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  
•       •       •

14865 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2013 at 12:59 PM (43 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 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.
 
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