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  
•       •       •

14866 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 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.
 
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