Edward Snowden is a self-righteous ass with no integrity who should be prosecuted for treason and executed when found guilty.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 08:58:30 AM
Edward Snowden is a self-righteous ass with no integrity who should be prosecuted for treason and executed when found guilty.
The same thing should happen to him that happened to the left wing whistle blowers and media that leaked info when Bush was in office.
Quote from: me on June 10, 2013, 10:00:00 AM
The same thing should happen to him that happened to the left wing whistle blowers and media that leaked info when Bush was in office.
Please name one who compromised national security at this level? And by the way, not everything is a fucking partisan issue. :rolleyes:
I think everything IS a partisan issue these days........one way or the other. It really does suck. :mad:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2013, 10:57:45 AM
I think everything IS a partisan issue these days........one way or the other. It really does suck. :mad:
Well, this shouldn't be. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the NSA's intelligence gathering tactics, this man understood that he was dealing with highly classified matters of national security and agreed to keep those things in confidence. With absolutely no regard for the possibility that perhaps...just maybe...he is only privy to a very small part of a much larger and more complicated picture, he took it upon himself, with all of the wisdom of his 29 years, to expose things about which he understands very little. He is naive and violated the confidence to which he agreed. He is a traitor.
Another interesting aspect of this circus is how everyone is whining about how "their" personal information is being collected and how that violates their fourth amendment rights. Here's a clue for those folks: you do not own the information being collected by the government; your cell carrier does. Those are not your records; they are theirs.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 10:21:47 AM
Please name one who compromised national security at this level? And by the way, not everything is a fucking partisan issue. :rolleyes:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024840.php
Quote
Posted on October 31, 2009 by John Hinderaker
Bush-Era Leaks Were Dangerous After All
Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday invoked the state secrets privilege in connection with a case titled Shubert, et al. v. Barack Obama, et al.. The Shubert case is pending in federal district court in San Francisco. Assuming the court agrees with the Obama administration's position, the case will be dismissed on the ground that it cannot proceed without a danger that vitally important national security secrets will be revealed.
Many commentators have noted that this is one more instance where the Obama administration, now that it is in possession of the facts and charged with responsibility for the nation's security, has acted in full concert with much-reviled policies of the Bush administration. That's a valid point, and Holder's press release on the subject, which you can read here, is almost humorous in its labored attempt to create the impression that use of the state secrets privilege by the Obama administration is somehow different from the identical use of the identical privilege by the previous administration. Holder even invokes "transparency," which seems ludicrous in light of the broader record of the Obama administration and the nature of the privilege itself. Actually, the Obama administration's motion to dismiss based on the state secrets privilege is a renewal of a motion the Bush administration originally brought in 2007.
But the administration's decision merits a closer look because of the nature of the Shubert case. In that action, the plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of aggrieved parties, allege that "the Bush administration engaged in wholesale dragnet surveillance of ordinary Americans in which they were unjustly caught because they regularly made phone calls and sent emails to individuals outside the U.S....." Plaintiffs are referring to the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, which became a flash point for the Left's attacks on the Bush administration after its existence was leaked to the New York Times.
We and many others denounced that leak, and the Times' decision to publish information about the Terrorist Surveillance Program, on the grounds that they were illegal and were dangerous to national security. Sadly, neither the leakers nor the Times reporters and editors who blew the program's secrecy ever went to jail. On the contrary, Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won a Pulitzer Prize for disclosing the existence and nature of the Terrorist Surveillance Program to our enemies.
In Shubert, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages for what they allege was illegal surveillance of them carried out under the NSA's program. The Obama administration's submission in support of its motion to dismiss the case makes clear that the Bush administration (and we, for that matter) were right all along about the importance of the program and the potential for injury to our national security posed by leaks about it. Here are some of the factual allegations in an affidavit submitted in support of the motion by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair. You can read the declaration in its entirety here:
3. ...t is my judgment that sensitive state secrets are so central to the subject matter of the litigation that any attempt to proceed in the case will substantially risk the disclosure of classified privileged national security information described herein and will therefore risk exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States. ...
13. First, I am asserting privilege over information that would reveal whether particular individuals, including the named plaintiffs in this lawsuit, have been subject to the alleged NSA intelligence activities. Disclosure of such information would cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security. The NSA cannot publicly confirm or deny whether any particular individual is subject to surveillance activities. ...
14. Second, I am also asserting privilege over any other facts concerning NSA surveillance activities, sources, or methods that may relate to or be necessary to adjudicate the plaintiffs' claims, including, but not limited to, allegations that the NSA, with the assistance of telecommunications companies, has indiscriminately intercepted the content and obtained large quantities of communications records as part of the Program authorized by the President after 9/11. ... As noted above, my privilege assertion encompasses (1) facts concerning the operation of the now-defunct Terrorist Surveillance Program, including any facts needed to demonstrate that the TSP was limited to the interception of the content of one-end foreign communications reasonably believed to involve a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization, and that the NSA does not otherwise conduct a dragnet of conduct surveillance as the plaintiffs allege; and, to the extent relevant, (2) information concerning whether the NSA obtains communication transactional records from the telecommunication companies.
15. As the NSA indicates, ... the NSA's collection of the content of communications under the TSP was directed at international communications in which a participant was reasonably believed to be associated with al Qaeda or an affiliated organization. Thus, as the Government has previously stated, plaintiffs' allegation that the NSA has indiscriminately collected the content of millions of communications sent or received by people inside the United States after 9/11 under the TSP is false. I concur with the NSA that to the extent it must demonstrate in this case that the TSP was not the content dragnet plaintiffs allege, or demonstrate that the NSA has not otherwise engaged in the alleged content dragnet, highly classified NSA intelligence sources and methods about the operation of the TSP and other NSA intelligence activities would be disclosed or at risk of disclosure which would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security.
Note the propositions that are stated or implied by Admiral Blair's declaration and by the Obama administration's motion to dismiss: 1) The NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program was vital to our national security. 2) The TSP was carefully targeted, as the Bush administration maintained all along, at international communications that involved a person reasonably believed to be a member or agent of al Qaeda. 3) The Bush administration could not defend itself in detail against the false claims that were made about the TSP because doing so would have disclosed vitally important secrets about our means and methods of fighting terrorists. 4) Leaks about the NSA program threatened to compromise a program that was vital to our national security. 5) While the TSP in its original form is now "defunct," the NSA's current programs–referred to as "other NSA intelligence activities" by Admiral Blair–are so closely related (I suspect they are virtually identical) that disclosures about the TSP would still imperil our security.
The only possible conclusion, I think, is that Barack Obama (who criticized the NSA program during the campaign), James Risen, Eric Lichtblau, Bill Keller, the Pulitzer Prize committee and countless other liberals owe the Bush administration an apology.
Thanks to Washington's best reporter, Jake Tapper, who tracked down the administration's filings in the Shubert case.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 08:58:30 AM
Edward Snowden is a self-righteous ass with no integrity who should be prosecuted for treason and executed when found guilty.
I can agree with this; despite the fact I do not like what they are doing.
Why? Because this information can be used for purposes other than what it is designated for. Because human beings are cunning, and if history is any indication it
will be used for nefarious purposes by at least one of them.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 11:59:20 AM
Well, this shouldn't be. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the NSA's intelligence gathering tactics, this man understood that he was dealing with highly classified matters of national security and agreed to keep those things in confidence. With absolutely no regard for the possibility that perhaps...just maybe...he is only privy to a very small part of a much larger and more complicated picture, he took it upon himself, with all of the wisdom of his 29 years, to expose things about which he understands very little. He is naive and violated the confidence to which he agreed. He is a traitor.
Another interesting aspect of this circus is how everyone is whining about how "their" personal information is being collected and how that violates their fourth amendment rights. Here's a clue for those folks: you do not own the information being collected by the government; your cell carrier does. Those are not your records; they are theirs.
Okay, here is my 2 cents on this.
I think it is too early to say if this guy is good or bad. I think you (Ex) is right, that it very well could be a traitorous act. I think we need to have some oversight involved in all of this. I am all for our nation doing what it must to keep us secure....but, I think a time has come where we need MORE checks and balances over our NSA, CIA, FBI and Homeland Security....
I think our current administration has caused much of this "insecurity" by citizens with the level of distrust he has thrusted upon us. The IRS fiasco, Benghazi, AP, Fast and Furious have all contributed to the mess we now face.
During a time of when I favor our government becoming smaller....I now see a time of expanding at this level....checks and balances are a must, and more oversight is needed to keep us secure and honest.
Didn't want Ex to miss this.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 10:21:47 AM
Please name one who compromised national security at this level? And by the way, not everything is a fucking partisan issue. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on June 10, 2013, 12:08:53 PM
Posted on October 31, 2009 by John Hinderaker
Bush-Era Leaks Were Dangerous After All
Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday invoked the state secrets privilege in connection with a case titled Shubert, et al. v. Barack Obama, et al.. The Shubert case is pending in federal district court in San Francisco. Assuming the court agrees with the Obama administration's position, the case will be dismissed on the ground that it cannot proceed without a danger that vitally important national security secrets will be revealed.
Many commentators have noted that this is one more instance where the Obama administration, now that it is in possession of the facts and charged with responsibility for the nation's security, has acted in full concert with much-reviled policies of the Bush administration. That's a valid point, and Holder's press release on the subject, which you can read here, is almost humorous in its labored attempt to create the impression that use of the state secrets privilege by the Obama administration is somehow different from the identical use of the identical privilege by the previous administration. Holder even invokes "transparency," which seems ludicrous in light of the broader record of the Obama administration and the nature of the privilege itself. Actually, the Obama administration's motion to dismiss based on the state secrets privilege is a renewal of a motion the Bush administration originally brought in 2007.
But the administration's decision merits a closer look because of the nature of the Shubert case. In that action, the plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of aggrieved parties, allege that "the Bush administration engaged in wholesale dragnet surveillance of ordinary Americans in which they were unjustly caught because they regularly made phone calls and sent emails to individuals outside the U.S....." Plaintiffs are referring to the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, which became a flash point for the Left's attacks on the Bush administration after its existence was leaked to the New York Times.
We and many others denounced that leak, and the Times' decision to publish information about the Terrorist Surveillance Program, on the grounds that they were illegal and were dangerous to national security. Sadly, neither the leakers nor the Times reporters and editors who blew the program's secrecy ever went to jail. On the contrary, Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won a Pulitzer Prize for disclosing the existence and nature of the Terrorist Surveillance Program to our enemies.
In Shubert, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages for what they allege was illegal surveillance of them carried out under the NSA's program. The Obama administration's submission in support of its motion to dismiss the case makes clear that the Bush administration (and we, for that matter) were right all along about the importance of the program and the potential for injury to our national security posed by leaks about it. Here are some of the factual allegations in an affidavit submitted in support of the motion by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair. You can read the declaration in its entirety here:
3. ...t is my judgment that sensitive state secrets are so central to the subject matter of the litigation that any attempt to proceed in the case will substantially risk the disclosure of classified privileged national security information described herein and will therefore risk exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States. ...
13. First, I am asserting privilege over information that would reveal whether particular individuals, including the named plaintiffs in this lawsuit, have been subject to the alleged NSA intelligence activities. Disclosure of such information would cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security. The NSA cannot publicly confirm or deny whether any particular individual is subject to surveillance activities. ...
14. Second, I am also asserting privilege over any other facts concerning NSA surveillance activities, sources, or methods that may relate to or be necessary to adjudicate the plaintiffs' claims, including, but not limited to, allegations that the NSA, with the assistance of telecommunications companies, has indiscriminately intercepted the content and obtained large quantities of communications records as part of the Program authorized by the President after 9/11. ... As noted above, my privilege assertion encompasses (1) facts concerning the operation of the now-defunct Terrorist Surveillance Program, including any facts needed to demonstrate that the TSP was limited to the interception of the content of one-end foreign communications reasonably believed to involve a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization, and that the NSA does not otherwise conduct a dragnet of conduct surveillance as the plaintiffs allege; and, to the extent relevant, (2) information concerning whether the NSA obtains communication transactional records from the telecommunication companies.
15. As the NSA indicates, ... the NSA's collection of the content of communications under the TSP was directed at international communications in which a participant was reasonably believed to be associated with al Qaeda or an affiliated organization. Thus, as the Government has previously stated, plaintiffs' allegation that the NSA has indiscriminately collected the content of millions of communications sent or received by people inside the United States after 9/11 under the TSP is false. I concur with the NSA that to the extent it must demonstrate in this case that the TSP was not the content dragnet plaintiffs allege, or demonstrate that the NSA has not otherwise engaged in the alleged content dragnet, highly classified NSA intelligence sources and methods about the operation of the TSP and other NSA intelligence activities would be disclosed or at risk of disclosure which would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security.
Note the propositions that are stated or implied by Admiral Blair's declaration and by the Obama administration's motion to dismiss: 1) The NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program was vital to our national security. 2) The TSP was carefully targeted, as the Bush administration maintained all along, at international communications that involved a person reasonably believed to be a member or agent of al Qaeda. 3) The Bush administration could not defend itself in detail against the false claims that were made about the TSP because doing so would have disclosed vitally important secrets about our means and methods of fighting terrorists. 4) Leaks about the NSA program threatened to compromise a program that was vital to our national security. 5) While the TSP in its original form is now "defunct," the NSA's current programs–referred to as "other NSA intelligence activities" by Admiral Blair–are so closely related (I suspect they are virtually identical) that disclosures about the TSP would still imperil our security.
The only possible conclusion, I think, is that Barack Obama (who criticized the NSA program during the campaign), James Risen, Eric Lichtblau, Bill Keller, the Pulitzer Prize committee and countless other liberals owe the Bush administration an apology.
Thanks to Washington's best reporter, Jake Tapper, who tracked down the administration's filings in the Shubert case.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024840.php
Quote from: me on June 10, 2013, 12:26:49 PM
Didn't want Ex to miss this.
Doesn't even come close to directly answering the question.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2013, 12:15:50 PM
I think it is too early to say if this guy is good or bad.
Really? It seems pretty straightforward to me.
Snowden assumed, unilaterally, that he was safeguarding democracy for all of us--when in fact he was simply hampering the efforts of our feeble, broken government to protect us. Who asked him?
And who appointed Snowden guardian of our humanity? How human do you feel when you've been irradiated by a dirty bomb, or when you're dead?
I agree that our now-degenerate "democracy" needs saving. But the principal threat is that our corrupt Congress allows itself to be bribed by big-money "campaign contributors". Congress, with its abysmal approval rating, rules without the consent of the governed. According to our Declaration of Independence "...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...." right now. Take that, PRISM.
Anyone wishing to vent and express outrage at government surveillance of this sort is, of course, free to do so. On the other hand, it would be most helpful to offer more "democratic" means for identifying terrorists in our midst.
We are a country of over 300 million. If there are, say, 1,000 active terrorists in our midst who have both the capability and intent to harm or kill many of us in an attack--that amounts to identifying 1 bad guy in 300,000. What are YOUR proposals?
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 12:33:42 PM
What are YOUR proposals?
I already stated them...
I am also not ready to throw Snowdon under the bus....lets see what unfolds over the next few days.......you may be right, and he may very well get what he deserves.
trea·son noun \ˈtrē-zən\
Definition of TREASON
1: the betrayal of a trust
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 12:43:49 PM
trea·son noun \ˈtrē-zən\
Definition of TREASON
1: the betrayal of a trust
Then our POTUS is being treasonous.....HE is pushing the envelope.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2013, 12:44:31 PM
Then our POTUS is being treasonous.....HE is pushing the envelope.
Oh, fuck you; stop changing the subject with your racist, partisan bile.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 01:01:13 PM
Oh, fuck you; stop changing the subject with your racist, partisan bile.
FUCK YOU! peckerhead........YOU change the fucking subject every fucking time by make everything a race issue, instead of having an ounce of fortitude to realize that the skin color of this potus has NOTHING to do with his lack of leadership.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2013, 01:03:33 PM
FUCK YOU! peckerhead........YOU change the fucking subject every fucking time by make everything a race issue, instead of having an ounce of fortitude to realize that the skin color of this potus has NOTHING to do with his lack of leadership.
Whatever. You have nothing of any value to add to any conversation, just the same thing over and over and over again about how much you hate the n***er in the White House. A trained monkey could read between the lines and glean your intent. This forum needs a block feature so that we could avoid being exposed to your illiterate, uneducated garbage.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 01:34:05 PM
Whatever. You have nothing of any value to add to any conversation, just the same thing over and over and over again about how much you hate the n***er in the White House. A trained monkey could read between the lines and glean your intent. This forum needs a block feature so that we could avoid being exposed to your illiterate, uneducated garbage.
Folks,
THIS is the problem we now face in this nation!!! The so-called "intelligent" thinking Americans have hit a wall! They cannot accept the truth over the facts. As long as they believe they are MORE intelligent, despite the facts, they will never, ever understand the damage that is being done, right in front of our faces.
If you don't like what I have to say, then quit engaging in discussion. It is THAT simple. Typical liberal, wanting MORE laws to protect them from something they can handle themselves.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 12:32:04 PM
Doesn't even come close to directly answering the question.
Plaintiffs are referring to the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, which became a flash point for the Left's attacks on the Bush administration after its existence was leaked to the New York Times.
We and many others denounced that leak, and the Times' decision to publish information about the Terrorist Surveillance Program, on the grounds that they were illegal and were dangerous to national security. Sadly, neither the leakers nor the Times reporters and editors who blew the program's secrecy ever went to jail. On the contrary, Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won a Pulitzer Prize for disclosing the existence and nature of the Terrorist Surveillance Program to our enemies.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2013, 01:42:52 PM
Folks,
THIS is the problem we now face in this nation!!! The so-called "intelligent" thinking Americans have hit a wall! They cannot accept the truth over the facts. As long as they believe they are MORE intelligent, despite the facts, they will never, ever understand the damage that is being done, right in front of our faces.
If you don't like what I have to say, then quit engaging in discussion. It is THAT simple. Typical liberal, wanting MORE laws to protect them from something they can handle themselves.
Those who brag about being "intelligent thinkers" will never admit to being wrong because it shows them to be fallible, which they think they are not. It also means someone who they deem beneath them happened to be right which they can't stand.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2013, 01:42:52 PM
Typical liberal, wanting MORE laws to protect them from something they can handle themselves.
Yes, because liberals are always trying to pass legislation to protect them from the evils of the queers, coons and wetbacks; right? :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on June 10, 2013, 02:07:37 PM
Those who brag about being "intelligent thinkers" will never admit to being wrong because it shows them to be fallible, which they think they are not.
Hmmmm... (http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?topic=16915.msg475124#msg475124)
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 02:40:23 PM
Hmmmm... (http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?topic=16915.msg475124#msg475124)
Isn't it amazing how quickly she forgets conversations that were had a mere few days ago? Make me think she's just trolling. :yes:
I saw someone raising hell online today about the government violating his right to privacy so as an academic exercise, decided to see what I could find out about him. In under 5 minutes and at no cost I knew what he looked like, where he grew up, what high school he attended, whether or not he had any post secondary education, when he was divorced and his ex-wife's name, when he filed bankruptcy, his current employer and his position there, his current address and phone number, what his house looks like, how big it is and its approximate market value, that there was a twin mattress and box spring leaning against his front door when the google street mapping car drove by and that his garage door was open and he was standing in it at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4&feature=player_embedded)
One minute long....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2013, 04:37:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4&feature=player_embedded)
One minute long....
Since when does this latest news involve warrantless wiretaps? Or, for that matter, any kind of wiretap whatsoever?
Quote from: Bo D on June 10, 2013, 04:48:36 PM
Since when does this latest news involve warrantless wiretaps? Or, for that matter, any kind of wiretap whatsoever?
I am just throwing this out there...........food for thought, that's all.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2013, 04:53:03 PM
I am just throwing this out there...........food for thought, that's all.
No, you're just an idiot who doesn't know the difference. :rolleyes:
:eek:
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 06:36:29 PM
No, you're just an idiot who doesn't know the difference. :rolleyes:
I know exactly the difference.............and he is a weasel
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 11, 2013, 08:34:26 AM
:eek:
I know exactly the difference.............and he is a weasel
Weasel isn't the work you'd really like to use; is it?
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2013, 09:51:27 AM
Weasel isn't the work you'd really like to use; is it?
work?
Weasel isn't the word you'd really like to use; is it?
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2013, 10:57:14 AM
Weasel isn't the word you'd really like to use; is it?
No, I suppose I could use buttcrust or asswipe......but, that would be disrespectful.
Your racist diatribe reflects poorly only on you.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2013, 11:19:16 AM
Your racist diatribe reflects poorly only on you.
Hey, I think YOU are a buttcrust too! If that makes you feel any better.
Funny how most of the democrats seem to be okay with wiretapping NOW, that it is under Obama.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 11, 2013, 11:25:00 AM
Funny how most of the democrats seem to be okay with wiretapping NOW, that it is under Obama.
What wiretaps?
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2013, 11:19:16 AM
Your racist diatribe reflects poorly only on you.
Question for you. If I agree with a black person who disagrees with Obama on policy does that still make me a racist? What does that make the black person who dislikes his policies?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 11, 2013, 11:25:00 AM
Funny how most of the democrats seem to be okay with wiretapping NOW, that it is under Obama.
See? There you go again. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth for you.
Quote from: me on June 11, 2013, 12:09:21 PM
Question for you. If I agree with a black person who disagrees with Obama on policy does that still make me a racist? What does that make the black person who dislikes his policies?
Here's another line that gets repeated over and over again even after we've shown her many times that she doesn't even know what Obama's policies are.
I'd have more respect for these folks if they at least had enough integrity to say what they really think.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/10609_668821536477830_1432029037_n.jpg)
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2013, 01:18:47 PM
Here's another line that gets repeated over and over again even after we've shown her many times that she doesn't even know what Obama's policies are.
I'd have more respect for these folks if they at least had enough integrity to say what they really think.
That didn't answer my question.
Quote from: me on June 11, 2013, 12:09:21 PM
Question for you. If I agree with a black person who disagrees with Obama on policy does that still make me a racist? What does that make the black person who dislikes his policies?
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2013, 01:21:30 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/10609_668821536477830_1432029037_n.jpg)
That was dealt with accordingly and is old news now. That didn't happen in the US. Remember?
Quote from: Bo D on June 11, 2013, 01:02:02 PM
See? There you go again. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth for you.
I was merely using a terminology used by Obama himself, when he was talking about the Bush administration using "illegal wiretapping of American Citizens".....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-Rdi_RNRpdk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-Rdi_RNRpdk)
By the way, here is some stats on how the dems now think it is okay, but was a bad thing in 2006
(http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/06/6-10-13-4.png)
Posted by: me
« on: Today at 02:43:04 PM »
Insert Quote
Quote from: Exterminator on Today at 01:18:47 PM
Here's another line that gets repeated over and over again even after we've shown her many times that she doesn't even know what Obama's policies are.
I'd have more respect for these folks if they at least had enough integrity to say what they really think.
That didn't answer my question.
Quote from: me on Today at 12:09:21 PM
Question for you. If I agree with a black person who disagrees with Obama on policy does that still make me a racist? What does that make the black person who dislikes his policies?
http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?topic=17637.msg475370#msg475370
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 11, 2013, 03:14:07 PM
I was merely using a terminology used by Obama himself, when he was talking about the Bush administration using "illegal wiretapping of American Citizens".....
That's because
Bush DID USE "illegal wiretapping of American Citizens" That is NOT what is going on now.
In acknowledging the message was true, President Bush ..... authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/ (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/)
See? You're beginning to believe your own lies. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on June 11, 2013, 02:44:58 PM
That was dealt with accordingly and is old news now. That didn't happen in the US. Remember?
You let that one go about ten feet over your head. I even heard the whoosh.
Quote from: Bo D on June 11, 2013, 03:49:47 PM
That's because Bush DID USE "illegal wiretapping of American Citizens" That is NOT what is going on now.
In acknowledging the message was true, President Bush ..... authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/ (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/)
See? You're beginning to believe your own lies. :rolleyes:
What Bush allowed NSA to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.....and that is what Obama is doing and still WANTS to do....."wiretapping" is STILL being done, except now it is on all Verizon and Internet companies. It is STILL as wrong, or as right, (depending on your stance) as it was during the Bush administration.
Quote from: Bo D on June 11, 2013, 03:50:59 PM
You let that one go about ten feet over your head. I even heard the whoosh.
No, it did not. It was meant to deflect and I just ended it.
Quote from: me on June 11, 2013, 03:24:47 PM
Posted by: me
« on: Today at 02:43:04 PM »
Insert Quote
Quote from: Exterminator on Today at 01:18:47 PM
Here's another line that gets repeated over and over again even after we've shown her many times that she doesn't even know what Obama's policies are.
I'd have more respect for these folks if they at least had enough integrity to say what they really think.
That didn't answer my question.
Quote from: me on Today at 12:09:21 PM
Question for you. If I agree with a black person who disagrees with Obama on policy does that still make me a racist? What does that make the black person who dislikes his policies?
http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?topic=17637.msg475370#msg475370
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 11, 2013, 04:12:49 PM
What Bush allowed NSA to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.....and that is what Obama is doing and still WANTS to do....."wiretapping" is STILL being done, except now it is on all Verizon and Internet companies. It is STILL as wrong, or as right, (depending on your stance) as it was during the Bush administration.
Bush allowed NSA to intercept the international communications of
AMERICAN CITIZENS people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.
What is being done now is
NOT wiretapping. The NSA collected metadata only - records of phone call origins and destinations.
You really need to keep up better. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on June 11, 2013, 04:16:29 PM
No, it did not. It was meant to deflect and I just ended it.
I thought it was rather germane to the recent thread of conversation. Why Is Fox so upset about the NSA doing the exact same thing now that it did under the Bush administration? Especially since its owner is guilty of spying on private citizens - regardless of what country he did it in?
Quote from: Bo D on June 11, 2013, 04:45:47 PM
I thought it was rather germane to the recent thread of conversation. Why Is Fox so upset about the NSA doing the exact same thing now that it did under the Bush administration? Especially since its owner is guilty of spying on private citizens - regardless of what country he did it in?
It changes the subject to something else entirely and drops the discussion about the "data gathering" going by the government. Deflection.
Quote from: me on June 11, 2013, 03:24:47 PM
Posted by: me
« on: Today at 02:43:04 PM »
Insert Quote
Quote from: Exterminator on Today at 01:18:47 PM
Here's another line that gets repeated over and over again even after we've shown her many times that she doesn't even know what Obama's policies are.
I'd have more respect for these folks if they at least had enough integrity to say what they really think.
That didn't answer my question.
Quote from: me on Today at 12:09:21 PM
Question for you. If I agree with a black person who disagrees with Obama on policy does that still make me a racist? What does that make the black person who dislikes his policies?
http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?topic=17637.msg475370#msg475370
Quote from: me on June 11, 2013, 05:01:30 PM
If you didn't understand my previous answer, explaining this to you would be like trying to teach calculus to a pig. Now run along and look up calculus in the dictionary, dear...
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 11:59:20 AM
Well, this shouldn't be. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the NSA's intelligence gathering tactics, this man understood that he was dealing with highly classified matters of national security and agreed to keep those things in confidence. With absolutely no regard for the possibility that perhaps...just maybe...he is only privy to a very small part of a much larger and more complicated picture, he took it upon himself, with all of the wisdom of his 29 years, to expose things about which he understands very little. He is naive and violated the confidence to which he agreed. He is a traitor.
Another interesting aspect of this circus is how everyone is whining about how "their" personal information is being collected and how that violates their fourth amendment rights. Here's a clue for those folks: you do not own the information being collected by the government; your cell carrier does. Those are not your records; they are theirs.
(bold mine)
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2013, 06:57:15 PM
If you didn't understand my previous answer, explaining this to you would be like trying to teach calculus to a pig. Now run along and look up calculus in the dictionary, dear...
No, you did not answer my question you just tried to deflect it in another direction. Just answer the question.
Question for you. If I agree with a black person who disagrees with Obama on policy does that still make me a racist? What does that make the black person who dislikes his policies?
Quote from: me on June 11, 2013, 08:36:07 PM
No, you did not answer my question you just tried to deflect it in another direction. Just answer the question.
Question for you. If I agree with a black person who disagrees with Obama on policy does that still make me a racist? What does that make the black person who dislikes his policies?
I've answered this question for you several times.
LMFAO! She's too stupid to know that blue text means a clickable link. No wonder most of her comments on topics sound like they come from someone with turrets...she doesn't have clue what the rest of us are talking about and misses 95% of the information we link to!
QuoteQuote from: me on Today at 12:09:21 PM
Question for you. If I agree with a black person who disagrees with Obama on policy does that still make me a racist? What does that make the black person who dislikes his policies?
This was your reply to my question. There is no blue clickable link.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2013, 01:18:47 PM
Here's another line that gets repeated over and over again even after we've shown her many times that she doesn't even know what Obama's policies are.
I'd have more respect for these folks if they at least had enough integrity to say what they really think.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2013, 10:55:10 PM
LMFAO! She's too stupid to know that blue text means a clickable link. No wonder most of her comments on topics sound like they come from someone with turrets...she doesn't have clue what the rest of us are talking about and misses 95% of the information we link to!
Here ya go Ex in case ya can't find it. Scroll up.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2013, 06:57:15 PM
If you didn't understand my previous answer, explaining this to you would be like trying to teach calculus to a pig. Now run along and look up calculus in the dictionary, dear...
You never answered it. If you did show me the post.
Now this clown has admitted giving classified information to the Chinese about our spying activities directed at them. Anyone still not sure he's a traitor?
Quote from: Exterminator on June 12, 2013, 04:15:47 PM
Now this clown has admitted giving classified information to the Chinese about our spying activities directed at them. Anyone still not sure he's a traitor?
Link
Quote from: Exterminator on June 12, 2013, 04:15:47 PM
Now this clown has admitted giving classified information to the Chinese about our spying activities directed at them. Anyone still not sure he's a traitor?
I don't know about that but it is beginning to sound like he's possibly a nut case. They are beginning to find holes in some of his stories.
Quote from: me on June 12, 2013, 04:41:53 PM
Link
Hong Kong (CNN) - U.S. intelligence agents have been hacking computer networks around the world for years, apparently targeting fat data pipes that push immense amounts of data around the Internet, NSA leaker Edward Snowden claimed Wednesday to the South China Morning Post newspaper.
Among some 61,000 reported targets of the National Security Agency, Snowden said, are thousands of computers in China -- which U.S. officials have increasingly criticized as the source of thousands of attacks on U.S. military and commercial networks. China has denied such attacks.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak/index.html?c=homepage-t
Quote from: Locutus on June 12, 2013, 05:40:59 PM
Hong Kong (CNN) - U.S. intelligence agents have been hacking computer networks around the world for years, apparently targeting fat data pipes that push immense amounts of data around the Internet, NSA leaker Edward Snowden claimed Wednesday to the South China Morning Post newspaper.
Among some 61,000 reported targets of the National Security Agency, Snowden said, are thousands of computers in China -- which U.S. officials have increasingly criticized as the source of thousands of attacks on U.S. military and commercial networks. China has denied such attacks.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak/index.html?c=homepage-t
Hum, this whole thing is beginning to reek of mostly made up for 15 min of fame or something.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 08:58:30 AM
Edward Snowden is a self-righteous ass with no integrity who should be prosecuted for treason and executed when found guilty.
He is a hero. The government has no business gathering all the info they do , with out cause.
Quote from: RC on June 12, 2013, 08:17:44 PM
He is a hero. The government has no business gathering all the info they do , with out cause.
The problem here seems to be this guy may have made part of this up and a lot of it has been going on for years, like the others are saying. It's beginning to sound like he's stretching the truth for some reason, probably the attention. You have no idea how it hurts to have to agree with the "other side." :shrug: :puke:
Quote from: RC on June 12, 2013, 08:17:44 PM
He is a hero.
If you believe this, you are a traitor who deserves to be executed as well.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/1002960_682373798458743_1694330522_n.jpg)
Still waiting on that answer.
QuoteQuote from: me on Today at 12:09:21 PM
Question for you. If I agree with a black person who disagrees with Obama on policy does that still make me a racist? What does that make the black person who dislikes his policies?
This was your reply to my question. There is no blue clickable link.
QuoteQuote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2013, 01:18:47 PM
Here's another line that gets repeated over and over again even after we've shown her many times that she doesn't even know what Obama's policies are.
I'd have more respect for these folks if they at least had enough integrity to say what they really think.
QuoteQuote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2013, 10:55:10 PM
LMFAO! She's too stupid to know that blue text means a clickable link. No wonder most of her comments on topics sound like they come from someone with turrets...she doesn't have clue what the rest of us are talking about and misses 95% of the information we link to!
Snowden is in Moscow. According to Yahoo News, he's flying to Havana tomorrow with a final destination of Caracas.
Quote from: Locutus on June 23, 2013, 11:20:07 AM
Snowden is in Moscow. According to Yahoo News, he's flying to Havana tomorrow with a final destination of Caracas.
Maybe one of those "magical rockets" that don't exist will take out his aircraft.
I would have thought INTERPOL could put a stop to his jet setting. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on June 23, 2013, 05:37:10 PM
Maybe one of those "magical rockets" that don't exist will take out his aircraft.
I would have thought INTERPOL could put a stop to his jet setting. . .
There is nowhere he will ever be safe again. I hope he enjoys waking up every morning wondering if that will be the day and soiling himself every time a kid sets off a firecracker.
Looks like Yahoo News was wrong. It's now being reported that he's trying to head to Quito.
Here's that question again for you Ex since you haven't answered it yet.
Question for you. If I agree with a black person who disagrees with Obama on policy does that still make me a racist? What does that make the black person who dislikes his policies?
Quote from: me on June 30, 2013, 06:08:33 PM
Here's that question again for you Ex since you haven't answered it yet.
What does that make the black person who dislikes Obama's policies?
A FOOL AND AN IDIOT!!! Just like the rest of the homophobic asshole Republican Sheeples. :choo: :choo: :choo: :trustme:
Snowden has now applied for political asylum in Russia. Anyone still not convinced he's a traitor should pack his bags and go with him.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 01, 2013, 03:49:41 PM
Snowden has now applied for political asylum in Russia. Anyone still not convinced he's a traitor should pack his bags and go with him.
Though I think he believed his intentions were good...what he did was wrong.....it IS indeed traitorous. I am not condoning it. He IS wrong and should be punished.
I also believe the point he made DOES remind us of just how corrupt our government IS. I am NOT pointing at ANY ONE political party........but our WHOLE system.....they keep OVER-REACHING for MORE power.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 02, 2013, 07:43:12 AM
I also believe the point he made DOES remind us of just how corrupt our government IS. I am NOT pointing at ANY ONE political party........but our WHOLE system.....they keep OVER-REACHING for MORE power.
I do not believe that collection of this type of information is over-reaching. I believe that it provides the means by which we can connect the cell phone number of a known terrorist to anyone they might be talking to regularly in the U.S. Once they have established that link, they still must get a warrant to find out to whom the associated number(s) belong and to begin monitoring those individuals. If anyone has a better idea about how to go about doing this, I'm all ears.
FWIW, collecting the from/to phone numbers, when the call was placed and how long it lasted doesn't seem much different than information the postal service has had access to since it started. Knowing the from and to on the outside of an envelope doesn't tell you what's inside it. Are we afraid to use the mail now as well?
I think it is good to have these debates, keeping government honest. (honest-er :razz: )....I think, and this is just my conservative view, that this NSA situation, coupled along with the IRS, AP, Benghazi, it allows the opportunity to challange the "intent" of our leadership. We are in difficult times and this is not helping matters out.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 02, 2013, 10:00:12 AM
I think, and this is just my conservative view, that this NSA situation, coupled along with the IRS, AP, Benghazi, it allows the opportunity to challange the "intent" of our leadership.
I think it's all a bullshit smokescreen to distract attention away from the fact that Congress is not doing its job.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 02, 2013, 10:52:48 AM
I think it's all a bullshit smokescreen to distract attention away from the fact that Congress is not doing its job.
And that is the bottom line. These jackwagons in congress are loafing. They're obscuring the fact they don't do a damned thing by raising headlines akin to the National Enquirer! :mad:
Quote from: Exterminator on July 01, 2013, 03:49:41 PM
Snowden has now applied for political asylum in Russia. Anyone still not convinced he's a traitor should pack his bags and go with him.
Sorry, Ex, but I have to strongly disagree with you.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115
18 USC § 2381 - TreasonWhoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The Constitution of the United StatesArticle. I.: Section. 8.:
The Congress shall have Power To: ...To declare War...1. Treason requires we be at war.
2. Congress has not declared war.
Therefore, Snowdon, can not legally be considered a 'traitor'.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 11:59:20 AM
Here's a clue for those folks: you do not own the information being collected by the government; your cell carrier does. Those are not your records; they are theirs.
I also strongly disagree with this.
Those records are of services provided through a personal contractual agreement between the user and the provider and no third party, i.e.: any governmental agency, and should therefore legally be private.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 12:33:42 PM
Anyone wishing to vent and express outrage at government surveillance of this sort is, of course, free to do so. On the other hand, it would be most helpful to offer more "democratic" means for identifying terrorists in our midst.
We are a country of over 300 million. If there are, say, 1,000 active terrorists in our midst who have both the capability and intent to harm or kill many of us in an attack--that amounts to identifying 1 bad guy in 300,000. What are YOUR proposals?
I will, because it's not only heavy handed, it's a ham handed way to go about it. Just like using our immense overbloated military on what should be national and international police investigations.
This can all be done far more efficiently, legally, with FAR less invasions of privacy as police operations.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2013, 03:45:23 PM
I saw someone raising hell online today about the government violating his right to privacy so as an academic exercise, decided to see what I could find out about him. In under 5 minutes and at no cost I knew what he looked like, where he grew up, what high school he attended, whether or not he had any post secondary education, when he was divorced and his ex-wife's name, when he filed bankruptcy, his current employer and his position there, his current address and phone number, what his house looks like, how big it is and its approximate market value, that there was a twin mattress and box spring leaning against his front door when the google street mapping car drove by and that his garage door was open and he was standing in it at the time.
It is ridiculous for the 'Facebook Nation' to be complaining about the government and your privacy when they put their 'business' out in the street with no compunction.
One can't blame the government for 'invading' what you willingly make public.
Besides, there have been consistent rumors that FB, Google, etc. have ties to the government.
It's like the government controlling encryption technology.
Quote from: me on June 11, 2013, 12:09:21 PM
Question for you. If I agree with a black person who disagrees with Obama on policy does that still make me a racist? What does that make the black person who dislikes his policies?
In the course of things as they are, it would mean the white person was happy to have the black person to use as a cover for his/her racism on two fronts.
If you're referring to RW black commentators, it makes them money ergo they'd be self-serving.
The overiding issue here has to due with how can our 'democracy' function if the government keeps secrets from the electorate?
I will admit that there are some - mainly military - things that should be limited, but otherwise our system of government requires an informed electorate and government keeping secrets is the antithesis to that.
Therefore, as it sits, whistleblowers are a necessary check and balance.
Quote from: Y on July 08, 2013, 01:13:07 PM
In the course of things as they are, it would mean the white person was happy to have the black person to use as a cover for his/her racism on two fronts.
If you're referring to RW black commentators, it makes them money ergo they'd be self-serving.
That's BS and you know it. It's like saying everyone HAS to agree with the current administration or they're racist no matter what the reason. That my, dear sir, is racism at it's finest any day of the week. If you don't/can't see that I feel sorry for you. Oh, and I was not referring to just commentators I was referring to blacks in general. There are a lot of them who are disillusioned with this administration.
Apparently you can't grasp the difference and that no one said that.
Quote from: Y on July 18, 2013, 04:48:46 PM
Apparently you can't grasp the difference and that no one said that.
No one has come right out and said "if you disagree with this administration you're a racist" but if you do disagree you're called a racist, same difference.
That's the same basic fiction.
The reality is that when one can't make any cogent argument for a stated 'policy' disagreement and one's words and actions are such that they tend to leave no other interpretation but that they're prompted by race, then one will in fact be deemed a racist.
Avoid falling under those criteria and one won't have to worry about a charge of racist or racism being aimed in one's direction.
It's not rocket science.
Quote from: Y on July 18, 2013, 07:12:02 PM
That's the same basic fiction.
The reality is that when one can't make any cogent argument for a stated 'policy' disagreement and one's words and actions are such that they tend to leave no other interpretation but that they're prompted by race, then one will in fact be deemed a racist.
Avoid falling under those criteria and one won't have to worry about a charge of racist or racism being aimed in one's direction.
It's not rocket science.
I will not feign agreement with policies just to placate and keep from being called names. I don't agree with them and have stated my reasons as have others and, like I keep stating, it would not be realistic to think everyone should agree with this administration like you suggest with your reasoning.
Quote from: me on July 18, 2013, 07:42:11 PM
I will not feign agreement with policies just to placate and keep from being called names. I don't agree with them and have stated my reasons as have others and, like I keep stating, it would not be realistic to think everyone should agree with this administration like you suggest with your reasoning.
But yet you've never been able to articulate exactly what those policies are. :think:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on July 18, 2013, 09:05:04 PM
But yet you've never been able to articulate exactly what those policies are. :think:
I most certainly have but since I, according to some on this forum, am an uneducated idiot you see no point in giving my opinion any credit even though there are other educated people who may hold the same, or similiar, opinion, which you also give no credit to because it doesn't happen to agree with your opinion. You keep forgetting I didn't like the HCB when Hillary was trying to push it either but I wasn't accused of hating white women. I didn't like Clinton and his "everybody had a right to own a home" policy either but wasn't accused of hating white men.
Quote from: me on July 18, 2013, 09:29:46 PM
I most certainly have but since I, according to some on this forum, am an uneducated idiot you see no point in giving my opinion any credit even though there are other educated people who may hold the same, or similiar, opinion, which you also give no credit to because it doesn't happen to agree with your opinion. You keep forgetting I didn't like the HCB when Hillary was trying to push it either but I wasn't accused of hating white women. I didn't like Clinton and his "everybody had a right to own a home" policy either but wasn't accused of hating white men.
And sooooo those policies are......?
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on July 18, 2013, 10:14:08 PM
And sooooo those policies are......?
I will not be drawn into this game ya'll want to play. If you want to know just go back through the threads.
Quote from: me on July 18, 2013, 06:03:39 PM
No one has come right out and said "if you disagree with this administration you're a racist" but if you do disagree you're called a racist, same difference.
You aren't a racist because you disagree with this administration; you disagree with this administration because you're a racist. Big difference.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 19, 2013, 10:29:12 AM
You aren't a racist because you disagree with this administration; you disagree with this administration because you're a racist. Big difference.
Bingo!
Lets see if she can wrap her brain around that one. ;D
Quote from: me on July 18, 2013, 10:49:50 PM
I will not be drawn into this game ya'll want to play. If you want to know just go back through the threads.
Translation: "I really don't know anything about any of his policies. I just say that to cover my racist nature."
I've seen this "game" way too many times and never have you been able to support your statement.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 19, 2013, 10:29:12 AM
You aren't a racist because you disagree with this administration; you disagree with this administration because you're a racist. Big difference.
Whatever skippy. I guess I've been a man hater and would be a woman hater if Hillary runs and wins too then huh? Your logic makes no sense what-so-ever. The way you are saying it we should have all voted for and agreed with Obama and that just isn't gonna happen no matter who runs. Think about it, the way you say it anyone who doesn't like this administration and didn't vote for him is racist since we all have about the same opinions about his policies. That would make the blacks who didn't vote for him or agree with his policies traitors or uncle toms too. Boy is this country in trouble with your way of thinking. Guess a black conservative had better not run for president next election or the liberals will be racists, traitors, and uncle toms too if they disagree with him or her.
Quote from: me on July 19, 2013, 01:37:11 PM
I guess I've been a man hater and would be a woman hater if Hillary runs and wins too then huh?
Are you saying you dislike Hillary because of her policies? Which policies are those, exactly?
Quote from: Exterminator on July 19, 2013, 01:54:23 PM
Are you saying you dislike Hillary because of her policies? Which policies are those, exactly?
I didn't like her HCB and, to me, she has almost the same policies as Obama only some are a little more radical. She doesn't like the military, and she also wants to increase the size of government. I do, however, think she would be more of a leader than our current POTUS.
Quote from: me on July 19, 2013, 02:18:14 PM
I didn't like her HCB and, to me, she has almost the same policies as Obama only some are a little more radical. She doesn't like the military, and she also wants to increase the size of government. I do, however, think she would be more of a leader than our current POTUS.
Expound, please.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 19, 2013, 02:36:47 PM
Don't hold your breath.
Trust me, I won't. It'll take her a while just to look up what "expound" means. Then she'll claim she's laid it all out before. Then she'll "refuse to get dragged into this."
I know the drill.
Quote from: Bo D on July 19, 2013, 02:29:27 PM
Expound, please.
I hate women period and she's white to boot. That's about it in a nutshell.
Quote from: me on July 19, 2013, 04:06:08 PM
I hate women period and she's white to boot. That's about it in a nutshell.
So you hate her because she is a woman? Profile much?
Quote from: Palehorse on July 19, 2013, 10:06:19 PM
So you hate her because she is a woman? Profile much?
I was being sarcastic.
Quote from: me on July 19, 2013, 11:06:17 PM
I was being sarcastic.
Sure you were. . . :rolleyes:
Snowden is free to enter Russia.
Quote from: Locutus on July 24, 2013, 10:05:50 AM
Snowden is free to enter Russia.
I predict he'll end up with lead in the head if he roams much. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on July 25, 2013, 08:56:32 PM
I predict he'll end up with lead in the head if he roams much. . .
He might. He's in a very precarious position all the way around.
Quote from: Palehorse on July 25, 2013, 08:56:32 PM
I predict he'll end up with lead in the head if he roams much. . .
As he should.
Quote from: Locutus on July 25, 2013, 09:31:21 PM
He might. He's in a very precarious position all the way around.
He's in Russia, and despite the public friction twixt the US and Russia, the Russians are notorious for using such situations as a means with which to obtain something they want. And black ops being what they are, I can easily see the slush fund being utilized to buy Russia's willingness to have some underling put a projectile in his head at some obscure location; ending the fiasco for both sides. . .
George Orwell was off by a few decades, but his time has certainly come.
Google Pressure Cookers and Backpacks, Get a Visit from the Feds
Michele Catalano was looking for information online about pressure cookers. Her husband, in the same time frame, was Googling backpacks. Wednesday morning, six men from a joint terrorism task force showed up at their house to see if they were terrorists. Which begs the question: How'd the government know what they were Googling?
Catalano (who is a professional writer) describes the tension of that visit.
[T]hey were peppering my husband with questions. Where is he from? Where are his parents from? They asked about me, where was I, where do I work, where do my parents live. Do you have any bombs, they asked. Do you own a pressure cooker? My husband said no, but we have a rice cooker. Can you make a bomb with that? My husband said no, my wife uses it to make quinoa. What the hell is quinoa, they asked. ...
Have you ever looked up how to make a pressure cooker bomb? My husband, ever the oppositional kind, asked them if they themselves weren't curious as to how a pressure cooker bomb works, if they ever looked it up. Two of them admitted they did.
The men identified themselves as members of the "joint terrorism task force." The composition of such task forces depend on the region of the country, but, as we outlined after the Boston bombings, include a variety of federal agencies. Among them: the FBI and Homeland Security.
Ever since details of the NSA's surveillance infrastructure were leaked by Edward Snowden, the agency has been insistent on the boundaries of the information it collects. It is not, by law, allowed to spy on Americans — although there are exceptions of which it takes advantage. Its PRISM program, under which it collects internet content, does not include information from Americans unless those Americans are connected to terror suspects by no more than two other people. It collects metadata on phone calls made by Americans, but reportedly stopped collecting metadata on Americans' internet use in 2011. So how, then, would the government know what Catalano and her husband were searching for?
It's possible that one of the two of them is tangentially linked to a foreign terror suspect, allowing the government to review their internet activity. After all, that "no more than two other people" ends up covering millions of people. Or perhaps the NSA, as part of its routine collection of as much internet traffic as it can, automatically flags things like Google searches for "pressure cooker" and "backpack" and passes on anything it finds to the FBI.
Or maybe it was something else. On Wednesday, The Guardian reported on XKeyscore, a program eerily similar to Facebook search that could clearly allow an analyst to run a search that picked out people who'd done searches for those items from the same location. How those searches got into the government's database is a question worth asking; how the information got back out seems apparent.
It is also possible that there were other factors that prompted the government's interest in Catalano and her husband. He travels to Asia, she notes in her article. Who knows. Which is largely Catalano's point.
They mentioned that they do this about 100 times a week. And that 99 of those visits turn out to be nothing. I don't know what happens on the other 1% of visits and I'm not sure I want to know what my neighbors are up to.
One hundred times a week, groups of six armed men drive to houses in three black SUVs, conducting consented-if-casual searches of the property perhaps in part because of things people looked up online.
But the NSA doesn't collect data on Americans, so this certainly won't happen to you.
http://news.yahoo.com/google-pressure-cookers-backpacks-visit-feds-140900667.html
Does this surprise anyone?
Quote from: Anne on August 01, 2013, 04:52:50 PM
Does this surprise anyone?
It doesn't me. This all sprung from the Patriot Act which I didn't like when it was passed, and I like even less now.
Quote from: Anne on August 01, 2013, 04:52:50 PM
Does this surprise anyone?
Doesn't surprise me in the least.
OK. Here's the down and dirty about those sneaks at NSA who are spying on American citizens:
THE WORST JOB AT NSA: U.S. Citizen Email Reader:
Picture a man sitting in front of his computer, his eyes wide, a startled look on his face, as he reads ...
"So then I'm all like, get your own meat loaf, right?
Hey baby, your so fine and got it goin on
Dear Mom and Dad Please send me $250
Attached are 40 photos of our new cat!
We just got back from Nebraska visiting Uncle Phil..."
-- and --
a man sitting nearby, presumably the reader's supervisor, says:
"Only 67,000 to go today..."
www.washingtonpost.com