Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: NewsFlash, NSA, federal judges, phone surveillance  
•       •       •

14918 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2013 at 12:59 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-27 09:41:31 PM  

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

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

then they'll start quartering soldiers in our houses after the searches.  sad.


Chargin' us for stamps...wait...
 
2013-12-27 09:43:35 PM  

Bucky Katt: The ruling is total bullshiat.


But, butt, The Law!
 
2013-12-27 09:49:38 PM  

TheOther: Bucky Katt: ToastTheRabbit: So, the government can freely watch you...

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

then they'll start quartering soldiers in our houses after the searches.  sad.

Chargin' us for stamps...wait...


Making us pay for commercials...uh...
 
2013-12-27 09:50:23 PM  

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

So the questions are:
- How quickly can we get this to SCOTUS, now that there's conflicting case law?
- Is there any chance that five members of SCOTUS will be sane on this issue?


#1 probably within a year
#2 somewhere between diddly and squat
 
2013-12-27 10:01:02 PM  

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

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

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

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


Hah. You actually think religion is somehow the problem? That if you just take it away, everything will be groovy and somehow people won't be afraid and governments won't use that fear to restrict liberty? I know it's comforting to think there's something specific that causes sorrow and suffering and stupidity in humanity... Thing is, it's our natural state. It's like blaming dogs pooping on the fact that they've been domesticated. ( and, of course, the USSR and China were not obvious examples of places rid of religion but still full of liberty-denying policies... )
 
2013-12-27 10:03:57 PM  

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

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

then they'll start quartering soldiers in our houses after the searches.  sad.


Oh, I hope not. Quartering is so messy, with all those entrails and the blood.
 
2013-12-27 10:09:46 PM  
/Throws hat in ring


We all know that the NSA needs to be able to stalk exes and new potential SOs...otherwise the terrorists win...

right?
 
2013-12-27 10:16:44 PM  
All I know is that if some photos of me wearing a horsey-tail butt plug surface they're totally fakes and I don't even own those chaps anymore.
 
2013-12-27 10:19:20 PM  

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

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

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

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

Hah. You actually think religion is somehow the problem? That if you just take it away, everything will be groovy and somehow people won't be afraid and governments won't use that fear to restrict liberty? I know it's comforting to think there's something specific that causes sorrow and suffering and stupidity in humanity... Thing is, it's our natural state. It's like blaming dogs pooping on the fact that they've been domesticated. ( and, of course, the USSR and China were not obvious examples of places rid of religion but still full of liberty-denying policies... )


Just another stalking horse.
cut and paste:
The term stalking horse originally derived from the practice of hunting, particularly of wildfowl, hunters noticed that many birds would flee immediately on the approach of humans, but would tolerate the close presence of animals such as horses and cattle.
Hunters would therefore slowly approach their quarry by walking alongside their horses, keeping their upper bodies out of sight until the flock was within firing range.
 
2013-12-27 10:19:33 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Oh, I hope not. Quartering is so messy, with all those entrails and the blood.


That's the drawing. The quartering is mostly just meat and bone.
 
2013-12-27 10:26:33 PM  
Thrag
You seem to have conveniently forgotten about Joseph Lieberman, who given his stance on things like the patriot act will absolutely side with the Republicans on such issues.

Does not change the fact that they could have, at any time, as they just did, eliminated the filibuster.
 
2013-12-27 10:46:28 PM  

RanDomino: HeartBurnKid
Oh, I want to see this. Please do show a period where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_congress#Senate

/difficulty: 60 actual Democrats, not just 60 counting independents that caucus with Democrats

Oh, right, because Bernie Sanders is going to side with the Republicans.


No, but Joe Lieberman would, and often did.
 
2013-12-27 10:58:54 PM  

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


The conservatives aren't the only ones guilty of this.
 
2013-12-27 11:01:48 PM  
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/zynmlr/infiltrating-the-nsa
 
2013-12-27 11:02:16 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: December 27, 2013

National Security Agency
9800 Savage Rd.
Fort Meade, MD 20755

Dear National Security Agency,

I recently learned about your spying program from arrogant people in the Guardian and the Washington Post. These articles stirred some strong emotions in me. Thank you for doing this to protect us from terrorists. Only through keeping a close eye on your own citizens are you able to stop terrorists. By my count, there has only been one successful terrorist attack on US soil since the Tragic Events of September 11th, 2000. That's a 10,000% reduction in terrorism. And, even that thing in Boston is allowable because it needed to remind us that terrorism is still a real threat.

Now, the paranoid people out there think you are taking away Fourth Amendment rights. To them, I say: "What does it matter if you have nothing to hide?" To prove I have nothing to hide and to aid the NSA in their spying program, I am giving you the passwords to my email and my social media accounts:

My AOL email password is Ronald88Reagan.
My MySpace password is Prodigy5ux.
My Friendster account is LAWLZbbq2.
And, you can access my LiveJournal with 4321Password.

In addition to these passwords, I have enclosed naked pictures of myself, including taint shots, to prove I have absolutely nothing to hide.

I feel it is important to explain some things you may have seen while "datamining" my information.

My use of the phrase "that is the bomb" is not a reference to an explosive device. It is popular vernacular for "I approve of the quality of that."
You may have also seen "I'd like to perform a terrorist attack on her!" This is not a reference to wanting to cause terror in anyone. It is just a particularly crude way of saying that a woman's appearance aroused powerful feelings of lust within me.
I may have also said, "Do you want to come over and smoke some marijuana?" This is not an invitation for cannabis use. Drugs are bad and illegal and wrong. I don't do them. Drugs could ruin one' ...


You didn't get many bites because of whidbey's stupid trolling, but I found this delightful.
 
2013-12-27 11:17:39 PM  

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty is a Christian value believe it or not.


Liberty is NOT a Christian value. Controlling people is a core Christian value. Just as you don't want sharia law, the rest of us don't want your Christian doctrines either.

You know something? I've been very anti-NSA. I've believed in people for far too long. Believed that we all could do the right thing. But we can't when people like you refuse to let go of your superstitions and Sunday morning fairytales. You refuse to because you refuse to take responsibility for yourselves. You always want some supernatural scapegoat to blame your actions on. "The devil made me do it!" Or original sin so that you can confess, be born-again, or whatever doctrine it takes to escape your moral duties. You're all more concerned with your biblical code in condemning gays and others than your ethical responsibilities in protecting your fellow humans. All because you don't want to upset the invisible hippocrite in the sky.

Well you know what? I'm tired of pulling my weight. If this is the kind of nation you want, you got it. Turn over your responsibilities and liberties, and accept your deserving punishment accordingly. You wanted a police state in the name of your god, you got it!
 
2013-12-27 11:32:45 PM  

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


Everyone - EVERYONE - has dirt. Some have a little and some have a lot. And no one, congresscritters included, knows for sure what the agency knows about them. So don't hold your breath waiting for them to rock the boat.

It was nice while it lasted.
 
2013-12-28 12:08:12 AM  

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

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


Duke sucks

/oblig
 
2013-12-28 01:44:35 AM  

macdaddy357: Judges do not consider the letter of the law or the constitution, only their own politics. No piece of parchment is going to protect us from the ruling class doing whatever gets them off.


No parchment will protect you. Car bombs and beheadings seem to get the message across though.
 
2013-12-28 02:21:40 AM  
Didn't this country use to run propaganda campains about other countries trying to do this exact same crap?

Sad, really sad, how does democracy die? With a burp, fart, and a "duh uh?" on the couch of the stupid fat-ass American public.
 
2013-12-28 04:12:03 AM  
I like how Judge Pauley goes on and on about "frustrating Congress's intent" and "Congress did not intend" regarding section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, when in fact Congress didn't even read the legislation before passing it.  His opinion largely seems to rest on, "Congress passed this law, so I'm just going to go along with it, regardless of the legitimate issues raised".
 
2013-12-28 05:04:20 AM  

tbeatty: Nahh, he's a True Believer(tm).  He actually seems to be believe he is a moderate and Obama is conservative and Bush is a war criminal.


One, two, three correct things.
 
2013-12-28 05:11:00 AM  

RanDomino: That's not what I'm saying. ACA STILL leaves tens of millions of people in the lurch, and maintains the insurance corporation-dominated system which costs far more than it needs to while delivering inferior care, and we still have to do battle with a bureaucracy to get our bills paid. Scratch that, now we have to do battle with TWO bureaucracies! Sure, it MAY be SLIGHTLY better than the previous situation, but... really? This is what we get for our one big shot at really turning things around? All the outrage building up over the previous several years is gone, and we get a slightly-polished turd?


It is better, and it took every bit of positive political power to get it.
 
2013-12-28 05:19:14 AM  

Alphax: tbeatty: Nahh, he's a True Believer(tm).  He actually seems to be believe he is a moderate and Obama is conservative and Bush is a war criminal.

One, two, three correct things.


Well, Obama certainly isn't a conservative as the term is used nowadays.. he's not seeking to hurt people for being poor or different, or to bring back feudalism.  But he's conservative in that he's not rocking the boat much.
 
2013-12-28 06:22:08 AM  

Claude Ballse: You know something? I've been very anti-NSA. I've believed in people for far too long. Believed that we all could do the right thing. But we can't when people like you refuse to let go of your superstitions and Sunday morning fairytales. You refuse to because you refuse to take responsibility for yourselves. You always want some supernatural scapegoat to blame your actions on. "The devil made me do it!" Or original sin so that you can confess, be born-again, or whatever doctrine it takes to escape your moral duties. You're all more concerned with your biblical code in condemning gays and others than your ethical responsibilities in protecting your fellow humans. All because you don't want to upset the invisible hippocrite in the sky.

Well you know what? I'm tired of pulling my weight. If this is the kind of nation you want, you got it. Turn over your responsibilities and liberties, and accept your deserving punishment accordingly. You wanted a police state in the name of your god, you got it!


I agree with every sentiment you've expressed here.
 
2013-12-28 08:48:53 AM  
Judge against the NSA cites the constitution. Judge for them cites 9/11. Which is more important?
 
2013-12-28 11:01:06 AM  

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

Who ya gonna call?

We could always call the third corrupt branch of our government.  Maybe they can help.


or the corrupt 4th branch, but this doesn't throw mud on either "side" of the "two-party" system, so my guess is they won't help us either.

sigh
 
2013-12-28 11:07:47 AM  

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


I wish I could hit the funny button 10 times.
assets0.ordienetworks.com
 
2013-12-28 11:18:01 AM  

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

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


Plenty of people realized it then.  I still think the so-called PATRIOT Act (it's an acronym people) is unconstitutional, and this judge should be very unceremoniously shamed into retiring/resigning and admitting he doesn't understand the Constitution.


They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin, according to wikiquote.

Paraphrased Below:

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
 
2013-12-28 11:46:24 AM  

shazbotuh: /Throws hat in ring


We all know that the NSA needs to be able to stalk exes and new potential SOs...otherwise the terrorists win...

right?


Pretty much.  I wouldn't be AS butt-hurt about it if they would just show us SOMETHING, SOMETHING AT ALL about how this program has saved America's ass at least once.  But all they keep saying is 'We can't tell you anything without jeopardizing the way the operation works blah blah blah'.  Bullshiat.  And if you're not stopping terrorists how about at least bringing down a child pron ring or two.  Assholes.
 
2013-12-28 12:19:56 PM  

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

Not with the current fear-mongering conservative majority bench.


For what it's worth, Judge Leon, the district judge who said the NSA had to knock off the bulk data collection, is a Bush 43 appointee, IIRC.

/conservative and liberal means nothing with respect to government control over your life
 
2013-12-28 02:06:20 PM  
It's constitutional because it's effective?

Alrighty.
 
2013-12-28 02:59:46 PM  

mizchief: It's not up to the judge to decide when it's OK to violate the constitution, only if there is a violation. Sounds like the judge pretty much just said "Yea it's illegal, but you know terrorism"


The fark? The judge didn't say anything even remotely resembling that. He held that the metadata collection was constitutional, as per Supreme Court decisions (most notably Smith v. Maryland, which has already been mentioned several times in this thread). I'm amazed (well, not really) that the thread has gone on this farking long without anybody linking to - or apparently even reading - the ruling in question.

Tyrone Slothrop: Judge against the NSA cites the constitution. Judge for them cites 9/11. Which is more important?


Now that's just silly. The ruling (like any ruling on a case like this) has an entire section devoted to Constitutional issues. You might as well say "Judge against* the NSA cites Orwell. Judge for them cites the Constitution. Which is more important?"

*even though it was only a preliminary injunction and not an actual ruling
 
2013-12-28 03:19:52 PM  

Biological Ali: *even though it was only a preliminary injunction and not an actual ruling


I should add, a preliminary injunction that the judge himself stayed in the very next sentence, "in view of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues".
 
2013-12-28 03:55:03 PM  
He said the program lets the government connect fragmented and fleeting communications and "represents the government's counter-punch" to the al-Qaida's terror network's use of technology to operate decentralized and plot international terrorist attacks remotely.

Im sure they meant to write that into the 4th amendment but ran out of ink.
 
2013-12-28 03:59:25 PM  

Biological Ali: he ruling in question.


The ruling where he spends an entire paragraph channeling Kafka?

www.washingtonpost.com

"Congress passed a law that said you weren't supposed to know about their illegal spying. So now that you DO know, I should throw out your legal claims, because you were supposed to be caught in a Catch-22 where nobody with standing knew enough to make a complaint."

Biological Ali: Smith v. Maryland,


Judge Sotomayer's concurrence for that case is particularly relevant, and could very well foreshadow future rulings in the SCOTUS:

"More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976). This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. Perhaps, as JUSTICE ALITO notes, some people may find the "tradeoff" of privacy for convenience "worthwhile," or come to accept this "diminution of privacy" as "inevitable," post, at 10, and perhaps not. I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection. See Smith, 442 U. S., at 749 (Marshall, J., dissenting) ("Privacy is not a discrete commodity, possessed absolutely or not at all. Those who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone company for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purposes"); see also Katz, 389 U. S., at 351-352 ("[W]hat [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected"). Resolution of these difficult questions in this case is unnecessary, however, because the Government's physical intrusion on Jones' Jeep supplies a narrower basis for decision. I therefore join the majority's opinion."
 
2013-12-28 04:43:15 PM  

Alphax: RanDomino: That's not what I'm saying. ACA STILL leaves tens of millions of people in the lurch, and maintains the insurance corporation-dominated system which costs far more than it needs to while delivering inferior care, and we still have to do battle with a bureaucracy to get our bills paid. Scratch that, now we have to do battle with TWO bureaucracies! Sure, it MAY be SLIGHTLY better than the previous situation, but... really? This is what we get for our one big shot at really turning things around? All the outrage building up over the previous several years is gone, and we get a slightly-polished turd?

It is better, and it took every bit of positive political power to get it.


How is it better?

Prior to ACA, insurance companies created criteria for joining various plans and created actuarial tables to determine premiums.  This is the way nearly all private insurance and annuities work.

ACA mandates every new policy cover certain conditions, meet certain out-of-pocket conditions, etc, etc.  the provisions forced many plans to remove certain offerings (i.e. 50 y/o couples could have a $5,000 deductible last year with no coverage for pregnancy.  Insurance companies cannot create those pools anymore.)  Millions of people lost their coverage, not because it was "crappy" but because it didn't lump them into a risk pool that demands higher premiums.

The achilles heel though isn't just eliminating exclusive risk pools and creating coverage that fits a persons lifestyle, it's the requirement that healthy, non-pregnant, young people join up.  Extending the age of "children" to 26 helps that, but doesn't solve it.  The fact is that healthy young people that need to sign up to make it work, aren't doing so.  Unhealthy, poor people aren't signing up.

A few provisions of the act, though is what is going to make healthcare way more expensive and way less accessible:  1) pre-existing conditions can't be turned away so step one of going to the hospital for the poor, uninsured is getting them a plan - 2) any hospital stays two nights or less must be billed at outpatient rates.  Guess how many 3 night hospital stays will be created to keep hospitals full at maximum billing rates?

The other nasty surprise that people don't worry about today because "in network" was a much larger pool of doctors than the insurance companies on the exchanges are providing is the definition of "out-of-pocket" expenses.  When someone decides to "keep their doctor" even though he is out of network, or use a hospital that is out-of-network, the out-of-pocket expenses are counted as what the insurance company would have paid an "in-network" doctor.  It's not what the patient actually pays.  Usually it's the medicare rate that would be counted.  So if your doctor/hospital charges you $1,000 as "out-of-network" and the medicare reimbursement would be $200, the out-of-pocket calculation is $200.  If you have a plan with a $1000 "out-of-pocket" maximum, it would take 5 visits to reach it and you would have paid $5,000.  After, that, you would only have to pay $800 per visit as $200 would be covered by "out-of-network" coverage.   That isn't any different than how insurance operates today but with so many doctors opting out of the network plans, there will be lots of surprises.   A lower "out-of-pocket" maximum isn't necessarily cheaper if their pool of doctors is too small.
 
2013-12-28 05:48:07 PM  

Thrag: 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.


Interesting point.  So, you can say that Dems never blocked legislation or filibustered before the Repubs got control?  I'd say look closely.  It happened all the time.  What you want is total power though an unblockable majority.  However, that does not mean control, it mean dominance.
 
2013-12-28 07:02:35 PM  

TaskMan: Interesting point. So, you can say that Dems never blocked legislation or filibustered before the Repubs got control? I'd say look closely. It happened all the time.


Look up the actual numbers and report to the class.
 
2013-12-28 08:02:32 PM  

Billy Liar: Does this mean I can call the NSA up and find out who keeps calling me and hanging up?


Or even better, tell me who the fark has been calling me for at least a decade now, offering me lower interest rates on my credit cards... my last chance and all. I carry no CC debt...
 
2013-12-28 08:09:05 PM  

pdkl95: "Congress passed a law that said you weren't supposed to know about their illegal spying. So now that you DO know, I should throw out your legal claims, because you were supposed to be caught in a Catch-22 where nobody with standing knew enough to make a complaint."


You do realize that this is how all surveillance works, right? Including ordinary wiretaps carried out by police, which you (presumably) wouldn't consider to be "illegal", but which would nonetheless be a much more severe intrusion into the person's privacy than the mere collection of metadata.

The authorities are under no obligation to let the subjects of surveillance know that they're being looked at, for reasons that (I hope) are obvious. The only occasions where this would ever come to light is if evidence gained from said surveillance is being introduced in court, or (as in this case) somebody wrongly releases details of some current or previous investigation to the public.
 
2013-12-28 08:11:03 PM  
tbeatty
The other nasty surprise that people don't worry about today because "in network" was a much larger pool of doctors than the insurance companies on the exchanges are providing is the definition of "out-of-pocket" expenses. When someone decides to "keep their doctor" even though he is out of network, or use a hospital that is out-of-network, the out-of-pocket expenses are counted as what the insurance company would have paid an "in-network" doctor. It's not what the patient actually pays. Usually it's the medicare rate that would be counted. So if your doctor/hospital charges you $1,000 as "out-of-network" and the medicare reimbursement would be $200, the out-of-pocket calculation is $200. If you have a plan with a $1000 "out-of-pocket" maximum, it would take 5 visits to reach it and you would have paid $5,000. After, that, you would only have to pay $800 per visit as $200 would be covered by "out-of-network" coverage.

The sheer fact that this total gibberish means anything to anyone is good enough evidence for me that the system needs to be burned down.
 
2013-12-28 08:30:59 PM  

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

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

HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Excellent retort.

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

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

Good day.

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

I said good day.


Got Butthurt?
 
2013-12-28 09:16:03 PM  

TaskMan: Thrag: 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.

Interesting point.  So, you can say that Dems never blocked legislation or filibustered before the Repubs got control?  I'd say look closely.  It happened all the time.  What you want is total power though an unblockable majority.  However, that does not mean control, it mean dominance.


You appear to be arguing with voices in your head as I did not take either of the positions you are arguing against. I simply stated the facts of the matter.
 
2013-12-28 09:24:34 PM  

Biological Ali: pdkl95: "Congress passed a law that said you weren't supposed to know about their illegal spying. So now that you DO know, I should throw out your legal claims, because you were supposed to be caught in a Catch-22 where nobody with standing knew enough to make a complaint."

You do realize that this is how all surveillance works, right? Including ordinary wiretaps carried out by police, which you (presumably) wouldn't consider to be "illegal", but which would nonetheless be a much more severe intrusion into the person's privacy than the mere collection of metadata.

The authorities are under no obligation to let the subjects of surveillance know that they're being looked at, for reasons that (I hope) are obvious. The only occasions where this would ever come to light is if evidence gained from said surveillance is being introduced in court, or (as in this case) somebody wrongly releases details of some current or previous investigation to the public.


Go read that paragraph again. In a traditional (and legal w/ warrant) you may not know you are being spied upon, but you can most certainly argue the legality of the evidence-collection in court later on. This has happened many times over the years.

Here, he's using the "you weren't supposed to know about it" nonsense to *through out the claims on procedural grounds*. They are the only person (hypothetically) harmed, and therefor are the only one with standing. It sure would be convenient if the unconstitutional spying program could never be arguing in court...

Fortunately, this splits the district when added to Judge Leon's "Smith/etc precedent doesn't match the current situation" from a few days ago, which pretty much forces the SCOTUS to take the case to reconcile that split.
 
2013-12-28 09:56:35 PM  

pdkl95: Go read that paragraph again. In a traditional (and legal w/ warrant) you may not know you are being spied upon, but you can most certainly argue the legality of the evidence-collection in court later on. This has happened many times over the years.

Here, he's using the "you weren't supposed to know about it" nonsense to *through out the claims on procedural grounds*. They are the only person (hypothetically) harmed, and therefor are the only one with standing. It sure would be convenient if the unconstitutional spying program could never be arguing in court...

Fortunately, this splits the district when added to Judge Leon's "Smith/etc precedent doesn't match the current situation" from a few days ago, which pretty much forces the SCOTUS to take the case to reconcile that split.


I'm not talking about the legal technicalities discussed in the paragraph, but rather, your use of the term "Kafkaesque" to describe what is one of the most basic principles of investigation. Even with the most vanilla kinds of police investigation, you might never get a chance to challenge it because you may very well never end up being charged with any crime. The plaintiffs in TFA aren't trying to get evidence being used against them at trial deemed inadmissible (which would be the equivalent to your suggestion about how individuals can "argue the legality" of police surveillance carried out on them) - they're making a more general argument against the surveillance methods themselves, which is something very different.

And as for Leon - there's no "split", since he hasn't actually made a ruling (at least not as far as I know). All he did was grant a preliminary injunction which he himself immediately stayed.
 
2013-12-28 10:56:42 PM  
I should point out that I'm even asking you (or anyone) to support the current metadata collection policy. I'm just stating (since apparently there are a lot of people who don't realize it) that the constitutional case against looks to be extremely weak, and that the likely remedy for those who oppose it will be to have the law repealed or amended the old-fashioned way.

Moreover, people need to calm down. I've got to admit, I got tremendous joy out of watching the conservatives' reaction to the Obamacare ruling - in particular, their impassioned defenses of what they Imagined the Constitution to Be (though in truth, the outcome of that case was a lot less certain than this one), so it disappoints me to see liberals doing the same thing. I mean, people are going apeshiat and railing against this judge (entire pages worth of insults, and at least one joke about murder) based on not even his actual ruling, but a woefully inadequate summary of it (some people actually seem to think that he upheld the policy based on national security concerns, rather than decades-old Supreme Court precedent). If people are getting this worked up now, what are they going to do when the Supreme Court rules against them?
 
2013-12-28 11:10:21 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.


And then there are those afflicted with Delusions of Grandeur, and pontificating from the depths of an echo chamber.
 
2013-12-29 12:06:49 AM  
img.fark.net
 
Displayed 49 of 549 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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report