caucused with the Dems as did Liebermann the "Independent" Democrat.  Dems had a lock on the Senate and the majority of the House.
 
2013-12-27 06:06:02 PM

blugenes: Dems had a lock on the Senate and the majority of the House.


But not on their party. I love how we pretend there aren't such things as Blue Dogs or other conservative Democrats like Carl Levin. Once Obama was in, they were going to repeal everything and undo the past 10 years.
 
2013-12-27 06:08:21 PM

blugenes: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: Don't make me yet again pull up the Wikipedia page on that Congress to point out the exact period in which the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority.

Oh, I want to see this.  Please do show a period where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate.

/difficulty: 60 actual Democrats, not just 60 counting independents that caucus with Democrats

Play with numbers all you like, but in the summer of 2009 the Republicans counted for only 39 or 40 Senators depending on which part of that time you would like to discuss.  Afterwards (October 1?) they had 41 to 42 Senators.  Bernie Sanders caucused with the Dems as did Liebermann the "Independent" Democrat.  Dems had a lock on the Senate and the majority of the House.


So we're down from 2 years to just the summer of 2009. We're slowly getting closer to the reality.
 
2013-12-27 06:09:18 PM

blugenes: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: Don't make me yet again pull up the Wikipedia page on that Congress to point out the exact period in which the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority.

Oh, I want to see this.  Please do show a period where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate.

/difficulty: 60 actual Democrats, not just 60 counting independents that caucus with Democrats

Play with numbers all you like, but in the summer of 2009 the Republicans counted for only 39 or 40 Senators depending on which part of that time you would like to discuss.  Afterwards (October 1?) they had 41 to 42 Senators.  Bernie Sanders caucused with the Dems as did Liebermann the "Independent" Democrat.  Dems had a lock on the Senate and the majority of the House.


Democrats only had a lock on the Senate for as long as they could convince Lieberman to line up with them.  Which, as it turned out, was "not at all".  And that was kind of my point.
 
2013-12-27 06:10:33 PM

whidbey: Nice left-handed compliment there. Obviously I can't shake your impression of me, and I guess I shouldn't care as much.


I was probably a little bit harsh earlier - you're certainly not a dedicated troll in the same sense as someone like SkinnyHead. But every once in a while, you seem to go through a phase where you just start winding people up for the sake of it. That's just how it comes across to me.
 
2013-12-27 06:13:18 PM
fark shiat piss

that is all.
 
2013-12-27 06:14:53 PM

Biological Ali: whidbey: Nice left-handed compliment there. Obviously I can't shake your impression of me, and I guess I shouldn't care as much.

I was probably a little bit harsh earlier - you're certainly not a dedicated troll in the same sense as someone like SkinnyHead. But every once in a while, you seem to go through a phase where you just start winding people up for the sake of it. That's just how it comes across to me.


I will admit that I tend to get a bit wound up here, and lose patience easily sometimes. Which would never work IRL.
 
2013-12-27 06:16:44 PM
Oh, say can you see
By the drone's early flight
All the freedoms curtailed
By our agency's scheming

GPS in the cars
Trackers on every site
O'er their web-cams we watched
Via satellites beaming

And the laser's red glare
Points at them from mid-air
Secret judges indict
And our agents are there

Oh, say does that NSA PRISM yet waive
Fourth Amendment guarantees
From the cradle to grave?
 
2013-12-27 06:19:15 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Oh, say can you see
By the drone's early flight
All the freedoms curtailed
By our agency's scheming

GPS in the cars
Trackers on every site
O'er their web-cams we watched
Via satellites beaming

And the laser's red glare
Points at them from mid-air
Secret judges indict
And our agents are there

Oh, say does that NSA PRISM yet waive
Fourth Amendment guarantees
From the cradle to grave?


Dude, you've been living out in the woods too long.
 
2013-12-27 06:23:27 PM

Biological Ali: whidbey: Nice left-handed compliment there. Obviously I can't shake your impression of me, and I guess I shouldn't care as much.

I was probably a little bit harsh earlier - you're certainly not a dedicated troll in the same sense as someone like SkinnyHead. But every once in a while, you seem to go through a phase where you just start winding people up for the sake of it. That's just how it comes across to me.


Nahh, he's a True Believer(tm).  He actually seems to be believe he is a moderate and Obama is conservative and Bush is a war criminal.
 
2013-12-27 06:25:14 PM

tbeatty: Biological Ali: whidbey: Nice left-handed compliment there. Obviously I can't shake your impression of me, and I guess I shouldn't care as much.

I was probably a little bit harsh earlier - you're certainly not a dedicated troll in the same sense as someone like SkinnyHead. But every once in a while, you seem to go through a phase where you just start winding people up for the sake of it. That's just how it comes across to me.

Nahh, he's a True Believer(tm).  He actually seems to be believe he is a moderate and Obama is conservative and Bush is a war criminal.


Actually you got that all wrong. He is a moderate and he likes Obama.
 
2013-12-27 06:27:33 PM

whidbey: Dude, you've been living out in the woods too long.


Hey, look! He thinks people who live in the woods are... I'm sorry, what was your point?
 
2013-12-27 06:29:09 PM
You can take away my privacy but you can never force me to watch Duck Dynasty.
 
2013-12-27 06:31:34 PM

whidbey: U.S. District Judge William Pauley said in a written opinion that the program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaida's terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications.

Bullshiat.

Farking bullshiat.


Since they've admitted they have stopped maybe 5 incidents, none involving US soil, after a dozen years, and billions of infringements on the rights of others, I'd say that counterpunch is a drunken haymaker with no contact.
 
2013-12-27 06:32:02 PM
It is a ruse

NSA is using their tactics to spy on brown people from the middle east.

All is well.
 
2013-12-27 06:33:22 PM

whidbey: Thanks, man. And I could be totally wrong, I've been known to be. It's just how I see it. And what's more, there are posts in here that back up some of what I've been saying. that when it comes down to it, Obama isn't anything like Bush.



Oh, absolutely no argument there. And if someone says Obama's a Marxist, a socialist or some variety of the "worst president evar" in seriousness they instantly go on my "lost cause" list. They're obviously utterly disinterested in dealing with objective facts of any sort. With age and the benefit of hindsight I get more and more dissapointed in myself for voting for Bush back in the day. I won't make those same mistakes again - nor overcompensate for them either.

Obama overall seems OK to me, but he's too much of an establishment guy for me and for what we need I think. I don't love him, and I don't hate him.... but I'm certainly glad we got him instead of the alternatives. I mean, President Mitch "robber baron scumbag poster boy" Romney and Vice President Paul "I got mine" Ryan?

/shudder

Still, even if I think Obama's an alright guy, I'd be happy to press him on this NSA issue. I don't think he's done us right on it in particular. And it doesn't mean you hate him if you expect more from him on it.

Have a great weekend, dude.
 
2013-12-27 06:35:58 PM

indarwinsshadow: I was all prepped to make fun of America...and then thought "hey. That's not funny in the slightest. What happened to democracy, freedom of the press and association and the right to privacy". My apologies to American farkers for my sh*tty first attitude. I don't think what's happened is good in the slightest. My country is going through a similar situation were Adolf Harper thinks it's ok that everyone's business is the gov't and we have very very little input on how we want our country to run. Looks like it's a North American thing. How did we let ourselves get here, and is it possible to wrestle our rights back?


When this happened elsewhere the solution was to leave and come to Canada or the US. Now what?
 
2013-12-27 06:43:41 PM

whidbey: Evil High Priest: slayer199: The Democrats HAD the power for the first 2 years of the Obama Presidency.

You keep saying this, but there should be a huge asterix next to this statement. The only way they could have gotten whatever they wanted would have been to nuke the filibuster on day one. They failed to do that, so everything in the senate needs 60 votes. Thanks to the blue dogs, that was not possible.

It's the single-most bullshiat talking point about the Democrats for sure. Again, it's one thing to dislike the Obama administration, but spreading outright disinformation to get a point across is pretty farking pathetic.


Prove me wrong instead of flinging poo, poo flinger. I was begging them to do exactly what it would have taken to put a stake through the heart of the gop. But they didn't have the guts to do it.
 
2013-12-27 06:55:16 PM

HeartBurnKid: blugenes: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: Don't make me yet again pull up the Wikipedia page on that Congress to point out the exact period in which the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority.

Oh, I want to see this.  Please do show a period where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate.

/difficulty: 60 actual Democrats, not just 60 counting independents that caucus with Democrats

Play with numbers all you like, but in the summer of 2009 the Republicans counted for only 39 or 40 Senators depending on which part of that time you would like to discuss.  Afterwards (October 1?) they had 41 to 42 Senators.  Bernie Sanders caucused with the Dems as did Liebermann the "Independent" Democrat.  Dems had a lock on the Senate and the majority of the House.

Democrats only had a lock on the Senate for as long as they could convince Lieberman to line up with them.  Which, as it turned out, was "not at all".  And that was kind of my point.


When some of your own party go against you that might be more of a sign that maybe what they're shoveling stinks a little bit.  Dems as a party could very easily have rammed through quite a bit more than they did, if there is internal dissent then they might have tried to resolve it.

/those who think that either party is above reproach for this are probably missing the point
//it's not about red or blue, it's about where our rights and liberties are encroached upon and why
 
2013-12-27 07:06:09 PM

whidbey: genner: neversubmit: Not only will you get over it, you will learn to love Big Brother.

I don't care if duck dynasty is done for I'm still not watching that show.

But do we actually know it's "done for?" They just cleaned up over Christmas despite the bad publicity.


Gay hate and racism is GOOD publicity for a show watched primarily by conservatives.
 
2013-12-27 07:07:34 PM
Hey, NSA.  I know you're listening.  Please stop.  Signed, America and the rest of the world.
 
2013-12-27 07:27:02 PM
Just continuing what al qaeda started...but we are totally land of the free and brave.  Cuz we branded ourselves as such.
 
2013-12-27 07:27:47 PM

prjindigo: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

You're gonna have to explain how we're "losing liberty" when someone watches us do it but doesn't tell the cops...

Total number of convictions made against U.S. Citizens based on information provided by the NSA: 0.  It is illegal to use such information in a law enforcement setting.


Illegal except for the fact that the NSA is giving the data to the FBI, DEA, IRS, and DHS anyway.
 
2013-12-27 07:31:34 PM

blugenes: HeartBurnKid: blugenes: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: Don't make me yet again pull up the Wikipedia page on that Congress to point out the exact period in which the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority.

Oh, I want to see this.  Please do show a period where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate.

/difficulty: 60 actual Democrats, not just 60 counting independents that caucus with Democrats

Play with numbers all you like, but in the summer of 2009 the Republicans counted for only 39 or 40 Senators depending on which part of that time you would like to discuss.  Afterwards (October 1?) they had 41 to 42 Senators.  Bernie Sanders caucused with the Dems as did Liebermann the "Independent" Democrat.  Dems had a lock on the Senate and the majority of the House.

Democrats only had a lock on the Senate for as long as they could convince Lieberman to line up with them.  Which, as it turned out, was "not at all".  And that was kind of my point.

When some of your own party go against you that might be more of a sign that maybe what they're shoveling stinks a little bit.  Dems as a party could very easily have rammed through quite a bit more than they did, if there is internal dissent then they might have tried to resolve it.

/those who think that either party is above reproach for this are probably missing the point
//it's not about red or blue, it's about where our rights and liberties are encroached upon and why


Lieberman hasn't been a Democrat since 2006.  Are you paying attention at all?
 
2013-12-27 07:38:29 PM
Some other judge also said that it wasn't constitutional a few weeks ago.

Time to phone in SCOTUS.
 
2013-12-27 07:44:40 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-27 07:50:29 PM

Chagrin: Illegal except for the fact that the NSA is giving the data to the FBI, DEA, IRS, and DHS anyway.


Don't forget Israel
 
2013-12-27 07:53:45 PM
alice_600
When I was in journalism college the one thing I was told to do was never runaway like scared children and face justice, Why?
Because then people you need to be on your side don't believe you are standing up for what you believe in.


Manning didn't flee the country, and look at the result. It's not like there are more people supporting Manning than Snowden. They're exactly the same people. If Snowden is the comparison, Manning absolutely should have jumped ship.


whidbey
I'm sorry, but this statement is bullshiat, and calling me a "shill" only belies your total lack of an argument. There is plenty of evidence that ACA is insuring people and regulating the industry. You're going to have to do a LOT better than repeating the same crap.

That's not what I'm saying. ACA STILL leaves tens of millions of people in the lurch, and maintains the insurance corporation-dominated system which costs far more than it needs to while delivering inferior care, and we still have to do battle with a bureaucracy to get our bills paid. Scratch that, now we have to do battle with TWO bureaucracies! Sure, it MAY be SLIGHTLY better than the previous situation, but... really? This is what we get for our one big shot at really turning things around? All the outrage building up over the previous several years is gone, and we get a slightly-polished turd?

Actually, they've been active in this country. There are a host of news stories about foiled plots. More disingenuous bullshiat.

Are you drunk? Those "plots" have either been lone wolves or FBI entrapment schemes (with an informant who provides the plan, money, and fake explosives). If this is your example of why we need to let the NSA wiretap our communications, their either Al Qaeda doesn't exist or is so inept that we don't need to give a fark.

And at the very least, you could admit that Al Qaeda is still an international problem.

You mean like when I said that they're active in the West African Sahel, Syria, Yemen...?


HeartBurnKid
Oh, I want to see this. Please do show a period where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_congress#Senate

/difficulty: 60 actual Democrats, not just 60 counting independents that caucus with Democrats

Oh, right, because Bernie Sanders is going to side with the Republicans.
 
2013-12-27 07:57:41 PM

lohphat: cgraves67: If this goes before the SCOTUS, would it imperil the whole Patriot Act?

Not with the current fear-mongering conservative majority bench.


You talking about the same court that just upheld Obummercare?
 
2013-12-27 07:58:29 PM
whidbey
But not on their party.

Which you'd think would point to a need for internal reform of the Party, yet efforts toward that were defeated by the conservative Party leadership around 2006-09. Therefore you demand unconditional support for the Party and offer totally empty promises of reform.
TLDR version: THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT FOR ME.
 
2013-12-27 08:01:20 PM

slayer199: I don't care what side of the political fence you sit on, we ALL need to make this an issue in 2014 because the ONLY way this will stop is if we elect Congresscritters that will reign in the NSA.


Soon's we find that one SOB so squeeky clean they don't have any dirt on 'im yet, he'll have caught in to the fact that it's the only reason he got there.
 
2013-12-27 08:02:09 PM

RanDomino: Oh, right, because Bernie Sanders is going to side with the Republicans.


You seem to have conveniently forgotten about Joseph Lieberman, who given his stance on things like the patriot act will absolutely side with the Republicans on such issues.
 
2013-12-27 08:12:54 PM
Christ, what an asshole.
 
2013-12-27 08:23:14 PM

Dragonflew: whidbey: genner: neversubmit: Not only will you get over it, you will learn to love Big Brother.

I don't care if duck dynasty is done for I'm still not watching that show.

But do we actually know it's "done for?" They just cleaned up over Christmas despite the bad publicity.

Gay hate and racism is GOOD publicity for a show watched primarily by conservatives.


Apparently Obama enjoys it, too.  To me, it seems like someone put the Carter's on a TV reality show.  Not sure who plays Earl or Billy.
 
2013-12-27 08:24:33 PM

generallyso: Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?

They did and they were shouted down as tinfoil nutters. In fact that happened until Snowden's revelations. Even after Room 641A aka the NSA Room at one of AT&T's facilities became public knowledge people were still labled as nutter for suggesting the government was spying on the American public en masse.


slayer199: I don't care what side of the political fence you sit on, we ALL need to make this an issue in 2014 because the ONLY way this will stop is if we elect Congresscritters that will reign in the NSA.

Americans already voted for change. It didn't work, they just got more of the same.

[i.imgur.com image 500x334]


So vote republican?
 
2013-12-27 08:27:25 PM
From the Reuters article: (redlit)

"But he said the program's constitutionality "is ultimately a question of reasonableness," and that there was no evidence that the government had used "bulk telephony metadata" for any reason other than to investigate and disrupt terrorist attacks."

No evidence? ORLY?

Seriously wondering what they had on the guy.
 
2013-12-27 08:34:19 PM

whither_apophis: Sure but if I start a blog called "What is U.S. District Judge William Pauley doing?" and follow him around and live tweet his day, I'll get arrested.


Well, yeah.

Tweeting about a fat federal judge in an airport bathroom stall is porn.
 
2013-12-27 08:50:02 PM

ThePuceGuardian: From the Reuters article: (redlit)

"But he said the program's constitutionality "is ultimately a question of reasonableness," and that there was no evidence that the government had used "bulk telephony metadata" for any reason other than to investigate and disrupt terrorist attacks."

No evidence? ORLY?

Seriously wondering what they had on the guy.


Democrats should nominate and confirm judges like the republican one.
 
2013-12-27 08:51:05 PM

Kumana Wanalaia: generallyso: Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?

They did and they were shouted down as tinfoil nutters. In fact that happened until Snowden's revelations. Even after Room 641A aka the NSA Room at one of AT&T's facilities became public knowledge people were still labled as nutter for suggesting the government was spying on the American public en masse.


slayer199: I don't care what side of the political fence you sit on, we ALL need to make this an issue in 2014 because the ONLY way this will stop is if we elect Congresscritters that will reign in the NSA.

Americans already voted for change. It didn't work, they just got more of the same.

[i.imgur.com image 500x334]

So vote republican?


If you live in a district with Diebold, you already did.
 
2013-12-27 09:01:08 PM
If I was called for jury duty, and the case involved someone who murdered this judge (or anybody else involved, even remotely, with spying on Americans), my vote would be not guilty. That's right, NSA-guy-in-charge-of-monitoring-Fark, I'm talking about you; I hope somebody blows your brains out.
 
2013-12-27 09:05:23 PM

make me some tea: Take it to SCOTUS.


Roberts runs the FISA court.
 
2013-12-27 09:18:15 PM
Only if your rich.
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-27 09:20:58 PM

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?


Because terrorism.

Just like when we screamed about it when Echelon was uncovered; and Carnivore, and COINTELPRO and on into the mists of time. And there's no reason to think it will change. Protect your own goddamn information and stop expecting the government to do it for you, because they won't. They've always got a justification and sometimes it's even a good one, and the majority of Americans still believe "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear."

Meanwhile, even as we've been fretting over the NSA possibly collecting our ISP metadata, Target had one of the biggest security breaches in recent memory and lost not only credit and debit card information, but "possibly more" as they admitted today--which means if you shopped at Target over the holidays your bank and credit information is likely compromised; which imo is way scarier and much more intrusive than anything the government "might" do; and worse because it's completely unregulated except by Target. And yet everyone's A-OK with that because it's "just Target".

Enjoy your privacy.
 
2013-12-27 09:33:20 PM
The ruling is total bullshiat.
 
2013-12-27 09:33:47 PM

Deep Contact: Only if your rich.
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 799x955]


My rich what?  Uncle?
 
2013-12-27 09:35:54 PM
When they ratified that Constitution-thingummajigger, they did establish a gummintt.  You know how gummints are, all supposed to be defendin' and stuff.

Blame them Founder-Daddies for not bein' anarchists.
 
2013-12-27 09:39:52 PM

ToastTheRabbit: So, the government can freely watch you...

wont even be spying anymore eventually they will do random warrantless contraband house searches on the American people...


then they'll start quartering soldiers in our houses after the searches.  sad.
 
2013-12-27 09:41:22 PM

Bucky Katt: ToastTheRabbit: So, the government can freely watch you...

wont even be spying anymore eventually they will do random warrantless contraband house searches on the American people...

then they'll start quartering soldiers in our houses after the searches.  sad.


You joke but it already happens.
 
2013-12-27 09:41:31 PM

Bucky Katt: ToastTheRabbit: So, the government can freely watch you...

wont even be spying anymore eventually they will do random warrantless contraband house searches on the American people...

then they'll start quartering soldiers in our houses after the searches.  sad.


Chargin' us for stamps...wait...
 
2013-12-27 09:43:35 PM

Bucky Katt: The ruling is total bullshiat.


But, butt, The Law!
 
2013-12-27 09:49:38 PM

TheOther: Bucky Katt: ToastTheRabbit: So, the government can freely watch you...

wont even be spying anymore eventually they will do random warrantless contraband house searches on the American people...

then they'll start quartering soldiers in our houses after the searches.  sad.

Chargin' us for stamps...wait...


Making us pay for commercials...uh...
 
2013-12-27 09:50:23 PM

TheEndIsNigh: violentsalvation: A couple weeks ago a different federal judge said the opposite.

So the questions are:
- How quickly can we get this to SCOTUS, now that there's conflicting case law?
- Is there any chance that five members of SCOTUS will be sane on this issue?


#1 probably within a year
#2 somewhere between diddly and squat
 
2013-12-27 10:01:02 PM

Claude Ballse: The terrorists didn't win. The lost to an entirely different group that took over the role of terrorism: the NSA. Absolutely they hate our freedom, because it gives us powe over them.

The answer isn't fighting this in courts of law, electing new officials, or anything of the sort. Because there will always be this slight if hand game where if we rule one "program" illegal, they'll just start up another one thst gets tangeled up in the legal system that we the have to fight.

No, the only way to get rid of this shiat is to purge religion from our government once and for all. You have tens of millions of people that already believe in some invisible sky god, and think that angels watch over them. The NSA is no different that the tenants of your modern religions. They've already been raised to accept this and encourage it. For most, this is just more of god's work. Because how can you convince someone that an anonymous brown person a world away isn't a threat when they already fear demons thst don't even exist?

Purge the bilnd faithful for the seeing skeptics, and our problems will be taken care of very quickly.


Hah. You actually think religion is somehow the problem? That if you just take it away, everything will be groovy and somehow people won't be afraid and governments won't use that fear to restrict liberty? I know it's comforting to think there's something specific that causes sorrow and suffering and stupidity in humanity... Thing is, it's our natural state. It's like blaming dogs pooping on the fact that they've been domesticated. ( and, of course, the USSR and China were not obvious examples of places rid of religion but still full of liberty-denying policies... )
 
2013-12-27 10:03:57 PM

Bucky Katt: ToastTheRabbit: So, the government can freely watch you...

wont even be spying anymore eventually they will do random warrantless contraband house searches on the American people...

then they'll start quartering soldiers in our houses after the searches.  sad.


Oh, I hope not. Quartering is so messy, with all those entrails and the blood.
 
2013-12-27 10:09:46 PM
/Throws hat in ring


We all know that the NSA needs to be able to stalk exes and new potential SOs...otherwise the terrorists win...

right?
 
2013-12-27 10:16:44 PM
All I know is that if some photos of me wearing a horsey-tail butt plug surface they're totally fakes and I don't even own those chaps anymore.
 
2013-12-27 10:19:20 PM

sweatybronson: Claude Ballse: The terrorists didn't win. The lost to an entirely different group that took over the role of terrorism: the NSA. Absolutely they hate our freedom, because it gives us powe over them.

The answer isn't fighting this in courts of law, electing new officials, or anything of the sort. Because there will always be this slight if hand game where if we rule one "program" illegal, they'll just start up another one thst gets tangeled up in the legal system that we the have to fight.

No, the only way to get rid of this shiat is to purge religion from our government once and for all. You have tens of millions of people that already believe in some invisible sky god, and think that angels watch over them. The NSA is no different that the tenants of your modern religions. They've already been raised to accept this and encourage it. For most, this is just more of god's work. Because how can you convince someone that an anonymous brown person a world away isn't a threat when they already fear demons thst don't even exist?

Purge the bilnd faithful for the seeing skeptics, and our problems will be taken care of very quickly.

Hah. You actually think religion is somehow the problem? That if you just take it away, everything will be groovy and somehow people won't be afraid and governments won't use that fear to restrict liberty? I know it's comforting to think there's something specific that causes sorrow and suffering and stupidity in humanity... Thing is, it's our natural state. It's like blaming dogs pooping on the fact that they've been domesticated. ( and, of course, the USSR and China were not obvious examples of places rid of religion but still full of liberty-denying policies... )


Just another stalking horse.
cut and paste:
The term stalking horse originally derived from the practice of hunting, particularly of wildfowl, hunters noticed that many birds would flee immediately on the approach of humans, but would tolerate the close presence of animals such as horses and cattle.
Hunters would therefore slowly approach their quarry by walking alongside their horses, keeping their upper bodies out of sight until the flock was within firing range.
 
2013-12-27 10:19:33 PM

Gyrfalcon: Oh, I hope not. Quartering is so messy, with all those entrails and the blood.


That's the drawing. The quartering is mostly just meat and bone.
 
2013-12-27 10:26:33 PM
Thrag
You seem to have conveniently forgotten about Joseph Lieberman, who given his stance on things like the patriot act will absolutely side with the Republicans on such issues.

Does not change the fact that they could have, at any time, as they just did, eliminated the filibuster.
 
2013-12-27 10:46:28 PM

RanDomino: HeartBurnKid
Oh, I want to see this. Please do show a period where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_congress#Senate

/difficulty: 60 actual Democrats, not just 60 counting independents that caucus with Democrats

Oh, right, because Bernie Sanders is going to side with the Republicans.


No, but Joe Lieberman would, and often did.
 
2013-12-27 10:58:54 PM

meow said the dog: Conservative valuations. OM MAGOODNESS 9/11 MADE UP ORGANIZATION OF TERRORISTS MUST DO THE SAFETY KEEPING HOMELANDING SECURITY!


The conservatives aren't the only ones guilty of this.
 
2013-12-27 11:01:48 PM
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/zynmlr/infiltrating-the-nsa
 
2013-12-27 11:02:16 PM

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: December 27, 2013

National Security Agency
9800 Savage Rd.
Fort Meade, MD 20755

Dear National Security Agency,

I recently learned about your spying program from arrogant people in the Guardian and the Washington Post. These articles stirred some strong emotions in me. Thank you for doing this to protect us from terrorists. Only through keeping a close eye on your own citizens are you able to stop terrorists. By my count, there has only been one successful terrorist attack on US soil since the Tragic Events of September 11th, 2000. That's a 10,000% reduction in terrorism. And, even that thing in Boston is allowable because it needed to remind us that terrorism is still a real threat.

Now, the paranoid people out there think you are taking away Fourth Amendment rights. To them, I say: "What does it matter if you have nothing to hide?" To prove I have nothing to hide and to aid the NSA in their spying program, I am giving you the passwords to my email and my social media accounts:

My AOL email password is Ronald88Reagan.
My MySpace password is Prodigy5ux.
My Friendster account is LAWLZbbq2.
And, you can access my LiveJournal with 4321Password.

In addition to these passwords, I have enclosed naked pictures of myself, including taint shots, to prove I have absolutely nothing to hide.

I feel it is important to explain some things you may have seen while "datamining" my information.

My use of the phrase "that is the bomb" is not a reference to an explosive device. It is popular vernacular for "I approve of the quality of that."
You may have also seen "I'd like to perform a terrorist attack on her!" This is not a reference to wanting to cause terror in anyone. It is just a particularly crude way of saying that a woman's appearance aroused powerful feelings of lust within me.
I may have also said, "Do you want to come over and smoke some marijuana?" This is not an invitation for cannabis use. Drugs are bad and illegal and wrong. I don't do them. Drugs could ruin one' ...


You didn't get many bites because of whidbey's stupid trolling, but I found this delightful.
 
2013-12-27 11:17:39 PM

garron: Claude Ballse: The terrorists didn't win. The lost to an entirely different group that took over the role of terrorism: the NSA. Absolutely they hate our freedom, because it gives us powe over them.

The answer isn't fighting this in courts of law, electing new officials, or anything of the sort. Because there will always be this slight if hand game where if we rule one "program" illegal, they'll just start up another one thst gets tangeled up in the legal system that we the have to fight.

No, the only way to get rid of this shiat is to purge religion from our government once and for all. You have tens of millions of people that already believe in some invisible sky god, and think that angels watch over them. The NSA is no different that the tenants of your modern religions. They've already been raised to accept this and encourage it. For most, this is just more of god's work. Because how can you convince someone that an anonymous brown person a world away isn't a threat when they already fear demons thst don't even exist?

Purge the bilnd faithful for the seeing skeptics, and our problems will be taken care of very quickly.

Wow - that's got to be one of the most ridiculous jumps in logic I have seen in a long time.   I'm very religious and so aremost of my friends and not one of us wants the NSA to have this kind of power.  If anything, religious people fear a secular government that would use this power to stamp out their religion altogether.  Probably shouldn't have said that - cause now that probably makes you a fan of the NSA.

Liberty is a Christian value believe it or not.


Liberty is NOT a Christian value. Controlling people is a core Christian value. Just as you don't want sharia law, the rest of us don't want your Christian doctrines either.

You know something? I've been very anti-NSA. I've believed in people for far too long. Believed that we all could do the right thing. But we can't when people like you refuse to let go of your superstitions and Sunday morning fairytales. You refuse to because you refuse to take responsibility for yourselves. You always want some supernatural scapegoat to blame your actions on. "The devil made me do it!" Or original sin so that you can confess, be born-again, or whatever doctrine it takes to escape your moral duties. You're all more concerned with your biblical code in condemning gays and others than your ethical responsibilities in protecting your fellow humans. All because you don't want to upset the invisible hippocrite in the sky.

Well you know what? I'm tired of pulling my weight. If this is the kind of nation you want, you got it. Turn over your responsibilities and liberties, and accept your deserving punishment accordingly. You wanted a police state in the name of your god, you got it!
 
2013-12-27 11:32:45 PM

slayer199: I don't care what side of the political fence you sit on, we ALL need to make this an issue in 2014 because the ONLY way this will stop is if we elect Congresscritters that will reign in the NSA.


Everyone - EVERYONE - has dirt. Some have a little and some have a lot. And no one, congresscritters included, knows for sure what the agency knows about them. So don't hold your breath waiting for them to rock the boat.

It was nice while it lasted.
 
2013-12-28 12:08:12 AM

Ball Sack Obama: Oh, a Clinton appointee...

"Born in Glen Cove, New York, Pauley received an A.B. from Duke University in 1974 and a J.D. from Duke University School of Law in 1977. He was a law clerk, Office of the Nassau County Attorney, New York from 1977 to 1978. He was a Deputy county attorney of Nassau County Attorney' Office, New York in 1978. He was in private practice in New York City from 1978 to 1998. He was an Assistant counsel, New York State Assembly Minority Leader, New York from 1984 to 1998.
Pauley is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Pauley was nominated by President Bill Clinton on May 21, 1998, to a seat vacated by Peter K. Leisure. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 21, 1998, and received his commission on October 22, 1998.
Among his notable decisions was that involving Ben-ami Kadish, a U.S. national who pleaded guilty to passing classified information to Israel."


Duke sucks

/oblig
 
2013-12-28 01:44:35 AM

macdaddy357: Judges do not consider the letter of the law or the constitution, only their own politics. No piece of parchment is going to protect us from the ruling class doing whatever gets them off.


No parchment will protect you. Car bombs and beheadings seem to get the message across though.
 
2013-12-28 02:21:40 AM
Didn't this country use to run propaganda campains about other countries trying to do this exact same crap?

Sad, really sad, how does democracy die? With a burp, fart, and a "duh uh?" on the couch of the stupid fat-ass American public.
 
2013-12-28 04:12:03 AM
I like how Judge Pauley goes on and on about "frustrating Congress's intent" and "Congress did not intend" regarding section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, when in fact Congress didn't even read the legislation before passing it.  His opinion largely seems to rest on, "Congress passed this law, so I'm just going to go along with it, regardless of the legitimate issues raised".
 
2013-12-28 05:04:20 AM

tbeatty: Nahh, he's a True Believer(tm).  He actually seems to be believe he is a moderate and Obama is conservative and Bush is a war criminal.


One, two, three correct things.
 
2013-12-28 05:11:00 AM

RanDomino: That's not what I'm saying. ACA STILL leaves tens of millions of people in the lurch, and maintains the insurance corporation-dominated system which costs far more than it needs to while delivering inferior care, and we still have to do battle with a bureaucracy to get our bills paid. Scratch that, now we have to do battle with TWO bureaucracies! Sure, it MAY be SLIGHTLY better than the previous situation, but... really? This is what we get for our one big shot at really turning things around? All the outrage building up over the previous several years is gone, and we get a slightly-polished turd?


It is better, and it took every bit of positive political power to get it.
 
2013-12-28 05:19:14 AM

Alphax: tbeatty: Nahh, he's a True Believer(tm).  He actually seems to be believe he is a moderate and Obama is conservative and Bush is a war criminal.

One, two, three correct things.


Well, Obama certainly isn't a conservative as the term is used nowadays.. he's not seeking to hurt people for being poor or different, or to bring back feudalism.  But he's conservative in that he's not rocking the boat much.
 
2013-12-28 06:22:08 AM

Claude Ballse: You know something? I've been very anti-NSA. I've believed in people for far too long. Believed that we all could do the right thing. But we can't when people like you refuse to let go of your superstitions and Sunday morning fairytales. You refuse to because you refuse to take responsibility for yourselves. You always want some supernatural scapegoat to blame your actions on. "The devil made me do it!" Or original sin so that you can confess, be born-again, or whatever doctrine it takes to escape your moral duties. You're all more concerned with your biblical code in condemning gays and others than your ethical responsibilities in protecting your fellow humans. All because you don't want to upset the invisible hippocrite in the sky.

Well you know what? I'm tired of pulling my weight. If this is the kind of nation you want, you got it. Turn over your responsibilities and liberties, and accept your deserving punishment accordingly. You wanted a police state in the name of your god, you got it!


I agree with every sentiment you've expressed here.
 
2013-12-28 08:48:53 AM
Judge against the NSA cites the constitution. Judge for them cites 9/11. Which is more important?
 
2013-12-28 10:33:26 AM
It's not up to the judge to decide when it's OK to violate the constitution, only if there is a violation. Sounds like the judge pretty much just said "Yea it's illegal, but you know terrorism"
 
2013-12-28 11:01:06 AM

master_dman: snocone: master_dman: I'm shocked that one corrupt branch of our government sided with another corrupt branch of our government.

Who ya gonna call?

We could always call the third corrupt branch of our government.  Maybe they can help.


or the corrupt 4th branch, but this doesn't throw mud on either "side" of the "two-party" system, so my guess is they won't help us either.

sigh
 
2013-12-28 11:07:47 AM

browntimmy: Well, the terrorists hate us for our freedom, right? So if we give it all up, problem solved.


I wish I could hit the funny button 10 times.
assets0.ordienetworks.com
 
2013-12-28 11:18:01 AM

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?


Plenty of people realized it then.  I still think the so-called PATRIOT Act (it's an acronym people) is unconstitutional, and this judge should be very unceremoniously shamed into retiring/resigning and admitting he doesn't understand the Constitution.


They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin, according to wikiquote.

Paraphrased Below:

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
 
2013-12-28 11:46:24 AM

shazbotuh: /Throws hat in ring


We all know that the NSA needs to be able to stalk exes and new potential SOs...otherwise the terrorists win...

right?


Pretty much.  I wouldn't be AS butt-hurt about it if they would just show us SOMETHING, SOMETHING AT ALL about how this program has saved America's ass at least once.  But all they keep saying is 'We can't tell you anything without jeopardizing the way the operation works blah blah blah'.  Bullshiat.  And if you're not stopping terrorists how about at least bringing down a child pron ring or two.  Assholes.
 
2013-12-28 12:19:56 PM

lohphat: cgraves67: If this goes before the SCOTUS, would it imperil the whole Patriot Act?

Not with the current fear-mongering conservative majority bench.


For what it's worth, Judge Leon, the district judge who said the NSA had to knock off the bulk data collection, is a Bush 43 appointee, IIRC.

/conservative and liberal means nothing with respect to government control over your life
 
2013-12-28 02:06:20 PM
It's constitutional because it's effective?

Alrighty.
 
2013-12-28 02:59:46 PM

mizchief: It's not up to the judge to decide when it's OK to violate the constitution, only if there is a violation. Sounds like the judge pretty much just said "Yea it's illegal, but you know terrorism"


The fark? The judge didn't say anything even remotely resembling that. He held that the metadata collection was constitutional, as per Supreme Court decisions (most notably Smith v. Maryland, which has already been mentioned several times in this thread). I'm amazed (well, not really) that the thread has gone on this farking long without anybody linking to - or apparently even reading - the ruling in question.

Tyrone Slothrop: Judge against the NSA cites the constitution. Judge for them cites 9/11. Which is more important?


Now that's just silly. The ruling (like any ruling on a case like this) has an entire section devoted to Constitutional issues. You might as well say "Judge against* the NSA cites Orwell. Judge for them cites the Constitution. Which is more important?"

*even though it was only a preliminary injunction and not an actual ruling
 
2013-12-28 03:19:52 PM

Biological Ali: *even though it was only a preliminary injunction and not an actual ruling


I should add, a preliminary injunction that the judge himself stayed in the very next sentence, "in view of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues".
 
2013-12-28 03:55:03 PM
He said the program lets the government connect fragmented and fleeting communications and "represents the government's counter-punch" to the al-Qaida's terror network's use of technology to operate decentralized and plot international terrorist attacks remotely.

Im sure they meant to write that into the 4th amendment but ran out of ink.
 
2013-12-28 03:59:25 PM

Biological Ali: he ruling in question.


The ruling where he spends an entire paragraph channeling Kafka?

www.washingtonpost.com

"Congress passed a law that said you weren't supposed to know about their illegal spying. So now that you DO know, I should throw out your legal claims, because you were supposed to be caught in a Catch-22 where nobody with standing knew enough to make a complaint."

Biological Ali: Smith v. Maryland,


Judge Sotomayer's concurrence for that case is particularly relevant, and could very well foreshadow future rulings in the SCOTUS:

"More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976). This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. Perhaps, as JUSTICE ALITO notes, some people may find the "tradeoff" of privacy for convenience "worthwhile," or come to accept this "diminution of privacy" as "inevitable," post, at 10, and perhaps not. I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection. See Smith, 442 U. S., at 749 (Marshall, J., dissenting) ("Privacy is not a discrete commodity, possessed absolutely or not at all. Those who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone company for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purposes"); see also Katz, 389 U. S., at 351-352 ("[W]hat [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected"). Resolution of these difficult questions in this case is unnecessary, however, because the Government's physical intrusion on Jones' Jeep supplies a narrower basis for decision. I therefore join the majority's opinion."
 
2013-12-28 04:43:15 PM

Alphax: RanDomino: That's not what I'm saying. ACA STILL