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 550
    More: NewsFlash, NSA, federal judges, phone surveillance  
•       •       •

14863 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2013 at 12:59 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 550 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report