| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Opinion, Syria. http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/bolton-obama-syr ia-weapons/2013/06/14/id/510071?promo_code=F269-1& utm_source=americanthinker&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm _campaign=widgetphase1 Opinion, Mosques off limits, Your phone, ok. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/watch_the_g ood_guys_and_leave_the_terrorists_alone.html "They came for the Catholics, and I did nothing......" http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/tyranny_adv ances_by_nibbles.html A scandal from the recent past. Simply Chicago politics. A prosecutor wants to prosecute the buddy of the leader? Fire him. Now, an IG isn't really a prosecutor, but he's just as fired. And the leader's buddy is still a criminal. As is the leader. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/obamas_abra ding_the_social_fabric.html And, from multiple talking heads.... If we have all the phone records, for everyone, why can't we just flag all those phones that call Mexico a lot, and check to see if the phones belong to illegal aliens? Ooops, I'm sorry, can't call them that. Criminal Trespassers. | ||
| Reindog |
I have been thinking about the smarmy criticism of "cut-and-paste" and pose a couple of thoughts to the critics. * Most thread submissions are accompanied with original commentary. * Articles that are disseminated via hypertext links or pasting are simply a way of publishing other people's thoughts to reach a wider audience. * In essence, the critics are trying to suppress the free flow of information akin to having a book banned or worse, burned. * I won all of my schools highest honors and prizes in history. The backbone of research or debate was to cite, as well as present references. * There is suspicion that all the caterwauling about "cut-and-paste" is born of simple political disagreement. Disagreement of positions is welcome and necessary and must be met on the battlefield of debate. Suppression of ideas via snarkiness or ad-hominem attacks shows the lack of education of the critic. * A thread is all too similar to a television show. This particular thread is akin to a roundtable political show. If you don't like what you are seeing, then change the channel. Most of the Lefties here know that they have lost the battle of ideas and have skeedaddled with their tails between their legs instead of standing tall. * Have a great day and celebrate that we are one day closer to Obama being removed from power. * Yes, I am going on a motorcycle ride in a few short minutes. Laurie and I are riding the Uly up to Julian on this gorgeous day. | ||
| Sifo |
So now that it's coming out that the government is actually listening to domestic phone calls without any warrants, capturing emails and text messages, basically saying that you have no rights what so ever to privacy from the government, I'd like to hear how it's still all OK. Are there any boundaries left? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa- admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warran ts/ | ||
| Reindog |
We carved 148 miles of fine SoCal roads today. Up to Julian for tasty BBQ, then Engineers Road through the back country, Mesa Grande, Hideout for refreshments, then to Lightons for MotoGP and salmon. Pulled the biggest boner move in my cycle life near Palomar: passed a sluggish car on the double yellows with an upcoming left downhill curve (yes, there was, and always is, a modicum of safety margin). The nanosecond I pulled the maneuver, a CHP came around the curve and did nothing but witness my transgression. No Xmas trees and he would have had to go a piece to turnaround and pursue, but I took evasive maneuvers. I am still cleaning the do do from my panty hose. | ||
| Chauly |
Someone help me out here: http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05- 11-nsa-reax_x.htm This was 7 years ago. How was that any different then than what is happening now? | ||
| Hootowl |
It's no different. It's probably the same program. Different guy at the podium though, and that seems to be an issue for some. I must admit that I'm a bit shocked to read that whether to listen to a call is left up to the analyst, and not a judge. My argument that the fact of the call is all they are recording, so no warrant is required, appears to be invalid. They are in fact listening to content with no warrant. I don't know. I still think this needs to be done, given the threat we face. When Islam undeclares war on the infidels, perhaps I will feel differently. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
they aren't monitoring mosques or muslims by their own admission. WE are their target - and that is the difference. The NSA has been in your cell phone since they first came out; all they had to do was shine a light on your number ; and it was easy to get a warrant the Patriot Act made getting the warrant a pencil push non issue. I don't trust this guy at face value - I had to dig deeper for reasons not to trust Bush; but yes, I didn't trust him with the power either. | ||
| Hootowl |
FBI have stopped infiltrating mosques, yes. That has nothing to do with NSA listening to electronic communications. Should FBI have caved to CAIR? Absolutely not. | ||
| Macbuell |
It was an issue for me then and it still an issue. How anyone can be ok with the Government intruding into their privacy for no good reason is beyond me. And a huge dragnet in the name of "security" is no good reason. By the basis of our own Constitution and Bill of Rights we have a Right to privacy and they have to get a warrant to listen to calls, etc. The NSA is now admitting they don't even bother with warrants to listen to your calls. I don't know how that is really a surprise to anyone. Did you really think the government would not push this as fas as the possibly could all behind a veil of secrecy. Good lord, people ... please take your head out of your ass. As you may have noticed, I am extremely disappointed and upset at the collective shoulder shrug by many. I guess when more of your privacy and then your freedoms are taken away ... then maybe you will wake up. There are many politicians out there that are completely fine with these programs and ALSO want to take away your 2nd amendment rights. How does a country with no privacy rights and no 2nd amendment rights sound to you? It sounds pretty scary to me. | ||
| Reepicheep |
When first passed, even though it was never quite explained, my suspicion was that it was only done when at least one end of the conversation was international. Which I didn't like, but I wasn't sure it wasn't necessary at the time. Since then, it appears to have been scaled up to be any and all conversations. I suspect it is indexed "by a computer", and then the controls are all around doing queries against that index. That's how I'd build it anyway. And I'd attack via the SSL certificates (not crack them, just steal them). Both are in a grey area. It's hard to get comfortable with the latter case, not so much because of what it does, but because power corrupts... even if you are a good guy, your Chicago style politics successor's staff may not be. | ||
| Sifo |
How is it different? It's targeting more people (all people now, not just suspected potential terrorists). It's now added new things like actually listening to calls and keeping ALL electronic communications, as well as monitoring your internet use. All at a time when the administration is telling us that the threat from AQ is all but gone. Remember when BO shot Bin Laden? OK, I'm not sure I believe any of that BS we are being told either. The government has completely ignored the Constitution that give it it's limited powers. Welcome to the new USA. It sure isn't the one I knew. This is a government that targets it's own citizens for simply speaking out against their glut for more power. Then of course trots out our version of Baghdad Bob to tell us it just isn't so. Wake up before it's too late. It may already be! | ||
| Hootowl |
Pathological altruism. This may explain some of the Left's behavior. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873246 88404578545523824389986.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDL ETopOpinion There's also an interesting bit after the main article about law enforcement/defendent access to the NSA phone database. | ||
| Reepicheep |
In my mind, it was different in that there was originally a much higher probability that the intercepted call was NOT constitutionally protected, and a much higher probability that it was relevant to the mission of preventing a terrorist act. Not to say it was right in either case. But certainly, if intercepting calls from outside of the US is constitutionally bad, intercepting calls from inside the US is even badder. Just by volume if nothing else. I'm torn on the whole issue. Does it protect us if used properly? Heck yeah. Does it threaten the very foundation of the US if used improperly? Absolutely. So from that perspective, I don't know. What I do know is that the US can withstand terrorism. I don't know that we can survive without the constitution. Here we sit, where the constitutional right to privacy allows someone to murder a baby in utero, but doesn't prevent the federal government from capturing, indexing and storing indefinitely key information about who you call, when you call them, and and where you call them from, even when there is absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing. How did we get here? | ||
| Macbuell |
What I do know is that the US can withstand terrorism. I don't know that we can survive without the constitution. This is the whole point of it all. | ||
| Sifo |
Here we sit, where the constitutional right to privacy allows someone to murder a baby in utero, but doesn't prevent the federal government from capturing, indexing and storing indefinitely key information about who you call, when you call them, and and where you call them from, even when there is absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing. I don't know if you intended your choice of abortion to be this on target or not, but I will point out that, at least as defined by the court, both of these are privacy issues. You can kill the unborn in the name of privacy, but all of your electronic communications are fair game. Here's a question for anyone thinking this is OK. If all electronic communications is an open book to the government, then why not mail? Why not bugging our homes? Whats so special about electronic communications? | ||
| Hootowl |
For the record, I don't think it's OK. I think it may be a necessary evil, one that I may be willing to live with. I say "may" because I haven't had time to digest the revelation that there are analysts listening to calls of their choosing via an on-the-fly self made decision. And don't get me started on the absurdity of abortion law. | ||
| Sifo |
The problem is that government will ALWAYS struggle for more power. It seems that we are at a tipping point where there is virtually no oversight and the government has written it's own rules, completely disregarding the Constitution that is supposed to govern them. Rest assured that this balance of power will not remain static. You have opposing forces, one, the government trying to grab power, the other, citizens demanding their freedoms not to be infringed. The balance is always moving one direction or the other. Since 9/11 that balance has moved decidedly in a direction that gives government great powers. That is a very dangerous place to balance that power. I know our founding fathers would not have approved of where we are right now. When a government is secretly taking powers that are not granted to it, you have tyranny. Tyranny doesn't respect boundaries, it tramples over them. Let this tyranny continue and there will be but one recourse, and that is not one I want to see. Far better to deal with an occasional terrorist attack, even another 9/11 scale or larger. | ||
| Aesquire |
When the Patriot act was put forward, it had some corrections for the idiocy that the Clinton admin. had put in place, namely, the "firewall" between domestic anti-terrorist work in the FBI and foreign anti-terrorist work in the CIA. The CIA is constrained from operation in the US, while the FBI is hamstrung in foreign countries, and frankly, that's mostly a good thing. The FBI is a police agency, and must operate under restrictive rules, or you have a police state. The CIA is an foreign intelligence agency and has put out a great deal of "propaganda" that both tells us it's a well run group of super smart folk, and at the same time is utterly incompetent bunglers. The truth is a mix, probably. It's in the Agencies best interest to attract smart people, and to con others into believing they are idiots. ( it's nice to be underestimated, usually. Sometimes it bites you ) The revelations that the KGB kicked our butts, big time, in the spy war portion of the Cold War ( which was either WW3, or the continuation of the now century old totalitarian vs. Republics war, still ongoing. 100 years from now the 20th century will be considered one long war. ) show us the CIA was pretty good at some stuff, crappy at others, and that it's civilian leaders ranged from good to horrid, with it being misused by several Administrations, from the days it was started as a continuation of the OSS. In any event you don't want the CIA to treat the US the way it treats the rest of the planet. As a hostile entity. Also in the Patriot act were provisions for quick wiretap approval, needed in the fast moving world of terrorism, and data collection. The whole thing was also written with a sunset provision, it was supposed to expire. Alas, it's now stronger, worse, and permanent. Any temporary increase in government power becomes permanent, and it always gets worse. So, mixed bag, but now worse than ever, and by proclamation, no longer aimed at Jihadi, but at Patriots. How was that any different then than what is happening now? 3 ways. The enemy is now us, not AQ. The programs are bigger and more secret. The arrogance is different. Instead of justification because of terrorism, it's justification because of raw power. I was always against the Dept. of Fatherland Security. We had plenty of alphabet agencies, plenty of spies, and more than enough cases of semi-private armies attacking US citizens. ( Ruby ridge, Waco, The Philly police bombing ) I figured a task force to clearinghouse the information from FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. was a good idea, but what we got is an agency that bought enough ammunition to kill every American even with NYPD miss ratios. This wouldn't be that big a concern, except the same agency has announced that we are the enemy. BTW, the NSA has monitored all foreign phone calls for years. That's not to say they listen to all of them, but they did record them all. Now, it's all calls from all people. Now, if Dick Cheney were running this, I might be happier, but Barack Obama is no Dick Cheney. He even says so. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obama-im-not -dick-cheney-92925.html Now, you might not like Dick Cheney, but anyone who can shoot a lawyer in the face and make the lawyer apologize? Now that's a real man.  | ||
| Gregtonn |
The whole thing was also written with a sunset provision... Any law with a "sunset provision" should never have been passed in the first place. How stupid would it be if the Constitution had a "sunset provision"? Okay, I know, some people think it did. Idiots! G | ||
| Aesquire |
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/06/17/sharyl -attkisson-shares-update-on-computer-hacking-inves tigation/ Isn't the Constitution a "living document" that can be changed to fit the new reality that the Founders could not have foreseen? Like weapons capable of killing a man at over a hundred yards? ( oh, wait, they knew all about them ) Or an urge by evil men to be tyrants, crushing their enemies with lies and laws? ( no, they wrote extensively about that threat to freedom ) http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4794 Since Columbia is fondly remembered as the time Barry, the foreign exchange student, smoked a lot of grass and hung with radical professors with no known grades, it's not surprising no one who actually went to Columbia remembers him. Why don't the pundits ask the radical teachers who brought them pot & cocaine? Maybe then you'd find someone at Columbia the remembers Barry. | ||
| Chauly |
Granted, there may be some question about who remembers whom at college, and that he may have received mediocre grades at Occidental (how did he get into Columbia?), but he went from Columbia to Hahvud U. after that. People do remember him there, or at least he wrote something or other. (How did he get into Harvard?) So as exciting as this may seem, and as many questions as it may raise with source of funding, strings pulled, etc., it may be a waste of energy thinking that he just was never at Columbia at all. (I'm more interested in the other questions, myself.) (Message edited by Chauly on June 18, 2013) | ||
| Sifo |
      | ||
| Reindog |
Looking forward for his bough to break.  | ||
| Sifo |
It does strain the imagination to believe that all of these government agencies have managed to have their own separate scandals without some common denominator. | ||
| Aesquire |
The common denominator is the urge to please the Glorious Leader. You're never going to find a video of Obama telling a minion to do wrong. The coincidences are pretty stark, like the timing on when bureaucrat X went to the White House, and then an intimidation campaign began, but no President since Nixon has kept a record of that stuff, and every minion who goes forth to battle Obama's enemies is a well trusted and very well compensated apparatchik. You'll notice the IRS low level workers blamed for this, "1 or 2 in the Cleveland office......" ( lie ) are bitching about being framed, by the dozens, but their bosses get raises, large bonuses, and transfers to more important and better paying jobs. Sometimes in the same agency, sometimes in one of the many money laundering fronts for the Obama Forever Campaign. ( where the REAL BIG bucks are. Nice to have Qatar & Saudi Arabia able to send you millions without worrying about pesky laws. ) So when you worry about the next war Obama is getting us into, be aware that he's not responsible. At all. Not Work Safe. Not Child Safe. Graphic Violence. Cannibalism. Political Opinion! http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/17/beck-go vernment-dragging-us-into-a-war-we-will-not-surviv e-in-the-middle-east/ Just thought you'd want to see Obama's new buddy. You're paying to send him weapons. Obama, naturally, thinks you are an idiot. Only someone as enlightened as he is, can clearly see. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-you-cant -understand-syria-policy-if-you-havent-been-situat ion-room_736711.html To be honest, If Obama's bitching about Senator McCain, he has a point. There are people pushing to go and help these poor rebels before they are all killed. I don't think they know diddle either. | ||
| Sifo |
I often hear McCain speak these days and think to myself, "glad we dodged that bullet", about his Presidential run. Then I snap back to reality and realize that we dodged a bullet and took a mortar in the head. | ||
| Aesquire |
"all in all it's just another brick in the wall"..... but sometimes you see a crack.... and light shines through. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56 Snarky opinion. "Obama's Syrian policy is to make sure that Syria can never be described in the same sentence with Iraq & Afghanistan" | ||
| Oldog |
The morning obama funny, Many associate obama with bill ayres read this, even his own camp is turning on him http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bill-ayers-obama- war/2013/06/18/id/510633?s=al&promo_code=13DF7-1 Lefy Loons, The terrorist telling us that we should try his pal the prezi for war crimes LOL I have not seen or heard any thing that looks like a coherent policy for Syria, I bet both barry, and Vlad are wishing it would go away.... | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Brazil just went warm, protests and cities on fire over government corruption, and the elitist graft....... meanwhile we are ever more concerned with the new X box, I phone 5, American Idol, or Kim K's baby delivery drama. for f#ck sakes what does it take to wake this country up ? |
